An observation & A question

mitch13

mitch13

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
11,011
I like the fact with traditional slippies & lockbacks easy to use, good slicers & cutters & easy to maintain.
I like to sit of a night And hone up the knife I've used or am going to use the next day, part of the enjoyment of using a knife, well me anyway
As I'm partial to European & custom knives like laguioles & regionals. You get the option of carbon or stainless, easy to use & maintain.

I'm always looking at the possible next knife, I find the new breeds of Lionsteel, Fox & Viper
interesting as they look good. They all seem to favour M390 blades,

Qustion?
Why do slippies need a blade steel of 59 to 61Rc?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I've always been satisfied with carbon, tru sharp or 12c27 and the like. It's just something I've observed & curious what others think.
Cheers
mitch

P.S if this is controversial, sorry.
 
I'm confused as to what your question is. 59-61 is a great hardness for 1095 and a lot of steels. What would you prefer?
 
I can't really comment on the Rc factor but I do prefer stainless steel for its corrosion resistance. With a 20% Chromium content M390 is right up my alley. I think that's about as high as blade steels go for Chromium content but I could be mistaken. At any rate, I like it.
 
L.H.S said:
I'm confused as to what your question is. 59-61 is a great hardness for 1095 and a lot of steels. What would you prefer?
Click to expand...
Sorry maybe I didn't word it well.
Most stainless laguioles and similar. are around 56rc for ease of maintenance.
M390 gets marketed here as a supersteel
 
The one M390 knife has been extremely easy to maintain once I got it sharpened to my satisfaction. Does a slippie need to be that hard probably not but they would definitely get my money if they ever make a decent looking stockman pattern.
 
Slipjoints don't need blades with an Rockwell hardness of 59-61. That's the position of many European makers. I remember reading years ago a comment from a Laguiole maker that his blades were used to cut breads, cheese, and fruits and that a blade with a hardness of 54-56 was perfectly adequate for that task. That may be so, but I am an enthusiast, I want more than simply adequate. Besides, knives with blades in the 59-61 range aren't all that difficult to sharpen. Give me the increased edge retention the higher hardness provides.
 
There are many conversations about steels and their properties. A Case sodbuster will accomplish most tasks if you don't mind construction, maintenance, et.al. Hardness is just one variable in a complicated algorithm for edge retention - and that is the main argument for higher end steels. If you do not want/need a top edge retention in your duties, you do not need to pay for top edge retention knives. As mentioned, your "needs" seem to always differ from your "wants".

I see people all the time blame price tags on steel. M390 is not ridiculous these days. I could put D2 on many knives that I chose M390 for @ $10 less. The final price of knives is rarely in the steel. The average GEC is right around $100 - and there are not a lot of steels more economical than 1095. But the main draw it seems these days for 1095 is the fact that it DOES tarnish - explain to someone not a knife nut that given all other aspects are at least equal you prefer the steel that will rust in a sweaty pocket :D
 
mitch13 said:
Sorry maybe I didn't word it well.
Most stainless laguioles and similar. are around 56rc for ease of maintenance.
M390 gets marketed here as a supersteel
Click to expand...

The "ease of maintenance" is as much a marketing tactic as "super steel". Even the cheapest of modern equipment can sharpen / hone a blade steel at 59-61, and most companies offer re-apexing / sharpening for free.

Blade steels have recommended hardnesses and for modern steels 56 is not it.

kamagong said:
Slipjoints don't need blades with an Rockwell hardness of 59-61. That's the position of many European makers. I remember reading years ago a comment from a Laguiole maker that his blades were used to cut breads, cheese, and fruits and that a blade with a hardness of 54-56 was perfectly adequate for that task. That may be so, but I am an enthusiast, I want more than simply adequate. Besides, knives with blades in the 59-61 range aren't all that difficult to sharpen. Give me the increased edge retention the higher hardness provides.
Click to expand...

54 oh my.

They must be cutting into a cutting board right? What's it made of? Lol
 
knifeswapper said:
There are many conversations about steels and their properties. A Case sodbuster will accomplish most tasks if you don't mind construction, maintenance, et.al. Hardness is just one variable in a complicated algorithm for edge retention - and that is the main argument for higher end steels. If you do not want/need a top edge retention in your duties, you do not need to pay for top edge retention knives. As mentioned, your "needs" seem to always differ from your "wants".

I see people all the time blame price tags on steel. M390 is not ridiculous these days. I could put D2 on many knives that I chose M390 for @ $10 less. The final price of knives is rarely in the steel. The average GEC is right around $100 - and there are not a lot of steels more economical than 1095. But the main draw it seems these days for 1095 is the fact that it DOES tarnish - explain to someone not a knife nut that given all other aspects are at least equal you prefer the steel that will rust in a sweaty pocket :D
Click to expand...

I like your post.
Price does have an influence, that's patt of the reason I was curious.
Here in Australia m390 blades are still a lot more expensive. You already have an increasd price on retail purchases so it can add up.Even the buck 112 you are looking at 80 to 100.
So it's good to see what others think
 
Last edited:
From a performance standpoint, M390 is very good and a perfect choice for a small knife. Most of us aren't going to fully utilize the advantage, kind of like owning a corvette as a daily driver... not going to hit 120 very often but it can be fun to have.

If you cut a lot of cardboard, you will notice a big difference in performance between M390, 1095, or softer stainless (most seem roughly around 420HC). Do we "need" harder stainless? No. But the luxury is sure nice.

In a slipjoint, M390 makes perfect sense as M390's biggest downside, toughness, doesn't come into play much. Slicing is the name of the game for both, I think it really is a great pairing, M390 in slipjoints. Makes a lot of sense from a user standpoint.
 
Need is a relative thing.

I think it's disingenuous to dismiss the so-called super steels as just marketing hype that no one really needs. That's just flat not true. I have a knife in S90V that I used the heck out of and it would go a long time between sharpenings. Yes, blade geometry is a factor but there is no getting around that it greatly extended times between sharpening. The same is true for ZDP189, M390, CPM4V, etc. The high-vanadium alloys can be especially beneficial in a stainless steel where the chromium tends to latch onto the carbon. In non-stainless knives (ie, carbon steels), it's the free carbon that lends itself to the ease of sharpening and fine edge. The vanadium forms carbides that in the crudest sense, sort of replicate that condition.

It isn't about whether or not steel A can cut something just as well as steel B. It's really about time between sharpenings. A guide out in the bush, in dwindling light, with a client's moose on the ground and in bear country, might really appreciate that extra time. Or a rancher or what have you.

Is that still relative to a small, folding pocket knife? That's for each individual to decide. But it doesn't make any one of the choices more or less right or wrong. Just different for the individuals. I don't need much by way of super steels in my day-to-day life. But I'm also a good sharpener and I spend far more time in a chair nowadays than on my feet. But I also think spending over $100 on a knife that readily rusts is crazy. But I suspect the majority here would strongly disagree. I don't particularly like Damascus steels. But I bet a lot of folks would say I'm nuts.

Besides, for some folks, different steels are just as appealing as different scales or blade shapes or knife designs.

I just celebrate that we have so many options. :)
 
Eli Chaps said:
Need is a relative thing.

I think it's disingenuous to dismiss the so-called super steels as just marketing hype that no one really needs. That's just flat not true. I have a knife in S90V that I used the heck out of and it would go a long time between sharpenings. Yes, blade geometry is a factor but there is no getting around that it greatly extended times between sharpening. The same is true for ZDP189, M390, CPM4V, etc. The high-vanadium alloys can be especially beneficial in a stainless steel where the chromium tends to latch onto the carbon. In non-stainless knives (ie, carbon steels), it's the free carbon that lends itself to the ease of sharpening and fine edge. The vanadium forms carbides that in the crudest sense, sort of replicate that condition.

It isn't about whether or not steel A can cut something just as well as steel B. It's really about time between sharpenings. A guide out in the bush, in dwindling light, with a client's moose on the ground and in bear country, might really appreciate that extra time. Or a rancher or what have you.

Is that still relative to a small, folding pocket knife? That's for each individual to decide. But it doesn't make any one of the choices more or less right or wrong. Just different for the individuals. I don't need much by way of super steels in my day-to-day life. But I'm also a good sharpener and I spend far more time in a chair nowadays than on my feet. But I also think spending over $100 on a knife that readily rusts is crazy. But I suspect the majority here would strongly disagree. I don't particularly like Damascus steels. But I bet a lot of folks would say I'm nuts.

Besides, for some folks, different steels are just as appealing as different scales or blade shapes or knife designs.

I just celebrate that we have so many options. :)
Click to expand...

Well stated. I would be pretty interested in a S90V or S110V slipjoint that didn't come from spyderco, and the looks that come with a spyderco. They're functional and usually ugly.

Get me a moose or muskrat pattern in S110V and you'll have a bit of my money. Though, the M390 from lionsteel is pretty darn nice as well and the bestman has been in my pocket for quite a while once I finally decided to use it. Now, if we could get these half-stops out of there, it would nearly be the perfect knife and I wouldn't use my GEC bull moose anymore, though I still love that knife as well. I don't hate half-stops, just really like not having them for a continuous opening tension. Makes the experience of opening and closing a slippie so much nicer, IMO.
 
mitch13 said:
Qustion?
Why do slippies need a blade steel of 59 to 61Rc?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I've always been satisfied with carbon, tru sharp or 12c27 and the like. It's just something I've observed & curious what others think.
Cheers
mitch

P.S if this is controversial, sorry.
Click to expand...

Perhaps most of the time, a well heat treated and humble 440C blade would do most my chores with a pocket knife. It's sure easy to sharpen when it starts to dull a wee bit.

The patina producing carbon blades are less of my thing than they are for many other members here..........prefer stuff that stays shiny, just me.

As for higher end steels.........there's so many, and if someone uses blades a fair amount they will then appreciate the differences, as well as the different sharpening requirements.

I don't use a knife a great deal.........but I just LOVE carrying one and having it 'there' all the time - part of which comes from the motto when I was in the Cub Scouts and the Scouts: Be Prepared.

Having a penknife on me with exotic scales of wood or horn, exotic steel etc - it all just enhances the experience of day to day life :cool:
 
Last edited:
Henry Ford believed in giving the people just what they needed, not what they wanted. That's why there are other car makers today. Left up to Henry, we'd still be driving Model A cars, but people wanted more. Personally, I'm very grateful for the advancements brought about by "want" over "need".

The prices of knives today are based largely on labor costs. Modern steels cost more to purchase, but they also cost more to machine and heat treat. The material may not cost much more in and of itself, but it requires more labor to turn that material into a finished product. If you are making knives using traditional methods the way GEC does, it is labor intensive and because skilled labor doesn't come cheap, that labor cost is reflected in the market price.

If a big day for your knife is opening a couple of letters, you really don't need high hardness steel, but I can't fault you for wanting it. I'd much rather whittle with something at Rc60 than a SAK at Rc53 anytime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top