Buford
Last seen for girls in 1952 at #5,563 · #10,695 for boys in 2025, 6 births
Given to boys 99.0% of the time
- Peak · boys
- 1910 · 63 births
- Debut · boys
- 11 births
- In top 100 · boys
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 10,854since 1880
Buford over time
Rank among boys' names. Buford has never cracked the top 300 here.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | — | #10,695 | 6 | |
| 2024 | — | — | ||
| 2023 | — | #12,239 | 5 | |
| 2022 | — | — | ||
| 2021 | — | — | ||
| 2020 | — | — | ||
| 2019 | — | — | ||
| 2018 | — | — | ||
| 2017 | — | — | ||
| 2016 | — | #12,185 | 5 | |
| 2015 | — | — | ||
| 2014 | — | — | ||
| 2013 | — | — | ||
| 2012 | — | #12,274 | 5 | |
| 2011 | — | — | ||
| 2010 | — | — | ||
| 2009 | — | — | ||
| 2008 | — | — | ||
| 2007 | — | — | ||
| 2006 | — | #10,662 | 6 | |
| 2005 | — | #7,096 | 10 | |
| 2004 | — | — | ||
| 2003 | — | #8,643 | 7 | |
| 2002 | — | — | ||
| 2001 | — | — | ||
| 2000 | — | #6,839 | 9 | |
| 1999 | — | #7,874 | 7 | |
| 1998 | — | #8,479 | 6 | |
| 1997 | — | #8,110 | 6 | |
| 1996 | — | #7,136 | 7 | |
| 1995 | — | #5,928 | 9 | |
| 1994 | — | #7,770 | 6 | |
| 1993 | — | #4,697 | 12 | |
| 1992 | — | #7,422 | 6 | |
| 1991 | — | #4,476 | 12 | |
| 1990 | — | #3,467 | 17 | |
| 1989 | — | #4,017 | 13 | |
| 1988 | — | #3,523 | 14 | |
| 1987 | — | #3,201 | 15 | |
| 1986 | — | #2,429 | 22 | |
| 1985 | — | #2,226 | 24 | |
| 1984 | — | #2,824 | 16 | |
| 1983 | — | #2,577 | 18 | |
| 1982 | — | #1,774 | 32 | |
| 1981 | — | #2,496 | 19 | |
| 1980 | — | #1,852 | 30 | |
| 1979 | — | #1,510 | 39 | |
| 1978 | — | #1,718 | 31 | |
| 1977 | — | #1,571 | 35 | |
| 1976 | — | #1,608 | 33 | |
| 1975 | — | #1,258 | 46 | |
| 1974 | — | #1,439 | 36 | |
| 1973 | — | #1,548 | 31 | |
| 1972 | — | #1,771 | 25 | |
| 1971 | — | #1,214 | 46 | |
| 1970 | — | #1,132 | 53 | |
| 1969 | — | #1,027 | 56 | |
| 1968 | — | #1,083 | 47 | |
| 1967 | — | #1,102 | 45 | |
| 1966 | — | #1,164 | 41 | |
| 1965 | — | #897 | 67 | |
| 1964 | — | #967 | 62 | |
| 1963 | — | #1,027 | 54 | |
| 1962 | — | #939 | 65 | |
| 1961 | — | #855 | 80 | |
| 1960 | — | #905 | 70 | |
| 1959 | — | #950 | 65 | |
| 1958 | — | #928 | 67 | |
| 1957 | — | #845 | 79 | |
| 1956 | — | #708 | 108 | |
| 1955 | — | #756 | 93 | |
| 1954 | — | #732 | 97 | |
| 1953 | — | #686 | 108 | |
| 1952 | #5,563 | 5 | #660 | 109 |
| 1951 | — | #675 | 107 | |
| 1950 | — | #599 | 130 | |
| 1949 | — | #550 | 148 | |
| 1948 | — | #560 | 143 | |
| 1947 | — | #526 | 166 | |
| 1946 | — | #534 | 145 | |
| 1945 | — | #525 | 129 | |
| 1944 | — | #464 | 172 | |
| 1943 | — | #451 | 198 | |
| 1942 | — | #457 | 182 | |
| 1941 | — | #432 | 183 | |
| 1940 | #4,349 | 5 | #427 | 186 |
| 1939 | — | #446 | 164 | |
| 1938 | — | #405 | 196 | |
| 1937 | — | #406 | 193 | |
| 1936 | #3,376 | 7 | #445 | 160 |
| 1935 | — | #424 | 174 | |
| 1934 | — | #374 | 211 | |
| 1933 | — | #418 | 169 | |
| 1932 | — | #368 | 228 | |
| 1931 | — | #399 | 200 | |
| 1930 | — | #370 | 240 | |
| 1929 | — | #378 | 230 | |
| 1928 | #4,195 | 6 | #379 | 240 |
| 1927 | #4,805 | 5 | #377 | 242 |
| 1926 | #3,046 | 10 | #359 | 264 |
| 1925 | — | #347 | 283 | |
| 1924 | — | #334 | 304 | |
| 1923 | #3,971 | 7 | #352 | 279 |
| 1922 | #4,011 | 7 | #334 | 305 |
| 1921 | — | #318 | 334 | |
| 1920 | #4,975 | 5 | #353 | 278 |
| 1919 | #4,251 | 6 | #357 | 258 |
| 1918 | #3,869 | 7 | #370 | 252 |
| 1917 | #4,594 | 5 | #353 | 249 |
| 1916 | #4,417 | 5 | #341 | 244 |
| 1915 | #4,274 | 5 | #372 | 209 |
| 1914 | — | #368 | 165 | |
| 1913 | #2,827 | 6 | #357 | 136 |
| 1912 | #2,144 | 8 | #370 | 108 |
| 1911 | — | #389 | 53 | |
| 1910 | #2,140 | 6 | #311 | 63 |
| 1909 | — | #408 | 36 | |
| 1908 | #2,101 | 5 | #326 | 47 |
| 1907 | — | #464 | 25 | |
| 1906 | — | #400 | 29 | |
| 1905 | — | #329 | 37 | |
| 1904 | — | #417 | 25 | |
| 1903 | — | #401 | 24 | |
| 1902 | — | #583 | 14 | |
| 1901 | — | #466 | 17 | |
| 1900 | — | #477 | 23 | |
| 1899 | — | #438 | 18 | |
| 1898 | — | #485 | 18 | |
| 1897 | — | #515 | 15 | |
| 1896 | — | #500 | 17 | |
| 1895 | — | #437 | 20 | |
| 1894 | — | #480 | 17 | |
| 1893 | — | #572 | 12 | |
| 1892 | — | #547 | 14 | |
| 1891 | — | #524 | 12 | |
| 1890 | — | #533 | 13 | |
| 1889 | — | — | ||
| 1888 | — | #554 | 13 | |
| 1887 | — | #631 | 9 | |
| 1886 | — | #758 | 7 | |
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | — | #613 | 10 | |
| 1883 | — | #597 | 10 | |
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | — | #595 | 9 | |
| 1880 | — | #571 | 11 | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Buford was already there! It came in at #571, and was given to 11 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 1882, when fewer than 5 boys a year got the name.
Where Buford is popular in 1926
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Tennessee#89 · 1 in 479
- Mississippi#154 · 1 in 965
- Georgia#165 · 1 in 1,175
- Alabama#167 · 1 in 1,146
- Arkansas#192 · 1 in 1,144
Best ever in a state: #78 in Tennessee, 1910.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | #89 | 50 | 1 in 479 |
| Mississippi | #154 | 21 | 1 in 965 |
| Georgia | #165 | 23 | 1 in 1,175 |
| Alabama | #167 | 24 | 1 in 1,146 |
| Arkansas | #192 | 16 | 1 in 1,144 |
| Kentucky | #204 | 18 | 1 in 1,419 |
| Florida | #218 | 9 | 1 in 1,696 |
| West Virginia | #244 | 9 | 1 in 1,951 |
| Kansas | #253 | 6 | 1 in 2,526 |
| Oklahoma | #258 | 12 | 1 in 1,888 |
| Virginia | #267 | 9 | 1 in 2,461 |
| Texas | #285 | 29 | 1 in 1,895 |
| Missouri | #316 | 8 | 1 in 3,687 |
| South Carolina | #351 | 5 | 1 in 3,666 |
| North Carolina | #474 | 6 | 1 in 5,663 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| California | — | — | — |
| Colorado | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Illinois | — | — | — |
| Indiana | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Massachusetts | — | — | — |
| Michigan | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| New York | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Ohio | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | — | — | — |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the boys born there that year. The SSA only publishes a name in a state when 5 or more babies of one sex got it.
See more about Buford
- Biggest jump: 182 spots in 1903 (#583 → #401)
- Biggest drop: 267 spots in 1966 (#897 → #1,164)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1910 at #311 (63 births)
- Births halved by 1972, 62 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 82 yrs · run 1890–1962
- Highest: 1 in 3,083 boys born in 1910 were named Buford (0.03%)
- Latest: 1 in 284,679 boys born in 2025 (0.00%)
- 25.4% of all boys named Buford (2,759) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 69 | #554 (1888) | #617 |
| 1890s | 156 | #437 (1895) | #503 |
| 1900s | 277 | #326 (1908) | #427 |
| 1910s | 1,737 | #311 (1910) | #359 |
| 1920s | 2,759 | #318 (1921) | #353 |
| 1930s | 1,935 | #368 (1932) | #406 |
| 1940s | 1,652 | #427 (1940) | #493 |
| 1950s | 963 | #599 (1950) | #754 |
| 1960s | 587 | #855 (1961) | #997 |
| 1970s | 375 | #1,132 (1970) | #1,477 |
| 1980s | 203 | #1,774 (1982) | #2,692 |
| 1990s | 88 | #3,467 (1990) | #6,536 |
| 2000s | 32 | #6,839 (2000) | #8,310 |
| 2010s | 10 | #12,185 (2016) | #12,230 |
| 2020s | 11 | #10,695 (2025) | #11,467 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 boys in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Buford in 1926
Top girls' names in 1926
Top boys' names in 1926
More about 1926
girls
1,185,401 girls got a published name in 1926; 1 in 118,540 of them was named Buford, which outranked 45.8% of the 5,622 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 22.5% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #2,872Zenaida11
- #2,872Zoa11
- #2,872Zuma11
- #3,046Buford10
- #3,046Adelaida10
- #3,046Adelma10
- #3,046Adena10
- #3,269Abelina9
- #3,269Adabelle9
- #3,269Adrianna9
Tied with 222 names at #3,046; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
- ↑ 1,047Janell#1,795 → #748
- ↑ 389Madalyn#1,225 → #836
- ↑ 382Evangelina#1,324 → #942
- ↑ 379Carla#1,252 → #873
- ↑ 351Vilma#1,020 → #669
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,110,505 boys got a published name in 1926; 1 in 4,206 of them was named Buford, which outranked 92.6% of the 4,837 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 33.0% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #356Stewart267
- #357Eli266
- #357Jake266
- #359Buford264
- #359Clark264
- #359Coy264
- #359Cyril264
- #363Patsy263
- #364Alva259
- #365Wiley258
Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
- ↓ 531Okey#984 → #1,515
- ↓ 459Florentino#973 → #1,432
- ↓ 407Rexford#924 → #1,331
- ↓ 380Marshal#973 → #1,353
- ↓ 378Coolidge#746 → #1,124
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.