01, A2, D2 Steels Are Mediocre!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it only goes to show how fantastic some lower grade (if you wish to call them that) are these days. There may be better stuff by someone elses grading system but it doesn't mean what you are using is crap.
 
Maybe an analogy will help:

Let's say you find an article ranking how well common materials burn in campfires. Naturally, wood is much better than bricks for this particular task. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "wood is better than bricks for making houses because it ranked higher in this article about campfires"

Industrial production tools and cutlery can't be compared. That ranking you quoted probably makes shock-resistance its number one point of comparison. Knives don't need to be all that shock resistant.
 
BabyJWuu said:
Hello group,

With respect, I find it fascinating that the nay-sayers offer nothing to defend their position that the old steels are still relevant great steels. Just claim the person is trolling and hide from the facts :)

Cordially,

BabyJWuu :D
Click to expand...


Do you understand why metal cutting implements are often carbide tipped but never fully made of carbide? Understanding this simple fact will help you recognize why this article is totally irrelevant to the type of knives discussed here.
 
ok , send your D2 , O1 and A2 ( especially CRK one peace ) to me ,,
I dont mind using this steel .
btw what happened to 1095 its not considered steel anymore ?
I love my ESEE knifes .
 
bld522 said:
Except the fact, of course, that some of the most well-respected knifemakers on the planet construct knives using alloys you've dismissed as irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt even well respected knife-makers had a foundry in their backyard, they like anyone else used whats available...they made knives not steel.

I'm still waiting until they make a solid diamond blade then all steels will be mediocre :p
 
He obviously does not understand the topic because he is a dip shi* that only wants to hear his own opinion. I refuse to say anything else on the topic because people like this piss me off.
 
mat_890 said:
I highly doubt even well respected knife-makers had a foundry in their backyard, they like anyone else used whats available...they made knives not steel.

I'm still waiting until they make a solid diamond blade then all steels will be mediocre :p
Click to expand...

Until you try a cut and put pressure on it. Then you'll have blades, and you magically figured out how to have knives that reproduce asexually. Bye bye, production costs.
 
There are steels with higher working hardness, greater wear resistance, greater toughness, or greater corrosion resistance. Some supersede the three title steels in all of these properties.

In that, I would absolutely agree that these steels are not top performers in the 21st century. Alloying mixtures, foundry procedures, technology has not stagnated for the steel industry. Steel is being made in improved ways, and improved steel has also been developed.

The only issue for knives is that most people with most knives don't need the improved properties. A better steel won't do a better job because the workload is so low that you get no resolution on the material differences.
 
elkins45 said:
Industrial production tools and cutlery can't be compared. That ranking you quoted probably makes shock-resistance its number one point of comparison. Knives don't need to be all that shock resistant.
Click to expand...

Elknis I'm not trying to start a massive argument, but I would like you ask you why you feel shock resistance is as useless to knives as campfires are to building materials.

It strikes me that impact resistance does matter to a chopper. Also the deformation resistance, and the 'methods of toughness testing' look like interesting data. The conclusions are clearly irrelevant but do you seriously think that in no way can any of the data can be applied to knives...which are pretty much just a sharpened bit of steel?
 
BabyJWuu said:
You are paying for 90% ESEE hype and 10% for the knife :eek:

Okay, I admit some trolling in that statement :D

Cordially,

BabyJWuu :D
Click to expand...

Here we go...

Sorry I somewhat defended him...I tried to give him the benefit of doubt and not consider him a troll. :foot:
 
mat_890 said:
I highly doubt even well respected knife-makers had a foundry in their backyard, they like anyone else used whats available...they made knives not steel.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was referring to knives that are being made TODAY by some of the most well-respected knifemakers on the planet . . . knifemakers who have access to presumably better performing alloys than the ones they're using. Bob Dozier (D2), Jeff Randall (1095) and Mike Stewart's line of A2 knives immediately come to mind. For example, if Force Recon is comfortable using knives constructed of A2 steel and they could have chosen any alloy they wanted, who am I to argue with them?

.
 
Last edited:
Of course those are the best steels.... in an article from Crucible... those are all steels made by Crucible. DUH. What company is going to post an article about which steels are best and NOT promote their own products as the best?

Jwuu got what he wanted.... so far two pages of posts and a developing argument about a pointless article.:rolleyes:
 
As the great Esav once said...


wbgleason_1278252844_train_wreck.jpg
 
i find it interesting that anyone would credit crucible as the ultimate authority on metallurgy . the thread is using a catagorical imperative as a point of departure, as all deductive reasoning dictates this an invalid argument if you are basing your conclusions from aristotelian logic. as most formites are aware even some of the most pedestrian alloys can be tweaked to perform as well & sometimes surpass the super alphabet alloys. we hardly need mention busse, jody muller [sniper blades], ed fowler, bill burke & bill siegle among others.
dennis
 
The premise for the thread is wrong. I've not seen anyone claim O1, A2, or D2 are premium steels on BFC since I joined. They are good steels, and have been around for a long time. I even remember a write up where 1095 cut longer than ATS-34. But it wasn't on metal.

And if you want to base the entire premise on that article, steel in general is being replaced as a cutting material. WC, ceramic, DLC, etc have an edge on steel when cutting metal. Just don't take them down to a 10 degree edge on a full flat ground knife with a 1mm thick blade.
 
I'm throwing my D2, O1 and A2 knives in the garbage now.
Mastersmith (Wally) Hayes, dear departed Simonich, and James Piorek sure had me fooled into thinking their O1, D2 and A2 blades ( respectively) were amazing.
Silly me.
What the hell do they know?
I thought they performed superbly for me, but who should I believe? A one dimensional summary of certain characteristics from a proprietary website or my lying eyes?

Now I know better.
Gee, thanks.
 
Last edited:
hardheart said:
There are steels with higher working hardness, greater wear resistance, greater toughness, or greater corrosion resistance. Some supersede the three title steels in all of these properties.

In that, I would absolutely agree that these steels are not top performers in the 21st century. Alloying mixtures, foundry procedures, technology has not stagnated for the steel industry. Steel is being made in improved ways, and improved steel has also been developed.

The only issue for knives is that most people with most knives don't need the improved properties. A better steel won't do a better job because the workload is so low that you get no resolution on the material differences.
Click to expand...

Finally, a poster with an unbiased and completely logical response based on the facts....much appreciated :thumbup:

I suspect that 1095 would be adequate for the vast majority of knife users. However, it is essential to discuss and understand these new steels.

To offer an analogy I purchased a bicycle in 1992 made from chromoly steel. It was based on 1985 Tour de France bleeding edge technology at the time, even when I bring this bicycle to the bike shop now, the bicycle mechanics love to look at it! However, several years later carbon fibre bikes showed up at the Tour de France, extremely expensive ~$10,000. Due to the price people would show up at my bicycle club each year with hybrid aluminum - carbon fibre bikes until eventually the price came down and now as of 2007 I could justify the price/quality and I bought a carbon fibre bike. Most people at my bike now buy full carbon fibre bikes due to the price/quality point. Both of my bicycles are nice, but to be honest there is no comparison between the two. I know because I have ridden them both. They both work, but one is like driving a Chevrolet Malibu and the other like driving a Porsche!

I believe we can apply this analogy to knife steel and knives. I have owned a carbon 1095 BK7 for several years and when I first got it I was awed by it's strength! I do not own any super steel knives at this point in time, I have held some at my local knife shop. I believe once the price comes down and more of us buy them, we will realize how much better they are compared to the now "mediocre" steels. Oh, I think carbon fibre handles will be replacing micarta and G-10 at some point in the future, something to look forward too :)

Please try not be biased in our discussion and keep an open mind, a closed mind is an empty mind :thumbdn:

I will get off my soap-box now :)

Cordially,

BabyJWuu :D
 
mat_890 said:
Elknis I'm not trying to start a massive argument, but I would like you ask you why you feel shock resistance is as useless to knives as campfires are to building materials.

It strikes me that impact resistance does matter to a chopper. Also the deformation resistance, and the 'methods of toughness testing' look like interesting data. The conclusions are clearly irrelevant but do you seriously think that in no way can any of the data can be applied to knives...which are pretty much just a sharpened bit of steel?
Click to expand...

Oh, no worry about a massive argument between us...the OP already took care of that himself:D

I don't think impact resistance is AS irrelevant as in the campfire analogy, I just don't think it is the primary characteristic of steel that should be used to judge it FOR CUTLERY PURPOSES. I would much rather have a steel with good wear resistance, for example, than one that was very impact resistant. Clearly, as you stated, you would look for impact resistance if you were buying a large chopper...but my large chopper says Stihl on the side of it and runs on gas.

My point to the OP is that he is claiming a bunch of steels superior for one purpose but using data gathered specifically for a different purpose to support that claim. I think Hardheart makes a good point that even if there are theoretical differences, using those steel to make knives won't necessarily allow the end used to see those differences.

My Grandma's last car was a 1973 Pontiac with a 400 cubic inch V-8 engine. I'm pretty confident that in the 1/2 mile drive to the store (which is the only place she ever drove) she never got over 35 mph. In theory that car was a gigantic fire-breathing speed machine...but in reality it was a little old lady's car. Grandma would have gotten to the store just fine with a lot less HP and never known the difference. It's the same thing using A2 vs. Cruwear for blade steel. I'll never know the difference and I'm one of the few people who actually cares.
 
I just glaze over when I see all the technical stuff about blade steels. The steel is relevant to the use intended. I have about 100 knives with many different steels ranging from M-4 to 01. For general bushcrafting I appreciate 01 and 5160 for their ability to sharpen in the field. I don't think that they are inferior because they don't hold an edge like D2 or M4. It is all in the application. Just my 2 cents though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top