Liners vs linerless

[Ernie1980]

I still like the term "liner" because to me it is more descriptive. However, I enjoyed reading through this thread and learned something new:thumbup:

 

[supratentorial]

The current version of Buck 301 doesn't have any liners/scales separating the blades and it's not bashful about the blades rubbing either. But it's strong, sharp, and it's easy to clean.

 

[kc custom]

I think these are pretty old terms or descriptions and I'll bet when talking knives people
generally understand what someone is referring to -"liners", "covers", "scales" etc. I agree
if ones interest in nomenclature takes one there fine. Otherwise its what conversation,? a point of
argument? I'm sure I've been wrong on the covers not being scales on the the last 400 or so
folders I've sold on BF.
Ken.

 

[supratentorial]

I think these are pretty old terms or descriptions and I'll bet when talking knives people
generally understand what someone is referring to -"liners", "covers", "scales" etc. I agree
if ones interest in nomenclature takes one there fine. Otherwise its what conversation,? a point of
argument? I'm sure I've been wrong on the covers not being scales on the the last 400 or so
folders I've sold on BF.
Ken.

Ken, What's your take on their use? It would be interesting to hear answers to the OP's questions from a maker. The definition of "scale" was only intended to explain the quote from GEC but the discussion has accidentally been side tracked by it.

I have a question about multi blade knives with liners and without. For example, I have a Schrade jack, with a spear main and a pen blade, and the blades are right flush against each other. I have a Utica jack with spear main and pen blade, and there is a liner dividing the two. I've got other jacks/trappers/stockman/etc with and without dividing liners. On those without I haven't really seen blade rub too often, but I'd still like to know why some include liners and some don't. I'm guessing this is slipjoint 101, and I must've missed that class, but I'll still ask.

 

[kc custom]

My best quess would be as a spacer, bearing surface for the blade tangs
to run against. Most of the blades and springs (not a lot of them) that I've
seen with others next to each other without a spacer, liner, don't seem as
smooth as those that do have them. Again we're cutting things pretty close
without some sort of spacer. Some sort of obsession with "thin"?
Ken.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

My best quess would be as a spacer, bearing surface for the blade tangs
to run against. Most of the blades and springs (not a lot of them) that I've
seen with others next to each other without a spacer, liner, don't seem as
smooth as those that do have them. Again we're cutting things pretty close
without some sort of spacer. Some sort of obsession with "thin"?
Ken.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. The 'linerless' (or 'spacerless') design is already a feature of Buck's 301 stockman (w/3 springs for 3 blades) and similar knives in that line, as well as Case's current '47-pattern stockman (also 3-spring). With a dedicated spring for each blade, those knives would have to be much thicker if liners between each spring & blade were part of the package. Either that, OR blades and springs would have to be much thinner to compensate; Case's '47 already has very thin blades/springs for the spey & sheepsfoot, even with the linerless design.


David