No, the REKAT rolling lock has a cam that moves out under spring pressure to catch a detente in the blade. The lock switch is on the edge side of the hilt if the blade is open. With the Axis lock, a bar slides back as the blade opens and then springs forward to lock the back of the blade. The lock switch is also on the back of the hilt when the blade is open. I cannot speak to the strength of the axis lock, but I have tried everything short of actual abuse and have had NO weakness in the rolling lock on the Carnivour.
The locking mechansim on the REKAT rolling lock (I have the older Pioneer) has absolutely ZERO play to it, where as on my Axis locks the blade moves a little bit but it is still very solid. I have done the spine tap (more like wicked whacks!) to both and I have accomplished was the dent up pieces of 2x4s. You can't go wrong with either design. Buy two of each like I did
In any case, both locks use the same general principle -- blocking the blade using a cross pin, which would have to be sheared in order to unlock it. At some point, you have to wonder "how much strength is enough"? Even if one of the locks eventually proved stronger, if the other was fairly close, who cares?
At the point, it's time to look at other factors, most importantly, the RELIABILITY of the locks. Based on my experience with liner locks, the biggest question is: will this thing accidently unlock on me? For both locks, the answer is probably "no", unless you get your thumb on the lock release button and engage it by accident. This is a matter of ergonomics and likely different for everyone's hand. So far, I can't get my Axis to accidently unlock, even when I'm almost trying to throw my thumb around. When I get my Carnivore, I'll see how I do on that one.
Joe has a great point; reliability and safety are key issues as much as strength. I know probably the biggest reason I prefer the axis in particular over linerlocks is the fact that as much as I try, I find little show of wear. I had really good luck with liner locks, and got very attached to my mini-Stryker. After a year of carry, the liner started wearing a good deal across the blade tang. I loved it so much that I considered having a custom maker make me some replacement locking liners for it that I could file to an exact fit to the tang. Instead I opted to try the axis and the mini axis and find them ultra reliable. As Joe was mentioning, I haven't gotten close to accidental unlocking or closure with these knives. I know that all I have to do if a spring fails is to either send it back for replacement or open it up and replace it myself (if I can ever find a source on those damned omega springs). I still love my liner locks, though I carry and use my two axis locks everyday (the strength is to me just a bonus). I really want to look into these REKAT models as well.
Benchmades policy with the lock strength of the Axis is one of the worst examples of promotion that I have seen. It states info that sounds impressive (200 lbs) but tells exactly nothing as there is not enough information to determine exactly what level of strength this is indicating. They should either clarify exactly how and where the 200 lbs is being applied or give the number for a well known knife like an AFCK so that the meaning can be guaged.
There is nothing wrong with a company being very specific about the capabilities of their products and quoting the exact test results to back up their claims. There is only one reason not to do this and it is quite simply so you can promote your products above their abilities. Spyderco has defined exactly what their statistics mean and are open about the abilities of their knives. These are brave steps by Sal and company and unfortunately it does not look like anyone it willing to follow them any time soon. There are some exceptions, first to mind is REKAT, but then again when you have the strongest lock on the planet there is little danger of being very specific about it
In terms of what I would actually want. I would like the lock not to fail under whatever force it would see under use. Anything over that is not of much use and while I would gladly take it if it was given, I would not trade off stability and security for it.
[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 16 June 1999).]
I agree with Joe, Professor and Cliff (thanx for the support). Also keep in mind that Benchmade's measurement was made by Mark before any standards were set and before anyone new about out breaking machine. I believe the axis is very strong. Lester said he's send me one to break. This always stems the desire for improvement, which is always good.
To clairfy some of the rumors McHenery and Williams and Bob Brothers and I were devoluping the locks at very close to the same time. On oppsite ends of the country. I don't know if they filed document disclouser, we did so we might pre date them by 30 days. The locks are simular and also diffrent. I think the Axis lock is a excelent design and hats off McHenery and Williams for a great lock. Both are very strong and secure, but a proper made liner lock or lock back while limited are also sufficant for most task a folder is designed to do.
The Rolling Lock takes folders into another realm and is up there with a fixed blade for true tactical and or heavy use. The main feature is that the Rolling Lock Wears in not out and actualy gets stronger with age.
Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints and escaping.
I completely agree, Joe. Only problem now is, as far as I know, there is no established standard minimum lock strength for folders for hard use. Will it be 1,000 ft/bls of torque? If so only REKAT's rolling lock would pass. Will it be 500 then? So far only Spyderco is asking the right questions and actively helping (thru this Forum) set the standard.
After this, I agree that a reliability standard (like what AT Barr and you have set with linerlocks and lockbacks) should be set for new locks (i.e., Axis, etc.).
I guess we need a SAAMI type of institution like in the firearm industry (maybe AKTI?) setting standards for lock strength and reliability.