TouhouFan
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2024
- Messages
- 312
I know I am in the minority, but I’d like to share why I have stopped buying Chris Reeve Knives with the ceramic ball interface.
I tend to have a lot of knife tasks that require me to exert a lot of force on a knife. For example, triple or double walled cardboard. Even when a knife is sharp, requires a decent amount of force to get through.
With every ceramic ball interface Chris Reeve Knife I’ve had. When I do this, if the force is great enough (which is not enough force to where I would consider it abuse) the ceramic ball will crater into the lock interface. What happens with this, is that you get a decent amount of a type of “lockstick”. This is from the ceramic ball having to travel over the lip of the crater to settle into place. Or when unlocking, to travel out of the crater.
Over time, this will most likely wear in. However, it did not in my uses to the point where I just got rid of the knives. I’ve had this happen on the Large Inkosi, Small Inkosi, and Small Sebenza. Never owned a Large Sebenza, and with the Umnumzaan I believe the external stop pins provided some protection from this. However with EXTREME abuse it apparently does happen according to this video. You can see the results of the ceramic ball wearing into the lock face near the end.
I’ve owned many 21s and other knives without lock interface. I do the same thing with all my knives. Even for how thin the lock bar is and the blade is on my TRM Atom, it has no issues handling any task I throw at it. This calls into question what was a lockbar interface even made for? The answer from many is to extend the lifespan of the lock. However, I have been questioning that theory by talking and listening to knife makers.
According to the owner of Grimsmo Knives, the lockbar interface is mostly there to prevent the lockstick of titanium on hardened steel. However, properly done, carbidizing the titanium lockface does the same thing essentially and lasts a very long time and can be redone if needed.
In the video he also mentions, using a lockbar interface is easier than carbidizing for the manufacturer. I’m not sure if that is the case for every single maker, depending on process, but it does seem to be the case for Grimsmo. Well, after the lockbar interface has been tested and made that is, you can see how difficult it is to properly make one in the video above. Lockbars, especially steel ones, can be replaced if they are screwed in, fairly easily in most cases.
The problem with steel lockbars, which you can see in the video, is that they have a tendency to slip. If done properly, they will not slip, however to do so properly is very difficult. This is where I think Chris Reeve Knives made a choice. A ceramic ball is not only both the lockbar interface, and a detent ball… but it will crater into the tang of the blade instead of slipping like a lockbar would. They choose safety.
Now, all in all it does not really matter to the use of the knife if it has lockstick from hard use due to the ceramic ball cratering in on the lockface. It would also wear in perhaps over years (it did not for me but I assume it would over time, ceramic beats steel). However for me it just created an issue that the 21 did not have. Causing more lockstick, because they wanted a lockbar interface to reduce lockstick.
For me personally, I prefer the bare titanium interfaces that you find other titanium frame lock knives. Also the 21 and Mnandi are still winners in my book. Thought I’d share my experience, I realize not everyone may experience this issue, and I may be in the minority. I think the ceramic lock bar interface is still a great design, just not for my uses.
I tend to have a lot of knife tasks that require me to exert a lot of force on a knife. For example, triple or double walled cardboard. Even when a knife is sharp, requires a decent amount of force to get through.
With every ceramic ball interface Chris Reeve Knife I’ve had. When I do this, if the force is great enough (which is not enough force to where I would consider it abuse) the ceramic ball will crater into the lock interface. What happens with this, is that you get a decent amount of a type of “lockstick”. This is from the ceramic ball having to travel over the lip of the crater to settle into place. Or when unlocking, to travel out of the crater.
Over time, this will most likely wear in. However, it did not in my uses to the point where I just got rid of the knives. I’ve had this happen on the Large Inkosi, Small Inkosi, and Small Sebenza. Never owned a Large Sebenza, and with the Umnumzaan I believe the external stop pins provided some protection from this. However with EXTREME abuse it apparently does happen according to this video. You can see the results of the ceramic ball wearing into the lock face near the end.
I’ve owned many 21s and other knives without lock interface. I do the same thing with all my knives. Even for how thin the lock bar is and the blade is on my TRM Atom, it has no issues handling any task I throw at it. This calls into question what was a lockbar interface even made for? The answer from many is to extend the lifespan of the lock. However, I have been questioning that theory by talking and listening to knife makers.
According to the owner of Grimsmo Knives, the lockbar interface is mostly there to prevent the lockstick of titanium on hardened steel. However, properly done, carbidizing the titanium lockface does the same thing essentially and lasts a very long time and can be redone if needed.
In the video he also mentions, using a lockbar interface is easier than carbidizing for the manufacturer. I’m not sure if that is the case for every single maker, depending on process, but it does seem to be the case for Grimsmo. Well, after the lockbar interface has been tested and made that is, you can see how difficult it is to properly make one in the video above. Lockbars, especially steel ones, can be replaced if they are screwed in, fairly easily in most cases.
The problem with steel lockbars, which you can see in the video, is that they have a tendency to slip. If done properly, they will not slip, however to do so properly is very difficult. This is where I think Chris Reeve Knives made a choice. A ceramic ball is not only both the lockbar interface, and a detent ball… but it will crater into the tang of the blade instead of slipping like a lockbar would. They choose safety.
Now, all in all it does not really matter to the use of the knife if it has lockstick from hard use due to the ceramic ball cratering in on the lockface. It would also wear in perhaps over years (it did not for me but I assume it would over time, ceramic beats steel). However for me it just created an issue that the 21 did not have. Causing more lockstick, because they wanted a lockbar interface to reduce lockstick.
For me personally, I prefer the bare titanium interfaces that you find other titanium frame lock knives. Also the 21 and Mnandi are still winners in my book. Thought I’d share my experience, I realize not everyone may experience this issue, and I may be in the minority. I think the ceramic lock bar interface is still a great design, just not for my uses.
), think that the thought behind the ceramic ball interface was a few fold. First, they have been severely behind on their wait lists (as everyone knows) for a long time now and it takes a lot of labor to hand fit every folder so that the steel blade lockface and the titanium lockface mate up just right resulting in a solid lockup at the right lockup percentage. By using a ceramic ball, you don't have to shape the ball, as wherever the ball lands when the lock engages, it will result in the same amount of material (surface area) hitting the steel blade lockface. This saves time and might even make their lockups more consistent from knife to knife given they set the lockbar tension to the same bend/tension. And by using the ceramic ball interface you get the added benefit of not having the 2 clicks when opening the knife as the blade first comes off the detent ball and then off the lockbar.
