How come everyone likes framelocks and nobody like linerlocks?

[ginshun]

Now OK, I know its not that quite cut and dry, but you know what I mean.

Framelocks are well respected as one of, if not the strongest locks available, while liner locks, which are virtually the same thing, are generally looked down upon.

The only difference that I can see is the thickness of the lock bar, and even with that, there are several liner locks out there that have a lock bar that is just as thick, if not thicker than some framelocks. Examples would be the Benchmade 910 and the Ontario Retibution.

What's your guys take on it? It there a difference that I am missing here?

 

[James Muehlner]

Well, I have had several framelocks, and several linerlocks. All of the framelocks are as solid as can be (as far as I can tell), but I would not trust either of the liner locks. (Spinewhack)

Also, the hand re-inforcing a framelock makes it seem more trustworthy. When holding the knife, it seems a lot harder for the framelock to come unlocked.
E.G. "white-knuckling" a linerlock seems to make it come open, whereas with a framelock it makes it stronger.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

Framelocks are well respected as one of, if not the strongest locks available, while liner locks, which are virtually the same thing, are generally looked down upon.

Strongest isn't the issue, they're both plenty strong. The issue is reliability. I think James's explanation above is simple and correct. Linerlocks are notorious for slipping off the blade tang; framelocks not. One of the big differences is that a strong grip, as might be expected during hard use, reinforces the lockup on a framelock. On a linerlock, a firm grip will often compromise the lockup, or at best do nothing.

The exception to this, seen easily enough yourself, is that with a firm grip on a framelock, if you torque counterclockwise (on a "righty" framelock), then framelocks have the same lockup-interference problem.

Joe

 

[razorsdescent]

under what circumstances are people torqueing their knives???

I and then when your torqueing why does it matte rif lock is engaged or not? wouldnt the stress be at the pivot?????

If i ever needed to pry with a folder i cant imagine an SmF failing just because its a frame lock.

 

[M Wadel]

framelocks are cooler

 

[joeshredd]

under what circumstances are people torqueing their knives???

I and then when your torqueing why does it matte rif lock is engaged or not? wouldnt the stress be at the pivot?????

If i ever needed to pry with a folder i cant imagine an SmF failing just because its a frame lock.

Stick either one into a thick medium (go to a butcher and stab a cow carcass ,) and under stress, twist as you withdraw... Framelock and liner lock can both slip in one direction, the framelock is reinforced when twisting in the opposite direction...

 

[Artfully Martial]

There is only one effective difference between them.

If you have scales on both sides, and want to maintain a certain handle thickness, the liner will have to compromise its thickness. That is to say, if they want the thickness of half a cm, they will have to increase the width accordingly.

However, framelocks lack these scales, at least on the lockbar side. Losing the width of the scales allows a thicker lockbar within the same thickness of knife.

If a designer sacrifices some thickness (make it thicker), he can create a liner lock as robust as a frame lock. The Benchmade gravitator is a nice recent example of this.


That said, I've seen no evidence to conclude that thicker lockbars make the knife safer. I've never seen a lockbar bend, even among the thinnest and most stressed...it no doubt happens in extremely rare cases, but not as a product of its thickness--although, it seems logical that being thicker makes this less likely to happen.

Where being thicker very well might help is in lock wear. With greater contact area on the tang, the resistance to move across the tang should be increased. I think this will reduce the long term wear.

It might even reduce the liner "slipping" off....but, again, in real life, liner locks fail towards lockup--they fail away from the open position and get locked between the tang and the handle--at least in cases of "spine whacking" the knife.

As per using a really strong grip, I can't make it happen for me, so it might just be a dimension of hands...however, should we choose to claim that framelocks are safer because they are reinforced by your grip, we should then exclude those framelocks which use their clips as lockbar stabilizers, preventing you from touching the lockbar. Of course, this is only valid in tip down knives.

A picture of my favorite production framelock. You can see that bar is obscured by the clip, and when it's open and that lockbar is recessed, you barely make contact with it. But I suppose even this is better than nothing, eh?

A good liner lock is fine, and a bad framelock is terrible. Both exist. And yes, I have seen a framelock fail under very moderate usage (no torqueing). Consistent lockup appears to me to be the most important aspect on either.

That said, I'm an axis lock guy.

 

[huugh]

Also dirt can get between scale and locking liner, framelocks obviously don't suffer with it (easier to clean)...

 

[gud4u]

I like liner-locks. I have 3 liner-locking folders (2 Militarys and a Buck/Strider Tarani) that will pass spine-whacking all day long, and have never failed.

I have an Axis Lock (Benchmade 806D2) that is very reliable.

I did have a frame-locker (Strider SMF), that is equally reliable, but my son has adopted that folder.

Among those folders, I prefer the liner-lockers. Why shouldn't I? They've proven extremely reliable. One-handed functionality is outstanding. They pop open faster/easier than the others, and one-handed closing is fast and easy.

A quality-built liner-lock is a quality-built lock - regardless of brand name on the knife.

 

[rifon2]

I recently bought a few high quality linerlocks, after not having bought a linerlock for a long time.

Once again, I find myself just enjoying the heck out of flicking it open and hearing and feeling the liner "ka-chonk" into place.

_______________

Anyway, I think Joe Talmadge and Artfully Martial in their posts have made all the points re: framelock-linerlock that I would want to make.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

under what circumstances are people torqueing their knives???

I and then when your torqueing why does it matte rif lock is engaged or not? wouldnt the stress be at the pivot?????

Okay, no insult intended, but I'm having trouble parsing the above But, let me answer the question I understand: when might people torque their knives? In regular utility use, any time the knife binds in something, it's natural to torque them out. And for those that carry for defensive use, the knife can get stuck and torques -- either accidental or purposely applied -- can occur. The bottom line is that we've heard about many liner lock failures due to torquing over the years. Anytime the torquing has some component of force going from spine-to-edge (i.e., most of the time), that stresses the lock.

Joe

 

[puukkoman]

I like liner locks, too.

Personally, I don't buy into the hype. I've never had a decent-quality liner lock fail.
Frame locks are neat.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

It might even reduce the liner "slipping" off....but, again, in real life, liner locks fail towards lockup--they fail away from the open position and get locked between the tang and the handle--at least in cases of "spine whacking" the knife.

AM, you definitely have some odd results sometimes! The above is one of them: in my experience and in years of reading tests from other people, liner locks almost never "fail towards lockup", especially in the case of spine whack tests; instead, they slide off the tang back to unlocked, which is the single biggest problem with liner lock reliability.

A good liner lock is fine, and a bad framelock is terrible. Both exist.

Good point, and one no one couuld disagree with. The problem is the chances of finding a good liner lock are relatively low compared to most other lock formats, and while bad framelocks definitely exist, percentage-wise they seem to be vastly outnumbered by bad liner locks. This is absolutely a game of probabilities, I don't think anyone would claim that all liner locks are bad -- it's a matter of seeing (say) 30% of liner locks fail a simple test, where 5% of lockbacks fail and statistically around 0% of axis locks fail. I just made those numbers up, but in my experience they're in the ballpark.

 

[ginshun]

Thats about what I figured I suppose.

 

[Artfully Martial]

Well, the results of our testing was definitely unexpected. I hadn't the faintest idea that the liner would move torwards lockup. Unfortunately, this created a new lock failure problem. In some of the knives, the lockbar would edge itself between the handle and the tang resulting in...semi permanent lockup. You have to take the knife apart again. This wouldn't be so horrible if it was only cases of hard spinewhacks, but the liner wear due to spinewhacks appears to be quite permanent. A well designed liner lock shouldn't suffer at all from the wear, however. As the M16s tested show, even at 100% wear, it could not be wedged inbetween the tang and handle and to this day it created no play in any direction.

I wish I had the financial capacity to test a lot of different liner locks. CRKTs were the most maligned of the "respected" companies, and also were the cheapest (at the time...now Byrd seems like a good choice).

I will say that the wear of that M16 is unprecedented among even my other CRKTs...even before testing, I could see its wear...

I have begun to hypothesize why they tend to fail towards the lockbar side, however. The m16s of the day, maybe the current ones too, took a LOT of pressure to push the liner over. I developed huge calluses on my thumb from that first week...it actually hurt a little. Alright, with that premise tucked away, let's get to the actual theory.

I believe that during a hard spinewhack, the lockbar flexes a very tiny amount. The intense pressure of the M16 and other liner locks (perhaps my new Avalanche...it's pretty strong..) forces it to move over that fraction of a mm while it loses contact with the tang during the rebound. It lockups at that spot and wears accordingly.

Therefore, with a much easier to unlock liner lock, say a Military, I might hypothesize that the liner might indeed fail torwards the unlocking side, i.e., dangerously.

In order to test this, we'll need pretty much any liner lock with a really high pressure lockbar, and another one with a low pressure lockbar. In hard spinewhacking, I hypothesize that we'll observe the high pressure lockbar failing "safely," whereas the low pressure might actually slip off.

The slipping, as we refer to it, always does bother me. Slipping to the unlocked position doesn't make sense to me...provided the force is perpendicular to the liner, the resistance should actually increase during spinewhacking, and with an active pressure in the opposite direction, it seems like we wouldn't have to worry about this. The liner lock flexing, as I've shown in my hypothesis above, should actually increase lockup.

Of course, none of this has any impact on failures when torqueing, which I haven't observed personally yet, although it certainly seems plausible.

 

[hardheart]

I don't know about the reinforcing of a framelock just from grip strength. With torque applied, sure; but just white-knuckling, the way the lockbar is recessed to the rest of the frame and the give of human flesh-I just don't see any level of grip preventing the miniscule amount of movement necessary to induce failure of the lock. Once the bar shifts, it's done, no friction and spring tension on the bar is purposefully weak (I assume everyone is able to disengage their locks without ripping off thumbnails)

I've never had a liner/frame bind the lock on a spinewhack, always popped the bar to unlock and the blade closed. I have seen them wear to that failure mode. Working on the roof with my friend and his dad, I noticed his dad's knife. It was a Winchester linerlock, the lock contacted the opposite liner, plus he must have pried with it before, as the scales had spread. this left a good bit of space between the blade and scale, allowing me to fold the knife halfway closed with the lockbar engaged. I pointed this out, he said the knife was old-except his idea of old is about 18 months.

 

[Artfully Martial]

What if the difference in observations of liner lock failures are the result of different angles of flex in the lockbar during a spine whack.

Consider this: if the lockbar flexes its tiny amount in the direction of the other scale, the lockface will point slightly towards the unlocking side, which could cause a failure. Conversely, if the bend forms on the side of the liner lock itself, the lockbar will move towards lockup and wear or bind.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

I don't know about the reinforcing of a framelock just from grip strength. With torque applied, sure; but just white-knuckling, the way the lockbar is recessed to the rest of the frame and the give of human flesh-I just don't see any level of grip preventing the miniscule amount of movement necessary to induce failure of the lock. Once the bar shifts, it's done, no friction and spring tension on the bar is purposefully weak (I assume everyone is able to disengage their locks without ripping off thumbnails)

Don't look at it that way, look at it like this: when you whiteknuckle the lock on a framelock, the lock engages more and more deeply (which is why it will often be very hard to unlock after you've white knuckled it). Once it's stuck in there really good, it seems to resist slippage better. Okay, you've white-knuckled it and the lock is good and stuck, and *now* you torque it or whatever: does it make sense that it will resist slipping better, now that it's firmly compressed against the tang? In the case of a torque, which is relatively slow (compared to a spinewhack), with your hand providing constant pressure on the lock, if friction is overcome your hand will push the lock inwards, rather than let the tang unlock it again. Spinewhacks are different -- the energy comes so fast, once there's space between the tang and lock, you're likely doomed (as you point out), so you're probably depending on the initial white knuckle jamming the lock hard enough that it will survive the spine whack.

Joe

 

[Joe Talmadge]

What if the difference in observations of liner lock failures are the result of different angles of flex in the lockbar during a spine whack.

I think flexing is important, but you shouldn't be focusing solely on the lockbar. The tendency of washers to compress and handles to flex (even a tiny amount) is also interesting, especially in the case of torquing.

 

[hardheart]

I think length of the lockbar, angle of the bend, angle of the tang face, and tension of the lockbar all have to do with the ability of a linerlock to hold or fail a spine whack. Oh, and blade shifting. I learned this from emails to Kershaw, and it makes sense. The blade can twist on the pivot (especially if the washers allow it, like joe mentioned) which changes the angle of the tang face to the lock bar.

Joe, it's probably just the framelocks I've handled, hand shape, or the way I hold my knives, but I've never compressed my lockbars further. When I squeeze the handle, the pressure is top-bottom, so I guess I can't/don't reinforce the lock.