An interesting question

C

CrazyCaucasian

Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
97
How would the "lower tier" steels (420j2, 420hc, Aus8) of today perform against the "top tier" steels of the 19th century?
18th Century?
 
Since 1600's and 1700's steel wasn't all that much changed from the steel that came to Europe from Persia a few hundred years before I argue that beyond its stainless properties not all that much. Just like a modern soldier wouldn't let his gun rot I can't imagine that a soldier of that time would let his sword rot.
 
If the 420hc came from Buck I'd probably notice a little bit of difference, but otherwise I would probably not notice a general difference.
This is speaking of mid 1800's steels, because much earlier stuff was way less consistent.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, they'd perform better. The big problem years ago, till maybe the mid part of the 20th century, was heat treat. I've seen a few dozen Rockwell hardness tests from many manufacturers, and they were all over the place. I'm talking low 40s, low 50's, down into the 30s in some cases.

I'm not a steel junky, but the quality of composition, heat treat, and general handling of modern steels in much better now.
 
The modern steels would perform better than steels from 1700 to 1900. Modern steel making techniques create stock that is freer of voids an inclusions to a level historical steel could not match.

I am not sure if between 1700-1900 they had what they considered "premium cutlery steel". The probably had a recipie for steel used in blades, another recipie for steel used in bridges, another for steel used in gun barrels.

I imagine there was also alot of recycling older steels in which case the smith would have no way of knowing the chemical content of the steel. So in the case of recycling steel they would have no idea what is in the steel they were using.

To ask if modern entry tier steels is better than historical steel is a tricky question. There are modern steels so hard that they may have been too brittle for a sword from 1789. In this case the historical steel was clearly better suited for its role in a sword.
 
Lapedog said:
To ask if modern entry tier steels is better than historical steel is a tricky question. There are modern steels so hard that they may have been too brittle for a sword from 1789. In this case the historical steel was clearly better suited for its role in a sword.
Click to expand...
Maybe certain, highly specialized steels but there is such endless variety of steel now, with such specific properties, and such deep knowledge of metallurgy, that I have no doubt that we could produce the most badass-performing sword of all time if we really wanted too. Meanwhile, the best steel from a hundred years ago would come apart like peach cobbler if we tried to use it in some of the applications for which we use steel now.

Personally, I think that the difference would certainly come out over time. Maybe that 19th century guy wouldn't notice the difference the first time he swung the sword but he'd notice it by the thousandth.
 
SpySmasher said:
..... that I have no doubt that we could produce the most badass-performing sword of all time if we really wanted too. Meanwhile, the best steel from a hundred years ago would come apart like peach cobbler if we tried to use it in some of the applications for which we use steel now.
Click to expand...
A good heat treat for the steel type is kind of magical. It's kind of like the magically infused swords that I read about in fantasy novels.

I have little doubt that even the steels that we consider fairly low quality would be better than the steels produced a century ago. I believe in swords, damascas steels were used simply because they worked better for the rigor that a sword might get used for.
 
22-rimfire said:
A good heat treat for the steel type is kind of magical. It's kind of like the magically infused swords that I read about in fantasy novels.

I have little doubt that even the steels that we consider fairly low quality would be better than the steels produced a century ago. I believe in swords, damascas steels were used simply because they worked better for the rigor that a sword might get used for.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
SpySmasher said:
Maybe certain, highly specialized steels but there is such endless variety of steel now, with such specific properties, and such deep knowledge of metallurgy, that I have no doubt that we could produce the most badass-performing sword of all time if we really wanted too. Meanwhile, the best steel from a hundred years ago would come apart like peach cobbler if we tried to use it in some of the applications for which we use steel now.

Personally, I think that the difference would certainly come out over time. Maybe that 19th century guy wouldn't notice the difference the first time he swung the sword but he'd notice it by the thousandth.
Click to expand...

You must be misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Of course there are steels today that will make a sword our anscestors would be very jealous of. Infact I believe 1075 and 1065 are some of the preferred steels for modern swords.

The OP asked how modern lower tier steels compare against historical "top tier" steels which people considered super steels in their day. I was saying in almost every way the modern steels are better. At the same time there are modern supersteels like s110v which are not at all suited for sword making. In that case the historical steel would probably be better in that role. This is despite the fact s110v is a superior steel in almost every way.
 
Historical Damascus, real damascus was produced from wootz steel manufactured in India. Europeans first encountered the patterned steel being worked in the Damascus area and mistakenly thought it originated from there. This damascus/wootz steel could have a wavy pattern on the surface that can look alot like modern pattern welded damascus. I think some languages word for it translates as "watered steel". Apparently the wootz ingots were considered as valuable as gold.

So is it better than 420hc or 440a? Probably not. Metalurigsts believe that the historical damascus steel was so remarkable for its time because of higher carbon conent and trace vanadium. Today we tightly control the elemental mixture in a batch of steel. Even the historical samurai swords with their various construction methods designed to get a hard edge and a softer spine are not as good as a monosteel modern samurai sword.
 
Wouldn't blame anyone for wanting better quality performance in their tools.
There in lies the perennial problem with cutting implements;
Namely in finding or more correctly, in creating formulations for materials which
can deliver even far more superior edge retention than what which exist in current use.
Any better knife steel is meant to achieve the impossible balance of not only
to remain shaving sharp for longer periods of use, but also to be soft enough for ease of sharpening. Structural flexibility, rust resistance, have all been factored in the creation
of formulating any superior performance steel.
But you know what? That's just "the structural foundation" in building a knife.
Blade geometry is what which makes the actual cut possible.
A knife or knife like object can be fashioned from any material stiff or hard enough to be fashioned
Or fabricated to cut material much softer and structurally less dense than it is.
One only need to be aware of the physical limitations of the knife's steel type
And learn to live with it.
I m only glad in not living in the Bronze Age...
Where I m sure even the worst ever south Asian steel knife
Would be considered far superior like some newly created super steel.
I m sure any hard use knifenut would love the cutting edge advantages
Offered by technological advancements.
But any "safe queen" collector would probably judge a knife mainly by its design and history; Where cutting performance is not going to be the primary quality.
 
Last edited:
Consider high quality Japanese Swords by the Masters from the 17th and 18th centuries. I believe those blades perform as well as anything made today.
 
braillediver said:
Consider high quality Japanese Swords by the Masters from the 17th and 18th centuries. I believe those blades perform as well as anything made today.
Click to expand...

No, they simply are not. Though they were very well made for the time master Japanese sword smiths knew the steel they were using was mostly of questionable quality. High quality steel was actually quite expensive and rare in Japan at that time. That is why on historical Japanese swords only the edge of the blade is made from the highest quality steel.

This practice extended to Japanese scissors, knives, most tools with a blade only the edge was good steel. Even in Europe pattern welded knives with a harder steel edge were common in the Viking era.
 
CrazyCaucasian said:
How would the "lower tier" steels (420j2, 420hc, Aus8) of today perform against the "top tier" steels of the 19th century?
18th Century?
Click to expand...

You have to look at steels historically by that I mean there were no top tier steels. there were no steel standards.
I would say that before standards were developed and the steel industry was modernized enough to put out a consistent product. Any of the steels the OP listed were better than what the average person could get their hands on in the 17 and 18th centuries.

Go back far enough you'll find early swords were iron, not steel. I will even say that the first damascas steel was not good steel it was just better than iron.

Before the mid 1800's large metal structures were still being made of wrought or cast iron.

In the 1850s wrought iron rails were still being used in railways.

The Bessemer process that made steel cheap wasn't invented until the mid 1800's.

The American Iron Association was not established until 1855. Before that there were no standard steel grades.

Until the mid 1800's steel was very expensive and not what could be considered pure by today's standards. Prior to the mid 1800's steel was only made in small quantities. So if you had what was then considered a high quality steel knife that would have been a major investment in the 17 and 18th centuries.

Aus8 would have been a super duper steel.
 
I also say that such steels as AUS-8, AUS-6, 420HC, 440A, SAK steel, and even 420J2 of today would have been considered amazing 'super steels' for knives a century or more ago. Heck, even a few decades ago in some cases. And most of those steels are still pretty good when done right.

With the constant advent of newer and newer 'super' steels (and even non-steels, like Boye Dendritic Cobalt), it doesn't automatically banish some of those older steels to the scrap heap; it simply widens the options for more types of applications for users of knives. Good steel is still good steel. With proper, modern heat treating, they can all be good. It simply depends on users' preferences and the intended applications. For example, I would take my simple, cheap carbon steel Tramontina machete over a fancier machete tha was made in S110V, which would not make a good and durable machete.

Jim
 
I bet that folks a century ago would've shown off their blades if they had been 420HC like my Leatherman or old Gerbers. These are much more corrosion resistant, harder and overall better cutters with a wider range of possible grinds and geometries than even the "top tier" and best steels from the early 20th century. AUS 8 and VG1 would've been jaw dropping

FdfnXHO.jpg


the humble and cheap 8Cr13MoV and Sandvik /14C28N and Krupp 4116 also come to mind

MYRr3aP.jpg
 
17-1800's top end forged carbon steels, from top makers, would likely not be all that different from modern forged steel, and as such would still out perform, or at the very least perform on par with quality made lower end modern stainlesses.
 
Dean51 said:
Go back far enough you'll find early swords were iron, not steel. I will even say that the first damascas steel was not good steel it was just better than iron.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that there was no technology for making steel, i.e. they couldn't get carbon properly infused into the iron. They did case hardening to get the carbon into the very surface layer of the steel. They did damascus to get carbon somewhat infused throughout the steel. I'm sure this was a very inexact process. They probably didn't get very scientific with respect to heat treating either. But the better makers of damascus might have been able to make reasonably good blades. Otherwise they probably did a lot of sharpening and with respect to swords they relied on momentum more than sharpness to do the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top