Mr. Hubbard......the 916 why.....

jbmonkey

jbmonkey

sure sure
Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
29,882
Sir,

this is a question that has bugged me for awhile now.

why does the 916 have such a tiny short handle that makes it hard at best to use the knife as a knife? it doesnt fit even a small adult hand well or at all. it looks awkward and off even from a collecting only and looking at it point of view. why not cut the blank with a longer wider handle or at least offer an option for that for folks.

i love this bowie and i own one but its one of the great mysteries of why no useable handle size and length? thank you Sir.
 
I think the intent is to give the illusion the blade is bigger. I think the intent of that knife is for displaying.
 
good thoughts fellows. appreciate the feedback from y'all.
sure would be nice to hear from buck why and know for sure.
 
I think it relates more to being true to a historical pattern. Think of a time when the average man was 5'6" and not the huge 6'6" Fess Parker. But as the song says, Daniel Boone really Was a Big Man for his time, but only at 5'10".

In Buck's scheme of things, the 916's place in the product lineup is as a Limited Edition collector and display knife, not a user. For a more practical large handle & large blade combo Buck offers the 124.
 
Last edited:
I have never held one but the pictures on the internet look just right to me. Handle and blade look well balanced.
 
Looks like a miniature in that picture. A letter opener.

The Buck website says it's 12 1/4" overall, with a 7 1/2" blade. That would make the handle 4 3/4". These are the approximate dimensions of the 120 General, aren't they?
 
15025644242541591297395.jpg 15025645895771437108057.jpg hopefully this shows it well enough...it is worse in person than the pics seem to capture it.
 
BuckShack said:
Looks like a miniature in that picture. A letter opener.

The Buck website says it's 12 1/4" overall, with a 7 1/2" blade. That would make the handle 4 3/4". These are the approximate dimensions of the 120 General, aren't they?
Click to expand...
one would think......but my pinky cant really stay on the knife in the saber or sabre grip. i also have tiny little girl or small monkey hands. if i had big hands no way id be able to get all 4 fingers on the handle comfortably, if at all.
 
I have been there with other consumer products - they scale something down and it either looks disproportionate or becomes impractical in some way. It looks like the manager said, "Make me a Bowie knife with a shorter blade" and the employee put the original on a copying machine and shrunk the whole knife. It really does look good (at least to me) in any picture that does not include a human hand.
 
Pondoro2310 said:
I have been there with other consumer products - they scale something down and it either looks disproportionate or becomes impractical in some way. It looks like the manager said, "Make me a Bowie knife with a shorter blade" and the employee put the original on a copying machine and shrunk the whole knife. It really does look good (at least to me) in any picture that does not include a human hand.
Click to expand...
it looks more awkward in person than pics can show. they seem to loose a bit of how odd it looks. handle a bit longer and wider and thicker and it would be a great carry knife.
 
I agree. A little more handle (and blade to match it's scale) would be great. It is a Bowie after all!

I took this picture for further comparison. Not to raise doubt, because I totally agree. But, the 120 and 192 handles are a little shorter than the 124 and still feel comfortable in my hand. The 102 handle is shorter than those two and shorter than the Bowie, but it's almost like they put a 102 handle on a 120.

Buck%2BCompare%2B102-120-124-192.jpeg
 
I'm not sure of the history of the design choices. I will forward this and see if I can get some thoughts on this for you.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top