Ka Bar vs 119 Buck Special

[midnight flyer]

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".

I am just wondering Frank, if you can retitle this thread to "I know more about the rules than you do" since your own opinion on this particular subject in this thread doesn't seem to hold much sand in keeping the thread on track. Then the rest of us can quit replying to it thinking it is about Kabar v. Buck.

Personally, I appreciate your input and thought that the phrase "frowned upon" left some room for moderator discretion, not interpreted as illegal, prohibited, or distasteful. All but a couple seem to be enjoying this revival, and some intelligent conversation has occurred. And although most seem to want to keep it about the best choice of two knives, there are those that don't care, and being right about a subject that was settled (I thought by you) is much more important that discussing cutlery.

So in light of the on topic posts that have occurred, I am wondering about the definition of "combat knife" as intended by the original poster. I talked to one of my soldier comrades that served in combat, and he asked two questions: WHAT are you going to use the knife for in combat? To open stuff, dig with it, pry with it, break things, etc., or use it as a weapon to kill? Big difference.

Second, "what the hell is a Buck 119?". He a combat vet from the very end of Vietnam, and both Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He has a Kabar in his truck for "just in case", and one at home that gets used as he did when he was in the service.

BTW; his favorite for "combat" situations? His Gerber multitool that was issued to him. Go figure. And you can't believe how many times I have heard that from others that have been in his boots. They LOVE those multitools.

Robert

 

[19-3ben]

I can't find the source, so take it for what it's worth. I remember reading they only expected a knife in combat to last for 3 months. Which is why the leather handles were used. They were tools not heirlooms.

Now that would be interesting. Can anyone weigh in on this?
And similarly since the origin of the Kabar mk1 combat knife is WW2, we’d have to address in which theater they were anticipating a three month life expectancy. Let’s face it, leather and carbon steel will last longer in the frozen Ardennes forest than it will on a jungle island in the Pacific.

How about the Kabar vs the Buck 124 frontier. I have the kabar in kraton and leather handles and the buck 119 and 124. Hard to decide which I'd pick. Maybe the 124 as it is full tang and should make a good slasher.

My thoughts exactly. A 124 with a black coated blade and maybe some upgraded steel would make a pretty solid “combat knife.” Of course I say this as a doofus who never served (my life’s biggest regret). The guys who did seem to be fond of smaller and lighter knives and MTs. So I admit I just don’t know. But it does seem like that would be a very viable alternative to the Kabar.

 

[zzyzzogeton]

There is. Read the Exchange Rules, which apply site-wide.

Section 3.4: THREAD NECROMANCY IS HIGHLY DISCOURAGED.

Why, Yes, Yes it is. So I will grant that there is a written prohibition of thread necromancy (defined as over 120 days old) in "the rules."

One simply needs to somehow KNOW that the list of rules arrived at by clicking on "Terms and Rules" at the bottom of the page is NOT the complete list of rules.

Even though there is nothing on the "Terms and Rules" page that says "Oh, by the way, there's a really big list of rules somewhere else that you need to agree to as well." No link, no reference. Nothing.

That same individual then needs to KNOW that to access these un-referenced rules, said user must click on "HELP" and then must click on "Exchange Rules" to find the additional rules that are not included in the "Terms and Rules" one arrives at when clicking on "Terms and Rules" that says you must agree with these rules, with no reference to the other set of rules.

OR

The same individual, who may or may not have any intention of selling anything on the exchange and to maybe buy something every now, must then must somehow realize that he/she needs to click on a small "here" link embedded in a sentence.

I'll be honest and admit that in 5+ years of membership, I've never seen that page. I've made 7 purchases in that time and occasionally peruse the "Fixed Blades for Sale by Individuals", but otherwise never go to the exchange. And when I do, I simply ignored the single line of text at the top of the page and click on "Fixed Blades".

My recommendation would be for ALL the rules to be consolidated in ONE location, preferably on the page labeled "Rules".

 

[Hickory n steel]

I gotta go with the KABAR because it's got the blood groove.

They both have Fuller's.

 

[zzyzzogeton]

Getting back to the topic of the thread, restricting my choices to comparing the Kabar and Buck brands, I personally would go with the Kabar 1281/1282/1283, D2 Extreme (Cordura vs Molle-compatible plastic vs leather sheaths) over the generic Kabar 1217 or any of the Bucks presented so far.

D2 provides corrosion resistance, the Kraton handle is comfortable and blood/mud/slip resistant. I would go with the Cordura or plastic sheaths over the leather sheath for a long term survival scenario simply for being easier to clean if muddy/bloody.

 

[Velitrius]

I own both, and I'd take the KaBar every time.

People criticize the fact that it has a stick tang, but I've never been able to break one.

119 is a great piece and I like mine just fine. But in comparison to the KaBar, I just find the more substantial handle, guard, pommel and blade on the KaBar would make me choose it over the Buck.

 

[Makael]

I don't see what the big deal is in regards to reviving this thread. I didn't know it existed, yet find it informative! I'd opt for the Kabar myself...

Do you own either one? Even handle one or the other?

 

[eveled]

Now that would be interesting. Can anyone weigh in on this?

In some cases they didn't expect the Marines to live even that long. A flame thrower operator averaged 10 minutes in combat in WWII. A Huey door Gunner 20 seconds in combat during Vietnam.

 

[eveled]

I own all four of the knives mentioned in this thread. Combat, I'd choose the KaBar, hunting trip the 119, if spending the rest of my life in the woods the 124

 

[knarfeng]

I guess I'm going to leave at, "I've been here longer and I have to interpret the rules on a daily basis." You want to argue further about it, take it to Tech support instead of derailing a thread in a discussion forum devoted to knives.
@marcinek
zzyzzogeton

 

[midnight flyer]

Now that would be interesting. Can anyone weigh in on this?
And similarly since the origin of the Kabar mk1 combat knife is WW2, we’d have to address in which theater they were anticipating a three month life expectancy. Let’s face it, leather and carbon steel will last longer in the frozen Ardennes forest than it will on a jungle island in the Pacific.

And just as important, you need to be sure to familiarize yourself in a statistic (or claim) like this how much equipment is abandoned, misplaced, stolen, or intentionally given or traded, broken in use other than combat, miscounted, lost, etc.

A claim/statistic like that may be true, but since it is labeled as a combat knife, it is easy to think of the knife being used only in combat. Only have one cohort that used his knife in actual battle, and as he said, it was due to special circumstances, not choice.

Robert

 

[wackafew]

Could someone explain the advantages or disadvantages on the grind of the blade between the Buck 119/120 and the Ka-Bar? I believe the Buck has a convex grind and can be kind of thin at the edge. I'm not sure about the Ka-Bar. Also the point on the Buck knives, in appearance anyway, seem to be more fragile than the Ka-Bar.

 

[BladeScout]

I doubt, that the knives were only meant to last a finite (and short) time.

That would be unlike US military procurement.

And just as important, you need to be sure to familiarize yourself in a statistic (or claim) like this how much equipment is abandoned, misplaced, stolen, or intentionally given or traded, broken in use other than combat, miscounted, lost, etc.

A claim/statistic like that may be true, but since it is labeled as a combat knife, it is easy to think of the knife being used only in combat. Only have one cohort that used his knife in actual battle, and as he said, it was due to special circumstances, not choice.

Robert

Well, as you personally know 500 people, who used the knife in combat and lived to tell about it, the knives must work just fine for that.

That being said, AFAIK the KaBar was not labelled as strictly being a combat knife ONLY.

Its a 'knife, fighting utility' i.e.combat utility knife in contemporary parlance.

From a blade review (which I obviously cant link to):

"Knife, Fighting Utility. That’s what the U.S. Marine Corps lists as the knife they adopted for issue in 1942 when soldiers demanded a replacement that would hold up to the rigors of more than just battle. The previous version was an excellent fighting knife, but wasn’t good for much else. Soldiers began carrying civilian models until the official versions caught up to their standard of use. The Fighting/Utility Knife, sometimes called the “USMC KA-BAR”, has been in place ever since 1942 for the U.S. Marine Corps, and has also been issued to U.S. Navy and U.S. Army soldiers."

 

[David Martin]

Could someone explain the advantages or disadvantages on the grind of the blade between the Buck 119/120 and the Ka-Bar? I believe the Buck has a convex grind and can be kind of thin at the edge. I'm not sure about the Ka-Bar. Also the point on the Buck knives, in appearance anyway, seem to be more fragile than the Ka-Bar.

Buck did a convex grind on their 70's models and the thinner grind (a fuller hollow grind) began in 1981. I have a 1950's MK II and it has a convex grind. So, it's more accurate to compare the earlier knives to each other. One can rough up the Buck handle with a sandstone rock real quick. The Ka-Bar grind has remained thick as the flats come low on the blade. So, both of these early model will tend to hang up during cutting. Whereas Buck's hollow grind will cut better. DM

 

[Weedhopper]

Do you own either one? Even handle one or the other?

I have owned both for about 25 years. What is your issue? I merely stated that I didn't find re-opening this thread was a bad thing, because I missed it the first time. Sorry if you got your panties twisted.

 

[rje58]

This isn't really about the rules. One of the sheriffs has already been by, and had his say, and moved on.

This is about a wannabe Barney Fife. Somebody who doesn't have the badge, much less the single bullet in his shirt pocket, but wants to go around writing everybody tickets and citations anyway.

If you look at the original post in this thread, the question is: which knife is better in a COMBAT situation? To me, the answer would be the Ka-Bar hands down. I own a Ka-Bar 1214, but I've never owned a Buck 119.

For other purposes, there are many ways you could look at it and many cases to be made, one way or the other.

Why, Yes, Yes it is. So I will grant that there is a written prohibition of thread necromancy (defined as over 120 days old) in "the rules."

 

[Makael]

I have owned both for about 25 years. What is your issue? I merely stated that I didn't find re-opening this thread was a bad thing, because I missed it the first time. Sorry if you got your panties twisted.

I live a blessed life. I have no issues. It was just a question. Sorry if your to uptight to see that.

 

[Gaston444]

Could someone explain the advantages or disadvantages on the grind of the blade between the Buck 119/120 and the Ka-Bar? I believe the Buck has a convex grind and can be kind of thin at the edge. I'm not sure about the Ka-Bar. Also the point on the Buck knives, in appearance anyway, seem to be more fragile than the Ka-Bar.

The Buck is a hollow grind with a high saber, the KABAR is a flat grind with a mid-saber. The Buck is inherently a sharper knife at a similar blade thickness behind the edge. The deeply curved Buck clip can sort of do the Keating-inspired wrist flick "back cut" far better than the KABAR, depending on how important you think this is. The point of the Buck is inherently more acute and thus fighter-like.

To me the sharper point profile, and sharper point edge geometry (due to the hollow grind), make the Buck Special, and especially the General, better as fighting knives, but also superior for utility.

The thin stamped metal guard on the KABAR looks awful, is more hurtful under impact, and its handle is symmetrical, which means that if picking it up in the dark the KABAR will not readily say which way is the edge, while the Buck does, and the Buck guard has better rounded edges while being properly edge-oriented like the whole handle.

These last points are not true for the more modern single quillion plastic handle KABARs, but the leather sheath of the Buck is still thicker and better made than the original style KABAR leather (on top of usually being black, so generally more humidity resistant leather).

The one strike against the Buck is that throwing it is likely to break it at the tang, unless you get one in 5160 or another steel different than the typical 420HC. The KABAR will not easily break from being thrown, being softer. On the down side, the KABAR being softer it might bend before the Buck. 4.3 mm blade thickness for the KABAR and 4.4 mm for the harder Buck.

Gaston

 

[kniferelatedname]

Idk if my kabar is a different model than the one discussed but mine can mount as a bayonet not saying its usefull but my buck cannot do the same

I wonder if you are thinking of the Ontario OKC-3S, the new USMC bayonet that looks a lot like a KaBar USMC Fighting Knife.

 

[Makael]

The Buck is a hollow grind with a high saber, the KABAR is a flat grind with a mid-saber. The Buck is inherently a sharper knife at a similar blade thickness behind the edge. The deeply curved Buck clip can sort of do the Keating-inspired wrist flick "back cut" far better than the KABAR, depending on how important you think this is. The point of the Buck is inherently more acute and thus fighter-like.

To me the sharper point profile, and sharper point edge geometry (due to the hollow grind), make the Buck Special, and especially the General, better as fighting knives, but also superior for utility.

The thin stamped metal guard on the KABAR looks awful, is more hurtful under impact, and its handle is symmetrical, which means that if picking it up in the dark the KABAR will not readily say which way is the edge, while the Buck does, and the Buck guard has better rounded edges while being properly edge-oriented like the whole handle.

These last points are not true for the more modern single quillion plastic handle KABARs, but the leather sheath of the Buck is still thicker and better made than the original style KABAR leather (on top of usually being black, so generally more humidity resistant leather).

The one strike against the Buck is that throwing it is likely to break it at the tang, unless you get one in 5160 or another steel different than the typical 420HC. The KABAR will not easily break from being thrown, being softer. On the down side, the KABAR being softer it might bend before the Buck. 4.3 mm blade thickness for the KABAR and 4.4 mm for the harder Buck.

Gaston

Agreed