question about framelocks

[harkamus]

I've been pondering this for a while, but couldn't one produce a framelock with scales like g10 or titanium that covers the actual frame lock? The reason I ask is that I love framelocks, but I hate how they knife looks asymetrical with the lock exposed. Is there a reason manufacturers don't add some kind of scale to the side with the lock?

Also, if this has been done before, indicate some knives that I can look at. Thanks!

Also, sorry if this is a dumb question.

 

[tsiloics]

That would be a liner lock.

 

[harkamus]

That would be a liner lock.

So fundamentally speaking, liner locks and frame locks are one and the same except liner locks have scales on both sides whereas a framelock only has scales on one? Then, why don't all makers put scales on each side?

 

[Leaf Fan]

So fundamentally speaking, liner locks and frame locks are one and the same except liner locks have scales on both sides whereas a framelock only has scales on one? Then, why don't all makers put scales on each side?

Weight, size, function, aesthetics, form, symmetry, etc.

 

[Reeek]

As Leaf Fan stated, the one thing that can be accomplished with Frame Locks is the thickness of the locking scale can be thicker than most locking liners without throwing the symmetry of the knife handle off.

Overall thickness of the knife handle is always one of the designing factors in knives.

 

[lazerboy2000]

Also with a frame lock, the tighter you squeeze the knife, the harder it locks because your hand is pressing directly agaist the lock and keeps it from sliding out.

With a liner lock, your hand rests against the scale so this does not hold true.

 

[missin_hobo]

I've seen this on BF a few times now - whether or not a framelock with a scale on the lock side can still be considered a framelock, or how thick the liner on a linerlock can be before it's considered a frame lock, and on and on.

It's a pretty semantic argument.

There are some knives that are surely linerlocks (like an Emmerson Commander) and some knives that are surely framelocks (like a Sebenza). And there are a bunch of knives that blur the line for some reason or another; maybe the locking side has a scale, but the liner is as thick as a framelock. Or maybe the scale only covers part of the lock side, and the knife would clearly still be functional without it. Or whatever.

The important things to keep in mind are the functional aspects of the knife:
-A thicker frame (or liner), means greater mating surfaces, and therefore a stronger lock that doesn't wear as fast.
-An exposed locking mechanism (without a scale covering it) gets stronger as you grip it tighter, but may fail more readily when twisted the wrong way. Some people say that a lock without a scale can be overextended during closing, thereby increasing wear and tension and the risk of failure, but some knives (like Strider's) have little discs that fix this.
-A lock that's completely covered by a scale has no place to go if it fails, because it's covered by the scale - this means a lock failure could sometimes jam the knife open, instead of closing it on your fingers.

There are a few other mechanical differences too, but I can't quite remember them. In any case, they are more important than whether the knife should be labeled a linerlock or a framelock - since one is essentially a variation on the other, the precise definition can be (and has been) debated for awhile.

 

[T.K.C.]

Kirby Lambert makes a frame lock like the OP described. And yes, it IS a frame lock.

 

[AF]

Look at the Kershaw Groove and the CRKT My Tighe. Both framelocks with the scale blocking overtravel of the lock bar.

 

[bitter1]

The Kershaw Groove has a scale of G10 over it, while not being completely covering the handle but it has a frame lock and a scale.

 

[Planterz]

Does adding horns to a reggae song make it ska? Can a ska band be a ska band without horns, or is that just a reggae band?

-An exposed locking mechanism (without a scale covering it) gets stronger as you grip it tighter

To me this is the fundamental difference. I've seen linerlocks with thicker bars than some framelocks. That's where the definitions blur. But to me, no matter how thick the linerlock, or how thin the framelock, the framelock will always have the benefit of being squeezed tighter by the hand while gripping it. That's how I define which is which.

I'm personally not a big fan of framelocks with a non-matching top scale, although I understand the purpose of having something grippy like G10 instead of just bare titanium. My personal preference would be 2 titanium handles, but with a grippy overlay/inlay doesn't cover the lock bar so you can still get the advantage in lock strength while grabbing it tight.

 

[Planterz]

The Kershaw Groove has a scale of G10 over it, while not being completely covering the handle but it has a frame lock and a scale.

Those would be called overlays rather than scales.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

In linerlocks, the liner is a piece of spring metal either attached to or inlaid in the handle. Some don't even have a liner on the non-lock side. In framelocks, the same frame that is cut out to form the lock is also the loadbearing piece (along with its mate on the non-locking side) that the knife is built around. It's not just a thicker liner, it is the frame that the entire structure depends on.

 

[Dekz]

In linerlocks, the liner is a piece of spring metal either attached to or inlaid in the handle. Some don't even have a liner on the non-lock side. In framelocks, the same frame that is cut out to form the lock is also the loadbearing piece (along with its mate on the non-locking side) that the knife is built around. It's not just a thicker liner, it is the frame that the entire structure depends on.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. In almost all cases a linerlock is just a framelock with a scale over it.

I made a VERY similar thread to this maybe a month ago because I find it quite amusing that SO many people have the attitude that framelocks are awesome and liner locks suck, even though they are basically the same thing.

 

[Planterz]

I'm going to have to disagree with this. In almost all cases a linerlock is just a framelock with a scale over it.

Not true. Many perhaps, possibly even a majority. But certainly not "almost all". Kershaw makes many linerlocks with a "nested" liner. So does Buck, Benchmade, and Spyderco (including one of the most famous linerlocks of all time, the Military).

I made a VERY similar thread to this maybe a month ago because I find it quite amusing that SO many people have the attitude that framelocks are awesome and liner locks suck, even though they are basically the same thing.

They use the same mechanical principle, but they are definitely not the same thing. As mentioned above, framelocks with few exceptions have a thicker lock than linerlocks, and even the thicker linerlocks don't have the advantage of being squeezed closed for greater lock security because there's a scale in the way.

 

[Dekz]

Not true. Many perhaps, possibly even a majority. But certainly not "almost all". Kershaw makes many linerlocks with a "nested" liner. So does Buck, Benchmade, and Spyderco (including one of the most famous linerlocks of all time, the Military).

They use the same mechanical principle, but they are definitely not the same thing. As mentioned above, framelocks with few exceptions have a thicker lock than linerlocks, and even the thicker linerlocks don't have the advantage of being squeezed closed for greater lock security because there's a scale in the way.

Even a "nested" liner is the structural part of the knife. The scales on a liner-lock knife are not what give it its strength.

And that very small difference is why I said "basically the same". The difference of opinions is so drastic that it still amuses me. I understand having a preference for frame locks over liner locks, but people will flat out say "suggest a knife, anything but a liner lock".

 

[Planterz]

Even a "nested" liner is the structural part of the knife.

Not so much. A nested liner is only strong if the handles have enough strength to support it. A knife that relied on a nested liner for its overall strength would be a weak knife indeed, with a rather iffy lock.

The scales on a liner-lock knife are not what give it its strength.

It gives the knife strength, and that strength supports the liner. You could have the thickest, strongest liner in all the land, but if the scales are weak, the lock is weak and the knife is weak.

A framelock (also known as the Chris Reeve Integral lock) simply combines the scale and the liner into the same slab of metal, giving the whole knife more structural strength and stronger lock strength with the same thickness of material compared to a linerlock knife of the same thickness.

And that very small difference is why I said "basically the same".

But they're not "basically" the same. There are some important, key fundemental differences that you're not grasping.

The difference of opinions is so drastic that it still amuses me.

Opinions are drastically different because the knives are. You're amused because you're misinformed and mistaken.

I understand having a preference for frame locks over liner locks, but people will flat out say "suggest a knife, anything but a liner lock".

For all the above reasons. The one important thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, that always gets mentioned when the Frame v. Liner argument rears its periodic head, is that quality of manufacture is just as important. High quality linerlocks like Emersons, the Microtech LCC, and the Spyderco Military are popular for a reason, and occurrences of lock failure are rare or even unheard of. But they're still linerlocks, and by definition, a linerlock isn't as strong or secure as a framelock of equal quality of manufacture.

And no matter strong a linerlock is, or how good a particular knife's track record is, there will always be some people who cannot ignore the other facts, and don't want to risk their fingers no matter how slim the chance of failure and injury.

Another reason is long-term durability. A linerlock, with very few notable exceptions, is thinner than a frame lock. Even if side-by-side the contact area between blade and lock of a Spyderco Military is the same as a Sebenza, the Sebenza will last longer before wearing out.

Although I have owned several liner/frame locks, and still own a few, I prefer locks that allow the knife to be closed one-handed without putting any part of my hand in the blade path.

 

[Planterz]

Also, consider CRKT's LAWKS system. It's a linerlock knife with an automatic secondary backup lock. Now, I'm not saying you should jump out of a plane without a backup chute, but to me the LAWKS system is ridiculous, and seems like a self-admission on CRKT's part that their linerlocks aren't to be trusted. Although if the one early CRKT linerlock I owned had the LAWKS mechanism, I wouldn't have nerve damage in my right index finger.

 

[statmonster]

I'm no sure if these examples will add to the confusion or help support the arguements of Planterz.

Knifemaker James Coogler calls this a frame lock.

Knifemaker Mikkel Willumsen calls this a frame lock.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I made a VERY similar thread to this maybe a month ago because I find it quite amusing that SO many people have the attitude that framelocks are awesome and liner locks suck, even though they are basically the same thing.

We are having a technical discussion. What amuses you has nothing to do with the facts. NO ONE here is suggesting "framelocks are awesome and liner locks suck". I myself was only explaining the mechanical differences, not the functional advantages.