have a Toxic Embryo AR and an SnG... now, as stout looking as the AR is, my opinion (as a qualified industrial designer, for whatever that's worth) is that the SnG is a stronger overall design then the AR because it's a more efficient package. Here's why:
- The weak point on any liner/frame locking manual knife is found at the spring relief cutout. On the SnG, this relief cut is .052 thick (at it's thinnest point) where it is only .030 thick on the AR. That's roughly 73% thicker in favor of the SnG.
- Since I don't have an SmF to measure, let's assume the SnG and SMF use the same frame thickness as the SnG, only the dimensions in X and Y are 10% larger (it is well documented that the SMF is 10% larger then the SnG). Even then, since the strength of the knife is defined by the thickness of that relief cut in the frame, the SMF offers the same blade size and more strength in a package that is 36% thinner then the AR. (the overall thickness of my Toxic Embryo AR is .65" where the overall thickness of my Gen 3 SnG is .476").
- Furthermore, in the SnG/SMF design pattern, we get a knife where one of the handle's sides is pure G10, but that G10 is in full contact with the titanium frame side for the full length of the knife. Theoretically, that makes the SnG/SMF knife design stronger then the AR design.
When all is said and done though, the basic equation comes down to this; the SMF, SnG and AR knives are over-engineered. I double dog dare anyone to break ANY Strider folder in field conditions (that is to say, yea- I could take an axe to an SMF and bust it like nobody's business, but who's in an environment where their knives are subjected to that kind of stress?). Since all the Strider knives are essentially unbreakable, it comes down to a question of utility- is it really worth the overall size increase to carry an AR when the same utility (and arguably even more strength) can be found in the SmF? My answer is an emphatic "No."
