A civil discussion over 420 HC Steel.

Another negative with 420 is cost. Why would I get a mid/low level steel for the same price as a top of the line steel (Buck- I am looking at you). If I am paying $40 for a S30V Native why would I shell out more for a Buck in 420?
 
tabeeb762 said:
I know what you're saying, but keep in mind Les is not a knife nut. If you're going to emulate someone, make sure they know more about the subject than you. To non knife people the type of stel matters very little. Les probably picked the 119 because its a capable looking knife from a trusted brand.

420HC is a good steel, but why settle for just good when you can have great or excellent
Click to expand...

That is a very, very, exellent point indeed.

Les, like most people, is not a knife nut. So what does a non knife afictionado do when he needs a knife? He goes and gets something that looks like it will do the job, made by a reputable company. And guess what? It really did do the job Les wanted to do. Les does not know he is underknifed by knife nut standards, in fact most probably doesn't care. He got the job done, the show was in the can, and he got paid. Mission accomplished.

Most of the other people who needed a knife bad and did not have metalurgy knowledge did just the same thing. I seriously doubt the old mountain men had knowledge we have here on this forum, so what did they do? The went and got knives from the reputable John Russell Company, who made the famous Green River knives. Basicly a large simple butcher knife out of simple carbon steel. Most of you would be shocked to find out the RC hardness of some of those old blades. The ones I've seen tested came out in the low 50's. Yet they worked just fine. The same thing with the great Tramontina machete's. They are down in the low 50's if that high, yet they cut all mannor of stuff in Latin American jungles including butchering pigs and goats. In spite of the cheap low tech steel, they get it done.

Like pitdog said, "edge holding ain't everything. "

I think in a hard use knife like a survival blade, brittleness is something not to be tollerated. You can't plan on what you may have to use that knife for in an emergency. Hacking out the side of a downed chopper, or trying to cut a staff or crutch to lean on in mid winter and hitting a frozen knot in the wood, or a hundred different things. The more chrome you have in a blade, and the higher you take it on the hardness scale, the more brittle its going to be. Its give and take in anything. Like building a nice engine, the more you tweak it for performance the less reliable it is in the long run. Everything is a compromise, just make sure that your not compromising the wrong thing in search of performance.

Companies like Buck and Victorinox stay in buisness by constantly finding out what the customers want. Aside from the persnickity knife nuts on forums like this, most people just want a tool to cut well, not be too hard to resharpen, and not break on them. And they don't want to pay a huge amount of money either. It's amazing what kind of cutlery people get by on in third world countries. In Africa large game is skinned with Okapi's, a knife that RC's someplace in the low 50's.

Before you get to thinking edge holding and complex alloys are the only game in town, think of how far for tens of thousands of years man got by with a single stone flake. Anything harder than what your cutting is going to get the job done. I don't know the RC of rabbit hide, or that piece of wood I'm carving for my figure 4 trap, but its going to be softer than even a moderate blade made out of any steel. As long as the steel is heat treated and profiled right, thats way more important than what it's made out of. Good steel can't overcome bad design. And there is alot of bad design out there.

In 1969 I bought a new Buck 102 woodsman. I used it as a general fish and game and camping knife untill 2001. It was worn down to a sharp toothpick, so my better half bought me a brand new one at a Gallyans. The new one made out of 420HC vs the old one 440C, is actually a better knife. It holds a good edge, almost as good as the old 440, but it's a lot easier to sharpen. It's my one of two sheath knives I own. The other sheath knife I have is a Frosts of Sweden with a wood handle and carbon laminated blade. The Buck gets used more because of its being stainless, and from April to Novemberwe do alot of boating. Kayaks, small sail boats. Things get damp. I've had other knives in my life, but when we retired and had a big downsize of our stuff, they went down the road. I kept only what had really worked well for me for many years.

My Buck 420HC works as well if not better than some of the higher hyped gear I've had.
 
tabeeb762 said:
I know what you're saying, but keep in mind Les is not a knife nut. If you're going to emulate someone, make sure they know more about the subject than you. To non knife people the type of stel matters very little. Les probably picked the 119 because its a capable looking knife from a trusted brand.

420HC is a good steel, but why settle for just good when you can have great or excellent
Click to expand...


Actually, I think it's precisely that Les isn't a knife nut that makes such a good endorsement for 420HC. If he wants something that simply works, and that something is a Buck in 420HC, that speaks a tremendous amount in favor of that steel.

420HC is a good steel. And in some instances, I find it to be the perfect steel, cost or reputation notwithstanding. There really is no such thing as a universally accepted great or excellent steel.

We wouldn't all be knife nuts if we weren't stuck on arcane numbers and letters describing our steel. But the fact is that the significance is mostly academic, not practical.

Another negative with 420 is cost. Why would I get a mid/low level steel for the same price as a top of the line steel (Buck- I am looking at you). If I am paying $40 for a S30V Native why would I shell out more for a Buck in 420?
Click to expand...

Toughness, ease of sharpening. After owning a Walmart Native for a couple years, I honestly don't see much advantage in S30V other than bragging rights, the only ones who care are other knife nuts.
 
jackknife said:
Companies like Buck and Victorinox stay in buisness by constantly finding out what the customers want. Aside from the persnickity knife nuts on forums like this, most people just want a tool to cut well, not be too hard to resharpen, and not break on them. And they don't want to pay a huge amount of money either.
Click to expand...

Victorinox has pulled a pretty good one over on me. Out of all my knives, I use my Vic Farmer the most by far. I could choose to use something "higher end", but for the $$$ it's been the best value out of all of them, and I won't jump through a plate glass window if I loose it.;)


Tinderandcomppics001.jpg
 
Talfuchre said:
. . .Here is the break down of what is in a 420 HC knife blade:

Carbon - .40 - .50
Manganese - .8
Chromium - 12.00 - 14.00
Vanadium - .18
Molybdenum - .6

The Rockwell hardness is: 57-59. . .
Click to expand...
While SAK's have been mentioned in this thread, it's my understanding that Victorinox uses a proprietary steel with the following composition:
SAK Inox -- 0.52 Carbon, 0.45 Manganese, 0.6 Silicon, 15 Chromium, 0.5 Molybdenum. Note the absence of vanadium one of the better carbide formers. IIRC, Victorinox optimizes the Rc for the tool, given the limitations of using just one steel composition.
 
For those doubting 420 HC steel watch Noss test the Buck Knighthawk on the knife-tests site, for the money that knife did pretty good to me !!!
 
I used Bucks for many years. I have skinned lots of animals with my folding hunter. It hold an edge pretty well. But now I have Spydercos and Benchmades with VG-10 and S30V. They hold an edge even better. I have a Buck 119, but in a fixed blade I tend to favor 1095 or some of the fine tool steels like A2. There is nothing wrong with 420HC as Buck heat treats it. It will do the job. It's just that there are so many better steels available now.
 
My favorite variant is 420 THC. I find it helps take the edge off and remains flexible under extreme stress.
 
baldtaco-II said:
The carbon content is pretty low so it's going to be a turn off for edge holding. Personally, I wouldn't have it, the lowest I'll go is the steel a SAK is made from, but that's by necessity because it's a SAK.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this.
The lack of edge holding ability is the only real issue I have with 420HC.

Further, this board teams with people using what are fundamentally primitive carbon steels – even stuff one can bake at home with a torch, magnet, oven, a bucket of motor oil and a few shed tools. Excluding big thwackers, let's look at simple sharp slicing: Performance wise, in an identical design slicer how would they stack up against D2 let alone some of the modern stuff? Perhaps interestingly, the majority of responses I see say something along the lines of “ignore the D2, carbon XXXX is yummy”. Well, the simple carbon jobbie may well be tougher[...]
Click to expand...

How would they stack up?

I'll assume you're talking about 1095, for example.
It's a great blade steel.

I wouldn't ignore the D2, which happens to be one of my favorites.
But I really enjoy blades of quality 1095, 1084 and 5160.

And not just in big choppers - my Moore Maker slippies in 1095 along with
my Cold Steel slippies in "Carbon V" aka 0170-6C are some of the best
"slicers" I own.
 
ilbruche said:
My favorite variant is 420 THC. I find it helps take the edge off and remains flexible under extreme stress.
Click to expand...

I don't use that particular steel, but I've known many folks who enjoyed it for the the very qualities you mention. ;)
 
420 HC and 1095 are close to the same, performance-wise, to me with factory heat treating. They hold an edge, not a really long time, but long enough for most tasks, and sharpen very quickly. The geometry of the knife does the cutting. They are both plenty good enough for most.

Now that I've said that, I will also say that it's possible to get much better edge retention while not giving up toughness or getting more brittle. How much do you want to spend?

Even as we get more steels that perform better at certain things, it doesn't make the other steels worse. I don't believe in obsolescence in computers or knives. My computers are pretty old, but they work just as good as they ever did. Same with steels.
 
I have a Commodore 64 that has less memory than my current watch does... are you sure about that? ;)

Ofcourse - my watch also has more memory than Apollo 13... so...



TF
 
I don't know jack about steel really, BUcks and saks have served me well...I find I get better perfomance out of carbon steels but when I need to cut something anything'll do my biggest problem with most buck knives is the hollow grind.
 
RescueRiley said:
I don't know jack about steel really, BUcks and saks have served me well...I find I get better perfomance out of carbon steels but when I need to cut something anything'll do my biggest problem with most buck knives is the hollow grind.
Click to expand...

What do you find to be the problem with hollow grinds ?:confused:
 
Seth of Cosmo knives makes nearly all of his with a hollow grind and this is what he says...

The Superior Blade
The steel: I use, ATS-34, is arguably the best high carbon stainless steel available.
The grind: I grind the bevels with a 24" contact wheel, which is probably the largest diameter belt grinder in the world. I believe that using this diameter gives a superior grind to all others for the given purpose. The cutting edge is thinner, which gives less resistance to the cut, and makes sharpening easier with less metal to remove. Using the 24" grind also gives a lot more sharpening life to the blade because there is a larger area of the blade which is thinner. With proper sharpening techniques, an extra 100 years is added to the blade life. The hollow grind also creates an air pocket which helps to throw the food away from the blade.
 
Bucks have worked very well for me for almost 50 years. I guess thats all the proof I require.
 
Some metallurgy comments .Vanadium in amounts less than .03 is there to produce finer grain , not for carbide formation.
"ATS-34 the finest stainless steel" ? It's the same as Crucibles 154CM but better than both is their CPM154 .Same chemistry but finer carbides - better for the maker and user. Others like VG-10 and 3G both used by Fallkniven are high on my list .I carry an S30V. All these steels require proper HT which is the second part of the equation !!
Hollow ground gives an edge that is not the strongest but that's your choice.
The more complex these steels the more diffucult to sharpen but with all the fine ceramic and diamond sharpeners that becomes a moot point .Occasional touchup is much better than waiting until it's very dull.
 

Attachments

  • !cid_02a101c8b1dd$025ae820$7001a8c0@DAVID.jpg
    !cid_02a101c8b1dd$025ae820$7001a8c0@DAVID.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 17
I don't know much about steel, but I do know my "loaner" knife is a Buck 119. I have had it since the 80's and take it with me camping and on outdoors trips just in case someone doesn't have a knife. It has held up well, gets sharpened by whoever uses it and I am impressed it has not been destroyed by now. I have gotten more use out of it without hardly touching it than I do with my "Supersteel" knives. So if Mr. Stroud chose to use the same knife for whatever reason, I can't see fault in it. It gives him a little more credibility than Mr. Gryllis, who uses a custom knife. At least in the department of demonstrating survival for the common man.
 
rifon2, hola

I'd anticipate that in identical optimized patterns for slicing the D2 would win because of the grain structure. I believe slicing is something D2 excels at. I'd expect it to be more wear resistant too. But then I'd expect it to fare less well if biting into bone against a classic bandsaw steel like L6, and hitting bone 5160 or whatnot. If one counts degradation from corrosion as a performance characteristic there's that too. And there's absence of that funny smell that many report when cutting vegetable matter, and that can only be a bonus for food prep. I totally accept the other steels you mentioned being fine steels, my point was really to illustrate the complete lack of any consistency one sees with the “the advances in metallurgy” argument. The way I see folk can make a case to justify just about any steel mentioned so far. It's the ability to rather curiously hold both end of the “the advances in metallurgy argument” simultaneously that turns the topic all Möbius strip, and that amuses me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top