Buck Strider vs. Strider

Well, there may already be a review done on the Tarani. I just can't find it.

Cliff made some statements earlier that almost indicate he is talking about two different knives.
For example: in the review in the link he says,


During one of the high load torques (150 - 200 lbs) with a slight sideways distortion, the liner slipped just enough so that it was barely engaging the blade and since the tang was then only on about 1/3 of the liner it sheared a piece off with a snap and some sparks.
Click to expand...

But here in a post he says:

When the Buck/Strider lock disengaged to the extent it was partially making contact I pressed down on the handle and the shear force readily cracked the lock face, again not a serious amount of force, I use the Vapor much heavier all the time.
Click to expand...

So in both cases the lock was barely engaging the blade when it gave out but one was after a force of 150 to 200 pounds and the other was not any serious force. In both cases apparently the lock face broke. I'm very curious to see the other review on the 882 with the steel lock that this thread was started about. Either that or Cliff's explanation as to why he thinks 150 to 200 pounds of force isn't anything serious.
 
I bought a Tarani one the other day. I didnt waste any time putting it to use, Im pretty impressed especially when I take into consideration the $75 I paid for it. Im taking it to Iraq.

I was told that the unmarked tarani blades are 440C, is this true? When I bought mine the display had the Bos ATS-34 logo and the one in the box didnt.

When I flick the knife open the liner does not just go in place, it takes some additional pressure to get it to lock. Not much pressure at all, but enough to take some extra time. It seems the fit is too tight. If I decide to remove some material what is the victim, the blade or the liner? I cant take it back because the store is about a thousand miles away, and Id like to avoid sending it in for repair if I can.
 
I'd just use it for some heavy work and give it some twisting and torque after batoning it in a log and see if it doesn't start moving in further after that. But it may be that you got one that isn't engaging properly. My lock travels clear over to the last part of the other side of the tang. Has since the first flick open of the blade.

To my knowledge Buck doesn't use 440C. I think the ones that are not ATS34 are 420HC.
 
If it isn't marked it should be, and most likely is, 420HC. Buck's 420H is actually pretty good stuff. Just keep opening and closing the knife for a while and see if the lock breaks in. Just so I understand this, it doesn't engage enough, or it engages too far? If you send it in for repair you are looking at an 8 week turnaround. You can try to post on the Buck forum, under the manufacturers area, and there is a Buck employee that posts there. Maybe he can get you a new one fast. Good luck and keep your head down over there. I had fun my first time. I am home injured from training to go back, so I just get to sit here and post all day :rolleyes: . Let us know if you need any further assistance.
 
I agree with USAFSP. Tell them your story of the box saying it was ATS34 and how you were decieved as well as the fact that you are being deployed to Iraq and they may expedite the shipment or do something special for you so you can still have a good reliable knife with you on your tour.
 
STR said:
Either that or Cliff's explanation as to why he thinks 150 to 200 pounds of force isn't anything serious.
Click to expand...

I was refering mainly to the effort to disengage the lock which was just wrist torque, and not near full effort. Once it starts to disengage the strength is moot, you can decrease the load required to crack the lock by simply decreasing the engagement, the less contact the lower the force require to induce face cracking, which of course drops to zero with no engagement.

Those numbers may sound high, but they are actually not a serious exertion, all it takes is a a shoulder lean, basically just relax your lower body and take the weight on your shoulder, it will easily generate a close to body weight force, unless you have a disability, any normal person can do this with no significant effort.

In retrospect though, when I wrote the above I didn't think I used an arm lean to break the lock, I was thinking it was more of a wrist torque. This is one of the problems I have with the older reviews, often I don't note enough detail and 5-10 years later I wonder just how much force I was applying.

For example recently I was fooling with some knives doing the car cutting that McClung used to do to promote his knives and I intended to compare the results to what I found with the TUSK and Trailmaster but I don't recall how hard I was batoning those knives, I know it wasn't near full effort, but don't recall if I had my back into it or was just going from the shoulder or even elbow.

Live and learn, but then again when I started the reviews almost ten years ago now, I really didn't think it would turn into what it did, so some of the early ones were really subjective like "I used it for 4-6 hours chopping before I had to sharpen it." It would have been nice to know the wood type, was I limbing or cutting to length, or the condition of the wood.

unclejoe357 said:
When I flick the knife open the liner does not just go in place ...
Click to expand...

This is common with liners and integrals, give it a few inertial openings and/or spine whacks and set the lock.

-Cliff
 
Cliff, have you done a review on the Buck Strider Model 882 Tarani with ATS34 steel? (or any Buck Strider SNG copy?)
 
The Tarani I have feels very good in the hand and is quite comfortable even under hard use. The deep grooves make for a great grip and the knife overall seems very stable to me. Of course I'm saying this after sanding it down to remove a little bit of the abrasive texture that I didn't like. Now that I've "pocketworn" mine it is within tolerable standards for me but still tacky enough to grip it.

I think judging all Buck/Striders based on one review of one model is kind of well, surprising coming from you but also not fair to the other knives being made by Buck/Strider. I also don't think it is fair for you to say in this review/comparison that the Buck/Strider you tested was one of the easiest locks to defeat that you have seen or tested when it wasn't pointed out in that same statement that the one you tested was a different model of knife with a titanium lock than the one we have been discussing.

The 880 review, or that failure you created has little relevence to the 882 model in this thread and is decieving when it isn't pointed out that you tested a different knife than the one this thread is about. Anyone not aware of the knife you tested would read your statement to sound like you said you know this 882 Buck/Strider knife, tested it, and that it failed easier than others you have tested and this is not the fact of the matter at all. The fact of the matter is you have never tested a Buck/Strider 882 Tarani.

As for the review you did on the 880: From what I can tell in your review of the 880 when the knife finally failed, after performing quite well up to that point I might add, it was from operator error on your part Cliff and not due to any real fault in the knife or the lock. You said it yourself that due to the leverage and sideways forces from trying to remove it from a knot you hammered it into that you moved the lock so it barely engaged the blade and then you shoved down on it.

What did you expect to happen? I take issue with you or anyone else blaming this behavior on the knife, the maker, or the materials it was made of. I also take issue with the way you condemn Buck/Strider for saying it is the expected behavior like they were supposed to say something else. Knowing all the facts that took place in your test, as I'm sure they did, they had to agree that it was expected of the titanium to react this way. For proof of this I suggest to you to wedge your Sebbie lock in a tree knot the same way or any other similar locking knife like that RJ Martin you posted a link to so the lock is only partially engaged and tweak on it the same way and see how different one piece of 6AL-4V titanium is from another one in how it bahaves.
 
STR said:
I think judging all Buck/Striders based on one review ...
Click to expand...

I am not, I am judging them by the designer saying it is the expected behavior. As for it being a different knife, yes, however why would I assume one of the models has a more secure lock than the others.

I take issue with you or anyone else blaming this behavior on the knife, the maker, or the materials it was made of.
Click to expand...

The face break under the vertical load doesn't really concern me about that knife in particular, though it does make a point about partial engagements in general. My issue with that knife was the insecurity under torques which is what lead to the break being possible in the first place.

-Cliff
 
why would I assume one of the models has a more secure lock than the others.
Click to expand...

Gee I don't know. Maybe because one is steel and the other titanium, or one is thick and one is thin since you have pointed out so well that the thickness doesn't matter as far as security or dependability. What is the point of testing a large and small Sebenza if one test tells all? For that matter why test various models at all if one liner lock, one lock back, one axis lock and so on told you all you need to know?

The designer is saying simply that it is the expected behavior of titanium. It has little if anything at all to do with design.
 
I have the Tarani and hope to one day own an RC(fng) but for now the tarani is fine. I have used it alot on boxes, platic containers, plastic jugs, some wood, rope, zip tyes and food. Its got the g-10 handles.I dont really use it hard so the liner thickness has never been an issue, but its never given way and I have no blade play in any direction, its just as tight as my sebbies. It is a little grabby in the pockets and it is a little bigger than I am used to carrying. However like previously mentioned the lock has become easier through use and it flyes open like a dream. I got this from USAFSP and I think for how much it is its a decent knife made of good steel thats been heat treated by a guy who knows his stuff. I was and remain somewhat skeptical of the liner mysefl but for now its been tight and true and I dont plan on peeling back any car hoods with it, like some have with thier sng's(which is amazing).As far as edge retention goes it holds up as good as any of my benchmades with ats-34, I find the tarani Has a good bite to it especially with cardboard. I strop it everday after use and sharpen it on the spyderco as need be. It sharpens up fine enough for me. Overall I like it, yeah its liner is a little thin but it fits great in my hand and I love the strider design so until I can afford one or trade for one this lil guy will do(and after all isnt that why they were made?)
 
STR said:
What is the point of testing a large and small Sebenza if one test tells all? For that matter why test various models at all if one liner lock, one lock back, one axis lock and so on told you all you need to know?
Click to expand...

One test doesn't tell all, but when the designer tells you the described behavior is the intended performance then there is little reason to explore the matter further. I have read no public statements that any of the other Strider folders, Buck or the customs are any better, and I have asked, so I have little interest in them.

As to liner/integrals in general, everyone of the more than a dozen I have used, from very cheap to high end (Sebenza), all have the same problems with regards to torque insecurity, so I have no interest in them for a heavy use folder in general. In general, how many times would you recieve defective products in general before you write them off?

Lets say you buy belts for your sander, and over the course of more than a half a dozen years, everyone one of the belts you buy from XXX breaks in the join prematurely. How many would you have to lose (with the maker confirming this is the expected behavior) before you would switch brands.

I would bet it is no where near a dozen, I would also bet in general that it would be very rare to find a tradesperson who would buy more than one when you can easily find belts that won't break. Even without the maker confirming it, few people would try more than a couple.

The designer is saying simply that it is the expected behavior of titanium. It has little if anything at all to do with design.
Click to expand...

The insecurity has little if anything to do with the liner material, the Sebenza Ti frame lock is more secure than the Vapor steel one. Most of the promotions such as really thick handles, overbuilt pivots, very thick and stiff liners, etc., do little if anything to increase security.

-Cliff
 
The insecurity has little if anything to do with the liner material,
Click to expand...

I agree here. The material the lock or the liner is made of has little to do with how well the knife is made or designed.

The security is not what they were talking about at Buck/Strider when they made that comment. What you did to that 880 was shear the lock face off Cliff. Granted the chacteristics of that particular type of lock may be responsible for the lock not egaging fully at one point when you were trying to remove it from the knot. Still it was your error that broke the lock.

When you did that to the lock you reported it to Buck and Strider and they said it was the expected behavior. My understanding in that exchange is that it is the expected behavior of the titanium to shear and spark as it did because that is what titanium does. That is what they were referring to and not the design or security of it.

Seems to me that the small gents folder type liner locks that are short and harder to make twist stand up better to tests that defeat bigger knives. The length and size of the folder may be a large part of many of these failures because many times I read of smaller ones of much thinner overall material size passing all tests admirably where longer, larger foot print ones twist and bend and easily allow the lock to defeat. It may be that folks in general making larger so called 'heavy use' folders of liner lock designs are fooling themselves from the word go. It may be that the liner lock is just destined to perform best in smaller folders only due to the insecurity problems showing up in the larger ones all the time.
 
STR said:
The security is not what they were talking about at Buck/Strider when they made that comment.
Click to expand...

No, Mick specifically noted that you could cause the bar to disengage, this was the expected behavior I noted in the above, and that is the critical point not the actual breaking.

Still it was your error that broke the lock.
Click to expand...

There was no error, the lock was stuck in a piece of wood and leveraged to work it loose, the lock disengaged, to examine why it disengaged I viced it and did some work exploring torques and loads, the combinations of which broke the lock, it was intentional use to replicate the falure and see what happened.

As an aside, considering the size, nature and grind of the knife, it is hardly an "error" to assume it should be able to handle a task which I can do easily with a Cold Steel Voyager, it is certainly promoted for uses which would supply far greater loads to the knife and the blade is obviously designed for handling far greater loads than I supplied to it.

-Cliff
 
Mick specifically noted that you could cause the bar to disengage, this was the expected behavior
Click to expand...

Cliff. Expected behavior when the blade was stuck in a vice or when stuck in anything? Or did he say? If the lock did not fail during spine whacks I fail to see how leveraging it up and down vertically would cause it to disengage. You had to be putting lateral stresses on it as well as leveraging up and down to make the lock defeat.

Regardless of the lock mechanism you take a calculated risk each time you do a heavy type job with a folder such as you did in that test. Still a risk is there with a fixed blade also but perhaps less since there is no lock to disengage on you whether by accident or faulty design.

I have a little trouble faulting any knife that fails in a test when it broke in a vice at the hands of a man trying to make it fail so he can see a percieved problem closer up. Seems like the knife performed well up to the vice test. Even after you caused the lock to defeat in the knot the lock was still useable after that.

The lock disengaging during the knot issue is still questionable (at least to me) as to who or what is to blame there. There is the question of if it was operator error or a faulty lock mechanism reponsible there. How much abuse is a folder supposed to take before it is deemed unworthy? I don't know. Anyone?

I've since bought an 881 model which is the Mini version of the knife you tested. Mine is a spear point. Looking at this beast of a little giant one has to wonder the kinds of stresses laterally that would be necessary to move the lock or twist the body. We are not talking just casual wrist twist here because it takes way more than that to move this body. Way more. I've tried. The pain factor with your bare hand gets to the point that you can't continue because it hurts.
 
STR said:
Expected behavior when the blade was stuck in a vice or when stuck in anything?
Click to expand...
It disengaged in wood, I checked it in a vice so it would be easier to see. It is the expected behaviour under torques and the breaking torques+vertical loads.

If the lock did not fail during spine whacks I fail to see how leveraging it up and down vertically would cause it to disengage.
Click to expand...
These are very different, one applies a head load slowly and the other usually a much ligher load more quickly, it is like comparing strength vs toughness in steels. Note the vertical loads didn't disengage the lock, the torquing did, the loads just broke it due to lack of engagement.

Regardless of the lock mechanism you take a calculated risk each time you do a heavy type job with a folder such as you did in that test.
Click to expand...
This implies the risks are similar with all lock types, they are not and this is the issue. Yes you can break/disengage any lock, some are more capable than others, just like some steels are stronger, tougher, more wear resistant, etc. .

I have a little trouble faulting any knife that fails in a test when it broke in a vice at the hands of a man trying to make it fail so he can see a percieved problem closer up.
Click to expand...
It would depend on how and when it failed. Alvin Johnson recently talked about some flex tests he has done on various steels in vices, some steels are much stronger than others. Should all of this be ignored because it was artifically done in a vice and not in "real world use".

Even after you caused the lock to defeat in the knot the lock was still useable after that.
Click to expand...
Most disengagements don't damage the lock, the issue is more of the possible damage to the user.

The lock disengaging during the knot issue is still questionable (at least to me) as to who or what is to blame there. There is the question of if it was operator error or a faulty lock mechanism reponsible there.
Click to expand...
Not considering the promoted uses of the knife and the massive blade, it was promoted for heavy prying, bodyweight even.

How much abuse is a folder supposed to take before it is deemed unworthy?
Click to expand...
More than the blade seems obvious, otherwise the design is inconsistent and the profile should be adjusted to the lock strength.


The pain factor with your bare hand gets to the point that you can't continue because it hurts.
Click to expand...
All I ever use for torque is wrist strength, the Buck/Strider was really weak, some liners/integrals are better than others.

-Cliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top