Gap between back springs and outer liner

[toolnoob]

Hi there,

I have a Tinker Small that has a small gap between one of the back springs and the outer liner - is this normal?

Thanks

[nate j]

Hmmm...

I don't have a Tinker Small to do a direct comparison.  In general the fit & finish of Victorinox knives is nothing short of legendary, especially at their price point.  Issues such as blade rub or weak snap that may be common or even expected in some other brands generally don't appear in Vics.

Does everything seem to be tight?

Do all tools have good walk & talk?

Personally, if the answers to the above two questions are both "yes", then I wouldn't worry about the gap.  If the answer to either or both questions is "no", then I would strongly consider sending it in for warranty work.

[toolnoob]

There's nothing out of the ordinary other than that small gap - none of the tools have any play in them. Maybe the gap is just there so that the spring can function without rubbing against the liner? On closer inspection however, it does seem that one of the back springs is a bit thinner than the other. This seems to be the case with my 91mm Tinker as well.

[comis]

There's nothing out of the ordinary other than that small gap - none of the tools have any play in them. Maybe the gap is just there so that the spring can function without rubbing against the liner? On closer inspection however, it does seem that one of the back springs is a bit thinner than the other. This seems to be the case with my 91mm Tinker as well.

If there is no play in all the tools implement, I wouldn't worry about it.  Personally, I think Victorinox has always offer great value to the customers with good QC consistency.  But after all, it's a mass inexpensive production tool/knife, and I wouldn't expect the same fit and finish like a higher valued slip joint like GEC or Pena.

[toolnoob]

Thanks for the input!

I've done some more web searching, and it appears that I have not been the only one with this "issue", if it even is one.

https://forum.multitool.org/index.php?topic=67215.0

[Don Pablo]

Vic makes the springs thinner than the tool they give snap to, so that they don't jam in the liners. They basically 'float', and do nothing but provide tension..
This one just looks a little thinner than normal, but I wouldn't worry about it.

[toolnoob]

hmmm ... maybe this is "normal" to 84mm SAKs, but "not normal" to 91mm SAKs? The difference in thickness in the two back springs is less apparent in my 91mm Tinker, but it does seem a bit more obvious with the Small Tinker. I just don't have another 84mm to compare with this Small Tinker to see if it's normal.

[kamakiri]

This is ‘normal’ for ‘modern’ constructed SAKs.

A sort of ‘spacer’ is now stamped into the end of the outer liner, I think most typically for the thin tang main blades and openers.

The space when visible at the spring isn’t really intentional. But as knives with this construction age and wear, the liners rotate inward at the top and outward at the bottom and the spring looks loose compared to the way it looked when it left the factory.

In disassembled knives, the ‘half-moon’ shaped stamping is visible. Or in knives with transparent scales that aren’t back painted like silver tech.

[toolnoob]

Well, my Tinker Small is a new one that has barely been used, so I don't think the gap appeared due to usage.

[kamakiri]

Yes, understood. It is normal for even new knives and has the potential to become worse.

I believe the extra clearance at the outer side of the spring makes it easier to oil, clean or keep clean from fine grit.

Older construction really kept the crud in these gaps. As a vintage knife collector, it is surprising how much residue has come out of some knives. These gaps do make knives easier to clean and prevent binding at the spring or pivot area.