Durability-folder vs slip

[n8swag]

Which is more durable in your opinion? A slipjoint or a lockback folder?

 

[Blues]

In the same pattern knife, several makers I have spoken with have indicated that a lockback would be more robust over time due to less of a chance of a broken backspring.
(This is assuming that the lock and its own mating surfaces are not compromised, naturally.)

Opinions may and most likely will vary.

 

[Humppa]

Interessting question. I think this can´t be answered generally.

If you ask me - I think that depends on how the knife is built, which materials are used for the backspring, the liner and all the other parts (especially the pins). On a slippie there might be the most dangered part getting any damage by using (not abusing) the backspring. Because it´s held under tension while opened and closed and that tension can be pretty tough.
On a lockback - the pin that keeps the backspring for opening and closed gets the most dangered part of such a knife. I was just looking at my Buck 110 and the backspring is just fitted into the frame and held by one (strong) pin. If there´ll be any disfunction of this pin, the whole mechanism wouldn´t work correct anymore (IMO!)

I really think this can´t be answered in general, depending on which materials are used and who took a look during QC on each of these patter any flaws couldn´t be seen and dicfunctions could be possible.

 

[Lycosa]

Both are equal, if used as they were intended.

 

[akadave2]

Most of the lockbacks/clip designed knives also have some sort of bushing or bearing material AND the ability to adjust blade tension, so they definitely have the advantage.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

To me, it's sort of a moot point. I think how a particular knife is used has a much greater impact on durability over the long term. There's sort of an inherent assumption (whether valid or not) that a locking folder is somehow 'tougher', and I think a lot more of them get abused as a result. Pivots or locks might not fail, but broken blades/tips seem to be pretty common on abused locking folders. If a knife is actually used as a cutting tool only, and not as a prybar/screwdriver, it'll likely last for decades under typical use, so long as one doesn't take it to a bench grinder every time the edge needs 'touching up'. Even cheap knives can last a very, very long time if just used as intended (as a cutting tool).

Something as simple as good edge & blade geometry, blade finish (polished vs. not) and maintaining best-possible sharpness goes a long way toward making a knife last & work longer. A sharp, slick, effective slicer requires much, much less force applied when cutting tougher materials. That alone will save a lot of wear & tear on a backspring or lock bar and, to me, renders the differences between slipjoint or lockback almost irrelevant.


David

 

[akadave2]

To me, it's sort of a moot point. I think how a particular knife is used has a much greater impact on durability over the long term. There's sort of an inherent assumption (whether valid or not) that a locking folder is somehow 'tougher', and I think a lot more of them get abused as a result. Pivots might not fail, but broken blades/tips seem to be pretty common on abused locking folders. If a knife is actually used as a cutting tool only, and not as a prybar/screwdriver, it'll likely last for decades under typical use, so long as one doesn't take it to a bench grinder every time the edge needs 'touching up'. Even cheap knives can last a very, very long time if they just get used as intended (as a cutting tool).

Something as simple as good edge geometry and maintaining best-possible sharpness goes a long way toward making a knife last & work longer. A sharp, effective slicer requires much, much less force applied when cutting tougher materials. That alone will save a lot of wear & tear on a backspring/lock bar.

Tougher versus Durability? I think they can be mutually exclusive. I have some pretty old slipjoints that have never been abused, used yest but not abused that have by the nature of the designe some wobble in the blades just from opening and closing. They are direct surface bearing with no means to easily tighten them up like you have with most modern liner or other locking type blades. I think a lot of the modern locking knives are designed more as sharpened pry-bars rather than precision slicers. Slipjoints seem to be the later. Why, this morning I used my 2012 Forum Knife to cut bagels for my co-workers. The Wharnie blade went through the bagels like it was a laser.

 

[pinnah]

Neither.

IMO, durability needs to be understood in the context of usage. I regularly use a pocket knife to cut limbs up to about thumb thickness (often doing yard work). When doing this, the blade will jam up a bit in the wood and then I give a bit of a twist to free it. Or I'll have to push really hard to clear the wood. Lots of pressure on the blade. Any knife I've had that relies on 2 slabs of material joined with a peened pivot pin ends up with some play. Lockbacks that I've used end up with vertical play.

My Opinels handle this just fine. I think a big part of it is the stronger structure of the inner collar compared to 2 slabs of handle material. Another part is a comparatively thin blade, which helps divert stress to the blade and away from the joint. And another part of it is the camming of the lock ring which takes up any slack in the pivot.

Do I abuse my knives? I dunno. I use them like I use an Opinel. Maybe better to say I think the lock ring design is just fundamentally more robust than the slipjoint, lockback or liner/frame lock design.


Every Day Carry Pairing by Pinnah, on Flickr

 

[pinnah]

Most of the lockbacks/clip designed knives also have some sort of bushing or bearing material AND the ability to adjust blade tension, so they definitely have the advantage.

I'm not sure this is true. Bushings make a pivot smoother, but I believe that bushings made of softer material are related to vertical blade play.

 

[knarfeng]

Which is more durable in your opinion? A slipjoint or a lockback folder?

I dunno. None of my knives in either style has ever failed.

 

[LKJW]

I dunno. None of my knives in either style has ever failed.

good answer :thumbup:

 

[Jack Black]

I had a Sheffield-made British Army clasp knife as a kid, and it's the only folder that I've ever really abused the heck out of. My grandfather carried it in WW2 and so it had seen a lot of use when I got it. It ended up as a toolbox knife, and got used for all sorts of things, including lots of heavy prying. It never came anything close to failing, or even really developed any sign of wear, but those knives are big heavy folders with strong back-springs.

 

[Per-Sev]

Which is more durable in your opinion? A slipjoint or a lockback folder?

You question is about two specific style of knives a slip joint and a lockback, not frame locks or other styles of folding knives. Comparing just those two knives I would say it depends on to many factors to just say which is more durable, such as blade thickness, spring thickness, frame thickness, heat treatment, handle design, blade grind and so on. If you had two identical knives one a slip joint and one a lock back made by the same person out of the same steel and so on I doubt it would make any difference they should both last a equal amount of time if you use them the same way and don't pry with one and not the other. In other words its a very hard call so I call them equal given they are equal to begin with.

 

[akadave2]

I'm not sure this is true. Bushings make a pivot smoother, but I believe that bushings made of softer material are related to vertical blade play.

I guess thats not a fair comparison either. I have taken locking blade knives apart many time to either change a bushing or to check on wear, then when the knife was back together it was easy to eliminate play with the adjustable pivot pin. Slipjoints typically dont have those features so a comparison as far as durability of the pivot is not apples apples.

As far as durability of the knife proper...again I think most locking/clip knives ( of which I have a couple dozen) are more robust but less capable slicers. So for "abusive" use they would be more durable.

 

[stockdog]

To my way of thinking they are completely different, the lock back is a 110 with thicker blades for harder use and the slipjoint a stockman with thinner blades for cutting ability.
Bob

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

To my way of thinking they are completely different, the lock back is a 110 with thicker blades for harder use and the slipjoint a stockman with thinner blades for cutting ability.
Bob

A more direct comparison could be made between a Buck 110 and a more 'traditional' folding hunter pattern, like the Case 6165 (single blade, non-locking), 6165L (single blade lockback) or 6265 (2 blades, non-locking), or the Schrade 125OT (single blade, liner locking) or Schrade 25OT (2 blades, non-locking). In terms of heft, robustness, blade thickness, length and geometry, these are very similar to the Buck 110. The Schrade versions are full flat grinds; the more recent Case versions are 'saber' hollow grind, most similar to Buck's blades.

 

[stockdog]

A more direct comparison could be made between a Buck 110 and a more 'traditional' folding hunter pattern, like the Case 6165 (single blade, non-locking), 6165L (single blade lockback) or 6265 (2 blades, non-locking), or the Schrade 125OT (single blade, liner locking) or Schrade 25OT (2 blades, non-locking). In terms of heft, robustness, blade thickness, length and geometry, these are very similar to the Buck 110. The Schrade versions are full flat grinds; the more recent Case versions are 'saber' hollow grind, most similar to Buck's blades.

Very good point, I get lost in my own knife world and carry two to three knives most times. Forgot all about the big slipjoints. Thanks
Bob

 

[jackknife]

To me, it's sort of a moot point. I think how a particular knife is used has a much greater impact on durability over the long term. There's sort of an inherent assumption (whether valid or not) that a locking folder is somehow 'tougher', and I think a lot more of them get abused as a result. Pivots or locks might not fail, but broken blades/tips seem to be pretty common on abused locking folders. If a knife is actually used as a cutting tool only, and not as a prybar/screwdriver, it'll likely last for decades under typical use, so long as one doesn't take it to a bench grinder every time the edge needs 'touching up'. Even cheap knives can last a very, very long time if just used as intended (as a cutting tool).
David

David, I wonder if you haven't touched on the real essence of the thing here? The perceived ability of the type of knife.

We've all seen those photos here of old, very old well used knives with the blades sharpened down to a couple of steel toothpicks. It took decades of use to do that, and that meant the owner took care with his tool. It got treated like a cutting tool, and well maintained. It was heavily use, but not abused. A lot of our grandfathers did not have the very large amount of disposable income that we enjoy today. Also they were not knife nuts. They looked at a knife as a daily tool, and most men took care with their tools. By contrast, todays knife market is filled with knives that are advertised to be more than a knife, the great hyped zombie killer or pry open a Brinks armored car door. This is going to lead to some 'over use' by enthusiastic owners having great faith in the claims of the manufacturers.

I know of two young men that have broken a knife because they were abusing them. One was a ZT something that was being hammered through something. The young man was indignant over it, and stated that it was not even that big a hammer he was using. The other one was just as bad, the knife being leaned on and the lock gave out, causing the young man to be a patient at a hand surgery clinic to try to get the severed nerves and tendons working again. I can only wonder if the young men had grown up using slip joints, would they have made such a bad mistake?

By comparison, the men I grew up around had the same little slip joints for many years. They didn't go buy another pocket knife until they wore out the one they had, or it got lost, which was not often. My boss Ira had the same little brown handle jack for well over 20 years. Heck, my dad received a Case peanut from his mother when leaving home just before WW2, and he used it until just few years before his passing from leukemia in 1981. He used it gently, never abused it, stropped more often than sharpened, and was careful with it because it had sentimental value. He only stopped carrying it when arthritis made it hard for him to open it, and switched to a little Christy knife. If the peanut was not enough knife, then he'd use his cut down machete bushwacker tool he'd made. A true follower of the 'right tool for the job' line of thought.

Today, modern knives are marketed as the 21st century answer to King Arthur's Excalliber. And they are tougher and stronger built knives. I think this will lead to many knives being abused by their owners in the belief that the knife was designed to handle it, so it will be beat on. So I think we'll se a higher degree of damaged locking folders vs slip joints. But if each one, the slip joint and the lock back, are used as a knife only, I don't know if you will live long enough to see a difference. Used as a cutting tool, each one will get the job done, and most cutting jobs are not heavy duty. Aside from the odd Navy SEAL here and there, or the Walter Mitty type, how many of us are going to be in a situation where we will need to abuse our knife? Treat the knife as a cutting tool, and I don't think you will see any difference in service life of a slip joint vs a modern folder.

Carl.

 

[n8swag]

David, I wonder if you haven't touched on the real essence of the thing here? The perceived ability of the type of knife.

We've all seen those photos here of old, very old well used knives with the blades sharpened down to a couple of steel toothpicks. It took decades of use to do that, and that meant the owner took care with his tool. It got treated like a cutting tool, and well maintained. It was heavily use, but not abused. A lot of our grandfathers did not have the very large amount of disposable income that we enjoy today. Also they were not knife nuts. They looked at a knife as a daily tool, and most men took care with their tools. By contrast, todays knife market is filled with knives that are advertised to be more than a knife, the great hyped zombie killer or pry open a Brinks armored car door. This is going to lead to some 'over use' by enthusiastic owners having great faith in the claims of the manufacturers.

I know of two young men that have broken a knife because they were abusing them. One was a ZT something that was being hammered through something. The young man was indignant over it, and stated that it was not even that big a hammer he was using. The other one was just as bad, the knife being leaned on and the lock gave out, causing the young man to be a patient at a hand surgery clinic to try to get the severed nerves and tendons working again. I can only wonder if the young men had grown up using slip joints, would they have made such a bad mistake?

By comparison, the men I grew up around had the same little slip joints for many years. They didn't go buy another pocket knife until they wore out the one they had, or it got lost, which was not often. My boss Ira had the same little brown handle jack for well over 20 years. Heck, my dad received a Case peanut from his mother when leaving home just before WW2, and he used it until just few years before his passing from leukemia in 1981. He used it gently, never abused it, stropped more often than sharpened, and was careful with it because it had sentimental value. He only stopped carrying it when arthritis made it hard for him to open it, and switched to a little Christy knife. If the peanut was not enough knife, then he'd use his cut down machete bushwacker tool he'd made. A true follower of the 'right tool for the job' line of thought.

Today, modern knives are marketed as the 21st century answer to King Arthur's Excalliber. And they are tougher and stronger built knives. I think this will lead to many knives being abused by their owners in the belief that the knife was designed to handle it, so it will be beat on. So I think we'll se a higher degree of damaged locking folders vs slip joints. But if each one, the slip joint and the lock back, are used as a knife only, I don't know if you will live long enough to see a difference. Used as a cutting tool, each one will get the job done, and most cutting jobs are not heavy duty. Aside from the odd Navy SEAL here and there, or the Walter Mitty type, how many of us are going to be in a situation where we will need to abuse our knife? Treat the knife as a cutting tool, and I don't think you will see any difference in service life of a slip joint vs a modern folder.

Carl.

Excellent post!! I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

Very good point, I get lost in my own knife world and carry two to three knives most times. Forgot all about the big slipjoints. Thanks
Bob

:thumbup:
Those 'traditional' folding hunters are some of my favorite patterns, which is why I brought them up. I have a small drawer that I keep several knives in. Most of them are ones that I seem to gravitate back to, just to look them over, practice sharpening and compare attributes. I have a Buck 110 and an older Case 6265 literally side-by-side in there, as well as an older Schrade-Walden 25OT. In that sort of 'picture frame' setting, it's almost impossible not to notice the similarities or differences between them.

That older Case 6265 (SAB) is ~1965 vintage. It has the older 'XX era' (1940 - '64) frame, but with the 'CASE XX' and 'USA' stamp (no dots) on the main blade (1965 and later), which pretty closely dates it to ~1965, when that transition was made. I picked that one up on the 'auction site', in used condition. A fair but still relatively small amount of blade loss from sharpening over the years, with all of the scuffs and dinged bolsters that would be expected. But, I could see it was still relatively well taken care of, with no outward signs of abuse. I put new edges on the blades, and found the steel on these is a beautiful compromise between ease of sharpening and edge-holding. The pivot today, for both blades, is as tight & snug as can be. No play at all. That knife is the one I most often think of, when considering how these older knives were done 'right', and built to be used.