Becker hrc

StrangeDaze

StrangeDaze

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
2,144
Has anyone tested their beckers to see how close to spec their hrc is?

I just saw a video where a guy tested his bk16 with a machine and then files and it came in at 54, which would be quite low if true.

I absolutely hated the video as it seems like the whole point was to disparage a major brand, and the comments were even worse.

I am really hoping this was either a fluke or his equipment was wrong.

It did make me wonder if most beckers are in the 56-58 range or if they fall outside of that.
 
Last edited:
Haven't seen the video. Where on the blade did he test it? Did he prep the surface and use an actual Rockwell tester?

ETA: I have hardness chisels for ballparking hardness of my own blades, but have never tested a Becker. Given the mass-manufacturing and thick nature of these blades, I would anticipate there being a range of hardness across a given piece.
 
daizee said:
Haven't seen the video. Where on the blade did he test it? Did he prep the surface and use an actual Rockwell tester?

ETA: I have hardness chisels for ballparking hardness of my own blades, but have never tested a Becker. Given the mass-manufacturing and thick nature of these blades, I would anticipate there being a range of hardness across a given piece.
Click to expand...
I am hesitant to share the video on the forum as i dislike the spirit of it.
i believe all that he did was remove the coating.
If i’m not mistaken he tested it about at the middle of the blade. He tested it on the tang as well. My apologies for not remembering more details but i watched it right before bed last night.
 
all the coating would have to be thoroughly removed. I would also want to see it used on a calibration puck too before I took it seriously . I need to find my way old calibration puck in my junk they are great portable anvils for setting rivets and stuff like that I have some experience with testing hardness on automotive drivetrain parts
 
we did induction heat treatment. Every hour at the machine we hit parts with a certified tempered file 58 RW it had to skate if it cut we shut the machine down. Every 4 hours we picked up parts checked on a Rockwell tester had to test on a calibration puck first we magnifluxed them too you ran it through a magnetized coil ( if you forgot to take your watch off it was toast) once a shift we cut the parts sand blasted , acid etched and looked at them under a microscope
 
StrangeDaze said:
I am hesitant to share the video on the forum as i dislike the spirit of it.
i believe all that he did was remove the coating.
If i’m not mistaken he tested it about at the middle of the blade. He tested it on the tang as well. My apologies for not remembering more details but i watched it right before bed last night.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no need to link it here if it feels lousy.
If he used a rockwell machine, the coating would have to be removed on both sides, makes sure they're parallel, and that all decarb on the testing surface has been removed.

I don't know how Kabar does it, but they don't have any real engineering incentive to grind below HT decarb except near the edge. It would be a lot of extra work for something they're going to epoxy-coat anyway.

I've got two Beckers sitting on the kitchen table to go to the shop with me shortly. I'll check a couple spots with my chisels.

Ultimately it's the performance that matters, not the specific number.
 
Ok, I've watched the video.
The handle is 54Rc in his test, and it looked like he was reasonable about it. 54 is actually a great hardness for the skeletonized handle on the BK-16 in 1095CV.
Not so great for the edge.
 
All that HRC drama is just an instagram d*** measuring contest. We has a group of them on here once raging at Collector Knives over a Lionsteel slipjoint. After a huge drama fest it became clear their testing method was tainted and they had to apologize. Of course not long after the ringleader deleted the apology and vanished with his flying monkeys.
 
daizee said:
Ok, I've watched the video.
The handle is 54Rc in his test, and it looked like he was reasonable about it. 54 is actually a great hardness for the skeletonized handle on the BK-16 in 1095CV.
Not so
Click to expand...
My apologies. I just rewatch the video as well and it looks like he tested the handle with a machine and then the blade with a file. It is good to know that his testing method may be flawed or the tools used may not be adequate.
 
RC hardness is also very tricky to perform after angles/bevels are added. Results vary greatly high and low if the test isn’t perpendicular to the hardened surface. I know it can be done but only under extremely controlled conditions. I don’t even click on videos with RC in the title anymore.
 
I remember the knife side of the internet was in an uproar about hrc a couple years ago but stayed away from most of it.
Glad to hear it was just that, drama!
 
re: video
We can criticize his methods, but it's also entirely possible that he got a lemon. Or that Kabar's process has recently slipped, or something. I'm a pretty big Becker fan, and think Kabar does a great job with them, but sometimes crap happens. The question is whether his tests are valid and if his sample is representative.

This afternoon I took my BK-16 (I have two) and BK-7 over to the shop to poke at them in a limited fashion. Both of these knives are probably ~10 years old at this point (EGAD). I got both of them at Beckerhead-East Gatherings.

The edge bevel on the BK-16 felt like ~57Rc under the hardness chisels (from Matt Parkinson). It was able to carve a bit of unhardened 1084, though the edge rolled slightly under the torque - a pretty brutal test.

The BK-7 is quite modified, so I had many places to test where not only was there no coating, but also definitely no decarb. I would call it 58-59. It was HARD all over front half of the knife, not only on the edge bevel, but also the spine where Wayne's friends used to be, and also on the front of the waddle behind the choil. This blade is beefier behind the edge and carved the unhardened 1084 like it was nothing. It also felt slightly harder than the BK-16 when I waved a steel across the edge and stropped it quickly.

So there you have it. I have two that are convincingly up to spec. 🤷‍♀️

IMG_20250727_143418_HDR-small.jpg
 
Last edited:
daizee said:
re: video
We can criticize his methods, but it's also entirely possible that he got a lemon. Or that Kabar's process has recently slipped, or something. I'm a pretty big Becker fan, and think Kabar does a great job with them, but sometimes crap happens. The question is whether his tests are valid and if his sample is representative.

This afternoon I took my BK-16 (I have two) and BK-7 over to the shop to poke at them in a limited fashion. Both of these knives are probably ~10 years old at this point (EGAD). I got both of them at Beckerhead-East Gatherings.

The edge bevel on the BK-16 felt like ~57Rc under the hardness chisels (from Matt Parkinson). It was able to carve a bit of unhardened 1084, though the edge rolled slightly under the torque - a pretty brutal test.

The BK-7 is quite modified, so I had many places to test where not only was there no coating, but also definitely no decarb. I would call it 58-59. It was HARD all over front half of the knife, not only on the edge bevel, but also the spine where Wayne's friends used to be, and also on the front of the waddle behind the choil. This blade is beefier behind the edge and carved the unhardened 1084 like it was nothing. It also felt harder when I waved a steel across the edge and stropped it quickly.

So there you have it. I have two that are convincingly up to spec. 🤷‍♀️

IMG_20250727_143418_HDR-small.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for testing those!
I suspected that he either got a lemon or that his methods were not scientific, but i myself am no expert so wanted to hear others opinion. I’ve had a bk16 before for many years and couldn’t imagine it would be as soft as a machete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top