Why do folders still use linerlocks and framelocks?

[dragonist2]

For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to ignore lock strengths for a few reasons.
1. There does not seem to be a general consensus on the strength of each lock type. (of course I could be wrong)
2. All modern locking mechanisms are secure enough for the kind of tasks a folder is likely going to do.


With the invention of newer locks such as the Axis lock, compression lock, triad lock, etc., why are so many folding knives still being designed around the liner/framelock? People make a huge deal over the importance of one-handed opening, both righty and lefty, and 4-position pocketclips. Essentially, liner locks are righty only. Yes, you can do it with your left hand, but it's difficult. Plus, I don't like putting my fingers in the way of the closing blade. I think this last point is the main problem I have with what I think is an obsolete locking mechanism.

Is nostalgia? convenience? cost? just the way you do it? I don't know.

 

[9blades]

Who wants some popcorn lol?

I think it's mainly a mater of simplicity and ease of manufacturing, it would be very hard to produce a axis lock (up to benchmades standard's) or any other similer locking mechanism at a very low price. A liner lock on the other hand can be produced cheaply, while still maintaining a good price and most importantly the quality won't be compromised....also it's a proven design that is known to work without fail.

Just my 0.02 on the subject!

-niner

 

[Bugout Bill]

I think cost and easy of manufacture are big factors in the continued popularity of the liner lock and lock back. While I love the Axis lock, Benchmade's fierce defense of it's IP prevents other American manufacturers from using it. Same goes for the compression and triad lock. Another reason I think the liner lock remains popular is its simplicity. There is next to nothing to go wrong in a liner lock, compared to a spring based lock.

I don't get framelocks. Period. There is way to much to screw up with them, I've heard to many problems to fully trust them.

The newer locks are great, but I wouldn't say that the liner lock is obsolete. As for difficulty for lefties, it's your own damn fault.

 

[Planterz]

I love the AXIS lock. Flick open, flick closed. Nothing is easier or quicker. And you don't have to put your finger or thumb in the path of the blade.

I don't like liner or frame locks. They're slower to close, and you have to put your thumb in the path of the blade when closing.

That said, liner and frame locks are simple. A well-made liner lock is safe, and a frame lock is very safe. No extra parts, no complex mechanism, no springs. I love the AXIS lock, and never had an omega spring break, but you hear about them breaking all the time, so maybe it's only a matter of time that I do break one. And taking apart and putting together an AXIS lock is a PITA. Taking apart and putting back together a lockback (assuming you can) like an Endura is a major PITA. And the lock on an SOG Flash? Overly complex, and there's this tiny little ball that you're probably going to lose.

I don't like liner or frame locks personally, but I can certainly understand why both manufacturers and users like them.

 

[Blade and Flame]

I think it boils down to two factors: the relative simplicity of a liner lock/frame lock and the issues/cost of licensing an Axis/compression/triad lock.

 

[Oakengroves]

Is nostalgia? convenience? cost? just the way you do it? I don't know.

A solid and interesting to start a thread. I'll offer an abbreviated answer:

As for linerlocks and lockbacks, these locks are not patented and require minimal machinery and mechanical expertise to produce. Their designs are time-tested, relatively inexpensive to produce, and are still demanded enough to justify production. While they may be mechanically inferior to modern lock designs (compression, axis, ball, etc), they have proven reliable when properly designed, and their design has been perfected by a wide variety of designers. I predict liner locks and lockbacks will gradually phase out as patents expire, new designs continue to emerge, and people gradually shift demand towards more functional locks.

As for framelocks, the framelock represents one of the most mechanically sleek, simple, and strong designs available.I do not foresee the framelock going away anytime soon. It is unique in that it requires the smallest amount of moving parts to achieve one of the highest forms of lock strength. A properly executed framelock (CRK for example) retains obscene strength while reducing the horizontal width of the knife, leading to less weight and better pocket carry. It is also incredibly reliable due to its simple design. A properly executed framelock is exceedingly rare and difficult to produce. A framelock is hard to appreciate unless you have handled knives that take full advantage of its functionality (CRK especially).

 

[Bugout Bill]

As for framelocks, the framelock represents one of the most mechanically sleek and simple strong designs available. I do not foresee the framelock going away anytime soon. It is unique in that it requires the smallest amount of moving parts to achieve one of the highest forms of lock strength. A properly executed framelock (CRK for example) retains obscene strength while reducing the horizontal width of the knife, leading to less weight and better pocket carry. It is also incredibly reliable due to its simple design. A framelock is difficult to appreciate unless you have handled knives that take full advantage of its functionality (CRK especially).

I think that the frame-lock requires a bit too much precision for the mass production, at least Ti ones do.

 

[TotalDbag]

Aren't the Axis, Comp, triad lock ALL copyright, or patented, or whatever the right term is? That means they'd have to pay the company to use it, and that means the price of the knives go up. I don't think anyone owns the patent for the liner/framelock. Meaning everyone can use it for free, and cheaper knives are possible.

Though I could be wrong in every way possible. So don't flame me if I'm wrong.

 

[Oakengroves]

I think that the frame-lock requires a bit too much precision for the mass production, at least Ti ones do.

Agreed. A properly executed frame lock is exceedingly rare and difficult to produce.

 

[dogstar]

Uhh, I'm very comfortable operating the liner lock left handed.

Liner locks are so darned simple. Do not underestimate simplicity.

 

[5001craig]

I will probably not make any friends but I say the only lock is an Axis Lock. Flick open and flick closed. It's perfect for me. I just wish Spyderco would make more of them than the Manix line (which I don't find as attractive as the BM's but they do use awesome steel on the Sprint models). Not to mention a custom made folder with an Axis.

And I just can't ever get the idea of putting my finger in front of a blade when I want to close it.

 

[Comeuppance]

Simplicity of parts is another aspect to consider. With axis locks, ball bearing locks, bolt locks, button locks, and even backlocks, you have more parts to machine, fit, and assemble. In addition to that, there are more parts to have potential defects and/or break.

Linerlocks and framelocks are beautifully simple and can be just as secure as - and perhaps more secure than - any other locking mechanism. I would like to see compression locks enter the general market someday, as they are just as secure and there is no risk of closing the blade on your fingers.

 

[agile_1]

I don't like putting my fingers in front of a closing blade either. But I don't very many fingers left so it won't be a problem much longer.

Snark snark.

I have liner locks, frame locks, lock backs, Opinel locks (?) and simple slip locks. They all have their advantages/disadvantages. It's the wide world of knives.

You could avoid the lock issue entirely with a nice little fixed blade.

 

[Planterz]

Aren't the Axis, Comp, triad lock ALL copyright, or patented, or whatever the right term is? That means they'd have to pay the company to use it, and that means the price of the knives go up. I don't think anyone owns the patent for the liner/framelock. Meaning everyone can use it for free, and cheaper knives are possible.

Though I could be wrong in every way possible. So don't flame me if I'm wrong.

The concept of the liner lock has been around for many decades. Slipjoints would sometimes have a thin brass liner that would stop the blade from closing if pressure would overcome the spring. Michael Walker invented the modern liner lock as we know it, but didn't patent it. From what I gather, he tried, but was denied. Chris Reeve took the liner lock concept to the next level, making the lock integral to the frame. Hence, the Reeve Integral Lock (RIL), or frame lock.

Companies are always trying to figure out newer, stronger, more innovative locks. Some succeed, some don't. Personally, I think the best lock in this era of "modern" folding knives is Spyderco's Compression lock (despite my enthusiasm for the AXIS). As easy to make, and as easy to operate (IMO, easier) as a liner lock, yet is far more reliable and safe.

Of course, most of the cutting I do these days is with a slipjoint, so what do I know?

 

[Bugout Bill]

Simplicity of parts is another aspect to consider. With axis locks, ball bearing locks, bolt locks, button locks, and even backlocks, you have more parts to machine, fit, and assemble. In addition to that, there are more parts to have potential defects and/or break.

Linerlocks and framelocks are beautifully simple and can be just as secure as - and perhaps more secure than - any other locking mechanism. I would like to see compression locks enter the general market someday, as they are just as secure and there is no risk of closing the blade on your fingers.

The compression lock isn't going to see the general market unless Spyderco relinquishes its trademark on it. There are some Chinese domestics that use the compression lock, but that's about it.

 

[shecky]

Agreed. A properly executed frame lock is exceedingly rare and difficult to produce.

Unless you have some special definition of "properly executed", it appears to me that a properly executed frame lock is trivially routine for any modern knife factory to implement.

 

[Oakengroves]

Unless you have some special definition of "properly executed", it appears to me that a properly executed frame lock is trivially routine for any modern knife factory to implement.

A properly executed framelock takes advantage of the best materials available (usually titanium) with as few parts as possible (no steel inserts) and balances a number of factors that are difficult to mass produce at low cost, including minimal tolerances [to prevent lock rock and other potential problems], heat treatment [to reduce wear], proper geometry [lock stability], retention [to prevent excessive bend or accidental disengagement], and other factors.

If a framelock fails to incorporate those features correctly, it is easily surpassed by the modern locks identified in this thread. This is exactly why properly executed framelocks are rare and difficult to produce.

 

[goodeyesniper]

^^ steel inserts serve to fix certain issues common in ti lockbars, and I haven't heard of any issues with the inserts. have you?

on to the original question, I'd say they are still made because people still buy them. People still buy them because they are easy to use, easy enough to make, cleanliness isn't generally an issue with them like it can be on certain back locks and axis locks. Generally no little things to fail like the spring on an axis lock...

These locks aren't going away any time soon, or probably ever.

 

[hardheart]

because Walker got bad advice from an attorney who told him he couldn't patent the linerlock, so he only got a trademark on the name Liner Lock. He apparently also did the frame lock at the same time (early 80s), but I don't know how it went from him to being mainly associated with Reeve. Cattaraugus had an early 1900s patent on the brass liner lock with backspring, and it wasn't until Walker developed the ball bearing detent that anything happened with the lock. The first production liner lock came in the 80s, and it wasn't under license from Walker. The first US production liner lock didn't show up until the 90s. This is also around when Reeve started making the Sebenza.

Both locks aren't that old, and neither is patented. They require few parts, no separate springs, are easy to assemble, don't provide a lot of resistance to opening or closing, and nobody has to get paid to use either.

It would be nice if the frame lock was stronger, but I don't believe one exists that can hold more weight than a lockback, axis lock, or triad. At least nothing has been shown.

 

[shecky]

A properly executed framelock takes advantage of the best materials available (usually titanium) with as few parts as possible (no steel inserts) and balances a number of factors that are difficult to mass produce at low cost, including minimal tolerances [to prevent lock rock and other potential problems], heat treatment [to reduce wear], proper geometry [lock stability], retention [to prevent excessive bend or accidental disengagement], and other factors.

If a framelock fails to incorporate those features correctly, it is easily surpassed by the modern locks identified in this thread. This is exactly why properly executed framelocks are rare and difficult to produce.

This is a ridiculously skewed definition of a properly executed framelock. Minimal tolerances, heat treatment, geometry, retention with minimal parts, are all trivial for a modern manufacturer, and can be found on a $8 framelock. Titanium is a material used, but claiming the best is pretty subjective.