- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 5,171
The reason why the spine whack test isnt just abuse but a useless test is that for no particular reason a knife may pass or fail the test for no particular reason (as in it may pass the first 5 times fail the 6th, and pass the next 5 and so on). To buy a knife or not to buy a knife based on the test is absurd.
That is just plain incorrect. If the knife fails, there is a reason. It is not happenstance.
If your knife fails you either broke the lock, the knife is faulty, or something is wrong (lint, too much lube, etc.).
There are a plethora of knives with locks that are generally reliable out there. The Paul lock and most of its variant, the Axis-lock, the Arc-lock, the Ball-bearing lock, the plunger-lock (usually on autos), the Bolt-Action lock, the RAM-lock appears reliable, and not to mention many variants of the old lock-back (look what Cold-Steel is making), ad nauseum.
At one time I felt that a liner-lock of quality materials and from a reputable maker was worth recommending as a potential buy; no more. Liner-locks fail too often.
Frame locks suffer many of the issues liner-locks do. But, so far the incendence of failure seems less. Still, I hesitate to recommend such knives to others.
Whatever knife you choose, learn the various methods of testing a knife lock and test the lock on your knife. Remember that testing lock reliability is not a robustness test. Unproven reliability is no reliability.
BTW - even cheap knives can have reliable locks. Opinel's ring lock isn't particularly convenient nor robust, but the lock is reliable. I have a CCC of the TiNives design, with plunger-lock, that has passed some rather abusive tasks with complete reliability.