Any folding knives built as strong as a CS Spartan?

[video=youtube;9ArDtLAAdH0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ArDtLAAdH0[/video]

Shark Knife is strongest always! Why keeping puny foldup in man-purse next to man-tampon?! All must stop owning lesser brand! Carry Shark Knife with confidence in full view of all adversary!
 
Last edited:
OK, I didn't want to talk about this here but "I'm Jason Bourne" and well having to jump regularly from building to building and dropping 2 or 3 floors at a time it tough on my knife. I do try to catch myself with my folder (driving it into a brick wall)...now what lock is going to save me?

PS: When the knife breaks it's embarrassing (I'm an Expert Assassin) makes me look bad, and I'm just too cool for that.
 
Here is some food for though (please, this is for reading pleasure, the discussion was on the Military folder, Sal posted some good history I would like to share):

I think some clarification of definition might help. This is just my opinion, of course. I’ll try to include some history for the “younger afi’s”. No doubt some will disagree with me. That's ok. My credentials are sound.

The first “Hard Use” production folder was probably Al Buck’s “110” in the mid 60’s.

The intent was to create a folding knife that could take on many of the pressures put on a fixed blade knife but be easier to carry. The knife had the ability to cut harder to cut materials and deal with difficult environments. The blade was thicker than “normal” folders, (fairly fine tip though). The lock was strong and exceptional steel (stainless 440C) was used to be able to cut the harder to cut materials. Pete Gerber followed with his folders, also made with exceptional steel. Al Mar began producing hard use knives with exceptional steels. Al also had a military background which influenced his designs.

Chris Reeve and Spyderco made hard use folders in the early 80’s. They were using better steels, strong locks and tough handles, many of these earlier hard use folders are still in service. In the mid 80’s a number of companies also began producing knives intended to go through tougher materials.

(“Hard use” is a marketing term that was created far later than the designs. The same is true of “tactical”).

Chris was using Titanium for his handles and he invented a new type of lock which proved to take impact well. The Reeve Integral Lock (often called a “frame-lock”) has “enjoyed” much attention. These were designed and built for hard use.

Then along comes Mick Strider. Here we have a knuckle dragging knife maker making knives for knuckle draggers. That sounds good to me. He said; What if I have to abuse my knife. What if I have to pry with it, or twist or dig, maybe hammer? Prying, digging and hammering with a knife is no longer “hard use”, it is “abuse”. Mick’s knives were made for abuse.

Another knuckle dragger, Ken onion, chimed in with the ZT line. Again, the knives were designed and built for abuse. Lynn Thompson was another that creates knives to be abused. First he made fixed blades and later with folders. These were also designed and built to take abuse.

It is interesting to note that some of these designers paid special attention to using exceptional steels. They usually used the best steels available at the time. They also used edge geometries that were more abuse friendly. The theory being; if you are going to pry, dig and hammer with your knife, these activities are very hard on the edge and once the edge is gone, what you have left is a folding club. Generally, exceptional steel will perform better and last longer.

I question the theory that a “lesser” steel can be easily sharpened. If you are not carrying a pry-bar, a shovel, or a hammer, you are not likely carrying a sharpening stone.

With that in mind, our Military model was designed to be a light weight, strong cutting tool and I guarantee it will poke and cut with the best of the “hard use” and “abuse” folders, and probably better. It was not designed or built for abuse.

We have had many of our troops write to us thanking us for making the model that saved their booty when needed. They had it with them because it was light weight and easy to carry. When we create a knife for our troops, law enforcement or emergency personnel (SAS – Save And Serve), we are very serious about cutting performance and reliability.

Perhaps some think that there is only one way to design and build a knife? Or that their definition of usage is the only one there is? Perhaps they can show me the knives they’ve designed and produced and we can discuss the merits and drawbacks of their design? There are ALWAYS trade-offs in design. Weight, performance, price, etc.

I will say that there seems to be a growing demand for folding abuse knives and we have several on the drawing board. They are being designed and built to take abuse. But they will not likely be able to cut and poke with the efficiency of the thinner Military blade nor will they be as light.

Just some thoughts to share.

sal

Now on to something else.

I think there's a fair amount of evidence demonstrating that the Tri-Ad lock is one of the strongest on the market. As for being able to support 500+ pounds, I was told by a Spyderco rep that in their testing of the new model BBL on the Manix 2, the knife supported over 1000 points at the pivot, at which point the handle disintegrated, while the lock remained fine. That's pretty darn good to me. I haven't heard much in the way of claims about the compression lock, and to be honest, I am unsure why it's supposed to be stronger than a liner lock. The physics is very similar, and they're going to fail in the same way. I don't think the AXIS lock is going to be quite as strong as the Tri-Ad or BBL locks from the tests I've read about, but it still is a VERY strong lock, and by far the fastest of the three.

Well I hope this can help you out understanding why the Compression lock will be stronger then a liner lock. (note NONE of these images are mine, resources are from Emerson, Bob Terzula and other members photos)

med_1306940928-compression_lock.jpg


As you can see you have 2 areas of contact on the lock alone, one underneath the stop pin and one against the blade. Now, when one makes a liner lock or framelock we want good 3 areas of contact.

LockInterfaceDiagram.jpg


linerlock.jpg


Now comparing the compression lock to a liner lock you see that the Compression lock engages between the stop pin and blade, therefore unless the lock slips, (I am not going to discuss correct angle engagement). The lock will have to suffer failure by either the stop pin shearing out, or the lock folding onto itself inbetween the stop pin and blade. A liner lock does not have this. So in short, the Compression lock has one extra (4) good contact points, whereas liner locks have 3.

Now, I thought today I would go and have a look at the Spartan again....to see if I miss anything....FOR ME, it is just to much to EDC, for the size I will rather go with a fixed blade and finally, damn that handle shape is just to small for my hands, even though I like the Tri-Ad lock, it still suffers one crucial issue that can hinder almost any lock. Pocket lint and dirt in the lock. Credit to Andrew Demko for taking a old lock design and improving upon it, for the moment it is one of the best, might be the best (never ending debate), but one day in future other locks will come out, or further improve, it is the only constant, change will happen.
 
In all seriousness, this lock system may be the strongest...

View attachment 228755

... but it's such a moot point. Slip joints do just fine for most cutting tasks. IMO the folder lock "arms race" is largely about marketing. And maybe it's a little bit about corporate pride. Gotta own some patents if you want to play in the big leagues.
 
Back
Top