Ka Bar vs 119 Buck Special

Kabar. They're both relatively unimpressive full stick tangs, but the Kabar is 1095, not shiney, and not slippery.
 
Now let's not discount the Buck 119 right off the bat, let's have a serious discussion about the matter. Simply because the KA-BAR has the better steel doesn't necessarily mean it's the better knife. The Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife, the VG-42 Stiletto, and the M3 trench knife were all very good for their intended purpose as combat knives, but simply weren't designed for the general utilities of digging, cutting wires, opening cans, and opening crates that the KA-BAR was designed to be used for, so they lost out to a general duty knife. The same applies to this discussion.

The Buck 119 comes with a phenolic handle that's slippery in a sweaty hand, and needs hockey tape to counteract this. The KA-BAR comes with either a leather or Kraton G handle and are considerably more grippy, and less prone to slippage.

The Buck 119 has a 6", clip point, non-serrated blade. The KA-BAR can be had with a blade length of 5.25" to 8", with a clip point or tanto point, and with a partially serrated or completely smooth blade.

The Buck 119 weighs approximately 7.5 ounces. The KA-BAR depending on blade size weighs approximately 6.40, 11.20, and 12 ounces according to their website.

The Buck 119 is shiny steel. The KA-BAR is flat black non reflective.

The Buck 119 is hollow ground. The KA-BAR is flat ground.

These are the stats for the discussion as positives and negatives are addressed. Personally if we're talking about using a knife for purely combat-oriented purposes, I don't feel the 119 should be discounted outright, as the need for general utility work is secondary in nature and not exactly relevant to the discussion.

The Kershaw Ken Onion has a skinnier blade and the tip is more prone to breakage if misused, but that doesn't make it inferior to the Cryo.
 
Well I can't really speak to the circumstances of a combat situation with any kind of experience, but I have owned both a Buck 119 and a USMC KaBar for many years and used them both very hard.

The key advantages of the KaBar are length, the size of the handle, a more "stout" tip and more weight which means it can chop a tiny bit better than the 119. The bit about the handle isn't really that I prefer the shape of it, but for a "general issue" knife the Buck 119's handle might have been too small for a lot of troops, but the KaBar is pretty unlikely to be too small for anyone, and too big is better than too small.

I guess you could say the KaBar as a lot more of a "guard" than the Buck 119 as well. I've never broken the tip on my 119, but the tip is pretty thin and has a long curve to the false clip point. The Ka-Bar's is flat, so repairing the tip is very easily done if some damage is done, and from stories about what I've heard people put their KaBar through I'm sure there had to be a few broken tip. I don't think it's any more likely the 119's tip may break ( aside from the fact that it is a bit finer and more slender ) it will just be much more difficult to fix or compensate for.
 
mtangent said:
Charlie, you forgot to mention balance.
Click to expand...

The reason I didn't mention balance is due to lacking the 5.25" model KA-BAR. Most all of the stats are available from the websites of the manufacturers, but balance isn't among them. And since I lack one I can't do any independent testing.
 
Had both. Broke the KaBar, and relegated the 119 to kitchen status. If the 119 had a better grip material I'd take it over the KaBar any day. Better slicer, better stabber.

Benchmade 140 kicks both of those to the curb, and a Busse would melt any of the three.
 
A better comparison would have been KaBar vs the 120. For combat I give the edge to Kabar because of the black finish nonslip handle and a far better sheath that doesn't rattle. You even have the option of either the wwII style fiberglass sheath or the new plastic sheath both are even better than the excellent leather sheath.

For hunting I found out the hard way the combat KaBar sucks. I dressed a deer with mine and the fat congealed and stuck to the black finish and made it difficult to finish.

With all that said the main reason I resurected this old thread was to say.

It's great that we still have a choice between two great American company's when so many others have faded away. God bless America!
 
eveled said:
With all that said the main reason I resurected this old thread was to say.
Click to expand...
As per the rules, you cant necro a thread this old.

You are how ever welcome to start a new thread on the subject and refer/link to this thread.

Empirical evidence like your experience is always interesting and welcome.
 
zzyzzogeton said:
Actually, responding to old threads is NOT MENTIONED in the rules.

https://www.bladeforums.com/help/site-rules/

It may be frowned on by people but it is NOT against the rules. Some people may get their panties in a wad over necro-posting but according to the rules as posted in the rules, it is not against the rules.
Click to expand...

Right, lets split hairs by all means - it more of a guideline.

"Thread "necromancy" is frowned upon. Please do not resurrect dormant threads simply to say "nice knife" or the like.
If you have something substantive to add to the discussion then by all means do so, otherwise move on and let sleeping dogs lie."

I politely suggested starting a new thread, as its generally frowned upon to resurrect a thread this old - but hey, dont take my word for it.

rycen said:
Generally is just considered poor forum etiquette to bump an old thread. Even more so when the post adds little to nothing.
Click to expand...

RevDevil said:
What would be better is to start your own thread on the topic, include a link to the old thread, and discuss what your opinion or stance is on the issue. I'm surprised why people just don't bother doing that in the first place.
Click to expand...

QUOTE="zzyzzogeton, post: 17913180, member: 338122"] Some people may get their panties in a wad over necro-posting but according to the rules as posted in the rules, it is not against the rules.[/QUOTE]

Surprised by this comment (though of course you are right, its not in the rules) - you ve been a member for a while and should know by know that its frowned upon.
 
eveled said:
Sorry won't do it again. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Allow me to elaborate; I thought the thread interesting, as I have both knives and further more would like to shed a light on how beefy for example the Cattaraugus 225Q is n comparison to the original Kabar, whish I find flimsy in comparison.

Kind of disappointed, when I found out it was an old thread (see above:D).

I really do hope you are not discouraged and I further more look forward to you starting a thread on this interesting subject.

Old knife designs rock!:thumbsup::D

Best of luck!
 
BladeScout said:
Right, lets split hairs by all means - it more of a guideline.

"Thread "necromancy" is frowned upon. Please do not resurrect dormant threads simply to say "nice knife" or the like. If you have something substantive to add to the discussion then by all means do so, otherwise move on and let sleeping dogs lie."
Click to expand...

The above is how the mod staff treats it. Resurrecting an old thread for the heck of it will earn a frown. Do it several times in a row because you want to be a buffoon, and it can get you a warning or beyond. BUT, resurrecting an old thread because you want to make a solid addition to it is fair game.

I see the current addition as "fair game".
 
knarfeng said:

I see the current addition as "fair game".
Click to expand...

That said...I would choose any USN MKII/ Marine Fighting Utility over a Buck 119.

I prefer 1095 with a Saber/flat grind to a 420hc hollow grind. Especially for general rough use.

I grew up with a hand me down Camillus USN MKII as a woods knife. It took everything a kid could throw at it.

My current USN MKII/ Marine F/U is a Ontario 498.

iz54bc.jpg[\IMG]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top