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

[hardheart]

powernoodle probably has it right about the low cost and ease of manufacture, because the locks don't offer practical benefits otherwise. They are "handed" locks, notequally manipulated by both hands. They have lower strength than most locks, with no weight or mechanical simplicity as advantage. The lockback is in fact stronger, and has been shown in multiple, repeatable tests by custom makers and manufacturers. the framelock is not appreciably stronger than the liner, again as shown in tests. The compression lock has the same number and type of parts as the liner lock, but is many times stronger. The frame lock puts the lockface, lock spring, and half the handle in one unnecessarily heavy metal piece that leaves a single point of failure. The lockback and other locks are stronger because the lock and spring are separate for most of them. This means components can be made larger. The larger liner lock is the frame lock, which still requires the thin cutout. This means the lock is heavier, but not stronger. An axis spring can fail. there are two of them. If a spring fails, the lock bar is still intact. A triad lock is stronger than a framelock without the need for liners.

 

[BladeChick777]

About the Axis lock being much stronger than a Frame Lock....
I'm not so sure. I've seen the Axis lock fail under hard use, but I've never seen a Sebenza fail under any type of use.

 

[Nullity]

powernoodle probably has it right about the low cost and ease of manufacture, because the locks don't offer practical benefits otherwise. They are "handed" locks, notequally manipulated by both hands. They have lower strength than most locks, with no weight or mechanical simplicity as advantage. The lockback is in fact stronger, and has been shown in multiple, repeatable tests by custom makers and manufacturers. the framelock is not appreciably stronger than the liner, again as shown in tests. The compression lock has the same number and type of parts as the liner lock, but is many times stronger. The frame lock puts the lockface, lock spring, and half the handle in one unnecessarily heavy metal piece that leaves a single point of failure. The lockback and other locks are stronger because the lock and spring are separate for most of them. This means components can be made larger. The larger liner lock is the frame lock, which still requires the thin cutout. This means the lock is heavier, but not stronger. An axis spring can fail. there are two of them. If a spring fails, the lock bar is still intact. A triad lock is stronger than a framelock without the need for liners.

Isn't comparing one lock-type of unknown build against another lock-type of unknown build a bit of a fallacy?
That's like saying "Ford is faster than Chevy".
Which model Ford/Chevy? Faster at what? Apples and oranges...

There's also more ways of judging a lock than absolute strength.

I've never had a lock fail on me, so I focus on other things when I choose a lock, for example; convenience, closed retention, resilience, or easy of maintenance.

 

[Brutus013]

Isn't comparing one lock-type of unknown build against another lock-type of unknown build a bit of a fallacy?
That's like saying "Ford is faster than Chevy".
Which model Ford/Chevy? Faster at what? Apples and oranges...

There's also more ways of judging a lock than absolute strength.

I've never had a lock fail on me, so I focus on other things when I choose a lock, for example; convenience, closed retention, resilience, or easy of maintenance.

I agree. I don't think a lockback is any stronger than a framelock given equally high production/material quality and tolerances. I'd have to see a much more thorough breakdown of the inherent mechanical efficiencies and inefficiencies for each type of lock to be convinced otherwise, the vast majority of tests I see done on knives are far from scientific.

 

[Bill1170]

I think a lot of high end folders use frame locks because of their elegance/simplicity. I can see this clearly despite not personally being a big fan of frame lock folders. There is something very seductive about a concept executed with the fewest number of pieces, using all high-quality materials, lovingly fabricated.

 

[Nullity]

I think a lot of high end folders use frame locks because of their elegance/simplicity. I can see this clearly despite not personally being a big fan of frame lock folders. There is something very seductive about a concept executed with the fewest number of pieces, using all high-quality materials, lovingly fabricated.

:thumbup:

Framelocks aren't my favorite either, but I think you summed up some reasons for their popularity quite well.

 

[Franz_N]

I think lock strength is overrated, for me personally at least. I imagine there is a lot of high end knives using frame locks because titanium knives are really popular, it just sounds exotic so it is a good selling point. I don't mind though because i like the frame lock design, for me it isn't about lock strength though, i just like the feel of the action on a frame lock, and the simplicity of construction.

 

[matgarsmi]

I personally feel that it is simply a fad. Everyone seems to really like titanium frame locks right now. In 5 years or so they'll probably be out of fashion. I read an interview with Chris Reeve once. He said he designed the one piece fixed blades because the market was going crazy over Rambo knives. He made the Sebenza because everyone started liking tactical folders. When the market changes, he and other high end knife makers will make something else.

I don't think that's a bad thing. I love my SMF, and although I traded my Sebenza, I can see why peoe like it.

 

[hardheart]

Isn't comparing one lock-type of unknown build against another lock-type of unknown build a bit of a fallacy?
That's like saying "Ford is faster than Chevy".
Which model Ford/Chevy? Faster at what? Apples and oranges...

There's also more ways of judging a lock than absolute strength.

I've never had a lock fail on me, so I focus on other things when I choose a lock, for example; convenience, closed retention, resilience, or easy of maintenance.

Who is comparing unknowns? When I say custom makers and companies tested them, I mean they tested them and then showed the results. The build is known. The build, such as the linerless, frn handled Calypso Jr has a stronger lock than the titanium linerlock of an Emerson. You would have to talk to Sal Glesser if you don't like the result, he was the one who posted it in 2001. You could question Andrew Demko on his knowledge of the lock-type builds when he said no frame lock he tested made it beyond 235 pounds 4 inches from the pivot. That load at that distance from the pivot is also on a scale below the heavy duty rating of the Calypso Jr, almost half actually. But that was the point of complete failure, he said the knife was unusuable at 100-150lbs. You could watch the youtube video Allen Elishewitz posted where he tested multiple lock types to failure.

As far as more ways of judging, yes there are. As I mentioned, these locks are not ambidextrous. The frame lock brings unneeded weight without improving strength. As others mentioned, these locks are more prone to failure due to fit, tang angle, spring tension, and other production issues. With that, closed retention issues are usually associated with these locks and their minimal retention by ball detent. They can suffer accelerated wear which restricts warrantied opening methods and use, moreso than other locks.

It isn't that these locks are terrible, it's that they aren't superior. They will work, but I for one don't understand their prevalence as noted by the OP, in higher priced, supposedly harder-use, folding knives. The high lock strength isn't necessary, but neither are the extreme tolerances, the highly alloyed steels, or the proprietary features.

 

[Jet B]

I do like the Compression or Axis lock the best for how they function, but I definitely don't mind a liner or frame lock if the maker implements it well.

As to why so many high end knives use titanium frame locks... I think the guys above hit the nail on the head. It's cheaper, and simpler to manufacture. Maybe it started with custom makers doing their locks that way because they are easier to hand make and that created the image of a high end knife having a titanium frame lock? Maybe it's all because of the Sebenzas out there that it's so popular? I don't know.

Really good question.

 

[Nullity]

Who is comparing unknowns? When I say custom makers and companies tested them, I mean they tested them and then showed the results. The build is known. The build, such as the linerless, frn handled Calypso Jr has a stronger lock than the titanium linerlock of an Emerson. You would have to talk to Sal Glesser if you don't like the result, he was the one who posted it in 2001. You could question Andrew Demko on his knowledge of the lock-type builds when he said no frame lock he tested made it beyond 235 pounds 4 inches from the pivot. That load at that distance from the pivot is also on a scale below the heavy duty rating of the Calypso Jr, almost half actually. But that was the point of complete failure, he said the knife was unusuable at 100-150lbs. You could watch the youtube video Allen Elishewitz posted where he tested multiple lock types to failure.

As far as more ways of judging, yes there are. As I mentioned, these locks are not ambidextrous. The frame lock brings unneeded weight without improving strength. As others mentioned, these locks are more prone to failure due to fit, tang angle, spring tension, and other production issues. With that, closed retention issues are usually associated with these locks and their minimal retention by ball detent. They can suffer accelerated wear which restricts warrantied opening methods and use, moreso than other locks.

It isn't that these locks are terrible, it's that they aren't superior. They will work, but I for one don't understand their prevalence as noted by the OP, in higher priced, supposedly harder-use, folding knives. The high lock strength isn't necessary, but neither are the extreme tolerances, the highly alloyed steels, or the proprietary features.

If I build a framelock entirely from hardened steel that weighed 200lb and was 3ft long then compared it to a $1 lockback, I would declare "framelocks are stronger", but basis for comparision would be unfair. Are we comparing knives of equal weight, weight of lock mechanism alone, materials, length, width... what? What measurements do we focus on to say that a 2 different locks have the same build? I can't really figure out a way of directly comparing the different locks.

Tri-Ad seems to be the strongest, but it does come with a few quirks, like a worse blade to handle ratio, more resistance when opening, and it's proprietary.

I enjoy your final paragraph. It is true, we do search for the "best", but our many perspectives will never agree on what is best. Know the features you want, and find the lock that offers it.
I believe the liner/framelock is here to stay. Better get used to it.

 

[Free2game]

I do like the Compression or Axis lock the best for how they function, but I definitely don't mind a liner or frame lock if the maker implements it well.

As to why so many high end knives use titanium frame locks... I think the guys above hit the nail on the head. It's cheaper, and simpler to manufacture. Maybe it started with custom makers doing their locks that way because they are easier to hand make and that created the image of a high end knife having a titanium frame lock? Maybe it's all because of the Sebenzas out there that it's so popular? I don't know.

Really good question.

well that and the other kind of locks people are talking about (Compression, Ball Bearing, Axis, Triad) are all proprietary. The Triad is the only one you can get in a custom level knife as far as I know and that's only by one maker.

 

[Professor]

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.

It been on my list to experiment with making beefier replacement springs. I make custom stainless guitar strings since my hands sweat like a mutant, and it should be just a matter of matching the gauge, going thicker, and then mastering the bends.

That said, over ten years ago when I was a complete Axis nut, Jason Williams himself hinted to me to simply bend the existing springs outward a bit, creating more tension. If you'll notice with your Axis models, once the blade is open, if you pull back the Axis bar and let it slam forward, lockup is improved. The Axis bar is forcing the blade to jam against the pivot pin and stop pin, absorbing the micro-slop(TM) that exists between the blade pivot hole and the pivot pin. The new way in which the Mini BC's blade tang ramp is radiused to be engaged by the Axis bar only enhances this relationship. Hence the Axis has evolved some since its inception. Damn I'm a nerd.

Prof.

 

[hardheart]

Are we comparing knives of equal weight, weight of lock mechanism alone, materials, length, width...

Nope. The smaller, lighter lockback without any metal liners and the thinner blade was stronger inthe case of the calypso beating the Emerson with titanium liner, G10 scales, and screw construction. It also was strong than the buck strider, another with titanium and G10, with an even thicker blade and lock. The framelock that failed at less than half the weight of a cold steel triad without liners weighed 8 ounces. The strongest version of the chinook, the strongest lockback from spyderco, was the 3. The 3 is the lightest of the series.

Comparing knives of the same construction or weight actually increases the gap in strength between frame/liner locks and other styles.

 

[TheGame]

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?

What? (bolded part)

As for the lock type, I personally think it's because they look good. That's just because I think they look good, though.

 

[Nullity]

Nope. The smaller, lighter lockback without any metal liners and the thinner blade was stronger inthe case of the calypso beating the Emerson with titanium liner, G10 scales, and screw construction. It also was strong than the buck strider, another with titanium and G10, with an even thicker blade and lock. The framelock that failed at less than half the weight of a cold steel triad without liners weighed 8 ounces. The strongest version of the chinook, the strongest lockback from spyderco, was the 3. The 3 is the lightest of the series.

Comparing knives of the same construction or weight actually increases the gap in strength between frame/liner locks and other styles.

Whether or not it's the weakest or strongest doesn't matter if the lock-type is strong enough to handle it's intended uses.
If it's strong enough, it's strong enough, whether or not it's the weakest of a sampling.
Though, if you can have the lock be stronger and weigh less, it is an improvement but strength is only one way of judge a lock.

Method of failure is another interesting topic.
When a lockback fails, it fails catastrophically. (Lockbar failure.)
When a liner/framelock fails, it fails in a controlled manner. (Compressing lockbar.)

Resistance to contaminants is another topic.
Lockbacks can get lint or dirt stuck in the action and cause the lock to never engage.
Liner/framelocks are much less likely to have this happen. (I've never had it happen.)

No lock is "best". They all have their advantages and disadvantages. As Sal Glesser says "All good, just different."

PS - I also find liner/framelocks to be the most convenient to manipulate, even though I prefer and usually carry lockbacks or slipjoints for their superb closed retention.

 

[MikeC]

I think a lot of high end folders use frame locks because of their elegance/simplicity. I can see this clearly despite not personally being a big fan of frame lock folders. There is something very seductive about a concept executed with the fewest number of pieces, using all high-quality materials, lovingly fabricated.

Thank you Bill for summing it up nicely in just 3 sentences, kudos.

To the poster who thinks this is a fad, same thing was probably said about the lockback and the buck 110, hell there are people on this forum that have been carrying Sebenza's for 15 years. A fad it is not. I"m 42 and can remember carrying a linerlock old timer when I was like 10. So obviously linerlocks and framelocks are simply locking mechanism that clearly work and work well for the majority of knife users. I like em because of simplicity, less moving parts, heck less parts period, less maintenance and ease of cleaning. If I want a knife that I can baton with or use hard, I'll reach for a fixed blade like I'm supposed to. There is nothing under what I deem normal folding knife usage that requires anything more than a linerlock or framelock.

 

[Huntsman Knife Co. LLC.]

They aren't patented. Thats probably the reason why liners and framelocks are used so much. In terms of speed, dexterity, strength, and longevity, and any other factor that can be quantified, there isn't a better lock out there than the axis lock. However, it's patented so its only used on benchmades. The Axis lock has all of the following going for it-

Its THE fastest lock out there along with the Ball Bearing Lock.

Its the second strongest after the Demko Tri Ad

The Axis mechanism is ambidextrous

It has a very long lifespan and broken springs can be replaced easily.

And finally in terms of failure, the only way it can fail is if 1.) Both springs break- but even then you can just shove a twig or something behind lock bar and it will be functional. 2.) If the lock bar/ pin snaps, and 3.) The tang of the knife breaks. There is no room for a slip failure like there is with a liner lock.

 

[cm_bushman]

Sorry about the Demko reference guys, I was just researching the Tri-ad lock the other day, I'm chocking it up to a brain-fart.

I'm not saying Frame/liner locks are bad, or that they aren't in fact the best choice, these things are partly subjective and I only have my personal opinion. I'm sure Chris Reeve and co. know plenty more about it than me, and I'm not bashing any of the knives or makers I named.

I'm just wondering that, since these locks are so simple, and cheap to manufacture, why they are used on the most expensive knives around? It seems counter-intuitive to me as a consumer, especially now after all of these posts that have given no credence to a liner/frame lock as justifiable in knives of this caliber and price. If what Hardheart is saying is true, then I'm even more suspect of the practice. If a simple lockback on a Spyderco (not even close to the price of a Strider, for example) can outperform a quality liner lock, then excuse me if I find myself less willing to pay top dollar for these knives that a) are weaker than half-priced competition, and b) not ambidextrous or as easy to work like an AXIS or Ball-bearing lock. It just seems like a corner that has been cut, when at this level innovation and the absolute best is expected.

Excuse me if I sounded hostile, as again, I have no doubt in the quality of these knives, it just seems like such well-designed and expensive knives would have a locking mechanism to match the materials and workmanship throughout the rest of the design, rather than some of the cheapest-to-produce and from what I've read overall mediocre locks that are ubiquitous among them. It makes me feel better about my BMs and Spydercos, though.

 

[Hadji Flip Me Over]

My new M390 Gunhammer had some slight vertical play from the maker, but I'm not worried. If I need to cut something that requires a lot of force, I will opt for a fixed blade instead. It's really not as big of an issue as some people make it out to be.