Spyderco Gayle Bradley 2

OK. Please bear with me...I might just be trying to be see clearly through muddy water here..., am I understanding correctly that you would consider the PPT and the Rubicon to be frame locks because they too have thick lock sides and would function the same without the scales? I kinda' see them that way myself, but my confusion comes from the manufacturer descriptions. I was hoping there was a definitive element that created a more clear separation between the two designs.
 
Stays Sharp said:
you can take off the Bradley's scales and still have an "operational" folding framelock.
Click to expand...
That's basically how I view the difference.

Perhaps if the locking liner is not a single piece leading to the pivot, it's a liner lock. If it is (as is the case in the GBs, PPT), it can be considered a frame lock (as the 'liner' can act as the frame/handle).
 
It's just a liner lock. Not confusing at all. Spyderco calls it liner lock. Just because it is beefy and you could take the scale off doesn't mean it's a R.I.L. By that theory a lot of liner locks would be called R.I.L. The sage 1 would be a R.I.L, but the whole purpose of that knife is to honor Michael Walker, the inventor of the Liner Lock. The R.I.L has the lock bar integrated into the handle scale material. The GB does not have a CF lock bar. It has SS liners that make the lock, therefore it is a liner lock.
 
nccole said:
It's just a liner lock. Not confusing at all. Spyderco calls it liner lock. Just because it is beefy and you could take the scale off doesn't mean it's a R.I.L. By that theory a lot of liner locks would be called R.I.L. The sage 1 would be a R.I.L, but the whole purpose of that knife is to honor Michael Walker, the inventor of the Liner Lock. The R.I.L has the lock bar integrated into the handle scale material. The GB does not have a CF lock bar. It has SS liners that make the lock, therefore it is a liner lock.
Click to expand...

Right... they operate in similar manners, but liner = liner lock, frame = frame lock. Simple as that.
 
calc said:
Right... they operate in similar manners, but liner = liner lock, frame = frame lock. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your insights guys. It sounds like you guys agree with my view that if it's built like a framelock with scales that enclose the frame it's a linerlock. I hope you don't think I'm just being an idiot here. But, I say it's confusing because people seem to have a variety of interpretations that are based in reasonable enough logic, and I'd like to understand this with a level of accuracy and specificity that I think most don't usually care to get into. Calling it whatever the manufacturer calls it is reasonable enough for me, but I just want to understand it better than that.

Do either of you happen to know why Spyderco gives credit to both the R.I.L. and the LinerLock in describing the lock on the PPT? It says "the lock is a crossbreed annexing components from both....functions as a framelock....appear closer to a linerlock". Using the simple definition of a LinerLock that I think we agree on, we would be saying the PPT is a LinerLock but Spyderco says it's somehow both. I'm struggling to see the difference between the PPT lock and the BG1, BG2 and the Rubicon. Any thoughts you might have are appreciated.
 
If memory serves correct, doesn't the PPT have a thicker lock side with partial scale as opposed to a full scale like a traditional liner lock? That's probably where Spyderco is describing it as a hybrid of sorts.
 
flipe8 said:
If memory serves correct, doesn't the PPT have a thicker lock side with partial scale as opposed to a full scale like a traditional liner lock? That's probably where Spyderco is describing it as a hybrid of sorts.
Click to expand...

You're correct. It does have a thicker lock side, and the GBs and Rubicon do not. It does also have a smaller scale on the lock side and the GBs and Rubicon do not. The lock-side scale still covers some of the lock bar so it still functions exactly the same as the others. But even if the difference is only cosmetic, this may very well be why Spyderco describes the lock like they do.

Well done flipe8! If you pulled that from memory you're one sharp Spyderco fan! Thank you! :thumbup:
 
TheGearGuy said:
I apologize. I do not have a clear answer for you on that detail...here's what I know.
Although I opened and closed it a couple of times, and I did notice that it was easy to get my thumb on the liner-lock and disengage it, I'm sorry..I did not pay attention to whether there was a difference in the thickness of the liner-lock bar. Because the knife is slimmer and lighter I think both sides of the liner are a little thinner than the original. However, the overall impression opening, closing and holding this knife was that it is still the tough-a$$ folder that the original was with improved ergos. So, although I didn't take note of the difference in the liner lock thickness I have to say it would have noticed if it didn't feel as solid as I expect a GB folder to feel. I did notice that the shape of the lock is new and more rounded than the original (providing a better finger recess) and that is one of the changes that improved the ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Thanks much Gearguy. :thumbup:
 
TheGearGuy said:
You're correct. It does have a thicker lock side, and the GBs and Rubicon do not. It does also have a smaller scale on the lock side and the GBs and Rubicon do not. The lock-side scale still covers some of the lock bar so it still functions exactly the same as the others. But even if the difference is only cosmetic, this may very well be why Spyderco describes the lock like they do.

Well done flipe8! If you pulled that from memory you're one sharp Spyderco fan! Thank you! [emoji106]
Click to expand...
One last off topic response. I own a PPT, and I think the difference is that the scale on the lock side doesn't cover the lock bar itself, leaving it exposed. My understanding of the RIL is that leaving it exposed allows the user's grip to add pressure to the lockbar, making lockup more secure (as opposed to a liner lock where your hand can't squeeze on the lock bar). Another manufacturer might call this a "sub-frame lock" [emoji6].

On topic, I think I might get a gb2 to see what the hype is about. The original is too big for me, but I've heard good things about M4.
 
Well the original Bradley shows as discontinued at spyderco.com so that's a good sign. On the other hand, the Positron is about to hit dealers so at best we're next in line.
 
AF said:
Well the original Bradley shows as discontinued at spyderco.com so that's a good sign. On the other hand, the Positron is about to hit dealers so at best we're next in line.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness I have a backup, might need to get a third. The GB2 I will have to pick up later on.
 
IIRC the GB2 at blade had a thinner lock.

That's what I remember but don't go taking my memory to the bank as there were lots of knives and plenty of beer involved
 
50an6xy06r6n said:
One last off topic response. I own a PPT, and I think the difference is that the scale on the lock side doesn't cover the lock bar itself, leaving it exposed. My understanding of the RIL is that leaving it exposed allows the user's grip to add pressure to the lockbar, making lockup more secure (as opposed to a liner lock where your hand can't squeeze on the lock bar). Another manufacturer might call this a "sub-frame lock" [emoji6].

On topic, I think I might get a gb2 to see what the hype is about. The original is too big for me, but I've heard good things about M4.
Click to expand...

Ah the PPT, of course he asked about that! This is the best explanation IMO. Chris Reeve does claim that as a design benefit or enhancement over the liner lock. That is an important fact if discussing patents and what not. Thickness does not matter at all. Whether comparing left and right liners of the same knife or comparing against an actual R.I.L.

As far as the "sub" frame or liner lock, I think Kershaw used that for the Echelon. It had a partial liner to save weight. I thought it was pretty cool. Then I got a military and realized it has the same thing going on, but no special name. That sub thing may be a bit more marketing IMO.
 
Last edited:
Hey, guys.

I have the GB1. I haven't used it much. I like it, but can see how one might consider it a bit bulky. I'm very much looking forward to getting the GB2.

My question is, does preordering get you a lower price on the knife, or is it just to get is as soon as possible? I'm not in a hurry and can wait, but if there's a deal to be had, I'll definitely preorder.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top