420HC verses 440A

Just an impression from use, but 420HC has always seemed "harder" to me, taken crisper edges, and held them longer than 440A, regardless of manufacturer. I've only used 420HC from Buck and Camillus that I know of, but have used quite a few 440A knives over the years. 440A and AUS-6A are usable, but still some of my least favorite steels. Nothing all that great about 420HC, but it's more likeable and usable, IMO.
 
The Bucks I have had in 420 HC are excellent knives--they are not my favorite steel, but I have no beef with them!
 
I've always found all of the 440A knives I've used to be substantially better than the AUS6 knives (primarily CRKT). I've never used a CRKT hard, but I've suspected that their steels are a bit on the soft side, and I've heard others express the same suspicion. Anyway, it really ticked me off when they went from AUS6 to AUS4 on some of their knives. To make matters worse, they decided not to put any marks or distinctions to indicate which was which. (I suspect many got the new AUS4 models when they thought they were getting the old.)
 
Yeah, CRKT's AUS-6A is horrible. The same steel from makers like SOG(who in the past has labeled 6A as 440A) and Kershaw is MUCH better.
I didn't even know there was such a thing as AUS-4 until CRKT switched. Hard to imagine stepping down from their crappy AUS-6A.
 
Jeff Clark said:
I had an one of the original Buck 110's in 440C. It convinced me that 440C was NOT a good cutlery alloy. It just wouldn't take the kind of thin razor edge that I like. I much prefer 420HC to 440C or 440A. One big difference between 420HC and the 440 series is the amount of chrome. The 440 series has a lot of chrome and that interferes with nice clean honing. Kershaw does a good job on 440A and gets close to the finesse of 420HC. I would rather have AUS8 than either of these.
Click to expand...

I agree on all counts. I saw a (now closed) thread where 440C was being touted as an "upgrade" in a knife from its original AUS8A. Not in my book!

440C is probably okay for people who don't mind thicker edges, but it's not good for any kind of knife I want to use.
 
I love 440C and it can take a wicked edge but because of the very high chromium content does take more work to get it there. The reason most companies went from 440C to 440A and 420HC is they can blank them and work them a lot easier and cheaper than 440C.
440C is the most under rated steel ever. It was really the first of the super stainless.
If you try a modern 440C knife with good heat treat and edge geometry I think you would be quite impressed. Entrek is a company that has good results with it.
According to crucible 440C has exactly the same edge holding and almost the same toughness with way more stain resistance than D2.


Personally I think that when you get to knives that have either 440A or 420hc it is the heat treatment and edge geometry that really makes a difference not the subtle difference in the steel. Bucks 420HC is not any better than any other companies they just are very very good at both the heat treatment and edge geometry.

I don't get this obsession with edge holding? All knives need to be sharpened eventually.
I would much rather have a bit more toughness or stain resistance as well as being able to touch it up without special tools if it is a survival knife.
 
I don't get this obsession with edge holding? All knives need to be sharpened eventually.
Click to expand...

Just like anything else in life , it is mostly personal preference.

My favorite steel thus far is Aus8 , it does what I need it to do and takes a ridiculously sharp edge and is quite easy to bring back to that point if it dulls.
Which is what I prefer - I like the idea of being out on the road or trail and just packing a small soft arkansas to meet all of my sharpening needs.
 
rebeltf said:
Just like anything else in life , it is mostly personal preference.

My favorite steel thus far is Aus8 , it does what I need it to do and takes a ridiculously sharp edge and is quite easy to bring back to that point if it dulls.
Which is what I prefer - I like the idea of being out on the road or trail and just packing a small soft arkansas to meet all of my sharpening needs.
Click to expand...

That's why I have the edge holding obsession. I like to take a knife into the mountains for a week, and not have to worry about carrying a sharpener, because it will still be sharp when I get home. Yes, they do eventually get dull, but that's why I have a belt sander. I make sure my knives are always razor sharp before taking the field, and I don't have to touch them up in the field.:D

I guess it's personal preference.:)
 
Ben Dover said:
That's why I have the edge holding
obsession. I like to take a knife into the mountains for a week, and not
have to worry about carrying a sharpener....
Click to expand...
If you ever get stuck out in the wilds without a sharpener, just look
for an old creek or water bed and find a nice, smooth, round rock
and use that.
 
Unsub said:
I love 440C and it can take a wicked edge but because of the very high chromium content does take more work to get it there . . . 440C is the most under rated steel ever.
Click to expand...

It's good to have different opinions ... mine is that 440C is one of the most OVERrated steels for knives ever. The carbides it forms are just too big (thanks, Cliff Stamp!) to allow for a really thin edge. It's not about the effort it takes to remove steel; it's that there is a limit to how thin you can get an useable edge. Sure, you can get any 440C knife "sharp" and it will stay that way a long time, but not the way I like them sharp (with as thin an edge as possible). It would be great for scissors or something else with a thicker edge, but for a folder or pocket knife, it's not that great.

I've owned between a dozen and two dozen 440C knives and no amount of work or type of abrasive ever produced satisfactory results for me. After reading about the size of the carbides 440C forms, it made a lot of sense why. There is a topic somewhere on these forums that goes into great detail on this issue.
 
Confederate said:
If you ever get stuck out in the wilds without a sharpener, just look
for an old creek or water bed and find a nice, smooth, round rock
and use that.
Click to expand...

Yep! Been there, done that. And it worked better than I would have ever imagined. :)

Another good alternative. If you're anywhere near an old telephone or power line where they used ceramic insulators, look around for one an old broken piece of those insulators. The ceramic used in those things is just about the same as the stuff used in the Sharpmaker. :D
 
rhino said:
It's good to have different opinions ... mine is that 440C is one of the most OVERrated steels for knives ever. The carbides it forms are just too big (thanks, Cliff Stamp!) to allow for a really thin edge. It's not about the effort it takes to remove steel; it's that there is a limit to how thin you can get an useable edge. Sure, you can get any 440C knife "sharp" and it will stay that way a long time, but not the way I like them sharp (with as thin an edge as possible). It would be great for scissors or something else with a thicker edge, but for a folder or pocket knife, it's not that great.

I've owned between a dozen and two dozen 440C knives and no amount of work or type of abrasive ever produced satisfactory results for me. After reading about the size of the carbides 440C forms, it made a lot of sense why. There is a topic somewhere on these forums that goes into great detail on this issue.
Click to expand...

I invite you to come over and check the edges of some 440C customs.

The steel can definitely take a super sharp, hair-popping edge.
And retain it well, too. :thumbup:
 
I don't think 440C is underrated, I think it has a group of followers who think it is underrated. It has a large carbide structure of chromium carbides for low toughness and moderate/high wear resistance, it is not capable of supporting more than 58-59 Rc, and it has good corrosion resistance. There are steels with greater wear resistance and toughness with similar corrosion resistance that can support a higher hardness. 440C is just an old stainless steel developed by metallurgists that didn't know much about the metallurgy of stainless steels at the time.
 
Larrin said:
I don't think 440C is underrated, I think it has a group of followers who think it is underrated. It has a large carbide structure of chromium carbides for low toughness and moderate/high wear resistance, it is not capable of supporting more than 58-59 Rc, and it has good corrosion resistance. There are steels with greater wear resistance and toughness with similar corrosion resistance that can support a higher hardness. 440C is just an old stainless steel developed by metallurgists that didn't know much about the metallurgy of stainless steels at the time.
Click to expand...


It is what it is.

It's a very good, very reliable stainless steel. Time tested and time proven.

It's a step up from AUS8, 420HC, and anything similar; it's generally similar to AUS10; it's a step below 154CM/ATS-34.
 
rifon2 said:
It is what it is.

It's a very good, very reliable stainless steel. Time tested and time proven.

It's a step up from AUS8, 420HC, and anything similar; it's generally similar to AUS10; it's a step below 154CM/ATS-34.
Click to expand...
I think what you're ranking there is wear resistance.
 
OK, back on topic then, I like 420HC better, I feel the carbon/chromium balance is better. In the end though, the one that is heat treated harder will perform better, put in overly general terms. Like others have said, they are often left too soft. I think Buck is doing a pretty nice job putting their 420HC blades at 58 Rc, most of them are a pretty nice balance between price and performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top