Why so many High-end knives with plain Frame/Liner locks?

C

cm_bushman

Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
314
CRK Sebenzas and Umnumzaans,
Strider XM-18s and XM-24s,
Les George VECPs,
Demko AD-10s,
Gunhammers (if not auto),

The list goes on. I know there are many without it, but it seems the vast majority of very high-end folders employ a straightforward liner or framelock. In my experience, these locks are more prone (moreso than an AXIS type or lockback) to wear, a few frame-locks of mine developing blade-play within just a couple years of EDC. Granted, I'm talking about mid-range production knives rather than a high-end piece, but I can't imagine this sort of thing in a $300+ blade.

It seems that these types of locks have the most metal-on-metal (or ceramic-on-metal) interface during the operation, and so it seems obvious they would have higher wear and a shorter life, especially considering they are under pressure when engaging the lock. On the other hand, I know that these locks are some of the strongest initially, requiring almost complete destruction of a knife in order to defeat the lock. I've never had a framelock fail on me, even after becoming "wobbly". I'm just wondering why this type of lock is so prevalent on very expensive knives, especially since its seems so easy to produce, and therefore cheap. I figure it is easier to use these locks since they are so straightforward and there are no patents to worry about, reducing the cost to the maker, though in that case, the prices on these knives becomes even more suspect. I know we pay more for expertise and workmanship than actual features, but it just seems like for the price, a less wear-prone lock would be employed. I also think this minimizes differences in these knives, leading to a sort of "rut" and certain expectations that stunts the growth of innovative, usable lock and knife designs in this arena. Keep in mind, I'm not knocking any of these makers or their knives, or even the lock. In fact, I've pined over all of the knives I listed and still do, which is partly the reason I'm wondering.

So fill me in guys, is it simply a convention, or lock-strength, or some other virtue of these locks that I'm missing that makes them so common on high-priced knives?
 
^^^ Agreed.
The frame lock is an excellent design and always has been. It does not make the life of the knife shorter. It would if you abused the heck out of your knife, which many do and then they blame it on the knife or the maker or anything they can find to blade but themselves.

The frame lock is a strong lock but it is certainly not the strongest. I guess the answer to your question is that it just works. I've seen 16+ year old Sebenza's that have been carried daily and work just as well as mine that's only about 5 or 6 months old. It's the same with a liner lock. It all depends on how the knife is made and what it's made for.

These are commonly used because they are good locks that are just as effective as other locks. Plus there are certain ways you can make the lock stronger as well. But if it's well executed, it's unlikely to fail.
 
Well, Chris Reeve invented the frame lock...so that's why he uses them.

Other than that, as you mentioned there arent any patents on frame or liner locks so they are sy on makers in that respect.

Also, frame locks are one of the most elegant and simple (yet absurdly complicated) lock designs out there. A really good frame lock is a thing of beauty but is extremely difficult to get just right. A perfect frame lock is a sign of an excellent knife maker.

In terms of excessive wear, you're right to some extent with regards to untreated titanium wearing against a steel tang. However, good makers remedy this by heat treating, carbodizing, carbodizing, or adding a steel insert to the lock bar.
 
Interestingly though, I am not very interested in the knives on the OP's list precisely because they have frame or liner locks. I have carried liner lock knives for many years in the past, never had an issue with wear...but once I found the axis, paul, and ball locks I found I prefer knives that are ambidextrous. Although I am mostly right handed, I sometimes need to open or close my knife with my left hand. I can close a right-handed liner lock with my left hand, but find it awkward. I also find closing lock-back knives with either hand one-handed to be a bit awkward. I sometimes wonder why a high end custom knife I might see has just a simple liner lock, but I suppose there are only so many effective locking systems for folding knives
 
cm_bushman said:
CRK Sebenzas and Umnumzaans,
Strider XM-18s and XM-24s,
Les George VECPs,
Demko AD-10s,
Gunhammers (if not auto),

The list goes on. I know there are many without it, but it seems the vast majority of very high-end folders employ a straightforward liner or framelock. In my experience, these locks are more prone (moreso than an AXIS type or lockback) to wear, a few frame-locks of mine developing blade-play within just a couple years of EDC. Granted, I'm talking about mid-range production knives rather than a high-end piece, but I can't imagine this sort of thing in a $300+ blade.

It seems that these types of locks have the most metal-on-metal (or ceramic-on-metal) interface during the operation, and so it seems obvious they would have higher wear and a shorter life, especially considering they are under pressure when engaging the lock. On the other hand, I know that these locks are some of the strongest initially, requiring almost complete destruction of a knife in order to defeat the lock. I've never had a framelock fail on me, even after becoming "wobbly". I'm just wondering why this type of lock is so prevalent on very expensive knives, especially since its seems so easy to produce, and therefore cheap. I figure it is easier to use these locks since they are so straightforward and there are no patents to worry about, reducing the cost to the maker, though in that case, the prices on these knives becomes even more suspect. I know we pay more for expertise and workmanship than actual features, but it just seems like for the price, a less wear-prone lock would be employed. I also think this minimizes differences in these knives, leading to a sort of "rut" and certain expectations that stunts the growth of innovative, usable lock and knife designs in this arena. Keep in mind, I'm not knocking any of these makers or their knives, or even the lock. In fact, I've pined over all of the knives I listed and still do, which is partly the reason I'm wondering.

So fill me in guys, is it simply a convention, or lock-strength, or some other virtue of these locks that I'm missing that makes them so common on high-priced knives?
Click to expand...
You know that Demko AD-10's have Tri-Ad locks right...
 
I fully expect the lock on my mini grip to be stronger, less prone to wear, less prone to failure, and less prone to blade play than my sebenza. Im probably one of the very few that believe this. I love sebenzas, and in my opinion they are perfect in every way excluding the lock
 
kaosu04 said:
I fully expect the lock on my mini grip to be stronger, less prone to wear, less prone to failure, and less prone to blade play than my sebenza. Im probably one of the very few that believe this. I love sebenzas, and in my opinion they are perfect in every way excluding the lock
Click to expand...

I always include my mini grip in my rotation at work. Love the axis lock for ease of use. But in regards to lock strength, their both sufficient from my use and experience but definitely assume my Sebenzas' solid titanium locks would be less prone to failure. The fact that there are less pieces in the lock mechanism alone would suggest that. The axis lock from what Ive learned being around here is its just as prone to failure as anything else. Last thing, I havent yet experienced any play in my Sebs, if I did I would freak and send it out. I've had a total of three 551's and all had significant play, all are gone. My other BM axis including the mini grip are solid however.
 
IMHO Lionsteel has a perfect solution for that with the little steel insert on the SR-1.
If you ever manage to wear it out(which I doubt with normal use), just change it :thumbup:
 
kaosu04 said:
I fully expect the lock on my mini grip to be stronger, less prone to wear, less prone to failure, and less prone to blade play than my sebenza. Im probably one of the very few that believe this. I love sebenzas, and in my opinion they are perfect in every way excluding the lock
Click to expand...

I once expected certain things out of the different locks I owned, but until I actually tested the locks, I never knew.
Sure, certain locks are more likely to be stronger or more dependable under certain circumstances, but until you test the actual example you have, you'll never know.
I'm just saying, thinking your lock is dependable doesn't make it so, and until you've confirmed it, you're just blowing hot air.



On topic: Liner/framelocks are awesome from a user and manufacturing perspective.
Simple, strong, and dependable. Just a single spring.
I don't care for the ball-detent as a method of keeping the blade closed, but it works well enough.

All locks have their advantages and disadvantages.
Know what you need and choose whatever lock best meets your needs.
Sometimes the best choice is no lock at all... a fixed-blade. :p

:)
 
cm_bushman said:
So fill me in guys, is it simply a convention, or lock-strength, or some other virtue of these locks that I'm missing that makes them so common on high-priced knives?
Click to expand...

Frame locks are easier to fabricate than Axis locks, lock backs, compression locks, etc. When asking "why" when it comes to the manufacturing process, always look first to "what reduces my production costs" and "what maximizes my profit". These are not bad things, btw.
 
Done properly, they're just fine.
It's kinda like my woodworking tools. There are many makers that offer a 'duplicate' of a high dollar, well made item but they are simply inferior.
You often get what you pay for.
 
kaosu04 said:
I fully expect the lock on my mini grip to be stronger, less prone to wear, less prone to failure, and less prone to blade play than my sebenza. Im probably one of the very few that believe this. I love sebenzas, and in my opinion they are perfect in every way excluding the lock
Click to expand...

I can relate, after toting a small Seb for over 10 years. I now carry a BM Mini Bone Collector. I used to gingerly open my Seb out of concern for wear on the lock face, whereas with the BM, I can draw, open, and close it with incredibly fast without similar concern. The Axis mech seems designed to wear in, not out. And the manner in which the blade tang ramp was redesigned on the Mini BC where the Axis bar engages, vertical blade play is all but eliminated.
 
Regarding the liner lock. Mr. Walkers invention......it was tested early on and surpassed lockbacks on lock strength. The reason folks have gotten a warped sense on strength of the liner lock is due to makers not doing them correctly and user mishandling. It is a myth that a properly done and used liner lock is weaker than a lock back.

As for the frame lock.....I see no extreme improvement over a properly done liner lock.

There is an article done by Mr. Levine about the walker liner lock. Even mentions another knife maker taking credit for designing a lock that Mr. Walker designed before his liner. Never mentions who the maker is or the lock...but a good read none the less.
 
Professor said:
I can relate, after toting a small Seb for over 10 years. I now carry a BM Mini Bone Collector. I used to gingerly open my Seb out of concern for wear on the lock face, whereas with the BM, I can draw, open, and close it with incredibly fast without similar concern. The Axis mech seems designed to wear in, not out. And the manner in which the blade tang ramp was redesigned on the Mini BC where the Axis bar engages, vertical blade play is all but eliminated.
Click to expand...
I've had axis lock springs break before after a lot of openings. Though still I prefer them greatly over frame locks. But I think benchmade might use cheap steel for their omega springs. Though if you used beefier ones it would probably make the knife too hard to open.
 
jbmonkey said:
Regarding the liner lock. Mr. Walkers invention......it was tested early on and surpassed lockbacks on lock strength. The reason folks have gotten a warped sense on strength of the liner lock is due to makers not doing them correctly and user mishandling. It is a myth that a properly done and used liner lock is weaker than a lock back.

As for the frame lock.....I see no extreme improvement over a properly done liner lock.

There is an article done by Mr. Levine about the walker liner lock. Even mentions another knife maker taking credit for designing a lock that Mr. Walker designed before his liner. Never mentions who the maker is or the lock...but a good read none the less.
Click to expand...

Walker modified/simplified the linerlock, he didn't invent it. (Just trying to be clear. :))
He removed the backspring and replaced it with a ball-detent for keeping the blade in the closed position.
I'll have to look up Mr. Levine's article. He knows his stuff. :)

For my uses, I think lock dependability is more important than absolute strength.
I suppose they both intertwined though. ;)
 
I think makers make what the public wants. Liner and frame locks are convenient to use, strong, and not proprietary. Lockbacks are IMO a PITA in comparison, being unable to open and close the knife 1-handed without being double-jointed or a circus contortionist is a big minus. With that said there are plenty of high end lockbacks, or for that matter slip joints. The other locks you cite in are mostly proprietary, and whether they offer any improvement over liners or frames is debatable. I would think if there were a market for high end axis or ball bearing knives someone would fill it. Have you looked, or asked in the custom maker's forum?
 
Nullity said:
Walker modified/simplified the linerlock, he didn't invent it. (Just trying to be clear. :))
He removed the backspring and replaced it with a ball-detent for keeping the blade in the closed position.
I'll have to look up Mr. Levine's article. He knows his stuff. :)

For my uses, I think lock dependability is more important than absolute strength.
I suppose they both intertwined though. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct. Should have said patented the name walker liner lock and the current modern version folks think of when they hear the term liner lock. Thanks for the clarification......you are right on. Appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top