To what extent does the strength of linerless FRN depend on the lock type?

[Wartstein]

Just been looking at the upcoming Para 3 lightweight, which will be a linerless FRN construction featuring a compression lock.

Now my Native 5 FRN surely proves that linerless FRN can feel plenty strong and solid. But that one features a backlock, meaning that there is a lot of metal along the spine just due to the construction, plus a FRN backspacer at the end of the handle.

I am convinced Spyderco would never release the Para 3 LW without being sure that it´s strong enough. Still just out of technical interest I wonder if it the handle will be as strong and rigid as the one of the Native 5 LW, considering that there not only most probably will be less metal integrated in the handle but it´s also a float through construction (remember: the Manix LW for example does not feature a back lock, but still a closed and thereby more rigid back I guess)

Would be interested in your opinion, also which locktype you think generally is best suited to add strength to a linerless handle. Imho it will be the backlock.

[awa54]

I'll be interested to see what the actual construction is...

I can't see how a comp lock could be made without at least partial liners, the lockbar will undoubtedly run the length of that side of the handle, but I suppose a demi-liner like the Manix LW uses might suffice to reinforce the pivot to stop pin area.

The only FRN knife I have an issue with due to handle flex is the UKPK, though pivot/stanchion screw spin-out is an issue with the entire design family

[ferider]

Good question. Looking at the PM3 FRN pictures, I assume there is a full liner on one side (for the lock), and a partial metal piece on the RHS around the Pivot and down to the lock pin.

In some ways the LW PM3 might be more sturdy than the original, as the stop pin has screws and does not float as in the original. No more changes of the action depending on the hand pressure.

Roland.

[awa54]

In some ways the LW PM3 might be more sturdy than the original, as the stop pin has screws and does not float as in the original. No more changes of the action depending on the hand pressure.

Roland.

I haven't noticed any issues with blade action on the CQI Military or Para 3... is there a known problem caused by the floating stop pin, aside from the early Millies that had pins which weren't fully seated in the G10 scale holes?

[Wartstein]

Good question. Looking at the PM3 FRN pictures, I assume there is a full liner on one side (for the lock), and a partial metal piece on the RHS around the Pivot and down to the lock pin.

In some ways the LW PM3 might be more sturdy than the original, as the stop pin has screws and does not float as in the original. No more changes of the action depending on the hand pressure.

Roland.

I can't see how a comp lock could be made without at least partial liners, the lockbar will undoubtedly run the length of that side of the handle, but I suppose a demi-liner like the Manix LW uses might suffice to reinforce the pivot to stop pin area.

Thanks to both of you for your thougts. @ awa54, you´re right, should have mentioned that technically this knife CAN`T be completely linerless. I was referring to Spydercos own homepage:... "the Para 3 Lightweight boasts linerless, open-backed construction"... "A stainless steel lock bar inset into the handle’s interior forms the foundation of its sturdy lock mechanism"...

Going by it´s weight compared to the Native 5 LW and considering the thicker blade stock of the Para 3 (I know the blade tapers more though) there can´t be TOO much metal in the handle of the Para 3 LW, since it is more than 10 % lighter compared to the Native 5 LW.

/ Funny: This is an interesting discussion and animating to think about (hence I started the thread) - though we´ll find out anyway when the knife is available
More food for thought would be my second question, which lock generally adds the most stability to a linerless knife: For example: Is it better to have kind of a metalbar along the spine but literally no liners (backlock) or the absolut minimum of necessary liners and float through construction (comp lock, liner lock) concerning rigidity.
That question would gain importance if your goal was to construct a both very light AND very thin knife - so using very thin FRN scale PLUS no liners (think of a linerless Chaparral). Technically speaking, if you aim for maximal thinness it would have to be a backlock anyway I guess.

[SG89]

According to knife news the knife features only the embedded leaf of the compression lock as far as liners go. https://knifenews.com/spyderco-releases ... ct-reveal/

[Wartstein]

According to knife news the knife features only the embedded leaf of the compression lock as far as liners go. https://knifenews.com/spyderco-releases ... ct-reveal/

Thanks, that clarifys a lot!! I am not interested in the Benchmade Bugout and never handled one, but some people state it´s linerless handle is rather/ too flexy and flimsy (others seemingly feel different to be fair); will be interesting to see how the linerless Para 3 LW feels concerning flex / rigidity.

[awa54]

I think we may be missing the point of LW models with discussions like this... Sure, none of us wants a flimsy version of any Spyderco knife, but at the same time, there is an acceptable level of strength that qualifies a knife for light to moderate duty use and if we get that along with a significant reduction in weight and price, then what's not to like?

In my use (Manix LW, N5 LW, Urban LW, FRN UKPK, Pingo and DKPK) the only one of those that shows any flex in normal use situations is the UKPK.

[Wartstein]

I think we may be missing the point of LW models with discussions like this... Sure, none of us wants a flimsy version of any Spyderco knife, but at the same time, there is an acceptable level of strength that qualifies a knife for light to moderate duty use and if we get that along with a significant reduction in weight and price, then what's not to like?

In my use (Manix LW, N5 LW, Urban LW, FRN UKPK, Pingo and DKPK) the only one of those that shows any flex in normal use situations is the UKPK.

I fully agree! I sure DO like the lightweight models and would accept some more flex in any case. It´s just couriousity and interest in technicall details and solutions that made me start the thread; I sure hope it does not come across as if I´d intend to shed bad light on Spydercos LW´s.

Maybe my point is really more: How far could you possibly go concerning linerless / thinness / light weight before a knife would really get to flimsy. And what lock type would be suited best if you´d aim for the maximum in this paramaters.

[ferider]

In some ways the LW PM3 might be more sturdy than the original, as the stop pin has screws and does not float as in the original. No more changes of the action depending on the hand pressure.

Roland.

I haven't noticed any issues with blade action on the CQI Military or Para 3... is there a known problem caused by the floating stop pin, aside from the early Millies that had pins which weren't fully seated in the G10 scale holes?

The floating stop pin is no issue on my Militaries, Dave. Due to 2 standoffs, I assume; only on the PM3, due to the single stand-off. See for example //forum.spyderco.com/viewto ... =2&t=82529

Roland.

[anagarika]

I think for lock that needs lateral stability such as liner lock, rigidity is needed. Compression lock doesn’t require that much lateral stability because the lock is wedged between stop pin and blade tang, in that case more similar to backlock or CBBL. A liner lock needs more lateral stability to ensure lock is seated properly under the tang. Bear in mind the Military is using G10 and not FRN. Manix LW is using FRCP. G10 and FRCP IMO are more rigid. I have Cold Steel G10 totally linerless (Broken Skull) but it has lockbar and aluminum back spacer.

For a true FRN linerless, backlock will add much stability, but th lock itself requires up-down stability and bot much lateral stability, that’s why the Native LW and Salt series can go totally linerless.