It's hell being a liner lock

[Artfully Martial]

My first negative exposure to linerlocks was right here, on these boards, only a few weeks ago. My friends and I, having used them for years, had nothing but positive experiences with this device. What I heard here worried me, and I wondered if the new knife I had just bought me actually even be a hazard to me. I decided to find out if the liner lock was as bad as people made it out to be in an attempt to destroy my new knife.

The knife tested: An M16-11K. 3 inch blade, AUS-8 steel, liner lock w/t LAWKS system.

The concern: Could a liner lock lean or flex in a way that would cause failure during use? The flexing possibility is an obvious one, but the slipping of the liner one direction (or often neglected, the other) could allow the knife to close also, if LAWKS is not engaged. And about that LAWKS thing. Does it really work? Is it tough enough to be counted on?

The tests: I put the M16 through four gruelingly unscientific tests to find out for myself if I could rely on this knife. Two of these tests involved direct pressure (either through gradual increase or concussive smashing), one involved the integrity of the LAWKS device and the last involved a flat head screwdriver (more later). LAWKS was off for all but the LAWKS test.

The first test is the most obvious. Using protection inbetween my hand and that blade (if you want to reproduce this, I would highly recommend putting something inbetween those two things for you also. Similar protective measures were used for the first two tests.) I placed the back of the knife, about 1/2 an inch from the tip, against a solid red oak desk. Using the hilt as leverage, I gradually increased the force until it began ruining the desk by leaving back-of-the-knife indentations in the red oak. It goes without saying, that's quite a bit of force. I repeated this about three times.

The first result was simple. Nothing happened. The liner did not move in either direction, nor flex. The blade developed no play. The next few times that I tried to unlock the knife, however, required considerably more effort, before it settled back down.

The second test involved slamming the back of the blade (at roughly the same distance from the tip as the first test) against the desk. I did this about 25 times at all the force I felt was both realistic and safe. I would like to say that I did not hit it with all my force, because I don't feel that it was a reasonable risk and I could not really ensure my hand's safety at this sort of force with my precautions. Furthermore, I can't imagine a scenario where you'd repeatedly be using even 2/3rds of the force against the lock that I did.

The second result was more surprising. Each time the blade was hit, the liner moved just a little. Surprisingly, this motion was away from the LAWKS system. In a hypothetical failure scenario from my experiments, the liner will fail opposite of the side it comes from, as a result of the intense pressure from the steel. The lock never did fail, however, although it got surprisingly close to the opposite side of the knife. This concerned me, as it was pointed out to me in another post that the liner could get lodged inbetween the blade and hilt (opposite to the liner's origin). At the sight of this, I kept trying to hit the blade just that much harder to get it to slide over, but I could not do it. The lock did not fail, the blade did not develop play. Once again, the next few times unlocking the knife were unusually difficult before returning to normal.

The third test was an unexpected result of the potential problems arising from the second. Concerned that the liner might actually get lodged OPPOSITE of the LAWKS system, I decided to bash it five more times to get the liner all the way to the "danger-zone." From there I tried using my own physical force to get the liner to jump into that gap, with no success. Determined to break the knife, I grabbed a small flathead screwdriver and tried to leverage the liner into the gap using reasonable force (I do not intend on scratching up or destroying another part of the knife. I don't think locks necessarily need be prepared for crow-bar like attacks on their insides), again, to no avail. The liner is not capable of jumping into that gap. Furthermore, had it jumped, I believe the very tight wedge created would greatly inhibit blade movement anyway. The actual movement of the liner across the stop is caused by the tiny bounce-back after the impact. Slight, but less movement can be seen if a lot of pressure is applied during cuting (pressure down, blade down).

Lastly, reading that the LAWKS system can be broken by normal force against it, I decided to make an honest effort to use all the physical force I had against LAWKS, without any effect.

Overall: This liner lock, and I assume the ones I've been using for years, is in fact, quite safe. Cheaper to make than fancier locks and without the necessary maintenance of taking them apart for cleaning (or even cleaning at all) it has several advantages, as well as weaknesses. It is apparent to me that in the event that the pressure against the lock was so great that the liner slid into the side it comes from that the LAWKS system would make this impossible.


_______________________________________________________________

Post experimental (new): My colleagues have suggested two more exams in order to fully explore the liner lock. In response, I have both of them here, following their directions as closely as I could.

Test 1: Vice Kung Fu Grip test: I wrapped the blade of my M16 in a napkin to protect the finish from the vice grip. Then, I placed the knife blade down into the vice grip and tightened it hard. With the LAWKS system off, I held the hilt and torqued it left and right until I was bending the hilt mildly in each direction. I did this maybe fifteen times. Next, I applied force (as directed) down torwards the lock and repeated step 1.

Result 1: Nothing happened. No play developed, the liner did not slide at all in one direction or the other. I may expand more on this test later to account for motion torwards and away from the lock to cover all the bases and satisfy my detractors. I didn't think to try these at the time.

Test 2: Lighter "whipping" impacts against the spine of the blade. LAWKS was disengaged. I hit the spine against my red oak desk about 20 times. I played the drums with it. I hit it lightly, I hit it hard, but I allowed for the blade to bounce back this time instead of trying to follow through.


Result 2: Nothing happened again.

Final results--percussive exams are unecessary on the M16 because the liner moves AWAY from the LAWKS system, not torwards it. Even if it did, the LAWKS would prevent anything from happening. I suspect that the torqueing did the same thing. Because of the width of a certain part of the liner, the liner can only go so far away from the LAWKS system before it just hangs out there. This is also why my flathead screwdriver exam failed--I hadn't thoroughly checked the surface of the liner for the bump. M16 owners (and perhaps other liner lock owners) can test this by opening their knife, and holding it against a light. You should be able to see the silhouette of the liner and the raise in surface in one area touching the side (if you've hit it a bunch of times to knock it over). There is no concern for the liner getting wedged inbetween the hilt and blade because of this.
___

(new) Furthermore, I have tried to close the blade on my hand (opening the blade until just before it locks) and could not close it on my hand, because the carson flipper hits my finger and will go no further. Though it does smart a little....(thanks to Laceration for the tip)..nothing to do with liner locks, but just something to note. Again, despite my confidence to the contrary, if you want to repeat a test like this, at least put something between your hand and the blade.

________________________________________________________________



We have now completed the test of a second, different, M16 liner lock. At the....ever so subtle requests for a larger sampling size of knives, another M16 owner on these forums has repeated my tests. I have asked them to post them here, but until then, you find them at the link of my M16 review:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352473&highlight=m16

quite a ways down.

Thanks to Laceration (no pun intended) for the flipper/safety issue.

 

[ronsec]

That was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

 

[cpirtle]

Great post, and some nice testing.

A few things you may want to consider:

It does not sound like you gripped the knife in a way that would allow the meat of your hand to unlock it. On many liner locks if you grip the handle in a "death grip" (aka - very tight), it will actually unlock the knife a significant portion or all of the way. This is especially a concern for those of us with big meaty hands.

One of my problems with the liner lock is the consistency of manufacture. In a lot of 10 liner lock knives (even identical models) you're likely to find 8 knives with completely different lock-up characteristics. This statement is based on experience. Very few makers and manufacturers have the ability to make a liner lock the right way, the same way every time. There are too many variables to lock geometry and even a minute change in one of them will change the way the mechanism works.

If you want to continue testing your knife I would suggest placing the blade, edge down in a vice. Then firmly torque the handle from left to right while applying pressure downward on the lock. Then do it again using a light prying action while putting downward pressure on the lock. What tends to happen is the changing torgue on the liners will walk the lock off of the tang fairly quick. This is not as much of a problem with locking mechanisms that are not integral to the liners.

 

[STR]

I'm not surprised at all. Liner locks don't fail as often as some people may think they do. In my own tests on my knives they hold up pretty well to normal abuse and beyond quite well. On the ones that fail easily it is usually due to the angle cut into the blade where the lock and the blade meet and/or the lock is too long and too thin to really be all that strong. Many makers prefer a longer lock that is thin because it is easier to push and open than a short stiff thick one. (Check the lock on a Kershaw Black Out: very thin and long.) Personally all of my hand mades have short and stiff thick locks because I have found it is generally harder to bend a short thick piece of metal than it is a long thin one, so in my mind it means the lock is stronger, so what if it takes a bit more muscle to close it up.

Percentage wise I doubt failure occurrs anymore with liner locks than any other type of lock regardless of how it was made, perhaps even less. People make claims one way or the other but there is really no clear cut survey done with real accurate accounts to verify anything that is said.

Generally people know the liner lock folder is a 'gents knife' in most cases, but besides that most people have enough sense to know how to properly use a knife in the first place without putting undue stress on the lock mechanism. Only people like Cliff Stamp take these knives to failure routinely and he does it for the folks making them or for his own testing protocol.

It is kind of like a four wheel drive vs a two wheel drive SUV in my mind if you stop to think about it when you compare these lock mechanisms. Anyone with common sense won't usually take the two wheel drive SUV to the same durability or traction limits that they would take a four wheeler anymore than they will take a liner lock to the kind of limits that a MBC rated lock would go to. So, in general both types function in the real world just fine until someone loses perspective and ends up in the mud with little traction to get them out. (so to speak)

On the other hand, Emerson knives are considered by many to be some of the toughest knives made. Many of Emerson's 'tougher' Navy Seal, Special Forces, and Police models are indeed liner locks and are being carried and used very heavily on a routine basis. Spyderco's Military model is also a well made liner lock that many soldiers (and civilians alike) prefer over many other types of locks that are also readily available to them.

As Cliff has pointed out in his reviews. Most liner and frame locking folders will hold up just fine and can even be quite impressive until a goodly amout of twisting torque is applied to them. Then the inherent weakness in the design shows readily, but again most people are not going to have need to apply this kind of force to their knife. In all my years of carrying a folder I've never once had a need come up to have to stick my knife in deep and twist it to lock failure. And if fact most people won't and in a case where that was necessary they would probably forsee that the knife is not the right tool for the job and get something else to use.

 

[OilMan]

I agree with cpirtle (and Cliff when he sees this ). It's torques you've got to watch out for, not necessarily just direct pressure.

oil

edit. I also agree with STR who is a faster typer than me.

 

[ARtsig1]

I agree with STR on the short thick lock bar as they are nearly impossible to push over without you making a concious effort to do so. That's one reason why I look for thick liners on a liner lock knife.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

You should never make strong conclusions with a sample size of one, something I hope is obvious. Many of the opinions being expressed are by people who have been looking at this for years, who have handled many knives, and who have observed internet reports for years. That isn't a formal scientific study, but it's enough to get a good flavor of things.

One of the most important things to note is that no one claims 100% of liner locks are unsafe. Back when Ford had terrible quality problems in the '70s, not every Ford was a lemon: it's just that you had a disturbingly high chance of getting a lemon versus if you bought a Toyota. It's about like this with liner locks -- not everyone one will fail on you, but the overall failure rate is disturbingly, shockingly high. Moreover, it's been well-reported that liner locks sometimes function perfectly for a good long time, then one day suddenly start failing. Easily explained when you think about it: you have a lock format that's exceedingly sensitive to the lock geometry, and as the liner wears, that geometry changes.

I encourage you to continue your testing, and also to seek to refine your testing: try some torquing while holding the knife firmly. Also, instead of hammer blows for your spine whacks, try lighter but faster whippy snaps. The strongest piece of advice, though, is not to draw conclusions from one experience: keep on testing, and keep your eyes out for reports of failures for all lock types, and note how they failed.

And, some important comments on STR's response:

Generally people know the liner lock folder is a 'gents knife' in most cases, but besides that most people have enough sense to know how to properly use a knife in the first place without putting undue stress on the lock mechanism.

We definitely disagree strongly here. First, most people definitely don't "know the liner lock folder is a 'gents knife'". The reason they don't know is because it's not true -- manufacturers and makers are specifically selling liner locks for medium-to-hard use, tactical use, defensive use, etc. I don't think you'd get many manufacturers saying their liner locks are gents' knives only, outside of companies like WH. And since the manufacturers are saying that their knives are for rough use, they should be judged that way.

Second, once you leave gents' knife type usage (opening envelopes, trimming cuticles, etc.), you can always get to the point where you can't completely control the forces on the knife. We've seen liner lock failures from such simple things as light plant trimming (knife got caught in stem, lock slipped when blade was pulled out), box cutting (knife got caught in cardboard, lock slipped when blade was pulled/light-torqued out), ad nauseum. And I do mean ad nauseum. Just too many failures from too many things that shouldn't stress a lock at all.

If you're using your knife for the extremely controlled cutting (i.e., gents knife usage) that STR evidently uses his knife for, you're perfectly safe w/ a liner lock. If you're using your knife for even moderate-duty cutting, much less heavy duty or defensive use, then you'd be well-advised to pay attention to what people who have tested many knives are saying.

Joe

 

[Steven Roos]

A properly made linerlock should not fail even if the lock bar buckles toward the non-lock side of the knife. It is all in the design.

 

[Artfully Martial]

I'm keeping an open mind, and I'm trying hard to get my first axis lock based knife. I am aware that my opinion might be changed. But right now, my testing has proven to me, if no one else (and I tested it to prove it to me) that this knife is safe. Yes I have too few knives to test--if I had a 2+ thousand dollars to spend on knife testing, then I might come to a satisfactory amount. Anyone want to make some donations?

At the same time, I grow increasingly nervous about the lock becoming wedged between the blade and the side opposite of the liner. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of problem? I don't really think it's an issue, since I tried to wedge it in there with a flat head screw driver and couldn't, but I'm very aware of it.

 

[Steven Roos]

At the same time, I grow increasingly nervous about the lock becoming wedged between the blade and the side opposite of the liner. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of problem? I don't really think it's an issue, since I tried to wedge it in there with a flat head screw driver and couldn't, but I'm very aware of it.

By design if that were to happen, the liner should buckle towards the non-lock side and stop there. The blade may travel slightly due to lost length in the lockbar, but it should not close.

Absolute failure should only occur if the lockbar breaks, which should be very unlikely with today materials, with the exception of defective materials of course.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

I'm keeping an open mind, and I'm trying hard to get my first axis lock based knife. I am aware that my opinion might be changed. But right now, my testing has proven to me, if no one else (and I tested it to prove it to me) that this knife is safe.

Yes, it's reasonable to draw a conclusion about this particular knife.

Or is it? As I mentioned in my reply, it's not at all uncommon for liner locks to suddenly start failing tests that they'd previously passed no sweat. My theory has always been that as the liner wears and the lock geometry changes, so do the failure characteristics. I believe this is exacerbated by the fact that many makers are now making the tang face non-linear -- that is, to increase lock life, the tang angle increases as it gets closer to the far right. The bigger the tang angle, the longer the lock life, but the more difficult to keep the lock from accidently releasing, so as the liner hits this area of the tang, it's more likely to see failures.

Joe

 

[STR]

I think the term 'gents knife' must mean something different to you and perhaps others than it does to me Joe. There is a night and day difference between an Emerson tactical and an A.G. Russel liner lock or a William and Henry EDC knife even though both are liner locks and I think the buying public does see that difference. Ones pushed as tactical or med to heavy duty should be judged accordingly I agree there.

Liner locks are made both ways: tactical vs gents, just like lock backs are but with recent studies on the liner locks shortfalling it just seems to me that the general sway in public perception is that the liner locks are not as capable or trustworthy 'hard use' knives as they were once thought to be but yet still perform some tasks as such on certain platforms. Hence my statements that most people are aware that they are usually viewed as gents knives and where that stemmed from.

I don't think it is necessary to insinuate that liner locks can't be used for certain defensive uses and that is not what I was saying. I just watched a Court TV trial where a man was stabbed to death repeatedly with a liner lock folder and the attorney showed the knife and opened and closed it showing that it still worked just fine.

Again you bring up good points in your post and I particularly like the comment that this is not a formal scientific study. We are just knife knuts making comments based on our individual perceptions. Truthfully though I think the knife buying public, particularly knife knuts are a bit more educated than you give them credit for. It could be that "gents knife" is not the right term to use since there is obvious differences in what that means to people. I don't think of cuticle cleaning when I think of a gents knives. Key words in my statement you put in quotes are ' in most cases'.

The frame lock and now the Axis lock which we were just talking about eariler are perhaps the result of the short fallings of the liner lock from people looking to improve on a very good idea or come up with an even better one. So I think that it is debateable as to the general public awareness on this issue regarding liner locks. Knife vendors certainly educate their customers when asked for advice.

Also, I've had several Spyderco lock backs that have been 'retired' from excess use and lock wear, (one formally recommended to me to retire it by Spyderco in fact,) so to make this wear problem exclusive to liner locks is unrealistic in my view. It happens to all knives over time.

Finally Joe, Do I detect a round about cheap shot here with that 'extremely controlled cutting jobs' comment? Try to keep the gloves up. I don't see how it is necessary to have to push the limits of the lock on any given knife to properly use it if that is what you are saying. I think we know that you are an axis lock fan but it isn't really necesary to bash the liner lock so bad as if you should 'use it at your own risk' which is the general tone of you post. In truth we take a risk with any knife we carry regardless of lock type or maker.

 

[Artfully Martial]

The LAWKS system, as I've demonstrated, makes accidental release a non-issue. Furthermore, the force of this M16 required to push the liner over is great enough that it leaves deep impressions in my thumb. Girls having tried to use this knife have not been strong enough to push the liner over even with both hands. It's strong enough to be annoying. My thumb is now covered in calluses.

Accidental release with this liner lock is much less of an issue that in systems like rolling or axis locks, in my opinion. My real concern is the possibility of the liner being TOO strong. It could push through to the opposite side to get lodged between the blade and hilt. For reasons I can't explain, I cannot push it over that extra mm to get it lodged, if that is possible at all. I fully expected the flathead to lodge it, but it didn't, and I don't know why. There is something stopping the liner. If I knew what it was, I'd be a lot more comfortable, instead of trusting this magical stopping point.

It's really challenging to respond to the argument that someday, all the sudden, the lock will fail. How can I prove the contrary if I've only used liner locks for a couple of years. It would take me a decade of hard use just to prove this to you. It's interesting that the axis lock needs go through no such test. Its acceptance is immediate. The only locks that have ever failed on me are lockbacks, but they were cheap knives and used hard. Just beaters. I wouldn't expect that to happen in my Buck 560C or a Spyderco Native.

 

[cdf]

I have but one bitch with the LAWKS system , you have to remember to engage it ! I can easily see someone not doing that in a stress situation , which paradoxically , is when you really need it . Who gets into stress situations ? Try firefighters, LEO's , Soldiers, EMT's , and yes just plain good old boys !

Un fortunatly the LAWKS lets a manufacturer get away with a thinner liner.

 

[Artfully Martial]

I honestly feel like my tests are futile. No matter what I do or say, the meaning is lost. Before I did these tests, people had told me the liner lock would simply disengage on the most minor cutting, or slight bashes on the spine. They had also told me the LAWKS system would break easy with bashing.

So I tested it. They, quite simply, are wrong. Period.

Now, because I have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm faced with two conclusions from my detractors. I must either have an extraordinarily rare liner lock that is capable of taking this abuse, unlike 90% of other liner locks, or all liner locks can do this, but they generally fail suddenly one day for no reason.

The anti liner lock coalition, or ALLC, as I'll call it, has successfully created an argument that I can't dispute. Yes, there is some possibility that both my liner locks, and all of my friends' liner locks, are of exquisite and rare quality, despite being from cheaper brands like Kershaw and CRKT.
And yes, the liner lock may one day fail suddenly and without cause. I mean, they haven't, they simply have not done this, but I can't dispute that they could. Neither could anyone realistically dispute that any lock couldn't fail one day suddenly for no obvious reason. Inductive reasoning just isn't very strong. Just because the sun rose every day that I can remember is NOT proof enough that it will rise tomorrow. Thus, I must submit to this reasoning as it is valid. Nonetheless, it is universally valid. The sun may not rise tomorrow. Your axis lock might fail you tomorrow, as well as my liner.

I genuinely appreciate the opinions here, even if some feel rather adversial. I need the benefit of your experience. Nonetheless, as I have kept an open mind and tested this (and I do not have a bias TORWARDS the liner lock. As anyone who is reading my other posts is aware, I'm actively trying to buy an axis-lock knife and I own many lockbacks), I would ask that my detractors would also keep an open mind.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

It's really challenging to respond to the argument that someday, all the sudden, the lock will fail. How can I prove the contrary if I've only used liner locks for a couple of years.

Why do you need to respond? This is about finding the right answer, not winning the argument, right? If you haven't been testing your liner locks, I don't see how you can possibly challenge me on this ... yet. If I were you, I would listen to the information given by the guys who have tested their knives over a period of time, and use it to hone my knowledge by re-testing every few months. I'm not trying to prove you're wrong here, I'm only trying to make you aware of something that I've seen, so you can keep an eye out for it yourself. No response necessary

It's interesting that the axis lock needs go through no such test. Its acceptance is immediate.

Nonsense! I'm very consistent -- as are many others -- that you should check every knife you own, every lock you own. The problem is, axis locks consistently sail through these tests. Nevertheless, I test every one I have.

The real issue here is that liner locks are the only lock format that fail in such disturbingly high percentages. If liner locks were never invented, none of this would be controversial at all, since testing shows failures in other lock formats in more predictable and less shocking numbers. The only reason this is always such a big matter for debate is because the one format that often fails -- liner locks -- are the same format that have exploded in popularity in the 90s. So instead, what we have are people making all kinds of apologies for the liner lock failures being seen ("no one torques their folders", "they just have to be made right", "if you used your knife properly, that wouldn't happen", "mine doesn't fail, so I don't believe the zillion other people who claim theirs do fail", etc.).

Joe

 

[Artfully Martial]

On the contrary. I respect your comment that you aren't trying to prove anything, even if I do not feel that this is the case. Your commitment to your argument is example enough to me that this is a point to you, no pun intended.

I asked for your opinion, and I got it. Thank you (sincerely). Your experience does matter to me. Not as much as my own and far different experience, of course, and I believe that this is a similar situation for you. My differing experience has gone no where in convincing you of another possibility. Why? I imagine it must be because, like me, you value your own experience more than others'.

Case in point, we'll agree to disagree here. The topic isn't closed, but I have heard you out, now this particular argument should be over and we'll let other comments (or arguments) be made about my testing.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

Finally Joe, Do I detect a round about cheap shot here with that 'extremely controlled cutting jobs' comment? Try to keep the gloves up. I don't see how it is necessary to have to push the limits of the lock on any given knife to properly use it if that is what you are saying. I think we know that you are an axis lock fan but it isn't really necesary to bash the liner lock so bad as if you should 'use it at your own risk' which is the general tone of you post. In truth we take a risk with any knife we carry regardless of lock type or maker.

STR, if my cheap shots are not coming across clearly enough, I need to work on my prose Seriously, it wasn't so much meant as a cheap shot, as a criticism of what I'm reading as your very narrow view of what constitutes "proper" use of a knife. You're the first one who used that term, and you seemed to imply that torquing and the like do not fit into the definition. I'm challenging you to find a liner lock maker -- BM and Spyderco are convenient because they have forums where you can ask publicly -- who would agree with your view of what is proper use. It is very clear to me that the makers know that anything above opening-envelopes-type-gents-use can end up generating torques and twists and the like, and would certainly not say "if you're doing that, that's not proper use." In short, some level of torquing and the like are predicted use.

Also, keep in mind that I'm not strictly an "axis lock fan". I'm an "anything but liner lock" fan. You'll see me singing the praises of the compression lock, lockback, framelock, etc. There is only one lock format that fails in such consistent high numbers, from my experience. I do, nevertheless, say that you should thoroughly test any knife that you're going to use hard -- even if 99.999% of compression locks don't have problems, that won't help you if you're the one that gets the .001% that had a little manufacturing or materials problem.

 

[Joe Talmadge]

The anti liner lock coalition, or ALLC, as I'll call it, has successfully created an argument that I can't dispute. Yes, there is some possibility that both my liner locks, and all of my friends' liner locks, are of exquisite and rare quality, despite being from cheaper brands like Kershaw and CRKT.
And yes, the liner lock may one day fail suddenly and without cause. I mean, they haven't, they simply have not done this, but I can't dispute that they could. Neither could anyone realistically dispute that any lock couldn't fail one day suddenly for no obvious reason. Inductive reasoning just isn't very strong. Just because the sun rose every day that I can remember is NOT proof enough that it will rise tomorrow. Thus, I must submit to this reasoning as it is valid. Nonetheless, it is universally valid. The sun may not rise tomorrow. Your axis lock might fail you tomorrow, as well as my liner.

You misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that "the liner lock may one day fail suddenly". The argument is that many different folks have actually seen this -- there is empirical evidence (anecdotal, in many cases) that this happens. And further, it happens to liner locks way out of proportion to how it happens to any other lock format. Just like we see the sun rise everyday, we also see liner locks fail in terribly high numbers -- and just because you tested one knife does not contradict nearly 15 years of discussion on the topic.

I genuinely appreciate the opinions here, even if some feel rather adversial. I need the benefit of your experience. Nonetheless, as I have kept an open mind and tested this (and I do not have a bias TORWARDS the liner lock. As anyone who is reading my other posts is aware, I'm actively trying to buy an axis-lock knife and I own many lockbacks), I would ask that my detractors would also keep an open mind.

Artfully, we're not your detractors, we're detractors of a format that has consistently performed badly. No one has ever claimed that every single liner lock will fail -- not ever -- even though CRKTs are generally particularly bad when the LAWKS isn't engaged. But you still seem to be drawing very strong conclusions from a single round of tests -- tests which specifically missed what in my experience are the most common cause of liner lock failures, firm-grip-plus-torque, and light-whippy snap type spine whacks (rather than what sounds like the hammer blows you did). Start to see why over a decade of liner lock failure reports seems to be much more convincing?

Joe

 

[Cliff Stamp]

...my testing has proven to me, if no one else (and I tested it to prove it to me) that this knife is safe.

Now, one of the problems with the lock is that it passes all tests and then fails suddenly and grossly at a later date.

I just watched a Court TV trial where a man was stabbed to death repeatedly with a liner lock folder and the attorney showed the knife and opened and closed it showing that it still worked just fine.

Who argued that you can't find one such knife? Joe and Steve who are two of the bigget proponents of lock security always made it clear that not every liner they have used failed - simply that they have seen (and heard from others) failures with that type under impact and torquing far more so than with other brands.

The LAWKS system, as I've demonstrated, makes accidental release a non-issue.

Under torques yes, not under impacts. I have collapsed it fully and the blade can be closed with it still engaged.

-Cliff