Multitool.org Forum
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
+-

Hello Lurker! Remove this ad and much more by logging in.


Can Opener Comparison 7333

Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #120 on: December 11, 2019, 01:31:13 PM »
Grand Harvest GHK2/Bibury 13 in 1
Left-handed

0 points.

The can opener is still too far deep in the handle to hook onto the rim. It is marginally better than right-handed, as it will barely hook onto, instead of not hooking on at all.
As awkward as it is for a right-handed person to try and use this abomination left-handed, it does not stop there. As it barely hooks onto the rim, the cutting orientation is thrown off.
Initial piercing is comically bad. First you have to get the can opener to hook and find a proper spot to pierce, which is itself tedious. Actually punching through is not easy, despite having a decently sharpened edge. The cutting angle will be off, the ergonomics are bad, it is left-handed, it can slip off at any minute, and it is not piercing as close to the rim as possible. Everything combined to make the first cut a very frustrating experience.

Advancing from one cut to the next is also not easy. All issues present in the initial cut will apply to all cuts. Due to the force required to keep the can opener in place, so it does not slip, the rim may bend inwards, interfering even more with the cutting orientation. After the second or third cut, it was impossible to continue on the same route. I had to start with a new initial piercing.

If you have the time, patience, and like pain or have gloves on, you could actually open the can. The cutting edge is sharp and will not create shrapnel.

Using this was interesting. The shape is fine, the edge is actually sharpened, and the hook is also well shaped to theoretically grab onto the rim. As good as it looks, it is yet another example of companies just going with a shape that seems it would work, but not actually using it to see if it it will work.



Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #121 on: December 11, 2019, 01:37:50 PM »
This is the same exact issue the Roxon Storm had (and not the only similarity they share. More on that later).
Show content
Roxon Storm
Out of the box, the can opener was unable to hook onto the rim. Ergonomics, sharpness, ease of use, nothing matters. You will only be able to open ring-pull cans with this. If it's a classic can, this is not the answer.

0 points.
(Image removed from quote.)


Roxon Storm (modded)
I swapped places of the can opener and cord cutter. The can opener is now functional, though pretty average.

0 points for punching through. Not easy, as the piercing point is quite blunt.
1 for comfort. Stayed in hand, did not hurt enough to stop. Scale edge still dug into my hand.
2 for not jamming.
1 for cutting. It could have a sharper edge with more of an angle to it. Consistent cut, though it left jagged, sharp edges.
2 for not slipping. The hook is at least better designed than the rest of it, and it stayed on the can rim.
Total: 6
(Image removed from quote.)


Same problem, although the GHK2 can opener is sharpened.
Same solution: swap the can opener and serrated blade positions, to bring the can opener next to the blade, closer to the edge of the handle, so that it will hook onto the rim right-handed.
However, this mod is not easy.
First of all, the backsprings are amazingly strong. Even if you mod the can opener to go next to the blade, it will not unfold easily. When I tried to unfold it with my finger-nail, my finger-nail split in two, while the can opener remained folded, probably laughing at me.

Also, the mod itself is not as easy as it was with the Roxon Storm. The main issue with the mod is that you cannot just unscrew the handle, take out the implements, and put them back in the order you want. The backsprings will be in the way, and you will have to push them back to make room for the implements to drop in.

This was quite easy to do with the Storm. I put it in a vise, with a bolt pushing back the backsprings, and dropped the implements in place, with the can opener where it was supposed to be. And the backsprings are pushed back, but are not flush with the handle on the other side. When they were pushed back, they did not contact the side of the handle that the vise was against.

With the GHK2, the herculean backsprings will be more of a problem, and they are flush with the handle. You can not just put it in a vise and push the backsprings back with a bolt. The bolt will not push against a straight surface either, because these backsprings are angled. Quite a tedious set-up. I will post pictures to illustrate exactly what I am talking about.

I may try this again in the future, just to make the can opener functional, and because I am curious to see how good it will actually be. Probably quite good, since the shape, edge, and hook are ok.

But even then, deploying the can opener requires metallic assistance. Why bother?
Just Bananas Posts: 73,877
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #122 on: December 11, 2019, 02:37:18 PM »
You would think that they would test
their tools before putting them in their MTs :facepalm:

fail to prepare prepare to fail
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #123 on: January 19, 2020, 10:52:36 AM »
Gerber Multi-Plier

The first company to copy the Victorinox quarter-circle. And what a fine job they did. Not quite as sharp, different bevel angles, not polished, but equally capable.


It is positioned perfectly to engage with the can, with the hook and edge at the perfect position to function. It pierced very easily through the rim, and it was so easy to advance, tracing around the lid, that I had reached the half-way point before remembering to take a picture.


Superb ergonomics, akin to the Rebar. No blade spines or sharp edges to dig into my hand, and a nice compact body to hold onto. The plier screws and buttons were not noticeable at all.
Cutting was excellent. Not as graceful a result as I get with Leatherman claws, but still consistent. The quarter-circle will make shorter individual cuts than a Leatherman claw, but the cutting is very easy, consistent, and comfortable.
I never slipped off the lid, advancing beautifully from one cut to the next. It never jammed, and the lack of a locking mechanism was irrelevant.


Looking at the lid, the edge is a little jagged, but you can hardly call it mangled. Comparing its performance to other quarter-circles, it is not far off Victorinox.
It is amazing that that such an old tool got the quarter-circle so right. Opening the can was a breath of fresh air, considering how many old-school multi-tools had below average can openers.
If this is all you have to open a can, then fear not. You can open cans with this all day long.


2 points for punching through.
2 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
2 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.
Total: 10
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 11:01:51 AM by ReamerPunch »

Just Bananas Posts: 73,877
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #124 on: January 19, 2020, 01:55:31 PM »
Great test  :like: :tu:

fail to prepare prepare to fail
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #125 on: January 19, 2020, 04:31:12 PM »
And a great can opener! :cheers:
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #126 on: February 19, 2020, 05:36:56 PM »
This was too good not to have it in here. Or too bad... :rofl:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bdsfO1wmU
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #127 on: February 19, 2020, 05:39:30 PM »
Here is a nice little video on the Leatherman claw. Great job of filming, as well as opening the can.
It demonstrates not only the proper way to use the claw, but also how easy it is. Look how perfect the cut is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5icKi1jGxo
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #128 on: February 19, 2020, 05:47:50 PM »
Some history regarding can openers. This should have been here sooner.
Very interesting seeing all those early abominations compared to the tiny bit of metal it takes to get the job done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iM6qlXCo6Y
Zombie Apprentice Posts: 10,570
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #129 on: February 21, 2020, 07:09:45 PM »
Great test  :like: :tu:

What Wim says  :like:

Does your Gerber Multiplier can opener look like mine here? A bit skewed?


Formerly known as MTMatt
Zombie Apprentice Posts: 10,570
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #130 on: February 21, 2020, 07:10:34 PM »
Here is a nice little video on the Leatherman claw. Great job of filming, as well as opening the can.
It demonstrates not only the proper way to use the claw, but also how easy it is. Look how perfect the cut is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5icKi1jGxo

Nice one  :tu:

Formerly known as MTMatt
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #131 on: March 05, 2020, 06:55:09 AM »
Does your Gerber Multiplier can opener look like mine here? A bit skewed?

No, mine is straight.
Zombie Apprentice Posts: 18,592 Oxygen and magnesium toghether?! OMg!
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #132 on: April 03, 2020, 07:20:44 PM »

________________________________
It is just a matter of time before they add the word “Syndrome” after my last name.

I don't have OCD, I have OCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.

Eff the ineffable, scrut the inscrutable.

IYCRTYSWTMTFOT

Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #133 on: July 13, 2020, 02:29:28 AM »
NexTool Mini Flagship

A quarter-circle on a double opener. Good length, it engages the can properly. The hook is properly shaped to hold onto the lid, and the tip pierces easily into the can.




Being a quarter-circle, we go forwards. As the edge and tip are not that sharp, it will pierce but not trace very well. The edge slips a little with every cut, so after a few cuts it will veer off away from the rim's edge, throwing off the orientation, making it impossible to continue after only a few cuts.


Things get better if we go backwards. Instead of piercing and cutting, going backwards requires only piercing to get around. The initial piercing is easy so making one after another is effective. It will leave behind some sharp points, but it does not create shrapnel and gets the can opened.

Comfort is not that good. Since the tip is a little blunter than it should, it required additional leverage of my thumb pushing into the spine of the can opener. Quite uncomfortable. The rest of the tool is nicely rounded.



Durability also took a hit. After just one can, the implement was bent.


Compared to an unused can opener, the used one bent so much that its tip got hang up on the frame.




2 points for punching through.
0 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
0 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.
-5 for bending. This is interesting. Out of a couple dozen can openers I have tested, only two suffered durability issues. This and the NexTool Flagship Pro. The Mini did an acceptable job opening the can even though I had to go backwards to its design, but it did it. Still, as it bent with only one can, it is not ideal. Sure, you can still fold the implement back into the frame, but how many cans will it survive before it breaks off?
Seeing how the scissors handle spring broke after only a week of barely using it, and the second one's ineffective scissors, the lack of quality is unmissable.

Total: 1


The Flagship Pro performance, for reference.
Show content
NexTool Flagship Pro/Xiaomi Huohou

0 points for punching through.
0 for comfort.
0 for not jamming.
-5 for cutting.
-5 for not slipping.
Total: -10



Punching through is difficult. The edge is blunt and the tip is rounded off. The left edge of the hook, the edge that would grab on the rim, is rounded off. On a proper can opener, the hook has a 90° edge, so that the can opener holds onto the lip, which provides the necessary leverage for the tip to pierce. On this, the hook just slips off with the slightest force applied to the edge. It takes a considerable amount of force to pierce, all the while being careful to keep the can opener in place.
This makes the whole process an ordeal. For right-handed use, it was difficult to pierce, and impossible to continue on the initial cut. Left-handed is marginally better, since the right edge of the hook has a 90° edge and holds onto the rim.


Cutting left-handed was difficult and awkward, as I am right-handed. Tracing along is painful, since the cutting edge is more of a breaking edge.


Blunt as it could be, the edge slid along the rim, and there is no piercing point to speak of. I had to constantly adjust positioning, and reached about a quarter of the rim. After many tries to continue cutting/breaking the rim, it would not cut along beyond that point.


It took so much force to cut, that I bent the tiny rod that provides retention. Now the can opener has play when deployed. Not a big issue. Why would I deploy the can opener? It cannot open cans. If I want to get a sore hand, and mangle a can, I'll just punch the can.


After five minutes of battling the can with the wrong tool and losing, I switched to the Leatherman Core. Just a few seconds, and I cut easily, painlessly, effortlessly, consistently, and effectively around the rim, never slipping off, going through mangled spots with no issues, until the can was nicely opened.


The Flagship Pro's can opener did not even survive a quarter of one can lid.  :rant: Left-handed, since right-handed I could only do a single cut.  :rofl:
What a joke of an implement. What an insult to release this tool with such a terrible can mangler. Is testing not a part of the development process?  :think:
Is it really that difficult to try and open a can before you release it? I tried one can and the retention rod bent. I had not even opened one single can!  :facepalm:

The can opener on this tool is a waste of space. Beyond unreliable to open a can. Too bad.
Zombie Apprentice Posts: 10,570
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #134 on: July 13, 2020, 08:36:20 AM »
Oh boy...  :facepalm:

Thanks a lot for another great review RP  :hatsoff:

Formerly known as MTMatt
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2020, 08:48:33 AM »
Thanks! :cheers:

Also,  :o I started this thread exactly two years ago!  :cheers:
No Life Club Posts: 1,889
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2020, 01:46:15 PM »
Thanks! :cheers:

Also,  :o I started this thread exactly two years ago!  :cheers:

 :cheers:

I just went back to look at your review on the Vic Combo tool.  Always a good reference. 
Just Bananas Posts: 73,877
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2020, 01:58:43 PM »
Nice review RP :like:
Shame about the quality of the tool ???

fail to prepare prepare to fail
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #138 on: July 18, 2020, 06:29:39 AM »
Roxon Phantom

The can opener is a quarter-circle, and worked adequately. While it engages on the can properly, tracing around the lid was not easy. With each cut, the edge slid across the lid ever so slightly before cutting, so after a few cuts, the cut was too far away from the rim to continue. A new cut had to be started every few steps.

Going backwards eliminated this problem and was much faster, though either way, there were some sharp edges left behind. Thankfully, ergonomics are excellent, and it never slipped off the rim.



2 points for punching through.
2 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
1 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.


Total: 9
Just Bananas Posts: 73,877
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #139 on: July 18, 2020, 04:08:15 PM »
That looks sharp and could
easily cut you if you are not careful  >:(

fail to prepare prepare to fail
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #140 on: September 03, 2020, 04:52:32 PM »
Ozark Trail/Mossy Oak Multiforce

This is a claw, and it is very reminiscent of Leatherman claws, not only in appearance, but thankfully in performance. It worked exceptionally well.


It engaged properly on the can and was able to pierce through extremely easily.


Ergonomics are excellent. My thumb rests against the locking tab, nice and wide. The blades do not protrude as much as on other tools, so nothing jabbed into my fingers. The body is definitely a little boxy, but no edges or corners caused any discomfort.


Combining a good shape with good ergonomics, the results speak for themselves. The edge traced wonderfully around the lid, with no slipping, jamming, no need to adjust or reposition, and creating no shrapnel. Easy, consistent cutting with no sharp edges or points left behind.


Opening the can was easy, fast, painless, intuitive, and quite fun. The can opener is perfectly shaped and ground to handle its intended use. It opened the can beautifully and suffered no ill effects.


This is indeed one of the best can openers on a multi-tool. :hatsoff:



2 points for punching through.
2 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
2 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.


Total: 10
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #141 on: September 13, 2020, 07:54:27 AM »
Grand Harvest K6

This is a quarter circle, in a multi-tool inspired by the Leatherman Wave. Quite an interesting combination.


It engages properly on the can, and pierced through very easily.


Ergonomics are wonderful. My thumb rests on the end of the locking tab. Nice and flat, and all edges around this area are rounded off. The blade spines protrude very little from the frame, making gripping onto the tool quite comfortable.


Tracing around the lid was very easy. The edge and hook are well-shaped and do their job. The can opener grabs positively on the rim, and the blade edge is properly ground and at the proper angle to cut into the lid. The flathead tip acts as a stop. While you are cutting, the flathead will stop the motion once you run out of cutting edge, and you are able to advance. This provides consistency to your cutting, making the affair easy, safe, quick, and quite pleasant.


Opening the can created no shrapnel, I never slipped off, it never got stuck into the lid, the lid was not pushed into the can. The edge of the lid has some sharp points, but not worse than any other quarter-circle would leave behind.


This is a wonderful can opener. Ergonomics, cutting, tracing, everything is great. Off-brand multi-tools are known to have can openers that are barely adequate, and sometimes altogether unusable, especially if they go with a quarter-circle. Well, this was a breath of fresh air.

2 points for punching through.
2 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
2 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.


Total: 10
Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #142 on: September 17, 2020, 10:01:37 AM »
Κ-7375

This is not a quarter-circle. The edge has far less belly and length, and the blade is not as tall as a true quarter-circle.


It engaged properly, or so I thought, and the initial piercing through was easy.
From then on, things get rough. The flathead tip is very wide, and in combination with the short, stubby blade, it was impossible to continue after just one cut. The flathead met the lid before the edge could cut into the lid to advance.


As with many mediocre quarter-circles, going backwards was far more efficient. The edge managed to trace around the lid, with little effort, no slipping or jamming. Ergonomics are average. The blade spine protrudes a little from the body, and there are some edges that also jab into my hand and fingers. It made little difference whether the scissors were attached or not.


As with all quarter-circles that work better backwards, this left sharp points around the rim. It did the job, albeit backwards, and was unable to completely remove the lid.


The lid was too mangled and the rim bent from trying to continue forwards after the very first cut, and I was not able to completely cut off the lid with this. I had to use the Rebar.
It does work, and if this is all you have with you, you will be able to open cans.

(this picture took 20 minutes to upload)

2 points for punching through.
0 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
0 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.


Total: 6
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 10:11:22 AM by ReamerPunch »

Thread Killer 2017 Absolutely No Life Club Posts: 6,939 Born to multitask.
Re: Can Opener Comparison
« Reply #143 on: October 16, 2020, 08:13:37 AM »
Roxon Flash S803
The can opener worked well. It engages the can properly and pierced through the lid effortlessly. Tracing around the lid was easy once I had found the perfect rhythm of operation. The cutting edge is shorter than the average quarter-circle can opener, so each individual cut will be shorter than with other tools. It never slipped off the rim, it never jammed, it did not create metal splinters. Ergonomics are quite good. The edges are chamfered and nothing protrudes from the frame.
The flathead once again acted like a stop. Not bad, but if it was not there, we'd have a longer cutting edge so we could make longer cuts, and open the can with fewer cuts.
Some sharp points were left behind, which happens with pretty much all the quarter-circles I've used.
Not a bad choice at all, and we have to consider that I went forwards with it being a quarter-circle. Had I gone backwards, it would have been less messy, albeit with more sharp points.
The main thing with this is that you have to find the right angle and keep a consistent, steady pace and motion, to get the most out of it.



2 points for punching through.
2 for comfort.
2 for not jamming.
1 for cutting.
2 for not slipping.

Total: 9

 

Donations

Operational Funds

Help us keep the Unworkable working!
Donate with PayPal!
October Goal: $300.00
Due Date: Oct 31
Total Receipts: $109.46
PayPal Fees: $6.30
Net Balance: $103.16
Below Goal: $196.84
Site Currency: USD
34% 
October Donations

Community Links


Powered by EzPortal
SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2020, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.055 seconds with 32 queries.
© 2018 Defender Web & Tool