Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Buck Knives' started by DDDWho, Apr 11, 2019.
Does it qualify as a Bowie?
Most say it is a Bowie.
I consider it a Bowie.
I respectfully disagree...
I think a Bowie isn't a Bowie without a proper clip point.
Here are a couple of the ones I had handy.
Not that it matters but you can find plenty of articles and reviews on line that refer to the 124 as a Bowie. It is even on several top ten Bowie lists.
But I agree the clip is a little too subtle to be very Bowie like.
It is difficult to even know what the original Bowie even looked like. But most described the top of the blade being sharp. So that would exclude the 124.
To me the height of the blade is more important than the clip or the length. In my eyes a 124 is a Bowie but the 120 is not.
Fact is there is no set definition of a Bowie to go by.
@Makael has a clip point 124...so yeah kinda a Bowie then......
Yes that’s what I have heard and read about. There are several different opinions about what qualifies as a Bowie knife but most agree it has a deep thick blade and larger than regular hunting knives. There were short and long versions but I wonder how many short ones started out as longer blades that had the tips broken off and were re-ground. Usually you see the more upswept clip point and some sharpened on the top edge along the clip. I’ve also heard different descriptions of Jim Bowie’s knife and how it was made but most agree that it was a large deep blade about a quarter inch thick.
I consider the 124 a Bowie type knife even if it doesn’t have the upswept tip. They did make some limited edition 124s recently that have a more Bowie type tip. I’d like to have one if they weren’t so expensive.
I consider it a bowie also....
Who to say what an original looked like but I'm pretty sure it didn't have aluminum...so to me...it's just a damn fine knife.
The subject of the Bowie Knife (what is and what isn't) is unsolvable. I consider my Buck 124 knives to be Bowie's and a part of my small Bowie collection. I do not consider my 119 or 120 to be Bowie's - too small. OH
Well, my opinion: The 119 is a small bowie and the 120 is a lathy bowie. The 124 is a clipless bowie.
I agree; In the absence of an original Bowie one opinion is as good as another, as long as the knife has some of the traditional features of a Bowie. OH
It's a diving knife that has been repurposed.
I went ahead and gave my green micarta 124 a slight clip point. I also ground the large guard down similar to ones ive seen Joe build. I want to make a slip sheath for the 124 but the large guard was hard to accommodate. Plus it makes the knife feel smaller for some reason.
I like how you done the guard I might do the same thing
I've read the first knife Bowie owned by Jim was commissioned by his brother Rezin from a maker in Arkansas. The description of which resembles an Old Hickory butcher knife more than what we think of as a Bowie knife today and he owned many knifes in his lifetime of differing designs.
I suppose if one likes the 124 use it and call it what ever you want.
Well done Mike! I'd accept that one being a Bowie.
I figure any large bladed knife as being a Bowie since the original has never been found... Some readings say the blade was forged from a meteorite and the blade was sharpened on the top "clip" point for upward thrust as in disemboweling the victim....Also there were 2 of them, his and his brothers...
I really like that Mike, I have dubbed it the Looper Clip. It is sure to catch on, copyright it now!