Uncle Henry LB7 Lock-Back / Buck 110 Copy?

[koldgold]

A Schrade Uncle Henry LB7 is for-sale on eBay at present.
It is listed as a Copy of a Buck 110.
I do not know how Copied how - any information on this subject? ... Ken

[chautauqua]

i would have to agree with the seller the buck 110 has about 20 years or so on the lb7 if memory serves me right

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

Buck 110 came out in 1964. In 1977 Schrade made their first LB7. Buck collectors call the LB7 a "Buck 110 copy" while I call the LB7 an improved version of the innovative but tragically flawed Buck 110 lol. I prefer the way Schrade made a "copperhead" type bolster that leaves no pokey corners exposed that could rip a hole in your pocket.

[Hogums]

Buck had the market for folders but that was a bit before my time. The LB7 is in a different realm and I was able to compare side by side. The LB7 is heavier and the blade seems thicker. Locking mechanisms differ until the later years of Schrade. The nice thing about Schrade was the loss guarantee. Both are excellent brands and Buck as far as I know is still produced here in the USA in Idaho. Before Schrade closed I happened to live close to Ellenville and I had a broken LB8. The person I asked said he would see what could be done to repair it. However, the assembly line only had the LB7 at the time and I was given the LB7 model as a replacement. If you can find a good LB8 it is worth some money. The LB7 is more common along the lines of the 110. Rare Schrade folders as for large lockbacks are the LB7DP, LB8 and the old timer 9OT which is still manufactured oversees as the 157OT. And Dave made a good point, Schrades rivets are smooth!

[koldgold]

Thany you all for that Information on the Buck110, I have never seen one.
And I try very hard not to look at any knives other then Schrade made knives.
I do like my Buck 301 knives that were made by Schrade back in 1967… Ken

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

And Dave made a good point, Schrades rivets are smooth!

It wasn't the rivets I was referring to. It was the blade/front bolster. Here are some pics to show what I meant.

Buck 110 (not mine):


Schrade LB7:


This: versus this:

[AussieBosun]

correct me if i'm wrong but from memory i think the buck is 420HC and the schrade 440c

[orvet]

The Buck 110 was made with 440C in 1964.
In 1981 they switched to 425 modified stainless.
In 1994 they switched steels again to 420HC (high carbon) stainless.

The LB series are mainly made with Schrade+ stainless. To the best of my knowledge that was Schrade’s trade name for their 440C. There were a few early ones made with 1095 carbon steel, they are rare, but make a dandy user knife!

Of course we all know a blade is only as good as the heat treating. The man who wrote the book on heat treating stainless steel, Paul Bos, is the one who oversees the heat treating for all of Buck’s US made knives. While I would usually pick 440C over 420HC, if the heat treating of the 420HC is by Paul Bos, I will choose it over the 440C.

I have several Buck 110s and LB-7s, LB-8s, 6OTs, 7OTs & a 9OT. I have a user LB-7 I have had since the 1980s and 2 or 3 user 110s; I prefer the feel of the 110 in my hand. I think the 110 will hold the edge a bit better than my LB-7 does. Though I think if I had an LB-7 with a blade of 1095 carbon steel I would prefer it.

From a mechanical point of view, I think Schrade made a BIG mistake when they switched from the bar spring and spacer/holder to the two flat springs. The flat springs tend to break and it is impossible to get that type of springs to replace them. If I get an LB into my shop with broken flat springs I make a spacer and a bar type spring and convert it over to the old style spring. The bar springs are easy to replace and anyone with some mechanical skill can make something that will work. Not so with the flat springs.

If the LB series is a copy of the Buck 110, IMHO as a knife user and a knife mechanic, they did a poor job of copying the 110.

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

The Buck 110 was made with 440C in 1964.
In 1981 they switched to 425 modified stainless.
In 1994 they switched steels again to 420HC (high carbon) stainless.

The LB series are mainly made with Schrade+ stainless. To the best of my knowledge that was Schrade’s trade name for their 440C. There were a few early ones made with 1095 carbon steel, they are rare, but make a dandy user knife!

Of course we all know a blade is only as good as the heat treating. The man who wrote the book on heat treating stainless steel, Paul Bos, is the one who oversees the heat treating for all of Buck’s US made knives. While I would usually pick 440C over 420HC, if the heat treating of the 420HC is by Paul Bos, I will choose it over the 440C.

I have several Buck 110s and LB-7s, LB-8s, 6OTs, 7OTs & a 9OT. I have a user LB-7 I have had since the 1980s and 2 or 3 user 110s; I prefer the feel of the 110 in my hand. I think the 110 will hold the edge a bit better than my LB-7 does. Though I think if I had an LB-7 with a blade of 1095 carbon steel I would prefer it.

From a mechanical point of view, I think Schrade made a BIG mistake when they switched from the bar spring and spacer/holder to the two flat springs. The flat springs tend to break and it is impossible to get that type of springs to replace them. If I get an LB into my shop with broken flat springs I make a spacer and a bar type spring and convert it over to the old style spring. The bar springs are easy to replace and anyone with some mechanical skill can make something that will work. Not so with the flat springs.

If the LB series is a copy of the Buck 110, IMHO as a knife user and a knife mechanic, they did a poor job of copying the 110.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, Dale. Here's why (WARNING! it's verbose lol):

Carbon LB7? The LB series were always stainless. LB1, LB3, LB5, LB7, LB8 all stainless, always. There were no early carbon versions (unless a sample knife or two that never made it to production are out there). If you wanted a 1095 knife like the LB7 you had to go with the delrin handles on the 7OT. The 7OT knives stamped "Schrade" not "Schrade+" are 1095 carbon. Great knives!

Heat treating: Yup we all know that to realize the full potential of a certain type of steel it must be correctly heat treated. Maybe Buck does produce a better cutting tool from 420HC than anyone else but it still is 420HC. 440C when properly heat treated and tempered is a superior steel with superior qualities. It has waaaay more carbon in it and can retain a higher hardness. This does make it less rust-resistant of course but improves edge retention. I challenge anyone to show me some research proving that 420HC out-performs 440C when both are hardened and tempered appropriately and the blade geometry is the same. My understanding is that Paul Bos is retired and sure, he did train someone to follow in his footsteps but saying that Paul Bos oversees the heat-treating at Buck these days is an incorrect statement.

Buck changed to 420HC mainly as a way to lower production costs. Some folks had a hard time sharpening the very hard (likely 58) 440C and some complained of edge chipping and these were minor factors so Buck will focus on them but the main one was to save money by using cheaper/softer steel. Buck produced "Catra" tests supposedly "proving" that 420HC was superior to 440C but I still don't buy it. They could never admit to switching to crappier steel and still expect them to sell well.

Here are some of those often referred to CATRA results: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showt ... ng-ability
In my opinion Buck "cooked the books" to produce the outcome they desired when comparing 420HC to BG42. Note the high-performance steels are sharpened at 40 degrees and the Buck 420HC knife uses its thin "Edge 2000" profile in the first graph. When the better steels are sharpened with the same geometry (2nd graph) they surpass the 420HC. Buck gets the most from 420HC when they use it but that sure doesn't make it better than BG42. The first graph is provided by Buck to specifically mislead a casual reader into thinking 420HC is better than BG42. It's a con. Why compare apples to oranges? The 440C is shown as "inferior" to both BG42 and 420HC but I don't buy it. I think it is suspicious that the CATRA machine produced exactly the results that Buck wanted. They "proved" cheaper 420HC (that was currently marketed) was better than more expensive 440C (that was no longer available and cannot be "fine blanked") and that BG42 (being currently marketed) was worth a premium price. That is, "proof" that what they are doing now on standard models is not only cheaper, it's better too. They did the testing to justify their use of 420HC and surprise, surprise, it did just that. They knew there was a large potential for lost customers when they made the change to 420HC and they need something to reassure knife buyers. I won't accept these results until I see non-biased (not a manufacturers results) tests. Note that 440A isn't even in these test results. My guess is that Buck did test it as well (to prove their knives were better than competitors 440A knives) but when it did out-perform their 420HC they didn't add it to the graph. It's absence in the data is significant I believe.

Bucks own site shows misleading data. Their FAQS state that the maximum hardness that can be achieved using 420HC is 58. They Do Not guarantee (or even say) that's the current hardness of their blades. They use the "In general" discalimer as a way to avoid making a commitment too. I suspect 56 is about as hard as they ever get when you buy one off the shelf at Wal Mart and it might be less than that. If their heat-treat was as consistent and an exact a science as they would like us to believe it is they would say "Every Buck knife made from 420HC is guaranteed to have a hardness of 58". They don't dare say this which can be taken to mean that 420HC Buck 110s are NOT Rockwell 58. The old 440C 110s were indeed hardened to 58. Has anyone independently tested the hardness of current Buck 110s? I'd love to see the data. At the same time, I am sure the 420HC knife they chose to use when producing those CATRA results was a perfect one, pre-tested to be at Rockwell 58 and tempered right. I strongly suspect the 440C blade was less-than-perfect and incorrectly treated to produce their desired result: "New is better". http://www.buckknives.com/index.cfm?event=about.feature

Springs? I'm 99.99% sure that Schrade never made a single LB7 with two flat springs. This configuration showed up first in 1981 on the LB1. Later the LB5 did indeed make this change so early LB5 knives with the two-line stamping are of superior construction to the later LB5s. The 3OT, 5OT, 6OT all used the double springs but the LB7 never did. It always had the separate spacer/retainer and spring. The LB1 always used double springs I believe. I can't recall the guts of all LB3 vintages so I won't comment on them. Dale, I think you are picturing the guts of the 6OT in your head not an LB7.

There were changes made to the spring stock used by Schrade in their LB7s though. Originally it was "squareish" in profile. Then years later it switched to "rounder" stock. Heat treatment and type of steel for springs is important as well. My purely anecdotal opinion formed from buying a lot of Schrade 5" lockbacks is that the early "square" stock was superior. A well made spring should not "relax" under sustained compression (cycling weakens springs not sustained compression within design range) but some Schrades I have that were stored half-open in their displays for decades have weakened springs.

Schrade+ steel was 440A for the most part not 440C. Saying Schrade+ was 440C is incorrect. They may have produced some knives made from 440C (the first "brown box" UH167 I bought was waaaay harder than later UH167s I've purchased) but these were the exceptions to the rule not the rule itself. Schrade+ was basically 440A until a running change to 420HC occurred that began in 1998. A few years later all Schrade+ was 420HC. It was cheaper for Schrade to make 420HC knives just as it was for Buck and making knives for less drove the change not the quest for the ultimate blade.

I like the way the LB7 feels in my hand better but of course that's highly subjective. I guess we have to agree to disagree, wise and intelligent friend.

In my opinion an early 4-pin "Ultimate Lockback" LB7 by Schrade is a superior knife to a current Buck 110. Were some earlier 440C versions of the 110 superior to the LB7? Perhaps...

Cheers!

ps. here's a a great early Buck 110 data sheet put together by Joe Houser that tells you everything about all the different variations:

First Version, Thin steel Spacer & Spring one piece, 2 variations

Variation 1 (1964-1965)1
Blade Stamp: Horizontal, BUCK, Right hand, 440C steel, thin.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on left side of bolsters only.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Thin leather, black or tan. A
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 1 ½” high-(3), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(3)(2 types seen), Use and Care leaflet with Federal Blvd. address-(1), rice paper guarantee slip-(1), white tissue-(2), tips on care card-(1), knife sharpening card-(1).

Variation 2 (pre 1967)2
Stamp: Horizontal, BUCK, etched, Right hand, 440C steel, thin.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on left side of bolsters only.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Thin leather, black. A
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 1 ½” high-(0), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(0)(2 types seen), rice paper guarantee slip-(0), white tissue-(0), tips on care card-(0), knife sharpening card-(0).



Second Version, Fiber Spacer, Spring in rocker design, 3 variations

Variation 1 (pre 1967)3
Stamp: Horizontal, BUCK, Left hand, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on left side of bolsters only.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Thin leather, black. A
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 1 ½” high-(0), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(0)(2 types seen), rice paper guarantee slip-(0), white tissue-(0), tips on care card-(0), knife sharpening card-(0).

Variation 2 (pre 1967)4
Stamp: Horizontal, BUCK, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: Visible on left side of rear bolsters only.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. A
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 1 ½” high-(0), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(0)(2 types seen), rice paper guarantee slip-(0), white tissue-(0), tips on care card-(0), knife sharpening card-(0).

Variation 3 (1967)5
Stamp: Horizontal, BUCK dot, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: Visible on left side of rear bolsters only.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. A
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 1 ½” high-(0), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(0)(2 types seen), rice paper Guarantee slip-(0), white tissue-(0), tips on care card-(0), knife sharpening card-(0).



Third Version, Integral Brass Spacer/Spring holder, 9 variations

Variation 1 (1967)6
Stamp: BUCK dot, Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: Visible on left side of rear bolsters only.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. A or B.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 1 ½” high-(2), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(1)(2 types seen), rice paper guarantee slip-(2), white tissue-(2), tips on care card-(2), knife sharpening card-(2).

Variation 2 (1967)7
Stamp: BUCK, Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: 2 visible on left side of rear bolsters only.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. A or B.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box. **

Variation 3 (1967)8
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: 2 visible on left side of rear bolsters only.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(1), about 1 ½” high-(1), “Attention” leaflet orange-(1), knife sharpening card-(1), Guarantee Registration/Remember card with Federal Blvd. address-(1)(2 types seen), Use and Care leaflet with Federal Blvd. address-(1), Navy exchng sales slip date 12/1/67, Al Buck note-(1).

Variation 4 (1968-1970)9
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: Visible on left side of rear bolsters only.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: None.
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high. **

Variation 5 (1968-1970)10
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: 3 visible on left side of rear bolster 1 visible on right side.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high. **

Variation 6 (1968-1970)11
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: 1 visible on left side of rear bolster, 1 on right side.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high. **

Variation 7 (1968-1970)12
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: 1 visible on left side of rear bolster, 1 on right side.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 standard sized.
Rocker rivet: Brass, no head.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high. **

Variation 8 (1968-1970)13
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Butt rivets: 2 visible on both sides of bolsters.
Blade rivet: Visible on both sides of front bolsters.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, maybe headed.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high. **

Variation 9 (1968-1970)14
Stamp: BUCK, u.s.a., Inverted, Right hand, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, maybe headed.
Sheath: Leather, black. B or C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(1), Use and Care leaflet undated-(1), “Attention” leaflet orange-(1), **



Fourth Version, Brass Spacer/Spring holder separate piece, 2 variations

Variation 1 (1970-1972)15
Stamp: BUCK, U.S.A., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny) or 2 small headed.
Rocker rivet: Brass, maybe headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(1), Use and Care leaflet undated-(1) **

Variation 2 (1970-1972)16
Stamp: BUCK, U.S.A., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny) or 2 small headed.
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high, Use and Care leaflet. **



Fifth Version, Stainless Spacer/Spring holder separate piece, 7 variations

Variation 1 (1970-1972)17
Stamp: BUCK, U.S.A., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Brass, stainless?
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high, Use and Care leaflet. **

Variation 2 (1972)18
Stamp: BUCK, 110, U.S.A., Inverted, Left hand, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (tiny)
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high, Use and Care leaflet. **

Variation 3 (1972-1974)19
Stamp: BUCK, 110, U.S.A., left hand. Read with tip point up, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (small headed)
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(4), Use and Care leaflet dated- 4/4/72-(3),1/73-(1), white tissue-(1), “Attention” leaflet orange-(3).

Variation 4 (1974)20
Stamp: BUCK, *110*, U.S.A., left hand. Read with tip point up, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 2 (small headed)
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(1), Use and Care leaflet dated-1/73-(1), “Attention” leaflet orange-(1), Al Buck note-(1).

Variation 5 (1974-1980)21
Stamp: BUCK, *110*, U.S.A., left hand. Read with tip point up, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 4 (small headed)
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high. **

Variation 6 (1974-1980)22
Stamp: BUCK, *110*, U.S.A., left hand. Read with tip point up, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 3 (small headed)
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: 2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(4), Use and Care leaflet-dated 10/76-(4), “Attention” leaflet orange-(3), Al Buck note-(3).

Variation 7 (1974-1980)23
Stamp: BUCK, *110*, U.S.A., left hand. Read with tip point up, 440C steel.
Blade/Butt rivets: Visible on both sides of bolsters, 2 rear, 1 front.
Inlay rivets: 3 (large headed)
Rocker rivet: Stainless, headed.
Sheath: Black leather. C.
Packaging: “2 piece yellow box about 2” high-(2), Use and Care leaflet dated 4/77-(1), 10/76-(1), “Attention” leaflet orange-(2), white tissue-(1), Al Buck note-(1)”, 1 piece yellow box about 2” high-(3), Use and Care leaflet dated 12/78-(1), Al Buck note-(2).

**Information incomplete. Not all details known at this time.

Sheaths:
A. Angeles Souvenir—late 1962 to late 1967. Thin leather, BUCK on snap, no rivets, no model number.
B. Atcheson Leather—late 1967 to early 1969. Leather, BUCK on flap, Model #, tooling lines and dimple rivet on belt loop.
C. Buck leather shop—started early 1969.
1) Leather, BUCK on snap & flap, tooling lines on belt loop. Used maybe 2 years?
2) Leather, BUCK on snap and flap, plain belt loop, model # on back.

Knives with date code mark of 1994 (\) can be found with either Macassar ebony or Obeechee wood inlays. Obeechee is more prevalent though.
Blade steel was changed in 19

[ea42]

Dave, I wouldn't be so hard on 420HC, it's actually a darned fine steel and can defintely hold its own against 440C, plus it's far tougher. You'll chip a 440C blade a lot easier than you will 420HC, and on top of that it'll take a keen edge a lot faster, those are proven facts, not just Buck's opinion. If you take note of the graphs where all the blades are sharpened at the same angle, there's really very little difference in performance between the two steels. 440C is difficult to sharpen because of its molecular make-up, not its hardness. Although I'm sure cost was a big factor in Buck's decision to go with 420HC, they certainly IMHO didn't settle for an inferior steel either.

Eric

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

Dave, I wouldn't be so hard on 420HC, it's actually a darned fine steel and can defintely hold its own against 440C, plus it's far tougher. You'll chip a 440C blade a lot easier than you will 420HC, and on top of that it'll take a keen edge a lot faster, those are proven facts, not just Buck's opinion. If you take note of the graphs where all the blades are sharpened at the same angle, there's really very little difference in performance between the two steels. 440C is difficult to sharpen because of its molecular make-up, not its hardness. Although I'm sure cost was a big factor in Buck's decision to go with 420HC, they certainly IMHO didn't settle for an inferior steel either.

Eric

I hear you Eric. I know I came on extra strong but I was playing "Devil's Advocate" and giving the other side of the argument as they say. I just couldn't resist.

Me, I don't use knives to cut things that are hard enough to chip a blade. Never a good knife anyway. I use an axe for heavy work. I want an edge that can get extra sharp at home and then stay that way while I am in the field. I have used a 440C Buck 112 for decades and haven't seen any chipping problems. The superior edge retention wins the day for me and I'm comparing Buck 440C to Buck 420HC. I have a finger-grooved Buck 110 in 420HC and it's a good enough knife but I prefer 440C and I think for valid reasons. In a fillet knife chipping is never going to be a problem because fish bones are pretty soft and a 440C fillet will take a wicked edge and stay that way nearly indefinitely if all you are cutting is skin and flesh.

440C is tough to sharpen because of it's molecular make-up AND because it is usually hardened to higher Rockwell than 420HC imho. I don't want to beat this to death but the bottom line is that if 420HC was all round "better steel" than 440C it would be a more expensive "super steel" and not the cheapest steel on a cutlers list. What kind of steel are the cheapest Canal Street knives made from (I see they have a large number of steels on their site) and if it's 420HC then why pay a premium for the other types? What are the comparative Rockwell ranges of Canal Street 440C versus Canal Street 420HC? I bet the 440C is hardened to a higher number but I'm guessing. I'm quite open to being all wrong but I need proof.

I like a good debate lol forgive me if I seem aggressive, I'm not. Just being an opinionated Schrade and 440C fan.

[Hogums]

Yes, Schrade did make LB7's with double flat springs in the last of their years. They came in the blue boxes. I had one but sold it and bought a round bar type instead. Also have the 4 pin LB7 which feels best in hand to me. That being said, I mentioned the rivets and how they are flush smooth. The LB7 has all smooth rivets and on the other lockbacks such as the 7OT and LB8 the backspring rivets are rounded brass. Now what makes the LB7 superior to the LB8 and 7OT (besides the 7OT's carbon type)? I would say it is the steel backspring rivet on the LB7 while the other models used a brass backspring rivet. They are all great knives even Buck if you handle them right and take care of 'em right.

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

Yes, Schrade did make LB7's with double flat springs in the last of their years. They came in the blue boxes. I had one but sold it and bought a round bar type instead.

Interesting, that's news to me. I guess my efforts to avoid 420HC has saved me from the bad springs too. I don't even look at LB7s with no serial number and this ensures a 1980s or earlier production date. The last six years ('98 and on when the steel change happened) of Imperial Schrade were not the best ones imho.

I am going to research this further to rule out "end-of-days" knives. Perhaps the LB7 with the bad springs wasn't an LB7 at all but a mixed bunch of parts that formed a sale-able knife that was then sold as an LB7.

Thanks for the info!

[Hogums]

And now take a close look at this late model LB8 with the backspring pin in the middle. These later LB7 and LB8 with the pin towards the middle used a round stock lock bar spring or the double flat type. Here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHRADE-UNCLE-H ... 160wt_1037

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

And now take a close look at this late model LB8 with the backspring pin in the middle. These later LB7 and LB8 with the pin towards the middle used a round stock lock bar spring or the double flat type. Here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SCHRADE-UNCLE-H ... 160wt_1037

I'm well aware of this difference in pin placement but it's great info for those who are not. The only thing new to me is that LB7s were ever made with the double spring. Does anyone else have an example they can post? Considering Schrade was pumping out a hundred thousand a year or more of these knives then it stands to reason that there are many examples of this so-called late "blue box" variation. Until I see a number of these in links or photos I'm still going to be convinced that you have been duped by an "end-of-days" knife stuck in some shiny packaging. SEE EDIT!

I'm not new to the LB7... trust me. It is the main pattern I collect. I review 9000 listings weekly and have done so for over three years now. I have Never seen a knife like you describe.

Where's the pics?

EDIT! I just went looking a a whole bunch of late LB7s I wouldn't normally look at and sure enough, I was wrong, there are LB7s out there with the crappy springs. I wonder when this change happened?

I'm in full agreement that these double springs are lame. Too bad Schrade went that way near the end. Keep to ones with serial numbered ones...

[orvet]

Carbon LB7? The LB series were always stainless. LB1, LB3, LB5, LB7, LB8 all stainless, always. There were no early carbon versions (unless a sample knife or two that never made it to production are out there).

People who have collected Schrades for more than a few years rarely use words like “always” and “never” when talking about Schrade. Schrade has this habit of doing the unexpected. I checked with LT, Richard Langston, who has collected Schrade for more than 50 years and has one of the largest Schrade collections in the world, (one of the top 3 or 4 largest collections). He said he remembers seeing some carbon steel LB7. They weren’t common, but they are out there.

Springs? I'm 99.99% sure that Schrade never made a single LB7 with two flat springs. This configuration showed up first in 1981 on the LB1. Later the LB5 did indeed make this change so early LB5 knives with the two-line stamping are of superior construction to the later LB5s. The 3OT, 5OT, 6OT all used the double springs but the LB7 never did. It always had the separate spacer/retainer and spring. The LB1 always used double springs I believe. I can't recall the guts of all LB3 vintages so I won't comment on them. Dale, I think you are picturing the guts of the 6OT in your head not an LB7.

Well, I can say with authority you are 100% wrong. I have repaired a number of LB7s with the flat springs in them. I have a flat spring LB7 setting on my desk as I type this.


As regards Buck-
I managed a retail cutlery store for about 10 years in the 1980s and early 1990s. We actually had customers complain they had dropped their Buck knife on a rock and had the blade break. It is possible to have steel so hard that it is not good for the average knife user. We also had problems in that time frame with Buck knives chipping. As I recall Bucks then were around 60 or so in the Rockwell C scale then, but I don’t remember the exact number. These problems may have played into Buck’s decision to go with 420HC.

You seem to have a low opinion of the motives of Buck, (that they are only motivated by profit). I think if you ever had the chance to visit with Chuck Buck you would change your opinion. Chuck is one of the most principled and honorable men I have met in the cutlery business. I hold him in the same regard as I hold AL Mar and Les De Asis (owner of Benchmade Knives), both of whom I knew well.


Yes, I am aware of the Buck 110 data sheets, I posted them for Joe in the Buck forum several years ago-
http://www.allaboutpocketknives.com/kni ... 53&t=11569

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

"People who have collected Schrades for more than a few years rarely use words like “always” and “never” when talking about Schrade. Schrade has this habit of doing the unexpected. I checked with LT, Richard Langston, who has collected Schrade for more than 50 years and has one of the largest Schrade collections in the world, (one of the top 3 or 4 largest collections). He said he remembers seeing some carbon steel LB7. They weren’t common, but they are out there."

What I said was "There were no early carbon versions (unless a sample knife or two that never made it to production are out there)." I know "never say never".

I am well aware of who Rich Langston is but even Schrade collectors can have fuzzy memories in their 70s (80s?). One man remembers seeing carbon LB7s? This is proof early Schrade LB7s were carbon? He has collected rare Schrade for 50 years and he doesn't have one in his collection? Why not? I'm still not convinced. If they were out there it I believe it would have been discussed on bladeforums somewhere. Once again: show me one. Anyone at AAPK have one? Not "big fish" exception-to-the-rule sample stories, examples of carbon LB7 production knives. We all know Schrade made sample knives of all sorts so maybe the odd one exists (as I already conceded in my previous post) but what I said was true: Bear Paw Family were advertised as being Schrade+ stainless knives from the get-go. There were never any advertised carbon Lb7 knives. It was never an option to buy one as far as I know. I know to never-say-never but if I want to claim that Schrade made LB7s out of ATS34 then I better have more than 2nd hand memories to back that up.

Well, I can say with authority you are 100% wrong. I have repaired a number of LB7s with the flat springs in them. I have a flat spring LB7 setting on my desk as I type this.

Obviously you took my statements very personally and stopped reading what I wrote because in my last post I already admitted I was wrong about this (after further research) and had found some examples. As I mentioned before my avoidance of late-model LB7 knives because of 420HC saved me from these bad springs too. I can admit when I'm wrong, some people can't.

As regards Buck-
I managed a retail cutlery store for about 10 years in the 1980s and early 1990s. We actually had customers complain they had dropped their Buck knife on a rock and had the blade break. It is possible to have steel so hard that it is not good for the average knife user. We also had problems in that time frame with Buck knives chipping. As I recall Bucks then were around 60 or so in the Rockwell C scale then, but I don’t remember the exact number. These problems may have played into Buck’s decision to go with 420HC.

You seem to have a low opinion of the motives of Buck, (that they are only motivated by profit). I think if you ever had the chance to visit with Chuck Buck you would change your opinion. Chuck is one of the most principled and honorable men I have met in the cutlery business. I hold him in the same regard as I hold AL Mar and Les De Asis (owner of Benchmade Knives), both of whom I knew well.


Yes, I am aware of the Buck 110 data sheets, I posted them for Joe in the Buck forum several years ago-
http://www.allaboutpocketknives.com/kni ... 53&t=11569

I didn't post the sheet for you because I figured you had already seen it. I posted it for Ken. Every successful corporation's main motivator is profit. Buck is no different. If you think they are you are naive no matter what Chuck Buck is like as a man. Fine blanking and steel cost drove the change to 420HC not quality. They did indeed cater to "the average knife user" who can't sharpen and needs to pry all the time in salt-water environments. This isn't what I want in a knife. It was the change in blade-grind (Edge 2000) that makes a new 110 cut better than an old one. The "hollower" hollow grind and 15 degree sharpening angle makes them cut well not the steel. The CATRA tests were fixed because Buck used the old thicker grind on the 440C knife and the new "Edge 2000" on the 420HC.

Dale, I was very careful to back up everything I said with proof and promptly corrected the double-spring error I made. As far as I can tell you read none of what I posted and all you heard was "Dale is wrong."

knarfeng (moderator on bladeforums) seems to know his stuff and agrees with me about Buck. I could post 50 links to all the threads I have read comparing 440c to 420HC to back up my position but it seems you wouldn't read them. Does Buck sponser AAPK?

I have nothing against Buck, I just don't like the myth currently being sold to the knife buying public that 420HC is quality steel. It's better for the "average knife user"? Sure it is. It's softer so it's sharpens easier (and loses it's edge faster), it's more corrosion resistant (no down side) and it's tougher so idiots who use their knives as a pry-bar or screwdriver won't break or chip it as easy as 440C.

The "average knife user" doesn't read AAPK and I still suggest knife fans here learn how to sharpen knives made out of harder steels and then use them as cutting tools only. If you can't sharpen 440C then BG42, S30V, etc will be impossible as well. Buck sells "premium" (read "better") knives made out of these steels and they are indeed better knives than ones made out of 420HC. The "average knife user" can make do without custom knives or even knives made in the USA. They can buy a fine Chinese made Buck and be perfectly happy. They can buy some vintage Pakistan crap and be happy. They can buy all sorts of crap and be happy. This still doesn't make a lesser knife into a better one.

Buck's 420HC may well be the best out there but other steels are superior and there isn't a knife maker out there who would call 420HC the best steel money can buy because it's not. Period. Muddying these waters only serves to confuse people looking for high-performance blades.

Forget what came before my only points are these:

1. Properly hardened and tempered 440C that has been properly sharpened will out-perform 420HC if the blade geometry is the same. When I say out-perform I mean cut better for longer. Edge retention! Not pry or saw away at hard things your knife should never touch. Cut and keep cutting.

2. Schrade LB7 was advertised more heavily than any knife in history perhaps with all the TV spots etc. and it was always advertised as being made from Schrade+ stainless.

3. Stick with early serialized LB7 knives and you will be sure to avoid crappy springs and 420HC. The early 440A knives with the "squareish" spring stock were very good knives that I still see as superior to today's Buck 110.

I'm good with being wrong (when I am) but The Bear Paw Family were stainless knives. That's the rule. Rare exceptions may exist. I'd love to see one of these but if they are so very, very rare and unusual and unlikely that no one on AAPK or bladeforums has one (including Rich Langston) then they are hardly worth mentioning. "There were a few early ones made with 1095 carbon steel, they are rare, but make a dandy user knife!". Really? Based on what? Rich Langston remembers using his carbon LB7 before he got rid of it because it was too rare to bother keeping? Doesn't sound very convincing to me. I may be just arguing semantics but you should have said that you imagine these would make a good user knife. You are an authority here and I believe you should separate speculation from fact when posting.

[orvet]

This is getting boring!
You are trying to twist general statements I made into absolute statements to make it seem like I am saying things I am never intended to say. That is disingenuous.

While I would usually pick 440C over 420HC, if the heat treating of the 420HC is by Paul Bos, I will choose it over the 440C.

Where in that statement did I say either steel is better? I said, “if the heat treating of the 420HC is by Paul Bos, I will choose it over the 440C.” And then you go off on a lecture about how superior 440C is. I could care less! That was totally off the topic! It was MY OPINION and it is not open to debate. Period.

I don’t have time to argue with someone who obviously considers himself an expert. I am still learning about Schrade after studying Schrade intently for 7 or 8 years and collecting knives for 30 year, I don’t know it all and never will, but I don’t have time for people who think they do.

You may have nothing better to do with your time, but I certainly do.
See ya!

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

This is getting boring!
You are trying to twist general statements I made into absolute statements to make it seem like I am saying things I am never intended to say. That is disingenuous.

While I would usually pick 440C over 420HC, if the heat treating of the 420HC is by Paul Bos, I will choose it over the 440C.

Where in that statement did I say either steel is better? I said, “if the heat treating of the 420HC is by Paul Bos, I will choose it over the 440C.” And then you go off on a lecture about how superior 440C is. I could care less! That was totally off the topic! It was MY OPINION and it is not open to debate. Period.

I don’t have time to argue with someone who obviously considers himself an expert. I am still learning about Schrade after studying Schrade intently for 7 or 8 years and collecting knives for 30 year, I don’t know it all and never will, but I don’t have time for people who think they do.

You may have nothing better to do with your time, but I certainly do.
See ya!

This is the last post I will make on this subject.

I was friendly, genuine and open to being wrong from the get-go. I provided "proofs" for what I said. I do not "know everything". I believe that requesting proofs is a reasonable thing to keep Schrade collectors on the same page. I believe that if Buck fixed the results of the CATRA tests to deliberately mislead the knife buying public the members here deserve to know the truth of it. I think I provided those proofs. Now people have heard both sides...

I do know the LB7 was marketed as a stainless knife. I do know that 420HC is cheaper for Buck to make knives from than 440C. I know I have never seen a carbon LB7. I know I have never heard of a carbon LB7 previous to this thread. I know I have read every post (that's every!!!) post on Schrade on bladeforums and here. Yeah that's all of them, most multiple times. I know I have an ocean more to learn about just about everything but if you are telling me I am incapable of learning or being open minded then you are incorrect. I DO know a lot about the LB7 and I thank you for clarifying the double-spring error I made.

Name dropping? LAME. 8 years instead of 3? LAME. I'm 45. I started buying "safe queens" three years ago but I have been using Schrade and Buck products for over 30 years. Throwing around credentials is lame too but if you try and discredit me with a personal attack I can and will retaliate.

ps. Dale, the 6OT in buffalo horn and mammoth ivory I bought from you for full-pop to try and support you personally because of all the Schrade info you have posted and because of your disability is sub-standard with poor quality fit and finish and construction methods. The recess for the Old Timer shield is over-cut and sloppy. You put the shield in upside down as compared to all standard 6OTs. Now a year later whatever you used to glue the handles on is starting to bubble and lift off the handles. It has been stored correctly and never used but it now looks like crap. I didn't say any of this to anyone ever because I didn't want to believe it myself but the custom I bought from you was poorly made and I sure wouldn't buy another. I will be posting an update of recent scans of my knife to show "what you don't want" in a custom re-handle job. You shouldn't have made this personal.

I'm we can both agree that we are both happy this is the last time I will post on AAPK. Please delete or ban me.

See ya!!!

.

[orvet]

Send it back, I will send you a refund.
I don’t need or want your charity!

[ea42]

Dave, that PS was about the most unnecessary childish comeback I've ever seen Are you 45 or 5? What in the world did Dale say that would justify you putting that up? I just don't see it. I do know what you can do with your scans. Why do all your posts have to include thinly veiled insults (or in this last case just outright nastiness) to the posters you're answering?

For someone who seems to require proof of everything you read, where's the proof that Buck fixed the tests? "I strongly suspect" doesn't cut it. They clearly state that they were proving that the Edge 2000 angle on 420HC could outperform standard edge angles that were being produced at the time on a variety of steels, both by them and other manufacturers. That's why the angles were different, NOT so they could mislead the public.

In reality you're going to see Rockwell values on blades with 420HC and 440C average around 57, there's always a point or so difference in either direction, it's not an exact science. No manufacturer is going to guarantee hardness to a specific number. On 440A and 1095 that'd be the high number. On 110's in 420HC and LB-7's in both 440A and 420HC, the performance differences are completely negligible in the real world. You're not going to find an LB-7 in 440C so there's no point in even discussing it.

I'm just as much a Schradeoholic as the next guy, plus I've got real experience in the cutlery industry, but I don't see any reason to falsely accuse Buck of misleading folks, or in bashing their choice of steel. Schrade's choice of 440A is on basically on the same level. Both companies have/had excellent heat treating which is really what's important, especially at the price point they're sold at.

[ea42]

To answer the OP's original question: Yes the LB-7 was a copy of the 110. In fact Albert Baer was very upset with Henry Baer after being shown a prototype that Henry had ordered with some improvements. He basically asked why improvements were necessary on a knife that was obviously perfected! Some of those improvements were retained though, and some items needed to be addressed like flysprings launching out of the knife when it was opened. One bounced off the face of the President of Hoffritz!

Eric

[Dave Thinkstoomuch]

Dave, that PS was about the most unnecessary childish comeback I've ever seen Are you 45 or 5? What in the world did Dale say that would justify you putting that up? I just don't see it. I do know what you can do with your scans. Why do all your posts have to include thinly veiled insults (or in this last case just outright nastiness) to the posters you're answering?

For someone who seems to require proof of everything you read, where's the proof that Buck fixed the tests? "I strongly suspect" doesn't cut it. They clearly state that they were proving that the Edge 2000 angle on 420HC could outperform standard edge angles that were being produced at the time on a variety of steels, both by them and other manufacturers. That's why the angles were different, NOT so they could mislead the public.

In reality you're going to see Rockwell values on blades with 420HC and 440C average around 57, there's always a point or so difference in either direction, it's not an exact science. No manufacturer is going to guarantee hardness to a specific number. On 440A and 1095 that'd be the high number. On 110's in 420HC and LB-7's in both 440A and 420HC, the performance differences are completely negligible in the real world. You're not going to find an LB-7 in 440C so there's no point in even discussing it.

I'm just as much a Schradeoholic as the next guy, plus I've got real experience in the cutlery industry, but I don't see any reason to falsely accuse Buck of misleading folks, or in bashing their choice of steel. Schrade's choice of 440A is on basically on the same level. Both companies have/had excellent heat treating which is really what's important, especially at the price point they're sold at.

"
Well I'm bored too and thought this over but now I'm attacked personally again. "What I can do with my scans?" What does that even mean? I'm not a photoshop liar. Don't imply I am. Sorry I take close-ups. I post the pics to try and contribute. Period.

Why I said it? I just decided to stop lying about it. What goes around comes around. Dale disrespected me and well, you know. It will soon be for sale and you can snatch it up and scan it yourself. The scans I will post will show the knife as it is. I'm not making crap up.

I have made only 20 posts here, total. Anyone can easily review them all and anyone who does read them will know I don't go around insulting people. Anyone who doesn't and believes that anyway. Well, they are also the type of person who hates it when facts get in the way of a good story. "Thinly veiled insults". Perhaps you need to work on your English comprehension skills and do some research on "confirmation bias". Yeah, that was insulting. You started it.

I have all the proof I need about Buck and if I thought you would bother reading it all (it might take you a couple weeks) I would provide the links. I further suppose you agree that 420HC isn't great steel and just won't voice it because it may be the best hope the american knife industry has of competing price-wise with imports. Comparing 420HC edge 2000 with thicker 440C sharpened at a more obtuse angle is comparing apples to oranges. All it proved was thinner knives cut better. Buck and yourself and lots of folks have drawn a different conclusion. There's my proof. They conned you good. If you want to prove something using correct "scientific method" you only ever change one variable at a time and compare it with the control group. Buck changed two. Their often touted CATRA tests are flawed. Without those tests all we have is anecdotal evidence that the 420HC knives are "good".

Truth be told I'm all about facts and figures and being nice. When I'm wrong I promptly admit it. Sorry you felt making this personal between us as well was the best way to put out this fire. You know nothing about my motives and you are standing up for a colleague at my expense. I respect that. Too bad I hit back.

I want to drop let this drop and disappear; please don't provoke me and I will. If you keep hitting the ball back with further lies and insults it will degrade appropriately.

[koldgold]

To answer the OP's original question: Yes the LB-7 was a copy of the 110. In fact Albert Baer was very upset with Henry Baer after being shown a prototype that Henry had ordered with some improvements. He basically asked why improvements were necessary on a knife that was obviously perfected! Some of those improvements were retained though, and some items needed to be addressed like flysprings launching out of the knife when it was opened. One bounced off the face of the President of Hoffritz!

Eric

Thank You Eric for answering my question.
I think we should stop putting people down on this sight.
If you can not say some-thing good, DO NOT POST IT HERE...Ken

[AussieBosun]

correct me if i'm wrong but from memory i think the buck is 420HC and the schrade 440c

I have learnt alot from this topic , 1- all Buck's are not 420HC & , 2- Schrade's are not 440C but in fact 440A.

I have also valued Dave's and Dale's separate opinions and knowledge , with the exception of the personal tirades.

If a member has a personal problem with another then take it out the back , sort it out , and get on with it.

I am relatively new here to AAPK and to think that a member would pull the pin because of a difference of opinion astounds me , i mean thats what forums are for right , intelligent discussions about things we are passionate about ..........