950 Rift... Why aren't the liners skeletonized?

T

TiHawk60

Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
108
I don't have that many knives, but the ones I do have, which include full liners, are all skeletonized. The 710, the 810, the 575, both 580s... I haven't done research beyond my own collection and maybe ones I've handled in stores, but this is the only one that I know of which is NOT skeletonized. Wouldn't you want to save a bit of weight where possible?

The first time I looked at mine, I thought maybe it was a manufacturing defect, but looking at some other disassembly videos and reviews, I see that this is just how they are. Why is that?
 
I would imagine it is just designed that way, perhaps an oversight. I have a 484 that isn't skeletonized either, but (for just me), skeletonizing is not something I look for anyway.

I think nutinfancy did his own, on the 950, by drilling. Said it was a PITA to do and only saved a half an ounce or so. Not worth it for a negligible weight savings AFAIC.
 
I'm not especially concerned about the weight, either, more curious as to the reasoning, considering it is not the norm. It does feel handle-heavy (to me, anyway) and felt like the skeletonizing would be more for balance. But in regards to the weight, half and ounce on a 4.8oz knife is still fairly substantial... over 10%
 
Considering most heavyweights (Loco, Adamas, Crooked River) are, there must be an engineering reason.
Besides, it's not really a heavy knife.
 
The 950 is a pretty old design. This was before we made the "lightening" holes a standard feature.
 
There we have it... thanks! Like I said, was really just curious as to "why not?"
 
Yeah... "classic"... and still fully functional as a great mid-sized "everyday & whatever" kind of folder. Just had one in my pocket a few minutes ago. It's a little on the light side (a skeletonized liner would aggravate this undesirable trait) but I like it in spite of that. Personally, I'd like another ounce or so in the handle (I favor folders like the Adamas, the AFO 2, Buck 110s and 112s, etc) to give it a bit more of a weight distribution that I like, but it carries well and handles well for me even with that hump in the handle. And I even like the 154CM blade steel. It's "tried-and-true" and I know what to expect from it and how to work with it.
 
"Undesirable trait" being an opinion, not a fact, though. If less weight was undesirable, knife makers (and manufacturers in most every other industry) would not be using composites like carbon fiber and aluminum alloys and titaniums and such for greater strength and less weight, which they obviously do. The fact is that they engineered most knife models with skeletonized liners for a reason (including the Adamas).

Anyway, like Jimmy said, it's a standard feature now and I just didn't realize how old the 950 was, I guess. The weight certainly doesn't bother me, since I carry an 87, the 810, 710.... sometimes 2 or 3 knives, even, but was just curious about it's design vs almost all of the rest.
 
dalefuller said:
Yeah... "classic"... and still fully functional as a great mid-sized "everyday & whatever" kind of folder. Just had one in my pocket a few minutes ago. It's a little on the light side (a skeletonized liner would aggravate this undesirable trait) but I like it in spite of that. Personally, I'd like another ounce or so in the handle (I favor folders like the Adamas, the AFO 2, Buck 110s and 112s, etc) to give it a bit more of a weight distribution that I like, but it carries well and handles well for me even with that hump in the handle. And I even like the 154CM blade steel. It's "tried-and-true" and I know what to expect from it and how to work with it.
Click to expand...
Really? You can duct tape 2 quarters to the handle,that should take care of that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top