All About Pocket Knives

My most recent Buck acquisition is a bit of a weird one.
Looks normal at first glance, right? Typical 301 stockman, 3 springs, 420HC stainless, 1990 date stamp. Ho-hum, right? Everybody's seen one. Yeah, I thought so too. Then I tried to open the blades...
See the curiosity yet? I'll offer a hint: On 3-spring Buck 301s, which side is the spey normally on?
That's right. The nail nicks on the spey and sheepsfoot blades are on the inside... and obscured by the master clip blade. I can get an angle on the sheepsfoot and open it while the master is closed but the spey cannot be opened without opening the master first (or getting a needlenose pliers).

I suspect that this knife was assembled wrong at the factory. I see no evidence that the knife has ever been apart, and most newer 301s I've seen have the spey on the same pivot as the master and the sheepsfoot on the opposite end. But this one is more like a traditional stockman (and like the older 2-spring Buck 301). If anything, the error makes it more noteworthy in my book.

Assembly mix-up aside, and considering how little I use the spey on most standard stock knives, I suspect I'll be giving this knife a ride in the near future.

Being semi dyslexic... and left handed...this hurts my head!
Cool one!

Nice find. I wish I had that when I did my write-up on the 303. It really shows a point I was trying to make. Here is my comment from a year or so ago, and that was assuming the nail nicks were adjusted for the correct side:

"I have seen some comments saying that placing the sheepsfoot at the end opposite that of the main blade was a good choice. In reality, there was no choice. Each spring acted as a spacer, and therefore, two spacers could not be next to each other. In addition, the sheepsfoot is wider than the spey, from edge to spine, and unless it was the center blade, it would cover the nail nick of the spey blade making it difficult or impossible to open the spey."

Bert

Doc B wrote:Being semi dyslexic... and left handed...this hurts my head!
Cool one!

When I first got it and tried to figure out how to open the spey I think I started getting a bit of a headache too.

bertl wrote:Nice find. I wish I had that when I did my write-up on the 303. It really shows a point I was trying to make. Here is my comment from a year or so ago, and that was assuming the nail nicks were adjusted for the correct side:

"I have seen some comments saying that placing the sheepsfoot at the end opposite that of the main blade was a good choice. In reality, there was no choice. Each spring acted as a spacer, and therefore, two spacers could not be next to each other. In addition, the sheepsfoot is wider than the spey, from edge to spine, and unless it was the center blade, it would cover the nail nick of the spey blade making it difficult or impossible to open the spey."

A good breakdown, Bert. If that exact blade arrangement were flipped around, as they are on most modern 301s, the spey would be accessible and easier to open riding the outside spring (closer to the scale) although it might run low for some. I don't have a micrometer to confirm but I *think* the spey and sheepsfoot and corresponding springs might be the same thickness. The master doesn't have bear trap snap so it's not hazardous to lift the master without half stops which IIRC stock knives don't traditionally have.

Personally I wish they'd bring back the 2-spring design Schrade & Camillus used for the 301 (and I believe Buck carried it on themselves at one time). While the blades snap(pish) open and closed well enough, it doesn't "bite" like I like my larger stock knives to chomp. The action *is* smooth, so I'm a little torn on the design. The problem is less pronounced on the 303s, I've noticed, and I don't mind the construction on those at all.

I don't have a micrometer to confirm but I *think* the spey and sheepsfoot and corresponding springs might be the same thickness.

Maybe I should have used the term "depth" instead of "wider". I was talking about the distance from the edge to the spine.

Bert

Based on your observations, it does seem likely that this knife was assembled differently at the factory, resulting in the unusual blade arrangement. While it may have been an assembly error, it also adds an element of uniqueness and distinctiveness to the knife. The fact that you haven't found any evidence of the knife being disassembled or modified further supports the idea that it was assembled this way from the factory.

Your insight and attention to detail in noticing this assembly mix-up make the knife even more noteworthy, and it's certainly an interesting piece for collectors and enthusiasts. While the traditional placement of the spey blade might be on the same pivot as the master, the unique configuration of this knife adds character and a story to its history. Rainbow Friends

I would like to see both sides with each blade partially open, if possible. Thanks!

*Edit actually I don't need too, I think the blades are positioned that way because of the nail nicks.