I don’t feel bad using any good knife. That’s what they were made for. I can only enjoy owning them by carrying and using them.
With that said I do get your point.
that bcci yellowstone looks the best to me. different blade shape but I like the thinner even handle shape visually. not sure how it would feel under use but sure looks good.
I went against what I planned and broke down and grabbed one of the 420hc phenolic versions....and didnt wait for any sales either.
I really like this smaller knife. wanted to have a user besides the lucite I have. this 420hc fits the bill. kinda wish we had a w2 version user one ...meaning lower dollars than the lucites.
yeah 212 ranger....not sure why its named a name....also not sure why the 112 is named when the 110 isnt? or was it and i just never knew its name?
I'm gettin us way off topic from the 212, but '65 was a 4" blade? wonder if it was that or just close to 4". rounded up routine. its 3.75" today isnt it?In the 1965 catalog the listing is - BUCK FOLDING HUNTER - MODEL #110 - 4" BLADE - $16.00
Thank youIn the 1965 catalog the listing is - BUCK FOLDING HUNTER - MODEL #110 - 4" BLADE - $16.00
Looks like they sold the last two yesterday. Guess we will find out soon...What is the chance that when the numbered 212’s are gone Copper and Clad will discount them?
Mike, I think, the C & C are 420HC, the LE's are W2, right? PrestonI hope they keep W2 as the steel. It's uncommon.
correct.Mike, I think, the C & C are 420HC, the LE's are W2, right? Preston
So would I, especially the stacked leather! PrestonI would like one in stacked leather and one in stag with W2 steel.
wow. nice....very nice, Sir. never cease to amaze me with rare and interesting bucks.how bout a 212 ranger stacked gold web turquoise handle -w2 steel satin finish...brass guard and pommel...
View attachment 1064516 View attachment 1064517