All About Pocket Knives

jerryd6818 wrote: Grant and I just went toe to toe on two in the past week.

Not to mention that you & I went toe to toe on that Harley Davidson you got on the 6th.
You beat me by $1!











You beat me fair and square................................................................................ this time!

I got my latest version of the 72 today.
The Remington R-14.

orvet wrote:

jerryd6818 wrote: Grant and I just went toe to toe on two in the past week.

Not to mention that you & I went toe to toe on that Harley Davidson you got on the 6th.
You beat me by $1!











You beat me fair and square................................................................................ this time!

Don't feel bad Dale. I looked up my top bid and it was more than that.

I picked up a Powr-Kraft 84-11 and it came in today's mail. Bad picture but better'n nothin. Some really nice Delrin handles. Hard to tell 'em apart from bone without getting out the magnifying glass. Blades were a little sluggish when I opened the package but a few trips through the ultra-sonic cleaner and a little go juice on the joints made 'em snap like my ex-mother-in-law at a pork chop.

jerryd6818 wrote:It looks factory fresh. Good find. How many 72s and clones do you have now? Must be a nice little pile the way you've been going.

Last week Jerry asked me how many #72 I had so I put them out on the scanner & took some quick scans. Pic #1
Imperial
WT (?) /36810/USA
Yello-Jaket acrylic shield
Stanley SL6
Remington –14
Yello-Jaket (standard) Pic #2
Forged USA
Powr-Kraft
Schrade 863
Ulster
Ulster
Pic #3
All Camillus Pic #4
All Camillus
The top 2 are parts knives for rebuild.
The bottom 2 could use a new blade or two, but are complete.


So if I am counting correctly that makes 19 plus one that is in the mail.
There may be another couple Camillus 72s or variants out in my parts knives, I didn't have time to go through them all. I just grabbed the ones that I knew where they were.

orvet wrote:

jerryd6818 wrote:It looks factory fresh. Good find. How many 72s and clones do you have now? Must be a nice little pile the way you've been going.

Last week Jerry asked me how many #72 I had so I put them out on the scanner & took some quick scans.

Camillus #72s a.jpg

Pic #1
Imperial
WT (?) /36810/USA
Yello-Jaket acrylic shield
Stanley SL6
Remington –14
Yello-Jaket (standard)

Camillus #72s b.jpg

Pic #2
Forged USA
Powr-Kraft
Schrade 863
Ulster
Ulster

Camillus #72s c.jpg

Pic #3
All Camillus

Camillus #72s d.jpg

Pic #4
All Camillus
The top 2 are parts knives for rebuild.
The bottom 2 could use a new blade or two, but are complete.


So if I am counting correctly that makes 19 plus one that is in the mail.
There may be another couple Camillus 72s or variants out in my parts knives, I didn't have time to go through them all. I just grabbed the ones that I knew where they were.

..........nice, dale, i love 'em!!!........kinda like eating peanuts, ain't it?.once you start, you can't stop!!!.......... .......................

More like potato chips for me, Tommy. And you can't make me believe you're burned out on 72s. I can see the gleam in your eyes all the way up in Illinois.

Dale -- That's a great pile. I have one of each of the bone handle knives, one with shield and one without. It's made me wonder if the one with no shield is earlier than the one with a shield. Hmmm

That WT sure is a mystery. Do you suppose it could have been an SFO?


I have two with Solingen Germany stamped on the back of the main blade. They make me wonder who the heck made them.

Jerry is this another variation of the 72 .Could it be a Craftsman made by Ulster with a number like 9630.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/390534572592 ... 481wt_1064

Yes Grant, one of the clones. It's an Ulster 63. Some of those showed up as Craftsman 9494. I've never seen the 9630 pattern number so already today I've learned something new.

That main blade has been loved to death. Makes the coping blade look huge.

....jerry, are my eyes going south??....the handle pins on the ulster and craftsman appear to be closer to the bolsters as compared to the std. camillus #72????....wonder what the reason for tat was???....... ...............

Well glancing back up the page that appears to be the case, esp when compared to the old Camillus bone handled ones.

The reason for moving the pins back on the bone is to prevent cracking.
Actually the bone came first, so they could move the pins up with composite handles as they do not split as badly as bone.

To what purpose?............ I don't know.
Let me think about it.

carrmillus wrote:....jerry, are my eyes going south??....the handle pins on the ulster and craftsman appear to be closer to the bolsters as compared to the std. camillus #72????....wonder what the reason for tat was???....... ...............

'Cause the Schrade companies (Schrade/Ulster/Imperial) put their handle pins closer to the bolsters than Camillus. It's one of the tell-tale differences along with the Schrade conglomerates main blade pull being plain (not matchstrike) and a slightly different profile to the small clip blade. Of course there's always jigging on the handles and an occasional different color Delrin.

...dale, you're right again!!!..i've got 5 short line bone handled #72's and 3 of the split backspring whittlers- i'm sure all of these are bone, and the distance from the bolster to the handle pin is greater on these 8 knives!!!!!.... .............

orvet wrote:Well glancing back up the page that appears to be the case, esp when compared to the old Camillus bone handled ones.

The reason for moving the pins back on the bone is to prevent cracking.
Actually the bone came first, so they could move the pins up with composite handles as they do not split as badly as bone.

To what purpose?............ I don't know.
Let me think about it.

Ever see bone handles on a Schrade 863, Ulster 63 or one of the Imperial clones? I haven't and I'm convinced it's because Camillus introduced the pattern in 1946 and the clones didn't come along until the early '50s when they noticed it was a popular pattern. I may be full of beans and taters but until someone can prove me wrong, I'm stickin' to that theory.

carrmillus wrote:...dale, you're right again!!!..i've got 5 short line bone handled #72's and 3 of the split backspring whittlers- i'm sure all of these are bone, and the distance from the bolster to the handle pin is greater on these 8 knives!!!!!.... .............

Tommy -- If you'll notice, the pins on all Camillus 72 handles, bone or Delrin, are farther from the bolsters than the Schrade/Ulster/Imperial knives.

jerryd6818 wrote:

carrmillus wrote:...dale, you're right again!!!..i've got 5 short line bone handled #72's and 3 of the split backspring whittlers- i'm sure all of these are bone, and the distance from the bolster to the handle pin is greater on these 8 knives!!!!!.... .............

Tommy -- If you'll notice, the pins on all Camillus 72 handles, bone or Delrin, are farther from the bolsters than the Schrade/Ulster/Imperial knives.

....jerry, i've only got the craftsman to compare with, but some(not all) of the delrin handled #72's have the same spacing as the craftsman............ ............hey, being full of beans and taters ain't a bad thing!!!!!............ ..........................

Not trusting my eyes, (I am that old now) and being a knife mechanic, I took the machinist's scale & magnifying glass (to read the scale) to the knives and here is what I found:

On all of the Schrade/Ulster/Imperial knives (including the WT) the pin placement is consistently 1/8" from the bolsters on both ends of the knife.

On the Camillus knives, including the Powr-Kraft (made for Montgomery Wards) the distance can vary as much as 1/32". On the large end, (the end where with the large clip blade & the coping blade are pinned), the distance from the bolster to the hole is about 1/4" (16/64"). On the small end of the knife where the small clip blade is pinned, the distance from the bolster to the hole is about 3/16" (12/64"). This is true from the bone handled knives up through the traditional Yello-Jaket with the last tang stamp used.

I do not know why the difference of the distances in the pin placement at opposite ends, just that it is. I am open to suggestions. It appears that pin placement was determined by using a number that was roughly half the width of the handle.

For example: Using the Camillus frame without handles (shown previously) the liner width was 32/64” at the large end and the pin hole was placed 16/64” from the bolster. On the small end the width is 28/64” and the distance from the bolster is about 14/64”. I do not know why that method was used, just that it appears that that method of pin placement was used.

I did find some variance in the distances of the pin placement in the Camillus knives. I am not sure why that is, perhaps worn or replaced equipment at some point in time.

As Jerry pointed out, the Camillus knives have match striker pulls and the Schrade/Ulster/Imperial knives have the plain long pulls.


Now, I hope I have not confused everyone with this information. I hope I have explained it so everyone can understand it. If not let me know & I will try again.

orvet wrote:Not trusting my eyes, (I am that old now) and being a knife mechanic, I took the machinist's scale & magnifying glass (to read the scale) to the knives and here is what I found:

On all of the Schrade/Ulster/Imperial knives (including the WT) the pin placement is consistently 1/8" from the bolsters on both ends of the knife.

On the Camillus knives, including the Powr-Kraft (made for Montgomery Wards) the distance can vary as much as 1/32". On the large end, (the end where with the large clip blade & the coping blade are pinned), the distance from the bolster to the hole is about 1/4" (16/64"). On the small end of the knife where the small clip blade is pinned, the distance from the bolster to the hole is about 3/16" (12/64"). This is true from the bone handled knives up through the traditional Yello-Jaket with the last tang stamp used.

I do not know why the difference of the distances in the pin placement at opposite ends, just that it is. I am open to suggestions. It appears that pin placement was determined by using a number that was roughly half the width of the handle.

For example: Using the Camillus frame without handles (shown previously) the liner width was 32/64” at the large end and the pin hole was placed 16/64” from the bolster. On the small end the width is 28/64” and the distance from the bolster is about 14/64”. I do not know why that method was used, just that it appears that that method of pin placement was used.

I did find some variance in the distances of the pin placement in the Camillus knives. I am not sure why that is, perhaps worn or replaced equipment at some point in time.

As Jerry pointed out, the Camillus knives have match striker pulls and the Schrade/Ulster/Imperial knives have the plain long pulls.


Now, I hope I have not confused everyone with this information. I hope I have explained it so everyone can understand it. If not let me know & I will try again.

........dale, i was an engineer/draftsman for 40 years...i've figured out enough problems to last me a lifetime, i'm just going to sit back, enjoy, polish and oil mine and quit trying to figure out why they did things the way they did, and enjoy them for what they are-works of a dying art!!!!...... ..........

Dale -- I can tell you two things. First, the method of coming out from the bolster half the width of the frame just "feels right" for me. Can't explain the feeling but it causes a cosmic alignment in my brain housing group.

Second. You have waaaay too much time on your hands, my brother by another mother but thanks for figuring that out.



Tommy -- I'm going to fall in next to you. United we stand.

......jerry, after you told me the handles on the "ole smoky" were bone instead of delrin, i got out my "minnie mouse" magnifier and looked at the handles on the 100th anniv. which, to my eye, looked identical, and you are right, they are bone!!!..i can see a few fissures, plus the bottom of one side has small streaks of brown!!!.......live and learn!!!!..................... .....................

It takes a lot of magnification to see it, but there it is. I keep having this nagging feeling there's one more of those 72s from the '90s that has bone handles but I just can't get the memory retrieval system to work.

I had this bone handle turn up in the mail today.It has 72 on the other side of the blade

Wow! Did it come that shiny?
I think that is the shiniest bone handled 72 I have seen!

Nice one!

Dale. It looks like it has been polished .I would like to know how they get blades that shiny.I can get a mirror finish but it does not shine like this knife .If you look close it has some scratches and pitting.It in good shape all the blades snap like new.
Grant

Grant -- As I said in the other thread and I think it bears repeating, you done yourself real proud with that one.