Leatherman Micra vs Schrade Touch Chip

[Rick1955]

I have owned a Leatherman Micra for about 2 years.

I recently bought a Schrade Touch Chip.

While they are similar, there are some differences:

Leatherman Micra
Cost: $14-$20
Stainless Steel construction
Very compact when folded
Main Tool is spring-loaded scissors
Other tools that fold into both handles on the sides:
Knife blade, screw driver and combination fingernail cleaner/file on one side and cap lifter, small screw driver, small phillips screw driver and forceps (tweezers) on the other side. None of the tools lock into position.

Schrade Tough Chip
Cost: about $20
Brushed stainless steel construction
Slightly larger and not as compact when folded.
Main tool is a pair of spring-loaded stainless steel scissors that are slightly larger than on the Micra
Other tools fold are stored in the handle from the front side which makes the handle more comfortable.
One handle has a knife blade, punch, screwdriver, and combination cap lifter and small screwdriver that all pivot out of the handle and lock into place. The lock is released by lifting another tool 90 degrees out of the handle. The other handle has a toothpick and forceps (tweezers) that come all the way out of the end of the handle (a possible loss hazard)

Because the Touch Chip is larger and less compact when folded it comes with a blck nylon belt pouch.

Both tools are very similar and very good in function and quality.

Because the Touch Chip is larger and requires a belt pouch for comfortable and safe carrying, I have decided that it will mostly be worn on the belt of my Scout uniform right next to my offical BSA Deluxe utility pocketknife that is carried in a hand made leather belt pouch.

Any other input or opinions on these two tools?

Thanks.

 

[johnniet]

I haven't owned a Micra, but everyone seems to like them.
I do have a Tough Chip, and based on mine, I wouldn't get one again. With scissors, the two blades need to stay in contact as you cut--if they get any space between them it doesn't work. On my Tough Chip, the blades get pushed apart, so if you are cutting paper or string it just slips between the blades.

Other than that, I like the tools and the lock mechanism very much.

 

[Rick1955]

I haven't had any problems with either the Micra or the Tough Chip. The only beef I have with the Tough Chip is that it doesn't fold down as small as the Micra.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by johnniet:
I haven't owned a Micra, but everyone seems to like them.
I do have a Tough Chip, and based on mine, I wouldn't get one again. With scissors, the two blades need to stay in contact as you cut--if they get any space between them it doesn't work. On my Tough Chip, the blades get pushed apart, so if you are cutting paper or string it just slips between the blades.

Other than that, I like the tools and the lock mechanism very much.</font>

 

[Peter Atwood]

I have owned both and I find that the main reason I carry them is for the tweezers. In that regard, I prefer tweezers that are not attached to the tool. The Tough Chip is so small in the pouch that I don't mind wearing it on my belt. It's the only knife that I will wear on my belt since I don't usually care for sheaths.

I haven't had any problems at all with the scissors.



------------------
Peter Atwood

email:fountainman@hotmail.com

 

[Rick1955]

I like the Micra and the Tough Chip mostly for the scissors. When I found that the tough Chip wouldn't fold up as small as the Micra, I decided that I would use it for Scouting. It rides in its pouch on my belt next to my Scout knife and sheath.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fountainman:
I have owned both and I find that the main reason I carry them is for the tweezers. In that regard, I prefer tweezers that are not attached to the tool. The Tough Chip is so small in the pouch that I don't mind wearing it on my belt. It's the only knife that I will wear on my belt since I don't usually care for sheaths.

I haven't had any problems at all with the scissors.



</font>