You know, the OP tried to compare design and materials of specific GEC patterns. Things rapidly escalated to traditional vs. modern, and use vs. abuse. I don't think that was the OP's intent.
Ah. Perhaps Jamie can clarify. I thought he was asking a general question using some GECs as specific examples.
Let me take another run at an answer that is more direct to his original post and see if I can do so in a less controversial manner.
I hear a lot of discussion regarding the toughness or durability of traditional folding knives. I am curious as to what criteria others use to make this determination? I have always considered the Achilles heel of any folder to be the pivot, particularly the pivot pin. On looks alone one would judge a GEC #23 Pioneer to be vastly more robust than a #68 Pony Jack, but is that really the case?
Focusing on the pivot itself, does the #23 have a larger diameter pin than the #68? If so, is it large enough to compensate for the additional leverage afforded by the #23's substantially longer blade and handle? Or sufficient enough to make up for its nickel silver not being as strong as the steel pin found in the #68? Which knife over years of use is more likely to develope play as a result of honest use (not misuse)?
I would also be interested in hearing from those with substantial exposure to vintage knives on how they would judge the durability of the knives they have seen based on size, pattern and materials.
Of course for sheer ruggedness few can compete with the #46 Whaler, or can they?
Jamie, I think you are right in thinking about a lock back like the 23 as being in a different category than a slip joint. More broadly, I think that it's sensible to think of knife designs as groups. IMO, the major ones are (in decreasing strength):
+ full width, full length tang fixed blades
+ partial width, full length tang fixed blades
+ partial length fixed blades
+ locking folders
+ slip joint folders
Obviously, there are massive variances in design details, manufacturing quality and material so these categories overlap significantly. Never-the-less, as a staring point and just considering the merits of the basic design, I think that ordering generally holds.
Note that I think you're first question is really about how to navigate through that overlap. Like you, I think of big lockers like the 23 as being in a different category but, like you, I recognize that there is more to it than that.
A couple of comments that I'm hoping most here will agree with.
First, durability is mostly about how we use a knife. So long as we stay within a range of uses that a knife is designed for, the knife will not fail.
Case in point... this knife is plenty durable.
H 15 drop point 2 by
Pinnah, on Flickr
But, its not a full width tang construction and I accept that there are knives that can take rougher use/abuse and I moderate my use of this knife accordingly. I could break that knife without too much difficulty by using it in ways that full width tang knife of good quality might survive. I don't see any reason to denigrate uses above or below any particular design category. Ray Mears, Mors Kochanski and their students are out in the woods smashing on knives with small logs. <shrug> By and large, the knives they choose are designed with this sort of use. One man's use is another's abuse.
Going in the other direction, I don't mean to denigrate a knife design (or by extension) their owners by recognizing a design as being inherently weaker. I would impune myself if I did, as that H-15 demonstrates. Another case in point. An Ulster BSA knife sits on my work bench. I can see it from where I sit now. It looks something like this.
Modified Ulster Camper by
Pinnah, on Flickr
These knives use the Ulster/Schrade Swinden key construction which are even more prone to wobble than peened pivots are. I got the knife that's on my work bench when I was 8 so it's well more than 40 years old. The blade and tools wobble like drunken sailors but the knife still works and gets used regularly. Open, cut, close, repeat.
Now getting more direct about your question about the GEC 23's construction... My approach is to start with the design and then to consider the details of a particular implementation. I would compare the 23 to other locking folder and not to slip joints. You raised on of many good points in nothing that larger folders generate more leverage.
I've not handled a GEC 23 but had this Buck 500 Duke for several years (until it pocket ejected - man I hate that!).
Buck 500 by
Pinnah, on Flickr
It was a wonderful knife to pocket carry and I think about the GEC 23 as a possible replacement. I also recently got a Schrade 51OT which is bigger than both of them. But, as I noted above, I wouldn't use any of these knives as hard as I use an Opinel. The Opinel's rivets aren't flush, the pivot is reinforced by the inner collar and the blades are comparatively very flexible, which minimizes force concentration at the pivot.
Last comment... I used to work as a bike mechanic. Occasionally you'll hear mechanics talk about their customers saying something like, "He rides heavy (or light) on his bike." Some people don't know how to ride a bike in a manner to absorb bumps on the road. Some do. The former group, just busts bike parts regularly. The other doesn't.
Any knife can be broken. Any knife can last a lifetime. Design and execution both matter. But so does usage. Hope something here is helpful.
Some beauties there alright that have seen real work.:thumbup:
