102 CLUB

[Lesknife]

I agree LV that the 102 is a nice size and can do a lot for its size. For me it’s not the blade but the handle I find kinda small. When I was younger it probably wouldn’t have been a problem but my old hands have a hard time grasping a small handle especially for extended time and they start to cramp. I’m thinking about having just a bit larger handle put on mine and make the pomel end swell.

 

[LostViking]

I agree LV that the 102 is a nice size and can do a lot for its size. For me it’s not the blade but the handle I find kinda small. When I was younger it probably wouldn’t have been a problem but my old hands have a hard time grasping a small handle especially for extended time and they start to cramp. I’m thinking about having just a bit larger handle put on mine and make the pomel end swell.

I can agree with that. I'm in my early 60s, and things just don't work as well as they used to.
I have often thought the 102 blade on the 105/117 handle would be a beautiful thing.

There are times when a slightly larger handle would be beneficial.

 

[GPyro]

I can agree with that. I'm in my early 60s, and things just don't work as well as they used to.
I have often thought the 102 blade on the 105/117 handle would be a beautiful thing.

There are times when a slightly larger handle would be beneficial.

That's why I like the 117 so much.

 

[Lesknife]

That's why I like the 117 so much.

Me too! I love my 117 cocobolo and brass version. I hope they make a 117 in the current pro design.

 

[bertl]

For me it’s not the blade but the handle I find kinda small.

There are times when a slightly larger handle would be beneficial.

I think handle size is the most common complaint about the 102. When I use the 102 I take a slightly different grip than I do on larger knives. I tend to put my forefinger on the blade spine and my thumb against the front bolster with maybe just one finger under the handle. I guess that's a little like holding an X-Acto knife or a scalpel. Maybe if the beak on the pommel was almost done away with, that would help with larger hands. However, I haven't had any calls from Buck asking me to redesign the handle.

 

[bertl]

I wonder why this thread showed up as a a Sticky? Now it's back to a regular thread.

 

[Hickory n steel]

That was fast
Got that other 102 in today and just finished giving it a screaming sharp edge.

It may have been used once or twice because the edge needed a touch up, but otherwise there was not a single hint of use on the knife.

I was going to modify one with stacked leather but I always fall in love with the 102 as is so I think I'll just keep this one stock.
Not needing two I'm going to give the 2012 102 to my dad.


Maybe at some point I'll send it to someone for a rehandle, but I don't want to mess it up doing it myself.
My last attempt at a stacked leather handle wasn't great.

 

[FLINT77]

In a world of sharpened pry bars, the 102 Woodsman is an anomaly.

Yes, it is on the small side, but I see that as a strength not a weakness.
It easily fits a lot of places larger knives struggle with. Plus, it disappears on your belt.

Its blade geometry and size allow it to punch way above its weight.


I am old enough to remember the first Honda Civic to hit our shores, as well as the first Datsun and Toyota pickups. It's astonishing to see how tiny these vehicles were compared to today's Civics, Nissans, Toyotas.

No matter what it is, we in America seem to like it bigger. I can barely see over the side of a Ford F-350 these days. Some trucks are so big, manufactures are putting steps into the tail gates so folks can climb into the bed.

When I was a young lad, whenever I could pry it out of his hands or off his belt, I used my dad's Schrade Bear's Head.


He purchased that knife in 1955 I believe. So I was already preconditioned to a knife that size when my Woodsman came along.

Something else that influenced and reinforced my thinking on the 102 was the first Air Force Survival Knife. Not the one commonly associated with the Air Force, but rather the Boker 155. Here is some info on that for anyone interested.

The 155 was paired with other tools in the E1 Kit. Like a saw. I figured if a knife that size was good enough for a bomber crew bailing out over hostile territory, i could probably get by with one for my woods roaming, rabbit skinning and spud slicing.

I think we have been conditioned that bigger is better, and in some cases I may very well be. I do at times chuckle, when I see folks in campgrounds carrying large survival style knives. When many never get more than fifty feet from their vehicle. To be fair, I have been up and down the knife spectrum myself, several times.

Then in 1982 everything changed. That was the year Mr. John Rambo hit the theaters.
The knife industry has never been the same.

Knives the size of the Woodsman are almost mocked these days. But having spent more time in the woods than in front of a television set. I have managed to carry on.

I can definitely relate. The knife my dad carried hunting for 30 years was a Case M3F and he could dress out a deer more quickly and cleanly than anyone I've seen. For years before I started collecting knives I always carried this schrade sharpfinger hunting and it is still one of my favorite for dressing deer. So, to me the 102 is definitely not "too small"!!!

 

[bertl]

So, to me the 102 is definitely not "too small"!!!

I have field dressed an elk with a 102. That was out of necessity since I left a larger knife behind. Maybe not the knife of choice for that work, but it got the job done.

Bert

 

[bertl]

Over the years, BUCK has used laminated birch veneers for handle material. First was Dymondwood, and then after Dymondwood's fire, DymaLux became the supplier. A variety of stains have been used and given names after different woods. The two that have been the most popular are "Cherry" and "Cocobolo". The handles look nice, but they are a little detached from the reality of the woods. The photos show the Cherry and Cocobolo 102s with the actual wood. The cherry wood was finished with a coat of WATCO Natural 30 years ago and has a pretty good patina. There are two photos for the cocobolo, which show some natural variation of the wood. The cocobolo scraps have no finish on them.

Bert

 

[bertl]

It also appears that the sides of the pommel and guard and maybe even the handle are slightly flatter on the '64 model, but it might just be the photo.

TAH, I found the reference for your comment. This is from Vern Taylor in the August 1997 Newsletter in reference to the forged 100 Series knives from 1960-1964.

"All of the early production knives, and they were all forgings, had butt caps made from bar stock aluminum. … Each butt was cut from a flat bar of aluminum on a band saw and then shaped by hand.

Any knife that has a butt made from bar stock is discernible because it is really flat on the sides. Most of them have no taper visible when you look at the knife with the back of the edge facing you."

Bert

 

[TAH]

TAH, I found the reference for your comment. This is from Vern Taylor in the August 1997 Newsletter in reference to the forged 100 Series knives from 1960-1964.

"All of the early production knives, and they were all forgings, had butt caps made from bar stock aluminum. … Each butt was cut from a flat bar of aluminum on a band saw and then shaped by hand.

Any knife that has a butt made from bar stock is discernible because it is really flat on the sides. Most of them have no taper visible when you look at the knife with the back of the edge facing you."

Bert

Thanks Bert! That is very interesting and validates the additional handcrafting that went into these earlier knives.

 

[bertl]

the end pommel is a different angle shape and size, blades are ground very different. blade
dimensions are different. grip to blade angling is very different on the pro.

jb, I think the change in angle for the handle and blade was done to give more clearance in tight situations. The simplest example is using the knife on a cutting board. The increased angle gives just a little more clearance for fingers if you are trying to keep the blade near horizontal. The change in the pommel adds to that. Admittedly, the change isn't much, but with a small knife and relatively short handle everything helps.

It would be interesting to hear from BUCK about the reason for the change.

Bert

 

[rhino]

The 102 was my first genuine Buck and a gift from my father in the early 1980s. It was lost for decades, but I found it without its sheath last year and freshened it up a bit.

 

[Old Hunter]

I'm already in but another picture never hurts anything, my first Buck 102, my waterfowl and pheasant knife. OH

 

[Hickory n steel]

Been carrying my 102 this week, always proves to be a great EDC belt knife

 

[rhino]

I'm already in but another picture never hurts anything, my first Buck 102, my waterfowl and pheasant knife. OH

Looks like our 102s are the same vintage. Twins!

 

[Old Hunter]

rhino Yep, early 80’s - can you believe these knives are about 40 years old?? Good grief! OH

 

[rhino]

rhino Yep, early 80’s - can you believe these knives are about 40 years old?? Good grief! OH

Indeed! I still remember when I got it. I was very excited to get a genuine Buck. I'd been wanting a 110, but I had a Schrade LB7 and a Sears Craftsman clone (made by Camillus).

 

[Fixall]

I'm a big fan of the 102. It's a very useful size without being cumbersome. I lost my last one when I was fishing at a local stream, so I treated myself with a 102 Pro recently.

(pictured with a HEC H30)