importance of locks

[Habeas Corpus]

No one is saying that you should treat a lock-blade knife like a slipjoint; but on the other hand, you do need to remember that it is a folding knife, not a fixed blade. Likewise, you shouldn't treat it as if the lock will fail, but that it can fail.

I agree. Any lock can fail, it's a potential weak spot, and it's worth bearing that in mind.

But this does'nt mean it doesn't make a difference whether a lock is reliable or not, and it seems pretty clear that some locks are better than others in this respect. I'm certainly not going to use a lock that has a dubious track record, and IMO linerlocks have a dubious track record. From all I've seen and heard it's the lock that's most difficult to get right, even for top manufacturers. So, why should I use a knife with a linerlock, when there are so many knives with more reliable lock designs?

Using a knife with a lock with a good track record from a reputable manufacturer seems like a good way of minimizing the risk of something going wrong.

Hans

 

[Cliff Stamp]

My point was that a slip joint didn't have to be limited in useage ...

This is completely false and trivial to illustrate by any of the examples of use noted in the above. Yes people use slip joints, I carry slip joints, and I don't have a problem with the blade collapsing because I know what they can do and limit the use accordingly.

My point is that it is senseless to trust the lock to the extremes of yours and other guys testing methods because they are not real world tests for the majority of locking knives made IMO. All this talk of how the lock is integral to the function of the knife is not true with the majority of the locking knives sold today Cliff.

The high end tactical knife market is very large and those locks are not simply safety devices, they are there to allow the knife to be used for tasks beyond the ability of a slip joint. Are their knives for which locks are just safety devices, yes, are their knives for which it is much more, yes.

The knife is meant to cut and so long as you do that the lock will work as it is designed to.

Again simply false, tactical/survival/emergency knives are not intended simply to cut, they are designed for chopping, prying, impacts, stabbing/thrusting, etc. . This is a very large part of the current folder market, it is in fact the majority of many companies.

Sticking the lock in a partially split tree limb and twisting it like you do is not a real world test.

Again lots of knives are made for this as noted in the above, and lots of them do it trivially. Just because it is very problematic for liner locks doesn't make it invalid, it means that lock type has a problem.

However, some of the knives you say are used for backward cutting where the lock is integral are few and far between Cliff.

No it isn't, again consider the size of the tactical folding knife market, both custom and procution.

[chinook]

It's lock is MBC rated and yet when someone whacks it as hard as he can on a 2x4 on a bench and it fails/defeats it is considered faulty now and sent back to the factory for evaluation but not before being talked about negatively in public. This is rediculous in my humble opinion and it is primarily because of talk like yours about locks and causing misperceptions of what they can actually do (and other people/manufacturers as well) here and elsewhere that people think this is a faulty lock now in their public view and perception.

That is faulty, it should not behave that way, it isn't a slip joint and should not be held to the same standards.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

Cliff it sounds to me like you want to make the locking folder regardless of type, a fixed blade in strength and you want to write your own book on 'normal use' and redefine what major manufacturers consider normal use. To promote it like that is what is false. IT CANNOT BE DONE! You can't re write the manufacturers warranty just because you think it is time to raise the bar on locking folder standards.

As for the Chinook. I doubted the story at first but after thinking it over and hearing other reports and talking with some friends that also love and make knives my thoughts are that I doubt there is anything wrong with that Chinook folder. In fact it is probably par for the course on all of them and the Manix too. You guys promoting these locks as you do are the only thing false around here. If it is a folder and it has a lock it can fail and when tweaked the right way (or wrong depending on point of view) it will fail. What is so hard to understand about that? You can only go so far with the strength. You know as well as I do that there is no 100% secure lock made.

, it means that lock type has a problem.

Yes the lock has a problem. The locks only problem is people like you using it Cliff. No one else that I know considers it normal use to twist the knife body when the blade is stuck in a tree limb. No one I know says that there are some folders made for this task or for prying either. I don't think I know a single company that is going to cover that kind of usage under warranty. Most manufacturers warranty for normal use and say their knives are for cutting only so what you are saying they are made for is going to most always fall into the abuse category. Same with spine whacking; spine whacking your folder is not real world usage of a knife and will most likely void the warranty if the manufacturer knows that is what was done. (notice I did not say spine tapping.)

The problems of some liner locks defeating in a cardboard box or on a rose bush are real world and those mean more to me than your split tree limb test which is just bogus in my mind. Would the same locks that fail in that test fail in the box or the branch? Doubtful.

I don't recall saying that the better locking folders couldn't be used beyond the limits of a slip joint. That is obvious. They can be. I simply said it is a good idea to remember you are carrying and using a folder. Big difference.

In my mind, chopping, stabbing and thrusting are all different methods of cutting and depending on the blade all these things can be done with a slip joint in the right hands. It is not advisable to be doing much stabbing but when you stab a tomato to slice it you can do it so long as the pressure is pushing back toward the back spring and not the other way. No one is claiming a slip joint is a tactical defense weapon. They are cutting tools just like locking folders.

Last tactical knife I bought said in big letters in the paper work that came with it that using it as a pry bar would constitute abuse and would void the warranty. What tactical knife are you using where the manufacturer feels otherwise and has that in writing or on their web site Cliff?

In my mind based on military training and my family LEO feedback a folder is always a compromise to a fixed blade for the kinds of things being done with these folders that are used for prying, heavy stabbing and thrusting like in personal defense. Idealy the best thing to have on you first would be a hand gun, then a fixed blade and lastly a folder as a last resort. For those that only have a folder well yeah, they want the best one they can find but what is wrong with pointing out that this does not change the fact that generally speaking a folder is still a compromise/substitute for a better tool?

 

[Sword and Shield]

I don't care if my knives have locks or not. Overall, I can use a slipjoint for everything, including heavy cutting, and I have never had one close on me.

 

[marauder220]

I think some of the tests could duplicate real-world use, especially if all one has on hand is a folder and a task has to get done using just the folder. Hence it will be subjected to rather hard use\abuse. It's nice to know if the lock will hold up. I can't comment on the Chinook, since I've never owned one.
As for spine whacking, I believe it has some merit in certain regards. One of my uses for a folder could potentially be defensive and the last thing I want to worry about is the lock slipping and getting injured by my own knife. If the spine-whack is a basic indicator of lock strenght, that's what I have to work with since I don't own any scientific testing equipment, etc. Reading about the Chinook, Manix, etc, failures got me thinking again. I picked up the Manix originally to replace an SNG that had faulty lockup, and now apparently this Manix has issues as well. Folders are limited, but sometimes they are all you have.

 

[Gryffin]

So, why should I use a knife with a linerlock, when there are so many knives with more reliable lock designs?

Well, because there are knife designs out there that are only available with a liner lock. The lock design, then, is just another feature that you have to weigh when you choose a knife, based on your needs.

Using a knife with a lock with a good track record from a reputable manufacturer seems like a good way of minimizing the risk of something going wrong.

Agreed.

 

[STR]

Speaking of warranty coverage lets look at a few tid bits from some of the more popular makers of tactical folders that are considered to have both a strong fan base of supporters and strong locks.

Just some partial pastes here and not the whole warranty of course.

Warranty review

Spyderco says;
For the following repairs, please include $20.00 plus $5.00 shipping and handling:
Blade or Edge -- broken tip from prying or dropping, destroyed edge due to improper sharpening, loose blade from abuse, rust due to neglect or other blade issues. (Spyderco is unable to replace blades in most models)

Spyderco knives are designed and built for use as cutting tools. Use of our knives for any purpose other than cutting is considered abuse. As with any usable tool, Spyderco knives can wear out. They may also fail to perform if not used or cared for properly. If your knife has been put to hard use for a long period of time it is possible that Spyderco will not be able to improve the condition of your knife.


Cold Steel says;

The Cold Steel Warranty covers our products when they are used as they were intended to be used. For example, do not use your knife as a pry bar, axe, chisel, screwdriver, or saw.

Bench Made says;

Do not use your new knife as a screwdriver, prybar, chisel, or punch. Do not throw your knife or use it for any purpose other than cutting. Do not disassemble your knife. Do not sharpen your knife on a power grinding wheel.
Any of these acts will void your warranty.

Emerson says;

Your Emerson knife is built to withstand the rigors of extreme use, but it is a knife, not a chisel, screwdriver or hammer, and it is not intended for use as such. This knife is a cutting tool and is not designed for throwing. Do not use it in that capacity.


That is just from the four big ones that I happen to buy a lot of. I believe the Ritter knife mentioned by Cliff is made by BenchMade so it would fall into this warranty. I venture to say that none of the major manufacturers will agree that prying is considered within the normal parameters of knife usage.

 

[Gryffin]

However, some of the knives you say are used for backward cutting where the lock is integral are few and far between Cliff.

No it isn't, again consider the size of the tactical folding knife market, both custom and procution.

Can you name me a few production folders that have sharpened clips/spines/double edges for back-cutting? Cos I sure can't think of one off the top of my head.

 

[mike_mck2]

Then I guess Sal Glesser is also at fault for helping to perpetuate the falsehood about locks for not only not denouncing the uses that lead to the Chinook II and Manix problems, but hell, for having a lock rating system period!

Why not go straight to the source STR and set Sal straight? And once you get done with him, start on the other companies and makers that also promote their folders high speed/hard core use as well.

And if you have time, I would like to hear about your success in this endeavor.

 

[cpirtle]

STR, I think your logic is flawed but I follow and somewhat agree with what you are saying.

The problem I have is that companies like Spyderco come out with MBC ratings and advertise their lock stregth (I own a Chinook I and others). Companies like Strider advertise the bullet proof overbuilt folder (I have an AR). Whenever companies advertise extreme numbers I think it's up to the market to determine through testing how those claims hold up.

By your standard Spyderco should not be stating which knives have an MBC rating because their locks should not be counted on past some imaginary baseline of useage. What determines that baseline? If your argument holds water there should not even be a baseline, because the liner lock is (easily) arguably the least strong of any modern lock, so no lock should be trusted past the strength of a liner lock.

Why do auto companies crash test cars? To test out the safety systems. What's wrong with people like Cliff testing a folding knife to its limits? Or someone like me using my own experience to determine if the lock of a specific knife I plan to carry meets my personal standards?

Knives are not always meant to be used delicately, and some of us do not carry fixed blades often or at all for various reasons. So why do people like you have a problem with those of us who want to know what the strogest lock is?

 

[mike_mck2]

Can you name me a few production folders that have sharpened clips/spines/double edges for back-cutting? Cos I sure can't think of one off the top of my head.

I use the back of my knife blade quite often, for scraping flange surfaces, mud off of fan blades, quick digging, etc.
Anything I don't need the cutting edge for, and that would just needlessly dull it, I use the back of the blade. Further, quite a bit of self defense techniques use the back of the blade as well.

Just because someone's experience or understanding does not encompass the use of the back of the blade does not mean it's not valid, and it's certainly not abusive.

 

[Gryffin]

Just because someone's experience or understanding does not encompass the use of the back of the blade does not mean it's not valid, and it's certainly not abusive.

Hey, chill out there, pardner. I never said Cliff's argument wasn't valid, just that I couldn't think of a single folder designed for back-cuts. Still can't, in fact.

I use the back of my knife blade quite often, for scraping flange surfaces, mud off of fan blades, quick digging, etc.

Well, so do I, and I imagine a lot of us here do that. Cliff was talkiing about back-cutting, though, and that's what I asked about.

Further, quite a bit of self defense techniques use the back of the blade as well.

Fair enough. I haven't studied knife fighting, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[mike_mck2]

Hey, chill out there, pardner. I never said Cliff's argument wasn't valid, just that I couldn't think of a single folder designed for back-cuts. Still can't, in fact.

Okay, I guess I did get carried away over not much there.
It just seems like here lately I have been seeing quite a bit of people with not much experence discounting experience of others.

Well, so do I, and I imagine a lot of us here do that. Cliff was talkiing about back-cutting, though, and that's what I asked about.

While I can't think of any double edged knives, I can think of several that are very close to double edged, and could easily be taken the rest of the way.

The SERE 2000 springs to mind, and a few MOD knives as well.

Perhaps it's a legal consideration for not completely making them double edged. I have no idea.

Fair enough. I haven't studied knife fighting, so I'll take your word for it.

I have not either. I am no knife fighter, or even a wannabe. I have only passing acquaintence with the various techniques touted is all.

 

[Gryffin]

So why do people like you have a problem with those of us who want to know what the strogest lock is?

I know you weren't talking to me, but what you said got me thinking...

No one has a problem with you, or anyone else, wanting to know the strongest lock. But I think you're asking the wrong question.

We should take care to not confuse the strength of a lock with the security of a lock.

In the case that started off this whole convoluted thread, two Chinooks and a Manix failed a spine-whacking test. Are those three locks, supposedly the strongest Spyderco makes, weak?

No.

Strength is a static attribute. I have no doubt that you could clamp the blade of any three of those knives in a vice, and hang a small-block V8 off the handle. From what I've heard of Spyderco's testing, that's pretty much what they do.

The problem with spine-whacking is, it's not static, it's dynamic. You're applying a sudden transient load to a knife in motion; things move that shouldn't.

That's the problem with liner locks: I've seen a couple fail, from the liner popping out of engagement with the blade tang; but I've yet to see a case where the liner just buckled, i.e. mechanical failure. Conclusion: the liner lock design is strong, but not always secure.

Same thing with lockbacks. The lock should hold until either the blade tang notch or lock bar notch shears, which takes a huge load to do... unless the angles are all wrong, and the blade can just wedge it's way out of the lock. Strong, but not always secure.

So, what am I getting at?

Let's not lose sight of what we're really after: a lock that's strong and secure. Looking only at the type of lock (Axis, liner, frame, lockback, etc.) doesn't tell the whole story. Likewise, looking only at the static strength of the lock design can be deceiving: you could block a blade with an eight pound hunk of kryptonite, but if it pops out of place at the wrong time, you could get hurt.

I'm glad to see Sal ask to analyze the knives. It's clear that the locks on them are strong, but perhaps there's a possible failure of the locks' security that didn't show up in testing. Getting to the root cause is the responsible thing to do for a maker who's striving to make the safest product possible.

As for spine whacks in general, it's obvious to me that there's a lot going on that we don't entirely understand, parts moving in ways that intuition, or static analysis, tells us they shouldn't. Failures happen on solid, strong, well-made knives, even with light, fast whacks that wouldn't even close a slipjoint.

So like I said earlier, any lock can fail, and the user must recognize that fact, or take his chances.

 

[STR]

There is a big difference between gross abuse and working within the limits of what the folder can do and is made to do. Joe pointed out in another thread that a real world use of the knife can be when it is stuck and you pull it out and it flails behind you giving the spine a whack on a tree or some other hard surface. This is a real world use. From what I understand in this case, the Chinook and the Manix took enough to prove they can take that but the user wasn't content with that. He had to try whacking it again, and again and again until it failed and now he wants it checked to see if it is ok or faulty. Unbelieveable IMO.

I use the back of my blades as scrapers too. In fact my David Boye folder is made with a scraper on the spine of the blade. Any locking folder should be able to do that relatively safely and it falls within normal parameters of use. A knife should not have lock defeat from heavy stropping or scraping and even light whacks from normal use that occur on the spine. That is not what we are discussing here Mike. Cliff and others here think that this Chinook and Manix are faulty because the locks failed after being spine whacked repeatedly. I do not. I think they are probably still very secure locks for 'normal use' or at least they were before being beat up. At first I thought it was not a true story at all based on my experiences after owning one of each. I guess the jury is still out on the outcome here but we will know soon enough I hope. And Mike. I have contacted Sal and expressed my views on this matter FYI.

No company warrants spine whacking as a normal use for a knife particularly when it is repeated heavily until it forces the lock to bust or defeat. I didn't set the standard or write the warranties they did. The warranty is the baseline to go by. In my view, if your knife fails from doing something to it outside of the warranty coverage of normal use you have no one to blame or complain to but yourself.

Name me the companies that warrant this type of repeated spine whacking use and call it normal Mike. (or anyone else.) I am not talking about Cliff's tests when a company sends in their knife for him to give them a review so they can see where they are strength wise. Those cases are different. Cliff is doing this at their request much of the time. This is no different than Lynn Thompson doing his severity tests. We all like to see them and we all need them to make educated decisions but, just because they do this to the knives they test doesn't mean it is considered normal use or covered under warranty. Think it is? Read the warranty. Every knife I own is warranted as a cutting tool. Not a pry bar, not a screwdriver, not a chisel but a blade made for cutting.

Cpirtle I don't see how you read into some of my argument what you have determined but to answer some of what you said; just because a lock is MBC rated doesn't mean it is bullet proof as you put it. It doesn't give the owners of these knives a license to beat them to failure and have them covered under warranty either. I've been saying this the whole time. "it is a folder". The lock can fail.

You would agree that some locks are stronger than others right? Some can do things others cannot do. I agree with that too. You can't judge all locks or put them all under the same bar at the same level to judge them. I never said you could. Some seem to want to though. I have read that just because of the Axis lock that it moved the whole bar up another notch. BS. Each lock is different and has its own set of limits and its own strengths for using the blade as a cutting tool. Again; there is a difference between using a knife delicately, using it heavily and grossly abusing it.

I guarantee you that if I wanted to beat the strongest lock out there repeatedly that something eventually is going to give or at least loosen up on it if not break.Yes even the MBC rated ones. You guys that think my logic is flawed should all write a book for the masses and title it "How to void a Warranty". Promoting false hoods is not what anyone of the manufacturers did. Read their warranty fully and understand that just because the lock is strong doesn't mean it is bulletproof or infalable or that you can just pick a table or a 2x4 one day and start whacking the hell out of the spine without consequence or danger just because it is an MBC rated lock.

I make primariliy folding knives. Both lock backs and liner locks and I can tell you now that if you beat mine on a board just because I said the lock was strong you can expect to pay to have it fixed when you crack a handle or loosen the lock up.

For the record. I think Sal should charge this guy any repairs for gross abuse of the knife by using the knife for a test that is considered by most every manufacturer of knives out there to be enough to void the warranty completely.(providing any repairs need done on it.) For that matter anyone else that does this to their knife and sends it back to him should be charged for the repairs also. I base this on the warranty and what constitutes normal use. Not Cliff Stamp normal use but normal common sense use by 99.9% of the buying public that carry and use knives.

 

[cpirtle]

Just want to correct some misconceptions and apparantly incorrect "reading between the lines" of what I wrote...

We should take care to not confuse the strength of a lock with the security of a lock.

I never did. I fully understand the difference and this is a fine line you're walking to make a point. Security of a lock is directly related to the strength if you are using it in an extreme situation.

In the case that started off this whole convoluted thread, two Chinooks and a Manix failed a spine-whacking test. Are those three locks, supposedly the strongest Spyderco makes, weak?

No.
.....
The problem with spine-whacking is, it's not static, it's dynamic. You're applying a sudden transient load to a knife in motion; things move that shouldn't.

I have not read the thread in question, nor do I need to. Beating a knife until it breaks then calling it defective is not something I'm in favor of.

At what point did I advocate the spine whack? I don't do it, and feel there are better ways to test a lock.

Despite the above, read my first post to this thread, I have had a liner lock fail on me in just the real world, non abuse type scenario people think the spine whack fails to support. This was a tactical grade, $450+ custom from a "top" maker.

Let's not lose sight of what we're really after: a lock that's strong and secure. Looking only at the type of lock (Axis, liner, frame, lockback, etc.) doesn't tell the whole story. Likewise, looking only at the static strength of the lock design can be deceiving: you could block a blade with an eight pound hunk of kryptonite, but if it pops out of place at the wrong time, you could get hurt.

This is a broad based statement that does not apply to everyone. If a company advertises (or insinuates) their lock is bullet proof than people have every right to prove those claims, to what extreme is up to debate.

I'm glad to see Sal ask to analyze the knives. It's clear that the locks on them are strong, but perhaps there's a possible failure of the locks' security that didn't show up in testing. Getting to the root cause is the responsible thing to do for a maker who's striving to make the safest product possible.

Agreed, I never faulted them for doing the test, but the consumer is certainly allowed to investigate further and draw their own conclusions.

As for spine whacks in general, it's obvious to me that there's a lot going on that we don't entirely understand, parts moving in ways that intuition, or static analysis, tells us they shouldn't. Failures happen on solid, strong, well-made knives, even with light, fast whacks that wouldn't even close a slipjoint.

Speak for yourself. Some of us have analyzed different lock ad-nauseum for years and have a pretty thorough understanding of them. I can tell you what a spine whack tests and it's really only one aspect of lock integrity.

So like I said earlier, any lock can fail, and the user must recognize that fact, or take his chances.

Agreed, for the most part. (A) I've never seen a bonified failure of an Axis lock (B) Some locks fail more than others, and even though one model knife is good, the next may not be. (C) Different locks for different uses.

You would agree that some locks are stronger than others right? Some can do things others cannot do. I agree with that too. You can't judge all locks or put them all under the same bar at the same level to judge them. I never said you could. Some seem to want to though. I have read that just because of the Axis lock that it moved the whole bar up another notch. BS. Each lock is different and has its own set of limits and its own strengths for using the blade as a cutting tool. Again; there is a difference between using a knife delicately, using it heavily and grossly abusing it.

Agreed.... But I would say the Axis lock raised the bar for heavy duty locks, and since it is also employed on knives of a non-heavy duty nature it raised the bar for them as well. Again, see the failures I sited in my first post, both were chores capable of being handled by gents knives.

I guarantee you that if I wanted to beat the strongest lock out there repeatedly that something eventually is going to give or at least loosen up on it if not break.Yes even the MBC rated ones. You guys that think my logic is flawed should all write a book for the masses and title it "How to void a Warranty". Promoting false hoods is not what anyone of the manufacturers did. Read their warranty fully and understand that just because the lock is strong doesn't mean it is bulletproof or infalable or that you can just pick a table or a 2x4 one day and start whacking the hell out of the spine without consequence or danger just because it is an MBC rated lock.

I agree here too (see we agree on more than you think )

There has always been a difference between marketing hype and warranties throughout any product line. I think it's unfortunate but it happens.

Spyderco makes knives from light use gents knives, to uber strong tacticals and (even fixed blades!), you know what - they all have the same warranty. A warranty alone does not prove or disprove the levels of a abuse a knife can take.

For the record. I think Sal should charge this guy any repairs for gross abuse of the knife by using the knife for a test that is considered by most every manufacturer of knives out there to be enough to void the warranty completely. For that matter anyone else that does this to their knife and sends it back to him should be charged for the repairs also. I base this on the warranty and what constitutes normal use. Not Cliff Stamp normal use but normal common sense use by 99.9% of the buying public that carry and use knives.

If he abused the knife to make it break he should be required to cover the costs associated with repair. He was outside the warranty if he abused it... Testing aside though, being outside of the range of your warranty does not always constitute abuse.

 

[STR]

they all have the same warranty

Not all. For example Cold Steels warranty is better and for 5 years on fixed blades where as their folders are 1 year.

 

[runT1ME]

I know you weren't talking to me, but what you said got me thinking...

No one has a problem with you, or anyone else, wanting to know the strongest lock. But I think you're asking the wrong question.

We should take care to not confuse the strength of a lock with the security of a lock.

In the case that started off this whole convoluted thread, two Chinooks and a Manix failed a spine-whacking test. Are those three locks, supposedly the strongest Spyderco makes, weak?

No.

Strength is a static attribute. I have no doubt that you could clamp the blade of any three of those knives in a vice, and hang a small-block V8 off the handle. From what I've heard of Spyderco's testing, that's pretty much what they do.

The problem with spine-whacking is, it's not static, it's dynamic. You're applying a sudden transient load to a knife in motion; things move that shouldn't.

That's the problem with liner locks: I've seen a couple fail, from the liner popping out of engagement with the blade tang; but I've yet to see a case where the liner just buckled, i.e. mechanical failure. Conclusion: the liner lock design is strong, but not always secure.

Same thing with lockbacks. The lock should hold until either the blade tang notch or lock bar notch shears, which takes a huge load to do... unless the angles are all wrong, and the blade can just wedge it's way out of the lock. Strong, but not always secure.

So, what am I getting at?

Let's not lose sight of what we're really after: a lock that's strong and secure. Looking only at the type of lock (Axis, liner, frame, lockback, etc.) doesn't tell the whole story. Likewise, looking only at the static strength of the lock design can be deceiving: you could block a blade with an eight pound hunk of kryptonite, but if it pops out of place at the wrong time, you could get hurt.

I'm glad to see Sal ask to analyze the knives. It's clear that the locks on them are strong, but perhaps there's a possible failure of the locks' security that didn't show up in testing. Getting to the root cause is the responsible thing to do for a maker who's striving to make the safest product possible.

As for spine whacks in general, it's obvious to me that there's a lot going on that we don't entirely understand, parts moving in ways that intuition, or static analysis, tells us they shouldn't. Failures happen on solid, strong, well-made knives, even with light, fast whacks that wouldn't even close a slipjoint.

So like I said earlier, any lock can fail, and the user must recognize that fact, or take his chances.

:thumbup:

Finally a voice of reason. Wha tis hte problem with testing both the strenght and security of a lock. I for one would like to see Cliff (or anyone else willing to step up) to test both.

 

[Gryffin]

Just want to correct some misconceptions and apparantly incorrect "reading between the lines" of what I wrote...

Whoa there, big guy. What I wrote wasn't directed at you, I was speaking generally. What you wrote just got me thinking, that's all.

Everyone talks about lock strength exclusively, and I think they're missing the point. Nuff said.

 

[STR]

By the way. Cpirtle. Where did you get the idea that I said I have a problem with a company, maker or a consumer finding out which lock is the strongest or best or however you worded it?

I love reading the reviews probably as much as anyone. One of my favorite things that comes out of Cold Steel is the only thing they really manufacture and that is the videos of what the knives can take. I never meant to imply that I have a problem with people finding out what is the strongest lock. I believe I said somewhere that these things are needed and that we all need them or something to that affect.

Please note that a lock can be very secure and very reliable even if it fails from someone grossly abusing it with spine whacks repeatedly. Spine taps are more real world and not repeated whacking. That is gross abuse and should be stated as such for everyone to know.