3 spring question

J

jpvjr71

Joined
Feb 3, 2025
Messages
55
The quad and me got curious when Buck went to a 3 spring design.
Also I'm curious if anyone noticed they aren't quite as strong as the 2 springs.
 
More accurately, when did Buck go to 1-spring per blade. In the 301/303, 3-springs start approximately'88-'90 time period.
I've seen '88 quoted but have 301's in my collection with '89 date codes and 2 springs.
I'm not knowledgeable about spring strength so hopefully someone else can address that question.
 
bertl said:
I'm curious about what you mean by not quite as strong as 2-springs.

Bert
Click to expand...
The 2 spring 1984 307 has serious pull to it.
The new 303 doesn't.
After 34 years of daily use my Peanut has stronger springs still.
 
jpvjr71 said:
The 2 spring 1984 307 has serious pull to it.
The new 303 doesn't.
Click to expand...
What is the advantage of "serious pull"? Also, apparent "spring weakness" may have little to do with the springs.

Bert
 
jpvjr71 said:
Also I'm curious if anyone noticed they aren't quite as strong as the 2 springs.
Click to expand...
As usual my experience is mostly with 305 Lancers but in my experience the single spring examples are much snappier than the dual spring examples.
That would be 2 & 3 springs respectively for the 300 & 301.
I don't know why but the 300 series springs were made weaker through the years, the early individual spring examples were a little less snappy but still pretty good, later 90's & early 2000's a little less than those, and for a number of years now the 300's have not been particularly snappy at all.
 
Hickory n steel said:
As usual my experience is mostly with 305 Lancers but in my experience the single spring examples are much snappier than the dual spring examples.
That would be 2 & 3 springs respectively for the 300 & 301.
I don't know why but the 300 series springs were made weaker through the years, the early individual spring examples were a little less snappy but still pretty good, later 90's & early 2000's a little less than those, and for a number of years now the 300's have not been particularly snappy at all.
Click to expand...
I think the 1984 307 has carbon steel springs (they're almost black).
Maybe (just a guess) but the new springs being stainless can't be made with the same spring constant (K) that carbon can.
 
jpvjr71 said:
I think the 1984 307 has carbon steel springs (they're almost black).
Maybe (just a guess) but the new springs being stainless can't be made with the same spring constant (K) that carbon can.
Click to expand...

I am exclusively interested in Buck made examples , and in my experience the springs were stronger the the closer you get to 1986.
I don't know if the pull weights are inherent to the sharing of springs or not, because my Buck 305's are the only opportunity I've had to experience the same knife in both a single & dual spring configuration and they got weaker as time went on even after this change.

Btw how do you know your 307 was made in '84 ?
In case you didn't know, the 307 remained a Camillus contract model and as far as I know didn't have date codes.
 
Last edited:
My 3 spring 301s and 303s seemed weak at first but after awhile they broke in and are a lot more snappy now. Same with my 301 two blade forums knives. I’m thinking they are stiff and might have some tight tolerances that wear in to have less friction. And a good cleaning and a drop of oil now and then really helps. I don’t like real hard pulls, just as long as they have a firm / positive and complete open and close position is what matters to me. I would rather they are a bit tight at first than loose or sloppy but not bear trap hard pulls either. Just my preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top