Looks more like a manufacture defect to meI have used the one in my 111mm Soldier a few times, with no issues other than the fact that it doesn’t lock and it can fold both ways when you apply pressure to it....which I think is a bad design in itself, but that’s for a different discussion Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am actually going to have a look at my 111mm Soldier tomorrow and see if I can see a brass pin where the backside Phillips is Edit:My 111mm Soldier is a 2017 model or manufactured in 2017, accordingly the number on the blade Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Victorinox uses 100% brass pins for anything that isn't a 93mm Alox.
The Compact is one.I think the XLT and bigger have them too. I think I personally prefer the cleaner look of the smooth hook, but it is a mystery why the hook with nail file is so rarely used.
And because the can opener is actualy made as a 2D Philips that actualy works great for that purpose too.
Cost, most likely. They could use a stronger material, but they don't think it worth it. (Also, see edit in my last post.)
The only scenario in which the back spring Phillips has any advantage over the can opener Phillips is handling deeply recessed screws. Without the corkscrew, however, opening a bottle of wine is much more difficult. The corkscrew has other uses as well, including working knots and holding the mini-screwdriver.Bottom line, the corkscrew actually adds a lot of capability to a SAK, while the value of the back spring Phillips is quite limited, especially on SAKs that already have the opener layer.
I prefer the corkscrew, I would say 50% of the time the back layer phillips is useless for me because the SAK itself limits the areas and recesses where you can turn a screw. Inline phillips is much better but adds thickness.
It always feels like the Philips part should be slightly larger... ... or at least different. Hard to describe. Just feels like it is not a perfect fit for a standard #2 Philips screw head.
You are correct, sir. The 3 mm screwdriver on the tip of the can opener is essentially a #1 (or #1/#2, if you prefer) flat Phillips driver. #2 Philips would be 3.5 mm, so as you correctly note, it is slightly undersized for (but in my experience handles just fine) those Phillips screws designed for a #2 driver. The upside is that it will work on both #1 & #2 Phillips screws, which is a great thing for those of us looking to get the most capability in the smallest package.
Are there different nail files (the actual file surface) among SAKs?For example: I get decent results when using the nail file of my Cadet, but horrible results using the Rambler. Looking at the files they look the same, but for some reason one works better than the other
Why do I sense a ‘show us your SAK file’ thread coming on?
Obviously, the metal file is much more aggressive than a nail file, but the only difference I'm aware of between the Cadet nail file and the Rambler nail file is size. I suggest one of the following possibilities:The larger nail file area and or larger handle of the Cadet make it more effective in actual use than the Rambler, even though the characteristics of the file surface are the same.With enough use, the file would ultimately reach a point of noticeable wear. If it got to this point, of course a worn file would not be as effective as one that was new (or less worn).
Both SAKs are like new, so i would tend more to your first point. I also thought about the general size difference. Maybe i am holding the Cadet differently than the Rambler, resulting in a different file characteristics.
He repeated the failure on a 91mm SAK, using a torque wrench to measure the force it took to make it fail:https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,22526.msg416821.html#msg416821
Donations
Community Links
