The LAWKS system (Lake and Walker Knife Safety system)

B

blixxx

BANNED
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
237
Hello my fellow conscripts,

I just received my first CRKT (Hammond Cruiser) in the mail today, I like it! But what really grabbed for my attention was the LAWKS system, that thing is genius!!! I never have to worry about a freak accidental blade closure chopping off digits!

Great job Lake and Walker!!!

What you do guys think about the LAWKS system?

I removed the obsolete thumb-stud and now I have a micro spydie hole :)
pen8.jpg
 
I've never been a fan of liner locks, but the LAWKS system does seem like a wise addition. I prefer something stronger like benchmade's axis lock/sog's arc lock or cold steel's triad lock. To each their own, I just feel like liner locks will eventually fail. I've had my Sog xray vision mini for 15 years and I've really abused it, and the lock is as tights as the day I got it.
 
I've never had an issue with a liner lock closing on me unwanted. So the LAWKS is unnecessary IMHO. I have two knives that have it, and when I carry them I do not use the feature. It's not a deal breaker, but it's not a deal cincher either. I can live without it just fine, thank you very much.

I mean, my favorite knife is the Spyderco Military. It has no lawks and does not need it.
 
K.O.D. said:
I've never been a fan of liner locks...I just feel like liner locks will eventually fail...
Click to expand...

I agree, liner locks and especially frame locks have a chance of failure, but that's what's great about the LAWKS it removes those failure chances for liner locks. It's solid and so simple...I think it's only one piece of material.
 
Last edited:
I think it's gimmicky and actually weaker than a properly done liner lock, a la Emerson or Cold Steel's Ti Lite.
 
Kwon Kwang said:
I think it's gimmicky and actually weaker than a properly done liner lock, a la Emerson or Cold Steel's Ti Lite.
Click to expand...

How is it "gimmicky" when it simply works in the simplest manner? The liner lock moves towards the frame to unlock the blade, the LAWKS keeps the liner from moving towards the frame by pivoting a piece of metal between the liner lock and frame. It's like putting something in front of a door so it doesn't open, it's basic.

But I get it...this is one of your copious plugs for Cold Steel.
 
Last edited:
blixxx said:
How is it "gimmicky" when it simply works in the simplest manner? The liner lock moves towards the frame to unlock the blade, the LAWKS keeps the liner from moving towards the frame by pivoting a piece of metal between the liner lock and frame. It's like putting something in front of a door so it doesn't open, it's basic.

But I get it...this is one of your copious plugs for Cold Steel.
Click to expand...

It lacks simplicity because the LAWKS is an additional mechanism added to an already dependable lock (if properly designed/functioning).
I think it is unnecessary but I could see it's usefulness on weaker/cheaper linerlocks.
 
Nullity said:
It lacks simplicity because the LAWKS is an additional mechanism added to an already dependable lock (if properly designed/functioning).
I think it is unnecessary but I could see it's usefulness on weaker/cheaper linerlocks.
Click to expand...

This really is a 1+1=2 type thing... A well designed liner lock has nothing between it and the frame..correct? the LAWKS puts something between the well designed liner lock and frame... 1+1=2
 
blixxx said:
How is it "gimmicky" when it simply works in the simplest manner? The liner lock moves towards the frame to unlock the blade, the LAWKS keeps the liner from moving towards the frame by pivoting a piece of metal between the liner lock and frame. It's like putting something in front of a door so it doesn't open, it's basic.

But I get it...this is one of your copious plugs for Cold Steel.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Go ahead and look up lock strength tests on YouTube. The LAWKS system fails where Emerson liner locks (which I don't even like), Cold Steel's leaf spring locks and Tri-Ad locks succeed.

I'll wait.
 
Kwon Kwang said:
:rolleyes:

Go ahead and look up lock strength tests on YouTube. The LAWKS system fails where Emerson liner locks (which I don't even like), Cold Steel's leaf spring locks and Tri-Ad locks succeed.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

You think you have won but he will never relent. ;)
So do wait, he will be back.
 
My right index finger has nerve damage and a 3 stitch scar due to a pre-LAWKS CRKT linerlock failure. I'm not going to trust a knife that needs an additional lock to be "safe".
 
blixxx said:
How is it "gimmicky" when it simply works in the simplest manner? The liner lock moves towards the frame to unlock the blade, the LAWKS keeps the liner from moving towards the frame by pivoting a piece of metal between the liner lock and frame. It's like putting something in front of a door so it doesn't open, it's basic.

But I get it...this is one of your copious plugs for Cold Steel.
Click to expand...

blixxx said:
So in conjunction with the thread title, Its so nice that flippers and spyderco type holes inherently use less parts than lets say a blade that has a thumb stud. So taking a page out of common sense...Less parts = Less things to go wrong!!!
Click to expand...

Changed your mind about the whole extra parts thing?

And by the way...Kwon Kwang has as much right to advocate CS as you do to advocate flippers. :mad:
 
Last edited:
I don’t mind having an extra safety, such as LAWKS or Lionsteels Rotoblock, but Auto-LAWKS is really annoying. I usually prefer a fixed blade anyway :cool:
 
Kwon Kwang said:
:rolleyes:

Go ahead and look up lock strength tests on YouTube. The LAWKS system fails where Emerson liner locks (which I don't even like), Cold Steel's leaf spring locks and Tri-Ad locks succeed.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

might be better for you to just post the vid, I'm eating ice cream right now and I don't feel like looking up CS propaganda
 
Planterz said:
My right index finger has nerve damage and a 3 stitch scar due to a pre-LAWKS CRKT linerlock failure. I'm not going to trust a knife that needs an additional lock to be "safe".
Click to expand...

Agreed. I bought a CRKT Crawford Kaspar with LAWKS back when. The idea that more stuff had to be slapped onto it to counter its poorly constructed lock quickly struck me as sheer craziness.
 
marcinek said:
Changed your mind about the whole extra parts thing?

And by the way...Kwon Kwang has as much right to advocate CS and you do to advocate flippers. :mad:
Click to expand...

I removed the two piece thumb-stud to keep my parts count down, the manual LAWKS is only one piece.
 
blixxx said:
I removed the two piece thumb-stud to keep my parts count down, the manual LAWKS is only one piece.
Click to expand...

Well, if you think the number of parts of a thumbstud is concern for failure, and the number of parts in a locking mechanism isn't...then I hope that all works for you. :thumbup:
 
Hey conscripts, the thumb-stud thing was a joke. Relax, eat some ice cream or chew some gum.

I removed it not for parts count but because it didn't work, not in the right spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top