440C vs. 1080 for edge holding

TXChinook said:
If 440C is said to have greater edge retention, is harder to sharpen and has less toughness than 1080; and if heat treatments are a factor in this result; are we assuming that 440C is subjected to more heat treatments than 1080?. Is it possible for one smith to perform less heat treating on his 440C and another to perform more heat treating on his 1080 such that the 1080 has the greater edge retention of the two?
Click to expand...
Heat treating isn't really something you get "more" or "less" of. More like there are "good" heat treatment processes, which get the maximum amount of performance out of a steel, and "bad" heat treatments, which don't get the steel to perform anywhere near its full potential. And, of course, everything in between. ("Performance" being defined in terms of durability, edge holding, ease of sharpening, e.t.c) A quick google search on knife heat treats, e.t.c, will fill you in on the details.

knarfeng said:
Depends on the type of knife. It's purpose. A "survival" or hard use knife benefits from a tougher alloy. A hunting knife benefits from superior edge retention.
Click to expand...
It's also worth noting that simple carbon steels are easier to work with than stainless ones, especially if the maker forges their blades.
 
My take on it is that 1080 is a great all around steel, that has a pretty straight forward heat treat process. With 1080 there is not soak time for a certain period of time like there is with most stainless steels.

I personally use 1080 because my set up is a gas forge that is hard to keep within a certain temperature for 15 or so minutes that certain steels require for soaking.

It all comes down to what the steel the maker wants to use and the equipment they have to heat treat. I personally would like to get a heat treat oven eventually so I can do stainless. I HATE RUST! :D
 
Keep the knife you like best, or the 440C if you don't like rust.
Click to expand...

Awk! Who likes rust? Surely keeping a carbon steel blade does not doom one to slowing seeing his/her blade oxide away... :-)

It's also worth noting that simple carbon steels are easier to work with than stainless ones, especially if the maker forges their blades.
Click to expand...

I would think that any maker of quality knives would heat treat their own blades. If so, this suggests that a 440C blade has more work (i.e., money) in it than a 1080 blade..?

Are blade blanks available that taper from tip to end of handle like mine or is this something the maker would have to do? I don't see many blades with this feature.
 
TXChinook said:
I would think that any maker of quality knives would heat treat their own blades. If so, this suggests that a 440C blade has more work (i.e., money) in it than a 1080 blade..?
Click to expand...

Some very fine makers send their blades out to be heat treated. This is especially true for those working with stainless steel.

The heat treat for 440C (and other stainless alloys) is quite a bit more complex than that for simple carbon steel.
 
I would rather use a 1080 blade at 62+ HRC than a 440C one at 59 HRC. It wouldn't resist rust but it would take a great edge and hold it longer than you'd generally expect. That's just me though -- I'm pretty obsessive about maintaining my knives.
 
TXChinook said:
Awk! Who likes rust? Surely keeping a carbon steel blade does not doom one to slowing seeing his/her blade oxide away... :-)
Click to expand...
No, but just saying to keep in mind other features and that you would likely be better served by selecting based on them. If it was the same model in two steels, then select on the steel alone. But if the ergonomics, aesthetics, blade shape, and edge geometry are different, then start there. It doesn't matter what the steel is if the handle hot spots to slow you down. Edge holding is only important for reducing sharpening time relative to cutting time. The effectiveness of the knife design also affects cutting time.
 
440C will hold an edge longer than any 1000 series carbon steel, including 1080.
Click to expand...

I would rather use a 1080 blade at 62+ HRC than a 440C one at 59 HRC. It wouldn't resist rust but it would take a great edge and hold it longer than you'd generally expect.
Click to expand...

My choice here is going to be made on the steel. Other features of the two knives are different but both knives look and feel great. Both come from great makers. I was hoping to find a consensus on which steel would be best for me but there's a pretty even split in opinion. Still, I greatly appreciate everyone's time in making their comments.

Have a great Christmas everyone!
 
TXChinook said:
In looking at the McCarty, the width of the blade tapers to a max thickness of 5/32" at the hilt and then tapers back to 3/32 at the end of the handle (the handle is very nice stag). The Buxton is equally attractive with desert ironwood handles and the blade shows a distinctive temper line. The McCarty is definitely the heavier of the two but the blade of the Buxton is presently the sharper of the two. Neither have been sharpened (to my knowledge) since being first sold.

I like the heft and feel of the McCarty but I honestly feel like the blade on the Buxton is better. And after all, isn't the blade is the most important part of a knife?
Click to expand...

If I was going deer hunting, I'd dull the blades of both knives and then re-sharpen both of them. The blade I could easily get the sharpest is the one I'd take deer hunting along with a pocket stone for touch-up if needed. The thickness of the blade is really of no consequence since the edge of the blade is what comes in contact with the hide as you peel/pull it away from the carcass and the heft/feel of the knife is of no real consequence either.

I realize my response is in no way scientific and freely admit that I have not been schooled in metallurgy but I have skinned a lot of deer. Take the knife you can sharpen the easiest and carry a pocket stone for touch-up. You shouldn't need a touch-up stone for a deer but may for an elk or moose.
 
Last edited:
If I was going deer hunting, I'd dull the blades of both knives and then re-sharpen both of them.
Click to expand...

This might be a practical suggestion but my DNA no more allows me to do this than to slap my wife to test whether she has an easy temperament... :-)

The thickness of the blade is really of no consequence
Click to expand...

This true for a gutting/skinning knife but not a knife that might also be needed for more heavy work (I know, this wasn't part of my criteria). I have, in the past, needed to use my knife to take a branch off a limb and used another piece of timber as a hammer on the back of the knife. But I take your point...
 
TXChinook said:
Oh my... surely this can't be like asking two engineers for an opinion and getting 4 answers. Do I need to make this a poll question...??
Click to expand...

Their answers are not different. In fact, they corroborate each other and are both correct. (assuming, as you rightfully said in your original post, that both steels are properly HT'ed.)

With that in mind, 440C will hold its edge longer when used for fine cutting tasks.

I agree completely and adamantly that "geometry does the cutting".

Given the same geometry designed for fine work (acute angles and a thin edge), the higher-alloy steel (440C in this case) will not only cut just as well as the one with less alloying elements (1080) and keep its edge longer, the difference in sharpening the two when they do get dull will be much less than you might expect. There's just not a lot of steel to reshape or remove to get back to a truly sharp edge.

The upshot is, both steels can work very well for the purposes you describe. Choose between them based on your needs for corrosion-resistance and whether you want to strop/hone a little more often, or spend a bit more time, less often.
 
Edge retention and wear resistance aren't exactly same thing, so don't be confused.

Edge retention has broad meaning, depend on which job you are doing. If you are chopping, then the toughness will play a big role on edge stability but if you cutting some cardboard, then the main factor would be wear resistance. The edge hardness which known as HRC will be the primary attribute regardless of any job, it also known as edge deformation resistance.
 
shqxk said:
Edge retention and wear resistance aren't exactly same thing, so don't be confused.

Edge retention has broad meaning, depend on which job you are doing. If you are chopping, then the toughness will play a big role on edge stability but if you cutting some cardboard, then the main factor would be wear resistance. The edge hardness which known as HRC will be the primary attribute regardless of any job, it also known as edge deformation resistance.
Click to expand...

Edge retention is not entirely edge stability. Nor is edge retention entirely due to deformation resistance.

Edge hardness is not known as "HRC". HRC is a hardness scale. Hardness of steel alloys is measured in units of Hardness-Rockwell C scale, which is abbreviated HRC. Not the same thing.

I've never come across anyone who hardened 1080 to a 62HRC on a regular basis. The chances of the OP finding such a knife provider seem slim to me. Having not used 1080 at 62HRC, I can't speak definitively on it, but it is not clear to me that it would hold an edge better than 440C in skinning game. Slicing through the pelt tends to be very abrasive on a blade. In such an activity you are more worried about abrasive wear than the edge deforming. The carbides in 440C will help that alloy resist the abrasion better than the 1080.
 
Any knife edge is steel and actually measure in HRC FYI.

Retention and stabitity has very close meaning in my book, in this case I use both word for the meaing of 'capability to keeping the sharpness'. Probably my english wasn't so good.
 
TXChinook said:
This question has almost certainly come up here before but my search did not find it... I'm choosing between two knives for use in dealing with deer and elk and am interested in which is more likely to hold an edge for this type work. Both knives are from well-known custom makers and so both would have had their respective steels treated in the best possible ways. The two steels are 1080 and 440C.

I understand these steels are totally different. But is one better at holding an edge? What about the ability to sharpen? Thanks
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not the most experienced hence my opinion has far less credibility than many of the people here. That said, from my experience (please don’t quote me or rip me for my input, I’m pretty new to this), the 1000 steels, specifically 1084 is more ‘heat treat’ friendly and knife makers tend to maximize its hardness capabilities more consistently. 440c with an adequate heat treat will hold and edge pretty well however, imo, not quite as long as high carbon steel.
You mentioned you plan to use the knife for deer & elk... I’ve seen 1084 hold an edge like you wouldn’t believe but it can rust after minimal work on animal flesh. 440 will resist corrosion from the elements (blood/water). Perhaps consider that when choosing between the two.
What I’m sayin is: I prefer a stainless or semi stainless steel on any blades that will be used strictly for cutting animals...... that sounded horrible. “For cutting animals” ‍♂️ That didn’t come out the way I intended it to.

So, better & Worse are not great units of measure for blanket purposes. What steel is ‘better’ or ‘best’ is a highly controversial subject among the knife world, to which I would say, when looking for ‘better’, rather than considering things like sharpness & edge retention, I’d advise also considering the MAIN JOB you need the knife to perform and then find the steel that provides what’s ‘better/best’ for that specific job.
To sum up, if your getting this blade from an experienced knife maker who can maximize steel capabilities with a tried & tested heat treatment, I’d say the pros and cons for each steel (at least how they stack up to the intended job) will end up being a near wash. I’m Sooooooo helpful, I know! Lol
Good luck
 
TXChinook said:
Great! This the type information I was looking for. Except in this specific case, I already have the two knives and want to gift one to a family member. I was wondering if I should keep the one with 440C or the one with 1080 (for my deer gutting/skinning needs).

In looking at the McCarty, the width of the blade tapers to a max thickness of 5/32" at the hilt and then tapers back to 3/32 at the end of the handle (the handle is very nice stag). The Buxton is equally attractive with desert ironwood handles and the blade shows a distinctive temper line. The McCarty is definitely the heavier of the two but the blade of the Buxton is presently the sharper of the two. Neither have been sharpened (to my knowledge) since being first sold.

I like the heft and feel of the McCarty but I honestly feel like the blade on the Buxton is better. And after all, isn't the blade is the most important part of a knife?
Click to expand...

Remember, the term ‘better’ should never be used as an all inclusive blanket measurement. It’s probably wise to consider the type of work your Knife will be performing before you get lost in people’s opinions on what’s ‘better’ or ‘worse’
Like I said in an earlier response; this is a highly controversial topic within the knife world!
 
I wore down my first Buck Ranger/212 in 440C decades ago from over-sharpening -- didn't have diamond hones then, and it was a b*itch to sharpen on carborundum. High carbon steels like 1080 are much easier to sharpen due to their lower carbide content, and tougher, given equivalent heat treat. There are a lot of very good powder steels these days that split the difference: CPM 20CV, V3 for instance, easy to sharpen (on diamond), hold an edge longer than 440C or high carbon steels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top