So I have $500 to spend and am thinking about a sebenza, but I keep looking at them and I'm not sure I see "it". I also have been looking at the benchmade monolock 765 and 761. I have benchmades already and like them, but will there be a noticeable difference between the CRK and benchmade?
What exactly is the "it" that you are searching for when you look at a Sebenza? It's just a knife, nothing more or less. Anything and everything else you may have read/heard/seen is simply subjective banter.
That being said, I'll "play" and provide my own subjective banter with the knives you have mentioned above, speaking specifically to Blade Steel, Pivot System, and Locking System.
761/765 vs. Sebenza
Blade Steel
- 761/765: M390
- Sebenza: S35VN
Edge Retention: M390 will have longer edge retention. S35VN will be faster to strop/sharpen (Note: I didn't say "easier". M390 just requires a bit more "time", not more "effort").
Corrosion Resistance: I would say they are about equal. Sure the compositions will tell otherwise, but in a real world scenario being a regular guy, you won't notice a difference.
Toughness: Same as above, pretty much equal. If one were to chip before the other, I would say Benchmade's M390.
If "Blade Steel" is the deciding factor, just ask yourself if you would rather:
- strop faster, cut some (Sebenza)
- strop longer, cut more than some (761/765)
Pivot System
- 761/765: Bearings/Adjustable Pivot
- Sebenza: Washers/Bushing Pivot
The notion of "smooth" between the systems is subjective, so we will throw that comparison out the window.
Deployment - Flicking: The 761/765 will have a "snappier"/"quicker" deployment due to the increased detent strength and the lack of resistance due to the Bearings. The Sebenza can fire out, however there will be some "drag".
Deployment - Sweeping: The Sebenza will be much easier to slowly sweep open as there is more resistance and a lighter detent.
Side to Side Play: Assuming both are "dialed-in" to spec, you shouldn't encounter any blade play, HOWEVER, the 761/765 has a lot more going on. Bearings are placed in a plastic/poly race and all it takes is one or more to "give" to introduce some play. The Sebenza's Bushing Pivot is just tightened all the way down. The only real way to introduce side to side play with a Sebenza is through User Error:
- over "smoothing" out the washers resulting in the bushing sitting proud of the washers
- pinched washer when reassembling the knife
- pivot not tightened down (this is true with the 761/765 as well)
If "Pivot System" is the deciding factor, just ask yourself if you would rather:
- have a knife that is dialed in now but could potentially degrade with time (761/765. NOTE: This is HIGHLY unlikely, if not impossible with normal use. This statement is splitting "false hairs" and is under my OWN assumption that the bearing races COULD damage through user ABUSE)
- have a knife that breaks in and gets smoother with time (Sebenza)
AGAIN, I will state that what I said regarding "bearings" is splitting "false hairs" and is under my OWN assumption that the bearing races COULD damage through user ABUSE. You see TONS of bearing knives handling hard tasks and functioning to spec. SO, if anything...that disproves my above scenario.
Locking System
- 761/765: Monolock (modified and overthought take on the Reeve Integral Lock)
- Sebenza: Reeve Integral Lock
I will skip a lot of the points here as my stance/opinion is clearly obvious. I feel the Sebenza's lockup and strength to be FAR superior. The lock bar is more robust (more contact on the lockface) and there is more pressure applied to the lockface. You can adjust the "amount" of lockup with 761/765, however the lockbar strength appears to remain consistent. In some instances, you can create some vertical play with the Monolock. Perhaps this is all User Error, meaning:
- we approach the Monolock as a "proactive" means to "dial in" our knife
- we SHOULD only adjust the Monolock as a "reactive" means to "dial out" potential lock issues that arise with time
If "Locking System" is the deciding factor, just ask yourself if you would rather:
- have a turn-key tried and true approach (Sebenza)
- have a user-adjustable interface to an existing tried and true approach (761/765)