Lock bar lubrication

[MikeC]

My question was posed from stictly a wear stand point, I also thought that moving parts were to be lubricatd to help prevent wear, with frame lock folders the point that is going to wear the fastest is end of the lock bar and butt end of the blade or tang where these two parts come into constant contact with each other during use.

The way I looking at was does lubing these parts help reduces wear as does typical lubrication, or does the lubrication cause the lock to actually wear faster as the parts are now slick for lack of a better term. Given this slickness if you will does the end of the lock bar now travel over further on the tang at a more rapid rate than it would if it were not lubricated, thus going to the lock to actually wear faster as it is traveling over further and at a faster rate on the tang than as it would otherwise.

My thinking is that the latter would be the case and that it would actually speed the wearing process up as opposed to slowing it down?

 

[spidyman]

Friction is what will make the bar wear faster, lubrication should lessen the amount of friction b/w the bar and the blade tang slowing the overall rate of wear.

 

[Whitedog]

If you do lube a thin film of lube is all that is all that is needed. Over lubing will cause more porblems. Just like over lubing fireams then you have trouble.

 

[MikeC]

Ok, so now which lubricant, chris reeve fluorniated grease, sentry solutions hi-slip grease or something else?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Spring tension is also used on every liner/frame lock I've seen. Friction seems unnecessary for the mechanism to work. In fact, some liner locks use no friction at all. They simply block the blade from closing.

isn't that what i said?

friction may not be "necessary", but it exists. all liner locks block the blade from closing. if the liner does not make contact with the blade, thus resulting in friction between the parts, then that means there is a space between the two. no?

If a lock fails because it gets lubricated, it's probably not a good lock. Think about if for a while. My knives occasionally get slathered up with all kinds of stuff during use, stuff that has lubricating properties. If a lock can fail because of deliberate lubrication, certainly it can fail because of incidental lubrication.

perhaps, but why lubricate and intentionally make it more likely?

Similarly, when a user lubes a knife, even with all the precautions in the world, it's often extremely difficult to keep oil from a pivot away from the tang. If somehow one manages to avoid oiling the tang, it's still likely oil will migrate to surrounding areas. Once again, if a lock can fail because of deliberate lubrication, certainly it can fail because of incidental lubrication.

again, a lock can always fail. but why intentionally create a situation where it is more likely?

 

[shecky]

isn't that what i said?

Not the way I read it.

friction may not be "necessary", but it exists. all liner locks block the blade from closing. if the liner does not make contact with the blade, thus resulting in friction between the parts, then that means there is a space between the two. no?

That friction exists is neither here nor there. It is incidental to their operation. Lockbacks and liner/framelocks don't work on the principle of friction. These locks physically block the blade. Lockbacks hook the tang, liner/frame locks block the tang. The force that holds the "hook"(lockbar) or liner in place is that they are sprung. Not that the lockbar or liner are tight. In fact, it seems over the years, it was realized that very little friction in the lockbar or liner was necessary. As a result, knives of today are much more "flickable" than knives of the past, and yet manage to lock up as tight as any.

Even slipjoints don't really rely on friction. They rely on spring tension to stay open and closed.

perhaps, but why lubricate and intentionally make it more likely?

Who says lubrication will make it more likely? I've argued against this notion. And if it did, this would be an indication that the lock was inherently unreliable, even without lubrication.

again, a lock can always fail. but why intentionally create a situation where it is more likely?

Again, who says it's more likely?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Not the way I read it.



That friction exists is neither here nor there. It is incidental to their operation. Lockbacks and liner/framelocks don't work on the principle of friction. These locks physically block the blade. Lockbacks hook the tang, liner/frame locks block the tang. The force that holds the "hook"(lockbar) or liner in place is that they are sprung. Not that the lockbar or liner are tight. In fact, it seems over the years, it was realized that very little friction in the lockbar or liner was necessary. As a result, knives of today are much more "flickable" than knives of the past, and yet manage to lock up as tight as any.

Even slipjoints don't really rely on friction. They rely on spring tension to stay open and closed.



Who says lubrication will make it more likely? I've argued against this notion. And if it did, this would be an indication that the lock was inherently unreliable, even without lubrication.




Again, who says it's more likely?

i think we are saying the same thing, mostly, but just missing each other.

the friction exists between the lockbar face and the back face of the tang when open. this has nothing to do with flickability, or how the knife opens.

in order for the lock to properly engage, it must make contact with the blade tang. friction between the two parts is inevitable, and may be incidental to lock stregth or reliability. if there was no contact, on many knives the lock would just travel all the way to the other scale.

if the lock face is lubricated, would that increase the liklihood of the lock disengaing? if the lock is already inherently unreliable, then probably.

i dont know, but i cant see how lubing it is necessarily a good idea either.

why lube parts that dont need lube?

 

[cutter17]

I would use the miltec that 3Guardsman spoke of. The reason the Sebenza doesn't slip with a lubed liner has to do with the spring tension. You are going to have to make a deliberate effort to push that lockbar over. I normally increase the lock tension on my liner/framelocks by increasing the bend in the lock bar. Once done the tension is now tight enough that like the sebenza, you are going to have to make a conscious effort to push that lockbar over to unlock it. With that in place I don't think it would matter a whole lot if the lockbar were lubed or not.

 

[shecky]

i think we are saying the same thing, mostly, but just missing each other.

the friction exists between the lockbar face and the back face of the tang when open. this has nothing to do with flickability, or how the knife opens.

I would think this is wrong. Highly sprung lockbacks (and older styled liner locks) are significantly harder to open and "flick". I suspect this is because they came from a slipjoint tradition where backsprings needed to be fairly stout. Exhibiting significant friction when opening or closing demands mor effort to open and close. This made things like "flicking" a knife open more difficult.

In the modern age, folks realized that lockbars, descendants of backsprings, didn't need to be tensioned nearly as much as a slipjoint. And linerlocks didn't even need a backspring at all. This realization produced designs very common today, allowing much easier flickability, not to mention the rise of practical one-hand-opening designs.

in order for the lock to properly engage, it must make contact with the blade tang. friction between the two parts is inevitable, and may be incidental to lock stregth or reliability. if there was no contact, on many knives the lock would just travel all the way to the other scale.

if the lock face is lubricated, would that increase the liklihood of the lock disengaing? if the lock is already inherently unreliable, then probably.

This may or may not be the case. In any event, a unreliable lock isn't unreliable because of lubrication.

i dont know, but i cant see how lubing it is necessarily a good idea either.

why lube parts that dont need lube?

On this we agree. I tend to go further, generally feeling that decently built knives probably need no lubrication at all.

 

[bearcut]

Some observations:

I normally lube every moving part on a knife with a high quality liquid lubricant.
I do this for the usual reasons, to smooth the action, prevent corrosion, and prevent wear.
I personally avoid purposeful metal to metal contact.
I see that some of you don’t care about that issue. I won’t argue about that with you. That’s fine with me, it’s your knife.

I agree with those who mentioned that lube can exacerbate a sticky lock-bar problem.
It seems to depend on the manufactures design of the contact point. Some work better lubed, some don’t.

The lock design on my Strider Sng works much better without any liquid lube on it. I still lube the lock face to prevent wear, and smooth the action, however. The Strider ilk recommends pencil lead, which actually works really well. Sentry Tuf-Glide works too, since it leaves a dry coating.

I have to congratulate CRK for the Umnumzaan ceramic ball contact they put in that lock-bar design. This seems to solve both issues of wear and stickiness. This was one reason, among many, that I choose this knife over the Sebenza. Way to go Chris!

I never worry about lock slippage in any quality knife due to lubrication. It’s either designed properly or it’s not.