SOG CrossCut Observations.

[zoidberg]

Just putting the info out there.
I know most of this has probably been covered already so I'll keep it short.

1. the springs are made out of different stuff.
2. on the 2.0 scissor ramp is added and handle cut, to help keep it closed?
3. the 2.0 uses a number 8 torx.
4. different orientation and cut of the tweezers,  2.0 are harder to access.
5. the scissor head itself is sprung or has spring action.
6. springs by the cog only push it shut and keep it closed.
7. on the 2.0 number 6 doesn't work because number 2 prevents it.

Version 1.0 on the right, 2.0 on the left.




In other news, I now understand why the PS4 changed from torx to rivets.

[enki_ck]

Interesting.

Also, tell us about the "other news" too.

[neillcurrie]

Apart from the switch to torx screws, there seems to be little difference between the first and second generations. The handles are "cut" or scalloped, on early and late versions of the tool, but that doesn't help closing the tool or keeping it closed, the springs you clearly see accomplish that. There's no internal spring inside the scissor head, but you can see the operating springs, they're the ones attached up near/inside the gear mechanism.
At least that are my observations based on my early cross-cut. My Cross-cuts have definite spring-assisted action, both opening and closing the tool, so I am not clear why your early tool seems to not do this.

[Lynn LeFey]

Both my original Crosscut, and my 2.0 had the same style tweezers. While these seem like they'd be harder to access in theory, in practice, I never had a problem.

There are detents in the scissor blades that catch against the handles which provide the force to keep the tool closed for the 2.0. Those blade detents are not there in my original. In both of mine, the spring action was the same, assisting to open the scissor blades when the tool was in open position.

I don't know how old my original was (probably purchased around 1995 or so), but still had 'patent pending' stamped on it.

My original also had the hex nut construction.

[zoidberg]

Interesting.

Also, tell us about the "other news" too.

1. The PS4 plier wont fit the CrossCut handles.
2. The PS4 plier is a smurfing mission to get back into the PS4 handles.
3. On the inside of the PS4 handles, half hidden by the plier pivot is the date code.

Apart from the switch to torx screws, there seems to be little difference between the first and second generations. The handles are "cut" or scalloped, on early and late versions of the tool, but that doesn't help closing the tool or keeping it closed, the springs you clearly see accomplish that. There's no internal spring inside the scissor head, but you can see the operating springs, they're the ones attached up near/inside the gear mechanism.
At least that are my observations based on my early cross-cut. My Cross-cuts have definite spring-assisted action, both opening and closing the tool, so I am not clear why your early tool seems to not do this.

Sorry but I disagree. I'll try to explain why.

With the 2.0 the scissor ramp and handle cut do keep the tool shut.
It requires a decent pull to open or push to close.
You can see in the pic above that the length of the cuts are shorter than those at the tools end.
This creates greater resistance than you get with the tools.
It is this pressure that stops the springs doing their job.

Unlike the 1.0 which opens and closes with ease.
The scissors don't make contact with the handle and the springs are free to work.

I removed the scissor head from the handles on the 2.0 and can comfirm that they have their own spring action.
The headless handles worked fine because there was no contact with the scissor ramp.

With all the focus on the 2.0 clearly I did miss something though.
There is a small spring assisted movement at the end of the opening action with the 1.0 just like you mentioned.

Both my original Crosscut, and my 2.0 had the same style tweezers. While these seem like they'd be harder to access in theory, in practice, I never had a problem.

There are detents in the scissor blades that catch against the handles which provide the force to keep the tool closed for the 2.0. Those blade detents are not there in my original. In both of mine, the spring action was the same, assisting to open the scissor blades when the tool was in open position.

I don't know how old my original was (probably purchased around 1995 or so), but still had 'patent pending' stamped on it.

My original also had the hex nut construction.

Which version of tweezers did yours have? I like the first gen but not the second gen, they don't work very well.

[Lynn LeFey]

Which version of tweezers did yours have? I like the first gen but not the second gen, they don't work very well.

Both mine had the version you're showing on your 2.0.

The tweezers on my 1.0 were incredibly precise. In fact, they were the best pair of tweezers I've ever owned. The 2.0, while of the same basic design, were garbage out of the box. One of the arms was torqued so that the edges didn't come together precisely, and once torqued into place, the tips didn't meat up with the precision of my 1.0.