Should Locking Knives be Trusted?

[Confederate]

So the conclusion is what? Would you trust the LAWKS system say, under combat or emergency rigors such as cutting seatbelts, heavy fabrics? If your opponent has a heavy bar and he hits the spine of the knife, is it likely to fold?

I understand knife makers wanting to make a buck or two, but high stress applications can very easily become a part of the equation. Some knife owners say, "Aw, you're makin' too much out of it. The knife's as strong as you need it to be." Meanwhile, I'm saying, "Is it?" Are companies like Cold Steel going over the top by making torture videos for their line of knives?

I have a number of beautiful CRKTs but have never used them for anything other than light duty. And I've heard very few complaints about failures. I do wonder, however, why they made the LAWKS wedge so skimpy.

-Confed

 

[allenC]

I suppose it depends on what you're reading in to the statement about the LAWKS turning the knife in to a fixed-blade.

On one hand, you can say that it's misleading since, even with the LAWKS engaged, the knife will still not be capable of performing every task that certain fixed-blades can perform.

On the other hand, the LAWKS does turn the folder in to a fixed-blade because you cannot unlock the knife without first disengaging the LAWKS.

And another thing to consider...
CRKT did'nt say what type of fixed-blade they were comparing their LAWKS engaged folders to.
Remember, even a cheap kitchen paring knife is a fixed-blade.
I have a Boker ceramic kitchen knife that is definitely a fixed-blade 100%, but I promise you that my CRKT M21-04 will perform any "fixed-blade" task that you can list better than the Boker.
I guess I'm saying, and CRKT could also argue, that not every fixed-blade is stronger than every folder.

A last thought:
It seems like your faith in CRKT liner-locks with LAWKS has been shaken enough that you will probably never be happy with one of them again--it's probably best to move on to another locking mechanism for peace of mind if nothing else.

I have put my CRKT knives through their paces and I have every bit as much confidence in them as any of my other folders (Benchmade, Spyderco, Buck, Camillus, Kershaw).
And I think that the LAWKS should be used on every liner-lock.
It's not perfect or infallible, but it does help make the knife more forgiving of our misjudgement.

Allen.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Would you trust the LAWKS system say, under combat or emergency rigors such as cutting seatbelts, heavy fabrics?

For cutting yes, it handles torques well.

If your opponent has a heavy bar and he hits the spine of the knife, is it likely to fold?

Yes, and it doesn't need anywhere near that level of impact, you can do it with just medium spine whacks and this is just the inertia of the knife, a much heavier stick or bar would be overkill.

On the other hand, the LAWKS does turn the folder in to a fixed-blade because you cannot unlock the knife without first disengaging the LAWKS.

I could readily fold a PG with the LAWKS fully engaged.

-Cliff

 

[allenC]

Yes, and it doesn't need anywhere near that level of impact, you can do it with just medium spine whacks and this is just the inertia of the knife, a much heavier stick or bar would be overkill.

I could readily fold a PG with the LAWKS fully engaged.

I would say that you have a defective knife.
I cannot fold my M21 or Pesh Kabz with the LAWKS engaged, and both pass what I consider very firm spine-whacks.

Maybe you should send the knife back to CRKT?

Allen.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I did, back in July.

-Cliff

 

[Will P.]

Yes, that's what I'm concerned about. Why would CRKT make such a blatantly misleading statement? I have heard about LAWKS failures, though I haven't documented any todate. Cold Steel has two ostensible liner locks: the Night Force and the Pro-Lite. The locks appear to extend from the liners, but are steel and lock quite a bit more forcibly than other linerlocks. Even then, it's interesting to note, that in their current DVD only the Pro-Lite manages to fail, but only after 70 pounds of reverse force. CS's engineers show the failure, but add that even if someone had been using the knife, the failure wouldn't have sliced any fingers.

Applying constant weight slowly to the handle is an optimal way to stress the lock to prevent failure. Lock failure is much more likely to occur due to a sudden shock, a shock in the wrong direction (i.e. a thrust), torque along the center of the knife, or accidentally disengagement of the lock.

The lock failure on the Prolite wouldn't have cut anyone because the the pressure was constant and applied to the handle - if a force were violently applied to the knife in a dynamic situation, things would be different. I wonder why they don't show a test like that.

 

[not2sharp]

I don't trust any folding knife locking device. Some knives are better then others; and, most folders when used properly, are perfectly safe. Just keep the stress on the pivot and stop pins and away from the lock. With a few exceptions (balisongs, front openers, the CS tri-fold, etc.) folding knives are designed to cut in one direction. Nor, should we be hammering the point against a hard object, where a slip or failure can lead to tragedy. The lock is just there to help hold the blade in position, to make it more efficient to use. It is not a replacement for a solid fixed blade, and it shouldn't be an excuse to do stupid things.

Forget the Dark-ops-style ninja hype, and remember that however much you value a locking device, your fingers are worth much more.

n2s

 

[Cliff Stamp]

It is not a replacement for a solid fixed blade, and it shouldn't be an excuse to do stupid things.

I don't think with the massive amount of tactical folders, you can use the phrase "with few exceptions" in the above. How big a portion of the folding market right now are tactical folders, and specific to that, uber-built tacticals with massive blades. Why is it "stupid" to expect a folder to have a lock which is consistent in strength and security with the blade design.

-Cliff

 

[not2sharp]

Why is it "stupid" to expect a folder to have a lock which is consistent in strength and security with the blade design.

All mechanical devices are prone to failure, and no such latching system can be stronger then a solid uninterrupted bar of uniformed material. A slip, a torque, and inadvertent release, and you are in trouble. Use the right tool and use the tool correctly and everything will be fine; it is when you load the revesed side of the blade with TOO much stress that we may have to start calling you stumpy.

n2s

 

[Cliff Stamp]

All mechanical devices are prone to failure, and no such latching system can be stronger then a solid uninterrupted bar of uniformed material.

Sure it can, if the one piece blade is slighter of build, which is what is constantly overlooked. I can easily tie a knot in a piece of rope and still have it be much stronger than another piece of rope without knots if the first one is inherently much stronger.

Use the right tool and use the tool correctly and everything will be fine

Lots of tools depend on the locks in order to actually be used for specific tasks. The lock is not simply a safety mechanism it is integral to the function of the tool without the lock you can't actually perform various cutting and utility tasks.

Benchmade has promoted the extreme strength of the axis lock, Doug Ritter who designed one of their knives advocated on a public forum that it can be used for batoning, which directly loads the lock so as to close it. Why is it then not correct use for a user to do this with the knife.

-Cliff

 

[Confederate]

This one's a tough call since I don't know exactly how you were using the knife or the nature of the lock failure. Did it break? Did it fail to completely lock? Could you have accidentally unlocked it yourself? Was there oil, pocket-lint, chapstick, dirt or anything else affecting the lock?

No, the knife didn't break, it was completely locked. The lock, in fact, is still broken and can be closed like a slip joint. It wasn't a liner lock, but a small scrimshaw knife that locked on the top, in the back. Cheap knife, cheap lock. I was using the knife to open a package. The tape and gunk made it difficult to retrieve the blade and, being locked, I pulled it out with just a small amount of back pressure. The lock just seems defective.

The new Benchmade axis-lock is explained here.

Regarding the CRKT knives, it would be wrong to say I lost my faith in them. Let's just say that I'm more aware of their limitations.

Cliff, when you returned your knife, did CRKT say anything about the failure? (I sent them an e-mail asking why they were cheapening the quality of many of their folders, mostly from AUS-6 to 420J. Even after a follow-up call, I've received no response. Meanwhile, their junk-o knives -- the non-AUS 8 --continue to be advertised on eBay as AUS-6 when many of them are made of inferior steels. Of course, CRKT isn't providing any kind of mark or indication to let the user know what kind of knife he or she has. It's the luck of the draw. That's mostly why I'm through with CRKT.)

-Confed

 

[not2sharp]

Doug Ritter who designed one of their knives advocated on a public forum that it can be used for batoning, which directly loads the lock so as to close it.

Per our recent discussion, regarding the failure of a Cold Steel Recon Scout while batoning, we observed that proper batoning technique places very little stress on the knife handle; nor, are your digits in the path of a closing blade. It is much like driving a nail with a hammer; once the blade bits you can pretty much let go of the handle.

The lock is there to hold the blade in position, and to help you position the blade correctly for the cut. It can usually handle moderate force as you would likely encounter while working in tight conditions, but it is foolish to apply full work level force and vibration against a locking device.

n2s

 

[allenC]

Meanwhile, their junk-o knives -- the non-AUS 8 --continue to be advertised on eBay as AUS-6 when many of them are made of inferior steels. Of course, CRKT isn't providing any kind of mark or indication to let the user know what kind of knife he or she has. It's the luck of the draw. That's mostly why I'm through with CRKT.)

I would'nt call the non-AUS8 knives junk.
After all, Spyderco does'nt make junk but some of it's knives are still AUS-6.
And Buck still uses 420 steel for many of their knives (and they don't mark or indicate that steel either).
Victorinox makes great knives but the blade-steel is probably either 440A or 420 (nobody knows for sure because they also don't mark their blades).
I prefer a premium blade-steel when possible, but a knife with lesser blade-steel is far from junk.

Allen.

 

[Confederate]

I would'nt call the non-AUS8 knives junk.
After all, Spyderco does'nt make junk but some of it's knives are still AUS-6.
And Buck still uses 420 steel for many of their knives (and they don't mark or indicate that steel either).

No, you misunderstand. AUS 6 knives are fine, but I'm not so inclined towards the cheaper steels CRKT and Gerber are using. Buck's 420 and Cold Steel's 420 have proven themselves to be superb. CRKT's 420J steel has not. Dropping the quality was a cost-driven initiative, so comparing them to the AUS 6 product is valid.

Until those blades have proven themselves like Buck's and CS's, I'm staying away from them.

-Confed

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Cliff, when you returned your knife, did CRKT say anything about the failure?

No, I have not heard from them.

Per our recent discussion, regarding the failure of a Cold Steel Recon Scout while batoning, we observed that proper batoning technique places very little stress on the knife handle;

This is only "proper" technique for really low quality knives, it is also impossible to split anything but the clearest and open grained wood in this manner efficiently. Without the off hand to direct the force of the baton to drive the blade into the wood, it will just rotate out with no vertical travel.

While some have pushed this as an excuse for various blades failing, as I noted in the thread when this came up the last time, it is easy to find makers/manufacturers who find it is proper technique to actually lean on the handle. It is also a horribly low standard to expect to be able to shatter that class of tool steel with a wooden baton.

Even the high carbon stainless steels are not so fragile. Simply because a knives breaks under a task does not mean it is abusive or improper technique in general with all other knives.

...it is foolish to apply full work level force and vibration against a locking device.

This can happen even if you just stab or do a hard thrust with a folder. Consider the huge amount of folders sold as fighting knives, it is foolish to do a thrust with them?

And again what about the vast amount sold with very thick blades, if it is foolish to expect to be able to use the knives in such a manner to actually take advantage of the blades strength why are they there?

If you can't actually take advantage of the strength and robust nature of the blade, isn't it highly irresponsible of manufactures to both put such blades on folders and highly promote strengths of 1000 + in.lbs.

Simply because some locks are very insecure doesn't mean thier limitations get applied to all, I have locking folders which I no different than fixed blades because any force which is capable of effecting the lock would break the blade.

All it takes is a design which is consistent in terms of blade and lock strength/security. The lock does not need to be the weak point in the design.

-Cliff

 

[zerobyte]

i've only had one lock fail, and that was my old, very cheap lock-back folder ($15, or so).

my cold steel recon1 uses something they call ultralock, and seems to be well designed. it's a movable bolt, that locks into the inside of the blade base. once it's open, it locks solidly. BUT: the retainer spring for the bolt is not very strong, so it opens (from the folded position) far too easily for my taste. need to fix that some day.

my godfather uses a bolt half-inserted into the outside of the blade base, so i wouldn't trust it with heavy duty work. it's my show-off knife anyway .

i also have a buck adrenaline linerlock. i don't really see that one failing, short of breaking the liner. the liner lock is really strong and actually quite uncomfortable to use.

00h

 

[teej]

This is a story that has been kind of silent. I heard this from the brother of a man that was actually there. I am going to estimate that this occured at least 10 yrs ago, but less than 15 yrs. This happened at the famous Gunsite ranch.

There was some kind of knife fighting course going on. Folding pocket clip knives were being used. They were working on basic strikes, slashes, thrusts, drills, etc. There were several incidents that occured where on back slashes, the locking mechanisms failed closing the blades on students hands.

This prompted the study for better locking mechanisms. I know there is a Cold Steel Gunsite model folder. I am not sure if this model was out before this incident occured or if the CS Gunsite model was a result of what happened there.

Anyone else ever hear of this or know who to ask to verify what happened there?

Teej