How necessary are steel framelock inserts?

jstn

jstn

Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
3,737
Steel inserts on titanium framelocks seem to be becoming the industry standard in many production models, however, I notice three of the big names, Hinderer, Strider, and CRK have not began using the inserts in their knives.

Do lock inserts just represent one more moving parts that can become a problem, or are they really a necessary component? Or are Hinderers and CRK knives just so well made that lock wear is not really a concern with them?
 
I believe CRK, Hinderer and Strider all carburize their lock face. Then the steel insert is not really required.
 
Not sure how necessary they are or not. But some manufacturers have customers that use their knives to relieve their OCD symptoms like worry beads, they flick them open hundreds and thousands of times, then start complaining about blade play before they ever get the chance to cut anything with them. Seems like a preemptive measure to avoid worn out Ti sides.
 
It depends.

Does your favorite brand use them?

If they do then they are totally necessary and anything that doesn't have them sucks and it weaker and will wear out super fast.

If they don't then they are overkill and just shows that the companies that use them don't know what they are doing.


I have extensive experience with both and honestly it has zero effect on my purchasing decisions. It's cool that you can replace them but I've never had a framelock wear out yet so I'm not sure if that's super crucial.


What would be cool is if the lockfaces came mated to a blade so you could but different blade shapes for your knife and install the matching lockface so you won't have any fitment issues.
 
Steel lock inserts have benefits, but are not necessities:
- Greatly increased lifespan of a knife, as the insert can be replaced and is much cheaper to replace than an entire titanium scale.
- Greatly reduced chance of lock stick / galling of the softer Ti against the hardened steel blade
- An extra thing to be unnecessarily picky about when buying a $200 knife that you're unlikely to use anywhere near long enough or hard enough to wear out a plain Ti lockface

I prefer steel inserts for the first two reasons, and have come to terms with the reality of the third.
 
Scurvy092 said:
It depends.

Does your favorite brand use them?

If they do then they are totally necessary and anything that doesn't have them sucks and it weaker and will wear out super fast.

If they don't then they are overkill and just shows that the companies that use them don't know what they are doing.


I have extensive experience with both and honestly it has zero effect on my purchasing decisions. It's cool that you can replace them but I've never had a framelock wear out yet so I'm not sure if that's super crucial.


What would be cool is if the lockfaces came mated to a blade so you could but different blade shapes for your knife and install the matching lockface so you won't have any fitment issues.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm surprised most companies haven't embraced the insert idea. It would seem to take a lot of potential waste out of the manufacturing process - if you grind a Ti frame too short to interact with the lockface of the blade, then you're just screwed and have to use a different Ti frame. A small metal insert, though, if improperly ground, presents an teensy expense and is basically disposable if the lockface is ground improperly. Not only that, it makes warranty issues involving lock rock so much less expensive to fix in material cost.

It's the same with bearing pivots - I'm sure they're more expensive, but how many knives get sent back because of gritty or wobbly pivots? How many labor hours and shipping labels are created to fix problems that wouldn't exist with a bearing pivot? A caged bearing pivot usually precludes blade play and is seen as an improvement in the eyes of most consumers.

There are always the K.I.S.S. people, but I've yet to see any real-world validation for their concerns about extra parts causing a decrease in reliability. The only part I've heard of failing in a folding knife are axis springs and auto / assist springs, and those are thin metal bands put under repeated stress and pressure. Ask G & G Hawk, a pair of engineers by trade, if their incredibly complex mechanisms in their knives are prone to failure. They aren't. I don't think I've ever heard of a Kershaw ET breaking from repeated use, or a Chris Reeve TiLock, or a Kershaw RAM, or a ZT 0500 MUDD, or a CRKT Hawk Dog, or...
 
I see lots of new framelocks with a stabilizing washer on the lockbar, but others don't. Is this necessary or just another add-on? I would think with normal use the lock spring should last a very long time.
 
benjamin2515101 said:
I see lots of new framelocks with a stabilizing washer on the lockbar, but others don't. Is this necessary or just another add-on? I would think with normal use the lock spring should last a very long time.
Click to expand...

There was this exact thread right under yours. Merged. Maybe browse a bit first, lots of topics get discussed repeatedly.
 
RevDevil said:
There was this exact thread right under yours. Merged. Maybe browse a bit first, lots of topics get discussed repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Lockbar inserts ≠ lockbar stabilizers.

Not the same topic, really, but equally as unnecessary.

The lockbar stabilizer is, however, substantially more useless and offers no functional benefits outside of its single stated purpose - preventing overextention of a lockbar. An issue I have literally never faced in my life, having carried primarily framelocks for the last two years.
 
jstn said:
It has a screw and is removable, so it can very easily become a moving part.
Click to expand...

By that logic, the handles are moving parts, and so are the legs on my table, and the roof of my car.
 
How necessary are lock bar inserts? As necessary as steel washers between hard ceramic or steel bearings and titanium.

And if you feel one is necessary, then the other should be too. If not? Then neither are really not necessary.

From your standpoint as a consumer you should probably only be concerned if either of those features affects the price. If you buy a knife from a quality manufacturer then go with the cheapest option. With, withour, doesn't matter. There will be some new thingamajig coming along to make those features obsolete too. And you know what? Even with those new and improved features that just made all of your previous gizmos obsolete, your knife will still function like a knife.

Buy classy. Buy quality. Buy timeless designs. You'll wind up happier with your knife in the long run. If only I could go back to a Nokia brick cell phone, 62 corvette, 50 something Chevy truck, an M14, and a woman from the 1800's You know, when things designed correctly didn't need a lot of do-dads to work right.
 
I've never had a folder with a lockbar insert, but if they work well, I'd like to have one on my Bradley Alias.

The Bradley has been my daily carry folder, and my work folder for several years. As a result, it's been opened and closed A LOT. The lock surface has worn down, and I believe that lock-wear will eventually be the death of the knife.

They don't make this knife anymore, so neither the lock nor the entire knife can be replaced. I might be able to extend the life of the knife by hammering the side of the lock when it does wear out, but we'll see.

Of course, the Bradley doesn't have a lock insert, so that's just wishful and futile thinking on my part.

Some of us DO use our knives enough to wear them out. If not the blade, then maybe the lock.
 
I mostly just own ZT framelocks now, with steel inserts, which I tend to like. I do understand the reasoning behind them, and I think it seems sound.

I guess I am just wondering if companies known for their tight tolerances need not worry about their locks wearing out, or if they have a specific reason for not switching to inserts. Maybe because of the tight tolerances, they don't really have to worry about warranty returns for lock rock, etc.? It just seems to me that if the guy that invented the framelock doesn't use a steel insert, he must be either adverse to the particular change, he knows something others don't, or inserts are just another feature to get buyers.
 
killgar said:
I've never had a folder with a lockbar insert, but if they work well, I'd like to have one on my Bradley Alias.

The Bradley has been my daily carry folder, and my work folder for several years. As a result, it's been opened and closed A LOT. The lock surface has worn down, and I believe that lock-wear will eventually be the death of the knife.

They don't make this knife anymore, so neither the lock nor the entire knife can be replaced. I might be able to extend the life of the knife by hammering the side of the lock when it does wear out, but we'll see.

Of course, the Bradley doesn't have a lock insert, so that's just wishful and futile thinking on my part.

Some of us DO use our knives enough to wear them out. If not the blade, then maybe the lock.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this anecdote. I think it does a great job of illustrating that steel inserts CAN be a helpful upgrade.
 
bodog said:
How necessary are lock bar inserts? As necessary as steel washers between hard ceramic or steel bearings and titanium.

And if you feel one is necessary, then the other should be too. If not? Then neither are really not necessary.

From your standpoint as a consumer you should probably only be concerned if either of those features affects the price. If you buy a knife from a quality manufacturer then go with the cheapest option. With, withour, doesn't matter. There will be some new thingamajig coming along to make those features obsolete too. And you know what? Even with those new and improved features that just made all of your previous gizmos obsolete, your knife will still function like a knife.

Buy classy. Buy quality. Buy timeless designs. You'll wind up happier with your knife in the long run. If only I could go back to a Nokia brick cell phone, 62 corvette, 50 something Chevy truck, an M14, and a woman from the 1800's You know, when things designed correctly didn't need a lot of do-dads to work right.
Click to expand...

Women from the 1800s didn't need a lot of do-dads to work right because they weren't allowed to work, or generally make many decisions on their own. Nokia brick phones were indestructible but were useless for anything but texting and calls. My phone's internet connection has saved me thousands of dollars by being able to do on-the-spot research. 62 Corvettes and 50s Chevy Trucks had the fuel efficiency of a brushfire and weren't realistically any more reliable. Also, a head-on collision in either would probably kill you, whereas cars now are made to crunch up like a tin can to absorb the impact and save your life.

Older, simpler things aren't necessarily better. They're just older and simpler. Things become more complex because of innovation and consumer demand. Honestly, that line of thinking only really applies to knives... Except in materials. A Buck 110 from 1950 and a Buck 110 from 2015 are very very very similar except for material quality. Modern particle metallurgy has made pot-steel knives of old obsolete in every way except for their form. I could have a friction folder made from G10 and M390 that would absolutely destroy and outpace the exact same knife made from the materials available 40+ years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top