Buck 110 in Bos 5160

[Navod]

Just ordered a limited run buck 110 in 5160. This is I believe a first for Buck to do in a folder. Anyone know if this steel will hold An edge as well as 420 hc?

 

[Spyderco1988]

5160 is truck leafspring steel. It's not stainless so it's not in the same category as 420hc. It's toughness comes from its flexibility with less edge chipping.

 

[Cobalt]

Just ordered a limited run buck 110 in 5160. This is I believe a first for Buck to do in a folder. Anyone know if this steel will hold An edge as well as 420 hc?

Both have very low carbon content, with 5160 having a little more but the other elements in 420hc(if that what the regular one is) make up the difference. I think they will be very similar, except 5160 is obviously much tougher. I wonder why they chose to go with 5160 instead of going with 52100 which is a much better all around steel.

 

[Duane Sanders]

Both have very low carbon content, with 5160 having a little more but the other elements in 420hc(if that what the regular one is) make up the difference. I think they will be very similar, except 5160 is obviously much tougher. I wonder why they chose to go with 5160 instead of going with 52100 which is a much better all around steel.

Not trying to argue, just making a point. I think you can handle it though.

If 52100 was so much better we would see much more of it. 5160 is used more for a reason and it's wide spread use in knives kind of indicates that. Even if 52100 cost more they woul save money in the warranty work department and use it.

5160 is so much more tough than 1095 and has so close of equal edge retention most won't notice. I trust the people who make knives make decisions of steels to use based on expertise in the field. I won't second guess Bucks decision on 5160 over 52100. Even then people would second guess 52100 if it were used and say 3V is so much better, why not use that. Then the next "better" steel will be brought up.

 

[Boggs]

Buck introduced 5160 this year with four of their fixed blades...the use of the steel in the 110 is currently a run for one dealer.

 

[bld522]

Not trying to argue, just making a point. I think you can handle it though.

If 52100 was so much better we would see much more of it. 5160 is used more for a reason and it's wide spread use in knives kind of indicates that. Even if 52100 cost more they would save money in the warranty work department and use it.

It may also be a matter of what Buck has in its inventory. 52100 might not even be an option.

 

[Charr]

Not trying to argue, just making a point. I think you can handle it though.

If 52100 was so much better we would see much more of it. 5160 is used more for a reason and it's wide spread use in knives kind of indicates that. Even if 52100 cost more they woul save money in the warranty work department and use it.

5160 is so much more tough than 1095 and has so close of equal edge retention most won't notice. I trust the people who make knives make decisions of steels to use based on expertise in the field. I won't second guess Bucks decision on 5160 over 52100. Even then people would second guess 52100 if it were used and say 3V is so much better, why not use that. Then the next "better" steel will be brought up.

You're not far from the truth in my opinion as well.

5160 is pretty similar to 52100, but 5160 is overall a little tougher, while 52100 has a little better wear resistance (and therefore likely better edge retention). The main difference that I think Buck is concerned with is that the heat treat for 5160 is a little more flexible, and it is much easier to adjust for drastically more toughness in the lower hardness range, and then have it hardened higher for better wear resistance in smaller knives.

Buck probably wanted to have a steel that was a little easier to adjust between extremely high toughness for larger fixed blades and then increase the wear resistance for smaller blades. I could be wrong, but 52100 can be heat treated as far as I know to have the same general properties, but it is a little bit more complicated, and does require more work.

Also, it does not seem like 52100 is produced as widely in bar stock, so it might be a little harder to purchase the quantities that Buck will need for their knives. Not sure, but I know that 5160 has been produced in large bar-stock longer than 52100, which was originally just ball-bearing steel.

Again, I am not thoroughly adept in carbon steels and their properties for the most part, so I might be wrong, but this might be some of the reason.

 

[shinyedges]

Companies don't always go with what's best, many times they go with what's :
1. Affordable
2. Available
3. Effective enough to make them money.
4. Easy to work with.


Cobalt is right, 52-100 is a better steel.

Not trying to argue, just making a point. I think you can handle it though.

If 52100 was so much better we would see much more of it. 5160 is used more for a reason and it's wide spread use in knives kind of indicates that. Even if 52100 cost more they woul save money in the warranty work department and use it.

5160 is so much more tough than 1095 and has so close of equal edge retention most won't notice. I trust the people who make knives make decisions of steels to use based on expertise in the field. I won't second guess Bucks decision on 5160 over 52100. Even then people would second guess 52100 if it were used and say 3V is so much better, why not use that. Then the next "better" steel will be brought up.

 

[shinyedges]

From my experience 52-100 has SIGNIFICANTLY better edge retention AND edge stability .. not even close to 5160, as for toughness 52-100 is VERY tough as shown in swamp rat hawks.

You're not far from the truth in my opinion as well.

5160 is pretty similar to 52100, but 5160 is overall a little tougher, while 52100 has a little better wear resistance (and therefore likely better edge retention). The main difference that I think Buck is concerned with is that the heat treat for 5160 is a little more flexible, and it is much easier to adjust for drastically more toughness in the lower hardness range, and then have it hardened higher for better wear resistance in smaller knives.

Buck probably wanted to have a steel that was a little easier to adjust between extremely high toughness for larger fixed blades and then increase the wear resistance for smaller blades. I could be wrong, but 52100 can be heat treated as far as I know to have the same general properties, but it is a little bit more complicated, and does require more work.

Also, it does not seem like 52100 is produced as widely in bar stock, so it might be a little harder to purchase the quantities that Buck will need for their knives. Not sure, but I know that 5160 has been produced in large bar-stock longer than 52100, which was originally just ball-bearing steel.

Again, I am not thoroughly adept in carbon steels and their properties for the most part, so I might be wrong, but this might be some of the reason.

 

[Duane Sanders]

Companies don't always go with what's best, many times they go with what's :
1. Affordable
2. Available
3. Effective enough to make them money.
4. Easy to work with.


Cobalt is right, 52-100 is a better steel.

Buck is not a small timer. If 52100 was the best option they would use it. The best steel will produce less customer complaints, better knives and less warranty work. There is much more to it than initial cost or what's on hand, especially with a company that can afford to use the best steel option.

 

[Cobalt]

I guess I should have been more specific. 52100 is a better steel for a folding knife when it comes to carbon steels. It holds an much much much longer and has more than enough toughness that in a folder it will not matter. 5160 is also cheaper and I am sure that was part of Bucks motive.

 

[shinyedges]

There are better steels than 5160 such as 3v, vandis 4e, z wear and more than out perform 5160 in every way possible except COST.

buck could make a knife out of the above steels but the inherent cost associated with the above steels would make the average buck customer spit their coffee all over the computer keyboard.

Point is buck is a business and as such their primary goal is to make money.

Just because they chose to use 5160 doesn't mean its better than any other steel.

Buck is not a small timer. If 52100 was the best option they would use it. The best steel will produce less customer complaints, better knives and less warranty work. There is much more to it than initial cost or what's on hand, especially with a company that can afford to use the best steel option.

 

[shinyedges]

honestly 5160 for a folder makes very little sense, it is VERY prone to rust, has below average edge retention, and 5160's claim to fame so to speak is toughness (along with cost ) which in a folder that is pinned together boggles my mind LOL


And 5160 is not as tough as any of the other steels I mentioned.

 

[BMCGear]

Not a steel expert at all but can't 52-100 be tricky to heat treat for optimal performance where 5160 is pretty straight forward? I guess with Bos doing the heat treat that point may be irrelevant.

Also, I don't trust Buck or most companies to do what's in my best interest. When I was a kid Buck knives were US made and then the production shifted. The knives suffered because of it. In that situation Buck didn't do what was best for the knives or the consumer (all of us atleast). They did what they thought was best for their business.

 

[Duane Sanders]

honestly 5160 for a folder makes very little sense, it is VERY prone to rust, has below average edge retention, and 5160's claim to fame so to speak is toughness (along with cost ) which in a folder that is pinned together boggles my mind LOL


And 5160 is not as tough as any of the other steels I mentioned.

5160 is tougher than 52100. Same as 1060 is tougher than 1095.

Bucks 5160, even their 420HC is extremely roll, chip and crack resistant with their Bos heat treat.

The only people who have to worry about the rust issue are people who put knives in long term storage. When you use a knife daily rust issues are not an issue. 5160 only surface rusts and wipes off easily. It also will not pit like other carbon steels.

In a hard working folder like the 110 it will be a perfect steel. It also takes a heck of an edge and lasts a days or several days work and the edge can be polished easily for a very smooth edge that's very damage resistant.

 

[bodog]

5160 is tougher than 52100. Same as 1060 is tougher than 1095.

Bucks 5160, even their 420HC is extremely roll, chip and crack resistant with their Bos heat treat.

The only people who have to worry about the rust issue are people who put knives in long term storage. When you use a knife daily rust issues are not an issue. 5160 only surface rusts and wipes off easily. It also will not pit like other carbon steels.

In a hard working folder like the 110 it will be a perfect steel. It also takes a heck of an edge and lasts a days or several days work and the edge can be polished easily for a very smooth edge that's very damage resistant.

I completely disagree but to each his own. The only reason I could see using a steel like that is if they take the knife very thin and harden the steel as high as it can reasonably stand. Other than that there are other steels better than 5160, including 52100.

 

[Charr]

From my experience 52-100 has SIGNIFICANTLY better edge retention AND edge stability .. not even close to 5160, as for toughness 52-100 is VERY tough as shown in swamp rat hawks.

The issue is that I am going in general. Yes, 52100 has higher edge retention at higher hardness, and is likely better for knives that are smaller (like folding knives), but at lower hardness, 52100 and 5160 start to exhibit about the same wear resistance from what I've seen, and 5160 is much tougher than 52100 at those hardnesses, though honestly it won't make a bit difference in most cases unless you want to hammer on a cinder block with your knife.

And again, 52100 is indeed a better steel in most cases, but the heat treat for it is more complicated and more involved from what I know, with much less room for error in large batches, which is how this is going to have to be done for Buck.

I think the cost was a fair factor in their decision, but more from the point of view that they would like to keep the knife affordable for the consumer, in terms of their fixed blades.

Frankly, I think the reason they used the 5160 for the Buck 110 was just because they had it from using it in their fixed blades now, and wanted to do a special run for it. It would be a little unreasonable for them to source a steel like 52100 that they have never worked with just to do a limited run of the 110. It is much more reasonable to use what is on hand in the form of the 5160.

As for them using 5160 in their fixed blades instead of 52100, well, that is their issue, and I think some of the reasons we've given here are probably at least part of the reasoning.

 

[craytab]

The only people who have to worry about the rust issue are people who put knives in long term storage. When you use a knife daily rust issues are not an issue.

That is a vast over simplification of rust issues. I've had plenty of knives rust (stainless and not) even though they got daily use. I've had AUS8 on a daily user rust. A2 and 1095 will rust before your eyes here in the NE during summer. Use as a rust deterrent really only applies to the cutting edge and the rest of the blade depending on what you are doing.

Rust issues require far more than just "use" to keep under control.

 

[shinyedges]

The sr 101 (52-100) in the bussekin hawks has chopped cars in half as well as steel chains and concrete, i'd like to see some numbers on how much tougher 5160 is than 52-100, at various hardnesses.

The only thing I see 5160 having is flexibility and 52-100 as shown in swamp rat hawks has been shown flexing an incredible amount.

I agree with u on why buck is probably using 5160, cost as well as availability as they use 5160 in their fixed blades.

But how much toughness does a pinned together folder need in its steel? Probably not that much, edge retention would seem to be more important.

The issue is that I am going in general. Yes, 52100 has higher edge retention at higher hardness, and is likely better for knives that are smaller (like folding knives), but at lower hardness, 52100 and 5160 start to exhibit about the same wear resistance from what I've seen, and 5160 is much tougher than 52100 at those hardnesses, though honestly it won't make a bit difference in most cases unless you want to hammer on a cinder block with your knife.

And again, 52100 is indeed a better steel in most cases, but the heat treat for it is more complicated and more involved from what I know, with much less room for error in large batches, which is how this is going to have to be done for Buck.

I think the cost was a fair factor in their decision, but more from the point of view that they would like to keep the knife affordable for the consumer, in terms of their fixed blades.

Frankly, I think the reason they used the 5160 for the Buck 110 was just because they had it from using it in their fixed blades now, and wanted to do a special run for it. It would be a little unreasonable for them to source a steel like 52100 that they have never worked with just to do a limited run of the 110. It is much more reasonable to use what is on hand in the form of the 5160.

As for them using 5160 in their fixed blades instead of 52100, well, that is their issue, and I think some of the reasons we've given here are probably at least part of the reasoning.

 

[Charr]

The sr 101 (52-100) in the bussekin hawks has chopped cars in half as well as steel chains and concrete, i'd like to see some numbers on how much tougher 5160 is than 52-100.

I agree with u on why buck is probably using 5160, cost as well as availability as they use 5160 in their fixed blades.

But how much toughness does a pinned together folder need in its steel? Probably not that much, edge retention would seem to be more important.

First, SR-101 is a little modified to improve toughness from regular 52100, and both 52100 and 5160 get tougher than is realistically needed for 99% of people like I said, so realistically it comes down the the heat treat, which is more complicated in 52100 as I said.

On the last part, we agree. I don't think there was really any need to use a steel focused on toughness in the Buck 110 in the first place, but I think they did it because it would be a nice offering to people who have wanted a carbon blade on the 110 and want a good working knife.
Is it needed? Probably not. Will people care if it's needed? Again, probably not.

I think it's fine that they did it, and it's a nice thing to offer, but there is also certainly a reason it is only in a limited run...