Mortified about Kel-Met rigid (marketed as Blueline By Kel-Met)

There's two things about the handcuffs. a) there is a glitch with mine where on the last 3 clicks, one side of the cuffs will not double lock at all, it does not even press in and the otherside will double lock on any of those last 3 clicks and give you the sense that you have done your part and double locked the cuffs to secure then, only to find out they can squeeze tighter, even though you actuated the double lock......

The second issue, I verified with the vendor that the last 3 clicks won't let the double lock work as they are only engaging with a bump rather than the teeth. So, a police officer could use them, KrrssshhhhHHHh secured to the right level of tightness, press, press all double locked and the person falls and their wrists break because the "click" that was needed to tighten them properly were one of the last 3 clicks which do not count as actual clicks. Seriously bad design. I hope Kel-Met read this. I feel like I wasted my money on a sub-standard pair of cuffs.

Can you post a pic, please? I have an older "Blueline" handcuff from China. (Im aware my tag is marked wrong, been fixed, now) I wonder if it looks the same or similar? Or if the just used a name that had already been used in the cuff world?
-Richard Knip-

I thought the same. It is not that Blue line. Here is the link: https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from ... 6&_sacat=0

They look really nice, have stamped/etched on them a serial and "Blueline by Kel-Met" on the other side. But the double locking mechanism is a tragedy in my opinion. How can they have 3 whole clicks, which unless you learn the total number of real clicks and count 1, 2, 3 etc during application, you have no idea if the comfortable proper tightness is actually not going to let the double locking mechanism fully operate, even though you had the visual and feeling feedback of having actuated it... It boggles every brain cell in my head and I feel like I have wasted my money :( I did a basic function check and then went on to slice sharp edges on the plastic, lubricate with Dry PTFE spray etc.

djhalfdead wrote: Can you post a pic, please? I have an older "Blueline" handcuff from China. (Im aware my tag is marked wrong, been fixed, now) I wonder if it looks the same or similar? Or if the just used a name that had already been used in the cuff world?
-Richard Knip-

These handcuffs are the spittin’ image of the Hiatt 2010 model I owned 25 years ago with the exception of the more traditional sculpted swivels.

I located a photo on Yossie’s Handcuff Collection for comparison:

https://www.blacksteel.com/hcs/index.cg ... t=5&mode=1

These cuffs were made in England by Hiatt, featured back-loading, a pick notch in the keyway, bright nickel plating, and were of excellent quality.

Jason
 

The basic design is similar. But these are made by the Polish company Kel-Met. They have a 2 pawl bar system and now use standard keys (although their own keys do not fit properly into Hiatt handcuffs) Here is the raw link for this model, without the "blue line" branding that Niton999 uses: http://www.kelmet-defence.eu/km-2000--- ... cuffs.html

Kelmet has never had good quality control. Im really not shocked that their double lock system doesnt work properly. Its sad to see that they would like something like that go to market, tho.

Yes, i agree on the Chinese BlueLine cuffs. They look identical to the Hiatt 2010. I have several different versions of the 2010 and onto their counterparts with CTS and TCH, etc. Over all, the Chinese BlueLine cuffs, werent that bad, In my opinion, of course. When i order the chain and the hinmged version of them, i dint expect much. They were pretty cheap, if i remember correctly? When I got them, they were actually decently made. Functioned as they should. Also noticed, they are a bit bigger than Smith and Wesson or Peerless standard cuffs.
-Richard Knip-

Yes the Chinese blueline were cheap and surprisingly good quality. A little "too" large in my opinion. But this Kel-Met situation concerns me. They talk about having designed it in conjunction with police (Polish police I suppose) to meet their needs. But this double lock not working on the last 3 clicks is an abysmal failure in my opinion and could lead to a police officer crippling someone by accident, since they double locked them, they remember doing it, they can even see it's still pressed in, but oops the suspect has broken wrists now because they fell over on them or cranked them tighter on purpose, either of which the primary purpose of the double lock system is supposed to protect people from.

I had pretty much all the material I needed to make a video but I am holding off because I want to get some contact from Kel-Met to see what they say before I go piecing together a video on them. I like them for what they "should be".

My god, it gets worse. I just need to learn to inspect every tooth operation, every feature before doing anything. The ditched jaws have no peg or protrusion...... You know the channel that is cut out on either side of the rotating arm, so that when the cuff is engaged someone can not pull using strength to disengage the teeth? Yeah, nothing goes into that channel. There's no peg, no dent, no protrusion, nothing.

The channel is there, making you think it has that extra security measure but it is purely only cosmetic... This is truly a farce. Am I wrong?

Thanks for this, I did have some kel-met's higher up on my list, but theyver just fallen down a number of positions

Yes, it is sad. I really do like them, for what they would be if the double locks worked and the ditched jaw security existed. Very nice, otherwise. I do not know if kelmet will reply to me or maybe let me know it was an isolated batch and offer me a free pair of a good batch instead, I have no idea. But if I were to make the video at this point, with this pair, it will/would not paint them in a very good light at all because having seen these issues, I cannot release a video which makes them seem fine when clearly they aren't. These issues were not on the footage I shot, I only found this out hours later after messing around with them.

I had a pair of cheap cuffs that did the samething but was the first 3 teeth. From what i could tell they were out of spec just a touch. The teeth would actually slip over each other. I would almost bet if you could measure the teeth on the swing arm it would be thinner at that end, if that makes since

Possibly. It's just terrible. Annoying for a collector, but handcuffs are an important part of safety in society. Both for the people around a handcuffed person and for the person handcuffed. If you cannot rely on the double locking mechanism because a manufacturer says you need to stop, look both ways and count the clicks to know if it's safe to handcuff someone and use the double lock. What if it's on that last 3 clicks? What are you supposed to do? Release the person for their safety reasons or keep them single locked and get sued for damages/treatment when it all goes pear shaped. Quality control of safety equipment should be an important step in the manufacturer process.

Maybe I'm missing something and no expert here but can someone explain why you guys are bothering with generic builds? So many options out there from reputable manufacturers.. I just don't see the point of buying what appear to be replicas of so many models including Hiatts, TCH, etc.

There are many different brands. There is nothing generic about Kel-Met them selves, although it appears that similarly to Alcyon, they also provide their cuffs to other vendors under other brands. I liked Kel-Met's chain link model. Not so much the weird flat key since it was super easy to pick, but I liked the next model. This rigid cuff seems rushed and poorly thought out in design. Also production quality is not good on my pair, the rivets on one cuff are weirdly stamped and a bit sharp.

Well I heard back from Kel-Met. They defended that the last 3 clicks are not for actual use, they are only supposed to be used for back-loading. I replied addressing my concerns that the operator of the handcuffs won't know if the click they had to use is one of the last 3 clicks unless they are only applied to compliant individuals and they can count the clicks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. They said the strength of their handcuffs does not need the ditched jaw system. Apparently they meet all requirements. I reiterated I would not feel safe using their rigid handcuffs because of the single reason being I hear and feel clicks, I assume I can double lock the cuffs and they are safe, only to find out they tighten further at any of the last 3 clicks AND the fact that this is the case means they do not close as small (safely and double locked) as other brands... They did not bother to reply. My opinion of Kel-Met is quite low at this point.


This is a handcuff forum, with people with years more information and experience than me. Am I wrong in my concerns about the last 3 clicks with the false double lock and reduced level of tightness that is safely possible? To me, it boggles my mind how this got out of the design phase.

I've gone and checked all the back loading cuffs in my collection, and while it's only a couple, they all have only ONE back-loading position.  This includes one pair of off-brand generic cuffs. 

They all utilize a much smaller tooth at the end of the swing arm ratchet.  This is so small that its not even really a 'click'; when I cycle the cuffs through one click at a time, most times it cycles right through the back load position, and I then pull it backwards to engage. Hence the term back loading!

I'm not an expert, but I would agree with you that this is a poor design. After all, what purpose or point would there be in having THREE backloading positions? It only needs to hold the swing arm in a ready position.

TCH has 2 or 3 or more backloading because the design is different. The pawl bars have graduating depths or something and I can double lock even on the last click if I remember correctly. Having multiple "CLICKS" where you can double lock them and they aren't double locked, frankly is moronic. In my opinion.

I have heard back from Kel-Met. They say they have improved the design and offered to send me a sample. If I receive the sample I will share my thoughts about the upgraded design and see if they have enhanced the safety and maximum size-usage-capacity etc.

I have received the sample from Kel-Met. I am not sure if this is a sample of a design they are pushing out as final or if it was merely to get my feedback (which I have provided to them). They have an improved backloading design which allows all but the very last click to be double locked. I think I recall someone else either here on this thread or somewhere else that the last click is likely to be the issue on any kind of backloading handcuff. I would like to see them manage to get reliable double locking on the very last click too but at least as it stands with the sample I have received, they are capable of double locking on 2 more clicks, to go smaller and be safely double-lockable on those extra 2 clicks.

Can't argue with that progress though. I feel a lot better about this pair than the original pair I paid for. Also I am very gratified that finally someone looked at what I was saying to them at Kel-Met and they took the time to rethink and improve their handcuff backloading rather than just leave it as it was. So I commend them for that.

Well done Kel-Met.

Image of Before (purchased as-is) and After (the sample Kel-Met sent me)

cuffs have worked fine and been easily applied without the market concept of backloading. Just another gimmick to sell stuff. Proper education is always the key.

I know what you're saying. As long as the feature does not compromise the effectivenes or introduce any issues I think it is a nice idea. So far TCH/Hiatt have done it the best that I have seen. No drawbacks at all.

Peerless and S&W have operated and been great cuffs for newly hundred years, they don't need gimmicks.

good designed cuffs wrote: Peerless and S&W have operated and been great cuffs for newly hundred years, they don't need gimmicks.

If I recall, peerless backload by 1 click. I could be wrong though. I may have to check later.

How many free cuffs are your getting with this review stuff?

to SBD wrote: How many free cuffs are your getting with this review stuff?

Almost none in general. I did receive a chain link sample when Kel-Met re-designed to use a normal key and I have received a sample on the progress of this double locking/backloading issue. Apparently the fact that the last click could still not be double locked was because I was sent one with a defect so they are sending me one more sample from a full production run so that it should be complete. So, it's mostly for testing and providing feedback. But I also overview them too. I doubt I will do a second overview video though, since it will just be to correct one issue with the last click. a) this was not included on the video and b) I can amend the description of the existing video to document the improvement.

I received the final sample from the production run. It works perfectly. So where previously, Kel-Met had intended the last 3 clicks not be actually used as wrist capacity clicks and to only use them for backloading, now they are in fact fully double lockable. So you end up with a Kel-Met rigid handcuff which backloads by 3 clicks but also provides full wrist sizing, comparable to TCH and double locking on all clicks as you'd expect.

It is still 2 pawls, whereas TCH has 3 pawls. But these have the peerless keyway angling which is slightly more difficult to pick. The finish is not quite as perfect as TCH, so if you want a beautifully smooth, crisp, clean look, Kel-Met is not quite there, but they do the job they are intended for. So with the 1 less pawl but with the better key angle (in my opinion) these would be comparable to TCH and if I had any occupational need to use handcuffs, I would feel safe using the latest revision of the Kel-Met rigid handcuff.

I'm impressed.

yet you don't use them in any official capacity?

In my 9.5 years on the street, I never backloaded any of my cuffs, just left them with the single strand flush with just going into the double strands, and never had a problem.

Howy
Cincy

Going to Crossroads of America in 4 days???

I have a feeling it's less of a problem and more of an expediency or efficiency thing. Nothing wrong with not backloading. But in a kerfuffle if the officer has tried and failed to apply them and the cuffs are now open, if they can be swung with one hand backwards to backload, it still leaves an opening in the front to manoever the wrists into it and hopefully engage the single strand around the wrist. But if there is no backloading they would have to flick them forward where now there's no "channel" to line the wrist up, but the big bulging single strand standing proud, which would not be as easy, I think, to line up against someone's wrist who's struggling. That is my theory.