I'm curious to know if people think that older SAKs were better made than their contemporary counterparts. I definitely see that older SAKs use thicker blade stocks, non hollow scales, more ornate corkscrews, and have a heavier weight. Does that necessarily mean it's better? The Swiss Army Owner's Manual points out that the metallurgy has improved a lot with current models making better and stronger, yet thinner and lighter tools. Can anyone confirm that this is actually true? I was on the fence whether to believe this or not, but two things occurred to me today.
I was just delivered a new to me 80s SAK I overpaid for with a bent tip the seller neglected to tell me about. :rant: Because I love trying to fix things despite not having the necessary skills or knowledge to do so, I tried straightening the blade. I thought this would take some time because a few days ago I did something similar and crinked a current model Pioneer that had a main blade that was annoyingly close to the bottle opener. I put the pioneer blade in a padded vise and went to town on it. I flexed the blade near the tip an uncomfortable amount, but it would always spring back to normal not budging one bit. Anyways, when I tried to bend the tip straight on the 80s SAK, it bent very easily. It didn't require nearly as much force. The blade could have had some micro fractures from the original bend which made it over all easier to bend. I don't know for sure. Second thing I noticed is that it was very easy to sharpen from completely dull and bevel-less to pretty darn sharp. The ease also could be in my head though.
Anyways, I like using/edcing the current versions of these SAKs for pretty much one dumb reason: the hidden pin I'll probably never use that stores in the cellidor scale. But now I like to think the steel is actually better despite the thinness being an eyesore
Summing it up, from a user's perspective there isn't such a big difference from old to new that makes me prefer the older ones instead of the mew ones. They're all good
I believe these days the blade steel is better due to metallurgical developments, and the springs have a higher cycle life too. Victorinox is one of the few companies that strives to cut costs and keep products affordable, without compromising product quality.Should I be worried about my primary SAK having old tools and springs? :ahhh
I do prefer some of the older models though, more for layout and toolset rather than quality. Climber Small and Original Outdoorsman spring to mind. I also prefer the smooth alox scales (and the ribbed scales too) over the current texture/pattern.
I'd also like to see nylon scales used more.
Should the worst happen, you buy a new one and have fun modding :DGood philosophy. :salute:
Use it as it was meant to be used, and enjoy :cheers:
Should the worst happen, you buy a new one and have fun modding :DGood philosophy. :salute:
Use it as it was meant to be used, and enjoy :cheers:
Should the worst happen, you buy a new one and have fun modding :DGood philosophy. :salute:
Use it as it was meant to be used, and enjoy :cheers:
On the upside, thinner blades make better slicers. Though it's admittedly a marginal difference in the case of old vs new SAKs.
On the upside, thinner blades make better slicers. Though it's admittedly a marginal difference in the case of old vs new SAKs.
Guys, about the blades, and just for the sake of accuracy... :pok:
The newer blades aren't thinner than the old ones
The only thing slightly thinner on the current is the blade tang (the part that attaches the blade to the handle until the sharp edge starts)
I've actually went and measured the newer blade on my small Tinker at the end of the cutting part (just before the tang begins) and it's 2mm, measured the older 80's small Tinker blade at the same spot and it's actually some microns thinner, the measurement tool had some slack at 2mm.
So believe me when i tell you that there is no difference (that matters) between the older vs newer blade's thickness (or any of the other tools for that matter...). At leas comparing 84/91mm 80's sak's to 84/91mm current ones, i can't comment on the 70's and before models as i've never seen or handed any, or other Sak sizes. :cheers:
On the upside, thinner blades make better slicers. Though it's admittedly a marginal difference in the case of old vs new SAKs.
Guys, about the blades, and just for the sake of accuracy... :pok:
The newer blades aren't thinner than the old ones
The only thing slightly thinner on the current is the blade tang (the part that attaches the blade to the handle until the sharp edge starts)
I've actually went and measured the newer blade on my small Tinker at the end of the cutting part (just before the tang begins) and it's 2mm, measured the older 80's small Tinker blade at the same spot and it's actually some microns thinner, the measurement tool had some slack at 2mm.
So believe me when i tell you that there is no difference (that matters) between the older vs newer blade's thickness (or any of the other tools for that matter...). At leas comparing 84/91mm 80's sak's to 84/91mm current ones, i can't comment on the 70's and before models as i've never seen or handed any, or other Sak sizes. :cheers:
Quite the opposite. The flat liner bends much more easily.On the upside, thinner blades make better slicers. Though it's admittedly a marginal difference in the case of old vs new SAKs.
Guys, about the blades, and just for the sake of accuracy... :pok:
The newer blades aren't thinner than the old ones
The only thing slightly thinner on the current is the blade tang (the part that attaches the blade to the handle until the sharp edge starts)
I've actually went and measured the newer blade on my small Tinker at the end of the cutting part (just before the tang begins) and it's 2mm, measured the older 80's small Tinker blade at the same spot and it's actually some microns thinner, the measurement tool had some slack at 2mm.
So believe me when i tell you that there is no difference (that matters) between the older vs newer blade's thickness (or any of the other tools for that matter...). At leas comparing 84/91mm 80's sak's to 84/91mm current ones, i can't comment on the 70's and before models as i've never seen or handed any, or other Sak sizes. :cheers:
The thinness of the tang is actually what bothers me about the newer SAKs. To make up for that gap, they modified the liner by pressing/embossing the pivot area material in. It looks terrible compared to an older thick tanged SAK where the tang meets nicely against the flat liner. Not to mention, the embossed/pressed in liner pivot has to be weaker laterally too.
Quite the opposite. The flat liner bends much more easily.On the upside, thinner blades make better slicers. Though it's admittedly a marginal difference in the case of old vs new SAKs.
Guys, about the blades, and just for the sake of accuracy... :pok:
The newer blades aren't thinner than the old ones
The only thing slightly thinner on the current is the blade tang (the part that attaches the blade to the handle until the sharp edge starts)
I've actually went and measured the newer blade on my small Tinker at the end of the cutting part (just before the tang begins) and it's 2mm, measured the older 80's small Tinker blade at the same spot and it's actually some microns thinner, the measurement tool had some slack at 2mm.
So believe me when i tell you that there is no difference (that matters) between the older vs newer blade's thickness (or any of the other tools for that matter...). At leas comparing 84/91mm 80's sak's to 84/91mm current ones, i can't comment on the 70's and before models as i've never seen or handed any, or other Sak sizes. :cheers:
The thinness of the tang is actually what bothers me about the newer SAKs. To make up for that gap, they modified the liner by pressing/embossing the pivot area material in. It looks terrible compared to an older thick tanged SAK where the tang meets nicely against the flat liner. Not to mention, the embossed/pressed in liner pivot has to be weaker laterally too.
I read somewhere that in the manufacture of cars, ships, and airplanes it's quite common to use "structured" sheets of metal, with ribs, rills etc. because a flat sheet of the same strength would be thicker, heavier, and more expensive. So when I read your post, I decided to try and retrieved some liners from my parts box, and tried bending them. I can't tell you exactly how much force I needed, I don't have any measuring equipment.
Quite the opposite. The flat liner bends much more easily.On the upside, thinner blades make better slicers. Though it's admittedly a marginal difference in the case of old vs new SAKs.
Guys, about the blades, and just for the sake of accuracy... :pok:
The newer blades aren't thinner than the old ones
The only thing slightly thinner on the current is the blade tang (the part that attaches the blade to the handle until the sharp edge starts)
I've actually went and measured the newer blade on my small Tinker at the end of the cutting part (just before the tang begins) and it's 2mm, measured the older 80's small Tinker blade at the same spot and it's actually some microns thinner, the measurement tool had some slack at 2mm.
So believe me when i tell you that there is no difference (that matters) between the older vs newer blade's thickness (or any of the other tools for that matter...). At leas comparing 84/91mm 80's sak's to 84/91mm current ones, i can't comment on the 70's and before models as i've never seen or handed any, or other Sak sizes. :cheers:
The thinness of the tang is actually what bothers me about the newer SAKs. To make up for that gap, they modified the liner by pressing/embossing the pivot area material in. It looks terrible compared to an older thick tanged SAK where the tang meets nicely against the flat liner. Not to mention, the embossed/pressed in liner pivot has to be weaker laterally too.
I read somewhere that in the manufacture of cars, ships, and airplanes it's quite common to use "structured" sheets of metal, with ribs, rills etc. because a flat sheet of the same strength would be thicker, heavier, and more expensive. So when I read your post, I decided to try and retrieved some liners from my parts box, and tried bending them. I can't tell you exactly how much force I needed, I don't have any measuring equipment.
Coming from a Mechanical Engineering background i must say i agree with Ronald's statement 100%.
Believe me, that little pressed in indent on the newer liners is very tough, and because it's a very small area makes it even tougher, more than the straight sheet of aluminum of the old ones.
Compare it to how metal sheets on cars are made and stamped (pressed in), the principle is roughly the same, to strengthen structural integrity of assembled sheets of metal.
Yes the older straight ones may look better, but i believe the newer ones are tougher.
And having a slimmer tang means the blank sheet of stainless steel from which the main blade is made can also be slightly thinner as raw material, there for reducing cost of raw materials and less goes to waste after grinding the blades to final shape.
It's almost insignificant on one blade, but if you multiply by many millions, well... you get the picture. :cheers:
A weight reduction of 2 grams per knife is HUGHE if you produce around 35.000 knives a DAY!
That is about 70 kg of high quality steel a day you need less. That's money!
A weight reduction of 2 grams per knife is HUGHE if you produce around 35.000 knives a DAY!
That is about 70 kg of high quality steel a day you need less. That's money!
Guys... I love the vintage ones too, don't get me wrong i love vintage, and in more than just sak's. And i'll grab one if the Has any one had any catastrophic tool failure on a recent one as opposed to a vintage one...? :think:
I'll sick by my statement: They're all good :D :cheers:
:rofl: :rofl:
I just keep those around to pick up chicks... :climber:
That, my friend, is the best and quickest way to get a knock on the door from dks. :DGuys... I love the vintage ones too, don't get me wrong i love vintage, and in more than just sak's. And i'll grab one if the Has any one had any catastrophic tool failure on a recent one as opposed to a vintage one...? :think:
I'll sick by my statement: They're all good :D :cheers:
Yes. It's AWL good. It's not like I'm ever gonna put my old vintage SAKs to the test anyway.
I just keep those around to pick up chicks... :climber:
I can't help myself wondering how that works out for you anyway El C...That, my friend, is the best and quickest way to get a knock on the door from dks. :DGuys... I love the vintage ones too, don't get me wrong i love vintage, and in more than just sak's. And i'll grab one if the Has any one had any catastrophic tool failure on a recent one as opposed to a vintage one...? :think:
I'll sick by my statement: They're all good :D :cheers:
Yes. It's AWL good. It's not like I'm ever gonna put my old vintage SAKs to the test anyway.
I just keep those around to pick up chicks... :climber:
I can't help myself wondering how that works out for you anyway El C...That, my friend, is the best and quickest way to get a knock on the door from dks. :DGuys... I love the vintage ones too, don't get me wrong i love vintage, and in more than just sak's. And i'll grab one if the Has any one had any catastrophic tool failure on a recent one as opposed to a vintage one...? :think:
I'll sick by my statement: They're all good :D :cheers:
Yes. It's AWL good. It's not like I'm ever gonna put my old vintage SAKs to the test anyway.
I just keep those around to pick up chicks... :climber:
New page Cthulhu dance!(;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;) (;,;)
What a great discussion, personally I would like to see some new & old extreme testing done.
:salute:
I just remembered the other reason I love the older thicker tang blades more... they still have the crossbow symbol on them.
What a great discussion, personally I would like to see some new & old extreme testing done.
:salute:
not it. :D