Blade Steels - Who can REALLY tell the difference?

Well, even if the OP just uses them for show, I bet that he can still tell steels apart.

Just look at the tang stamp...
 
I also work in a warehouse, cutting pallet ties, breaking down tons of cardboard, even cutting some carpet for samples
normally I stick with a knife for a while and trade it out every so often to see how another one holds up.

Normally I edc a case carbon cv model knife, which works pretty good
but i am not going to lie, my rough rider barlow with 440A is one of my best cutters. Perhaps I havent stuck with it long enough to see the difference over time. But at the end of the day its stays sharper than anything else after comparable use. I admit to being rather surprised by this myself, but in light of this conversation it makes me wonder.

i dont have any super steels, so perhaps i just dont know what I am missing, but i have knives
420hc (buck)
440 (rough rider)
Aus8 (dozier folding hunter, perhaps the worst performing knife i have, at least in this application)
whatever steel Victorinox uses (i have no idea, inox :p)
1095 (old school old timer)
case CV (my usual, just cause i like it :P)

perhaps s30v or 01 or some other super steel would outperform any and all of these, but these all work for my purposes (i certainly do alot more than open letters or cut fruit)
i wonder, just how hard are you using your knives when folks say things like, it becomes more apparent with use. I think in my case, i prefer traditional slipjoints and they tend to be thin with good blade geometry and maybe that's why they are working so well for me, and they are easy to sharpen if necessary (usually because i slip and the edge rubs up against ceramic or porcelain which we deal with alot)

*shrugs*
just my 2 cents
 
Rsmith_77 said:
I also work in a warehouse, cutting pallet ties, breaking down tons of cardboard, even cutting some carpet for samples
normally I stick with a knife for a while and trade it out every so often to see how another one holds up.

Normally I edc a case carbon cv model knife, which works pretty good
but i am not going to lie, my rough rider barlow with 440A is one of my best cutters. Perhaps I havent stuck with it long enough to see the difference over time. But at the end of the day its stays sharper than anything else after comparable use. I admit to being rather surprised by this myself, but in light of this conversation it makes me wonder.

i dont have any super steels, so perhaps i just dont know what I am missing, but i have knives
420hc (buck)
440 (rough rider)
Aus8 (dozier folding hunter, perhaps the worst performing knife i have, at least in this application)
whatever steel Victorinox uses (i have no idea, inox :p)
1095 (old school old timer)
case CV (my usual, just cause i like it :P)

perhaps s30v or 01 or some other super steel would outperform any and all of these, but these all work for my purposes (i certainly do alot more than open letters or cut fruit)
i wonder, just how hard are you using your knives when folks say things like, it becomes more apparent with use. I think in my case, i prefer traditional slipjoints and they tend to be thin with good blade geometry and maybe that's why they are working so well for me, and they are easy to sharpen if necessary (usually because i slip and the edge rubs up against ceramic or porcelain which we deal with alot)

*shrugs*
just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

It's also geometry dude. If you are able to get M4 or any other wear resistant steel in that geometry, the composition will beat your 440A each time...
 
Last edited:
lol i even mentioned that the traditionals tended to have good blade geometry

i guess that was a roundabout way of saying, for someone like me who uses his knives pretty regularly, i havent really felt understeeled EVEN with 440A
but i did also mention the knives i use with more pedestrian steels might be better with some supersteel and i just have no idea *shrugs*

just sharing my experience
 
Steel130 said:
Do you mean, taking " super " steels to lower angles taking advantage of composition ect? Seems like I read one of your articles about that.
Click to expand...
Yes, thin angles, and edge finish depending on the intended job. It all plays role and pays off hugely if chosen/done correctly. Otherwise, dull supersteel is just as dull as 420 or whatever.
 
Rsmith_77 said:
lol i even mentioned that the traditionals tended to have good blade geometry

i guess that was a roundabout way of saying, for someone like me who uses his knives pretty regularly, i havent really felt understeeled EVEN with 440A
but i did also mention the knives i use with more pedestrian steels might be better with some supersteel and i just have no idea *shrugs*

just sharing my experience
Click to expand...
Good input! Traditionals usually have excellent geometry, and yeah, that's what does the cutting. The steels and heat treat allow that geometry to be optimized greatly. For example, your 440A barlow is probably a very thin flat grind. For the uses you are describing, it's a great geometry for what you are doing.

For example, if you were able to get the exact same knive in a "supersteel" at 66 or 67 HRC, it could be ground a little thinner, because strength is directly related to hardness. It is stronger. I'm not saying that you can't snap it or break it, but the edge can be run thinner because is it stronger than the same steel at 57 HRC. This gives you 2 advantages:

1. You don't have to use as much pressure to make the cut, so the edge lasts longer.
2. Being stronger, the edge resists deformation much better, and the edge lasts longer. Obviously, this will depend upon what you are cutting, but things like wood, plastic ties, etc., aren't that abrasive, so they will try to deform the edge more than wearing it away. The stronger steel supports the edge more, and will stay sharp longer.

Notice I'm not saying anything about carbides or abrasive materials. For your "supersteel", if you could get 2 identical knives in 1095, one at 55 to 57 (very typical), and one at 65, you'd be shocked at the difference. IMO, 1095 at 65 is a supersteel. So is M2 HSS at 66. Neither one is exotic, but they really work.

And contrary to popular opinion, these super steels are EASIER to sharpen. When they are run hard, they don't burr like the softer steels, and give you nice crisp edges.
 
sodak said:
Good input! Traditionals usually have excellent geometry, and yeah, that's what does the cutting. The steels and heat treat allow that geometry to be optimized greatly. For example, your 440A barlow is probably a very thin flat grind. For the uses you are describing, it's a great geometry for what you are doing.

For example, if you were able to get the exact same knive in a "supersteel" at 66 or 67 HRC, it could be ground a little thinner, because strength is directly related to hardness. It is stronger. I'm not saying that you can't snap it or break it, but the edge can be run thinner because is it stronger than the same steel at 57 HRC. This gives you 2 advantages:

1. You don't have to use as much pressure to make the cut, so the edge lasts longer.
2. Being stronger, the edge resists deformation much better, and the edge lasts longer. Obviously, this will depend upon what you are cutting, but things like wood, plastic ties, etc., aren't that abrasive, so they will try to deform the edge more than wearing it away. The stronger steel supports the edge more, and will stay sharp longer.

Notice I'm not saying anything about carbides or abrasive materials. For your "supersteel", if you could get 2 identical knives in 1095, one at 55 to 57 (very typical), and one at 65, you'd be shocked at the difference. IMO, 1095 at 65 is a supersteel. So is M2 HSS at 66. Neither one is exotic, but they really work.

And contrary to popular opinion, these super steels are EASIER to sharpen. When they are run hard, they don't burr like the softer steels, and give you nice crisp edges.
Click to expand...


1095 at 65 would be a super steel compared to 1095 at 58 in every way possible, but even at 65 it's still 1095 so it won't compare to the high alloy steels that can be run at the higher hardness ranges.

Yes it would be better, a lot better when compared to 1095 at 58, but with very little carbide content steels like 1095 depend on hardness completely for wear resistance so 1095 at 65 would be noticeably different than at 58.

Just posting this before some tried to say something stupid like 1095 at 65 HRC would beat (enter super steel here) because it just won't due to the low alloy content.
 
Ankerson said:
1095 at 65 would be a super steel compared to 1095 at 58 in every way possible, but even at 65 it's still 1095 so it won't compare to the high alloy steels that can be run at the higher hardness ranges.

Yes it would be better, a lot better when compared to 1095 at 58, but with very little carbide content steels like 1095 depend on hardness completely for wear resistance so 1095 at 65 would be noticeably different than at 58.

Just posting this before some tried to say something stupid like 1095 at 65 HRC would beat (enter super steel here) because it just won't due to the low alloy content.
Click to expand...

Or someone will post that 1095 with good HT will beat any supersteel with bad HT. Hehehehe, like it's easy to find bad HT from good manufacturers these days...
 
singularity35 said:
Or someone will post that 1095 with good HT will beat any supersteel with bad HT. Hehehehe, like it's easy to find bad HT from good manufacturers these days...
Click to expand...


Yeah that won't happen either, even S30V at 55 HRC isn't THAT bad assuming they didn't blow out the grain.
 
Ankerson said:
1095 at 65 would be a super steel compared to 1095 at 58 in every way possible, but even at 65 it's still 1095 so it won't compare to the high alloy steels that can be run at the higher hardness ranges.

Yes it would be better, a lot better when compared to 1095 at 58, but with very little carbide content steels like 1095 depend on hardness completely for wear resistance so 1095 at 65 would be noticeably different than at 58.

Just posting this before some tried to say something stupid like 1095 at 65 HRC would beat (enter super steel here) because it just won't due to the low alloy content.
Click to expand...
Correct. I see a lot of posts lately that "good old" 1095 at 55, 57, or whatever "just plain works", or words to that effect. 1095 at 65 just plain ROCKS, it makes the 57 HRC steel look like sharpened sheet metal, and if it's used for cutting (not chopping or prying), then it REALLY shines.

You're right, if a "super steel" with more carbides and hardness enters the picture, then it will be even better. That's why I was trying to focus on deformation rather than abrasion.

So my point is: for all you that like to use a knife for cutting and not anything else (which is almost a mantra in the traditional forum), try 1095 at 65. It's better than at 57 IN EVERY WAY. It even sharpens easier, and you'll get at least 5 times (or more) the performance. There is no downside, assuming you're not trying to open paint cans, etc. Once you get used to that performance, you'll want to try something even better... :D
 
sodak said:
Correct. I see a lot of posts lately that "good old" 1095 at 55, 57, or whatever "just plain works", or words to that effect. 1095 at 65 just plain ROCKS, it makes the 57 HRC steel look like sharpened sheet metal, and if it's used for cutting (not chopping or prying), then it REALLY shines.

You're right, if a "super steel" with more carbides and hardness enters the picture, then it will be even better. That's why I was trying to focus on deformation rather than abrasion.

So my point is: for all you that like to use a knife for cutting and not anything else (which is almost a mantra in the traditional forum), try 1095 at 65. It's better than at 57 IN EVERY WAY. It even sharpens easier, and you'll get at least 5 times (or more) the performance. There is no downside, assuming you're not trying to open paint cans, etc. Once you get used to that performance, you'll want to try something even better... :D
Click to expand...


Yeah I had an old skinning knife years ago in 1095, custom at 65 HRC and it did well compared to what we used back then.... Late 70's......

I like those just plain works statements too......

Walking instead of driving works too and oil lamps still work....
 
Ankerson said:
Yeah that won't happen either, even S30V at 55 HRC isn't THAT bad assuming they didn't blow out the grain.
Click to expand...
I wish I still had one of my old S30V knives from years ago, I'd send it to you. It might compare favorably to pot metal, but it would be close...
 
sodak said:
I wish I still had one of my old S30V knives from years ago, I'd send it to you. It might compare favorably to pot metal, but it would be close...
Click to expand...

Oh I had one at 55 HRC, that's why I mentioned it. :D
 
Yeah, I admit I would like to have some of my knives in super steel. Have the edge last a lot longer, sure it would be great. The thing is, all that I'd wind up doing with it is opening my mail, food packages, cut the odd thread off stuff. You know my general EDC chores. Doesn't really seem worth the extra price.

On the other hand, if I was going to buy a dedicated skinning knife, or a knife for basically any task that was going to require cutting a lot of a specific material, then I might want to invest in a better steel so I don't spend more time sharpening than cutting. The thing is, I have my doubts most people that possess these knives with super steel actually benefit from them. They just buy them to have the latest and greatest, when all they're doing is opening mail, packages, the same type of EDC stuff that 90% of users actually use a knife for.

That's the only thing I don't get about them. Why buy a super steel when you don't need it? I understand the attractiveness of having "more than you need", having top quality available, etc. However the price disparity between some of these steels is just enormous, that I don't really find it worth it myself. To each his own I guess.
 
shunsui said:
If you take Spyderco Mules and hold them by the same hole in the bare handle and thunk them, they all have interesting tones. If you're not hearing it, try a different hole. :D
Click to expand...

+1, when I hold my mini Vulcan Vg10 and flick the blade it definitely emits a different tone than my 1095cv Bk11.

Bottom line is, if you really USE your knives you will notice a difference in steels.
 
KennyB said:
Yeah, I admit I would like to have some of my knives in super steel. Have the edge last a lot longer, sure it would be great. The thing is, all that I'd wind up doing with it is opening my mail, food packages, cut the odd thread off stuff. You know my general EDC chores. Doesn't really seem worth the extra price.

On the other hand, if I was going to buy a dedicated skinning knife, or a knife for basically any task that was going to require cutting a lot of a specific material, then I might want to invest in a better steel so I don't spend more time sharpening than cutting. The thing is, I have my doubts most people that possess these knives with super steel actually benefit from them. They just buy them to have the latest and greatest, when all they're doing is opening mail, packages, the same type of EDC stuff that 90% of users actually use a knife for.

That's the only thing I don't get about them. Why buy a super steel when you don't need it? I understand the attractiveness of having "more than you need", having top quality available, etc. However the price disparity between some of these steels is just enormous, that I don't really find it worth it myself. To each his own I guess.
Click to expand...


If you look at knife sales overall knives like the SAK and Buck 110's sell so there are a lot of people out there that are getting by with those types of steels outside of BF, not to mention all the gas station and flea market knives.

But that's not to say that some of those people who have those knives don't really need or could use a better class of steel and would be better off.

We have to remember that BF is a very small part of the overall knife world.

However there are those who do need better steels, I for do really use mine because over the past 30+ years I have gone through a lot of changes in steels because some of the ones I used to use just plain suck for my kind of use and I don't want to have to sharpen my knives 3 or 4 times a day. I am betting there are others out there who use their knives like I do so for us the better steels are useful.

Price aside, yes I understand that is a huge issue for some for various reasons and we all hear about things regarding price more than most other reasons or related to price in some way, but that tends to cloud the truth.

Like with most things performance isn't cheap when talking about steels, that's both production and customs and the steels at the top or near the top of the pile are expensive compared to steels like 1095 as one would expect due to the alloy content.

There is no free lunch with steels and pure performance is directly related to alloy content and that is the bottom line and anyone who says different is either trying to sell you something or is a shill for someone who is trying to sell you something.

There are no magic Heat Treatments or processes that will turn 1095 into CPM 10V or D2 into CPM M4 or 52100 into CPM S110V or AUS 8 into CPM S90V.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top