Buck 110 Steel?

hornetguy said:
I have a couple of knives that I've only used for hunting... my Cold Steel Master Hunter has been used on deer, pigs, and a couple of aoudad. Well, three aoudad, actually, but it had to be touched up during the third one.
I don't hunt much anymore, or at least lately, but if I go again, I plan to use my GEC 23 in mesquite... just because.
Click to expand...
I tend to use a different knife each time. Get a feel for different shapes and sizes and steels.
 
JM2 said:
Maybe I’m doing it wrong, or maybe I just haven’t learned the correct use of the fishhunter scale system yet, But I don’t generally get through a single deer without touching my edge up. As soon as my edge starts to dull, I refreshed it on my dmt stone.

Which brings up another point, who uses the same knife for deer and only for deer? I use my knives for may purposes between deer.
Click to expand...
My old case slab side has been used for nothing but field dressing whitetails for almost 20 years. It was a Christmas gift back in about 2004ish. I've been tempted to use others, but it feels wrong since that knife has been with me since my second season in the deer woods.

I always touch it up whenever it starts to drag too, so you're not the only one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM2
hornetguy said:
It’s rated at 4.75 whitetails on the Fishhunter scale!

I needed that this morning!! 🤣 🤣
Click to expand...

Greasepiggy said:
Me too!
Click to expand...
I was only partly joking.

When afishhunter afishhunter says he can skin and field dress x-number of deer with a knife before it needs sharpening, that is a much more useful measure of overall knife performance than something like the Rockwell hardness taken in isolation. Hardness would be just one of many variables which could affect performance.

It is also something we can easily relate to, and fun.
 
Just Tom. said:
I keep hearing this, but is it demonstrably true, or just marketing that has been accepted as true by the knife community?

It is my suspicion that folks just tell themselves it is true to reconcile their love for Buck knives with the steel snobbery they have when it comes to any other brand.

Is it possible that nobody else has figured out how to heat treat it? What if it turned out that 420hc was just fine for everybody all along?

Not being contrarian here, but genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
It's marketing. Just like using Bos name and he's been retired for >10 years. It meant something once, but you no longer see custom knives marked with the makers mark and Bos' mark like you used too.
 
brownshoe said:
It's marketing. Just like using Bos name and he's been retired for >10 years. It meant something once, but you no longer see custom knives marked with the makers mark and Bos' mark like you used too.
Click to expand...
No it's not just marketing.

You can find tests that prove Bucks blades are better.
I'm not a steel snob or anything but Bucks 420HC performs better in my experience, unless Kershaw uses it then I'm pretty sure I have blades from every American manufacturer using it.

Case tru sharp is 420hc if I'm not mistaken, it doesn't hold an edge quite as well.
Gerber, same situation.
Leatherman, relatively soft as well.
I'm sure other manufacturers could treat their 420HC the same, but running it softer is easier on equipment and tooling for a blade the average person probably won't complain about.

The reason Buck uses the boss process and runs their 420hc harder than everyone else is because their 440c gained them a reputation for edge holding, and they wanted to maintain that reputation while eliminating the complaints from people who couldn't sharpen 440c.
 
Last edited:
It's a lot cheaper to make a shiny softer blade out of 420hc than a shiny harder blade out of 440c. If the "story" is true, why didn't Buck just drop their 440c hardness...because it costs less to make a knife out of 420hc. I don't mind Buck's 420hc, but my 110 in 440c is better and my Case trusharp is just as good.
 
Just Tom. said:
I keep hearing this, but is it demonstrably true, or just marketing that has been accepted as true by the knife community?
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear when you try to sharpen a Buck with stones. It takes longer than any other 420 I've ever tried to sharpen. There was a guy on YouTube who was doing Rockwell hardness tests on various knives and the Bucks came out as hard as harder steels.
 
I bought my 110 new in 1979. It's got the 440C steel.

I have a couple of Buck stockman patterns, 301 and 303, both in 420HC. The steel in those does seem like a step up compared to other 420HC blades I own from other makers.
 
Another Shepherd said:
docs.google.com

Cedric and Ada Steel Comparison Ratings

Graphs 387 edge retention tests with 112 different materials 245 knives from 93 makers 121 Worksharp edges (20 degree) 114 KME edges 64 Factory edges 88 other edges (Tormek, Edge Pro, stones, or sharpened by others)
docs.google.com docs.google.com
Click to expand...
Lots of data in there, not sure how much of it is meaningful. It looks like Bos 420HC and Case TruSharp are comparable:

rZD4gxQ.jpg


They did a bunch of tests with unspecified 420HC and the results are all over the map:

6lL208Y.jpg


No, I did not review the whole thing.
 
brownshoe said:
It's a lot cheaper to make a shiny softer blade out of 420hc than a shiny harder blade out of 440c. If the "story" is true, why didn't Buck just drop their 440c hardness...because it costs less to make a knife out of 420hc. I don't mind Buck's 420hc, but my 110 in 440c is better and my Case trusharp is just as good.
Click to expand...
It's all about balance.
From 440c they experimented with swedish sandvik steel, went to 425m, then went to 420HC.
Looking for something easier on equipment easier to sharpen but still pretty good.
I think part of the switch is that they had to have a different steel to advertise so people knew things were different.

It's not like they could just run 440c softer and just say " hey folks our knives are now easier to sharpen ", they needed something new to sell and chances are many people bought knives in 425m and thought it was superior because they could sharpen it.
If it wasn't new they'd assume it the same thing they hated before and not buy,people weren't steel snobs they just knew what they had experienced.
 
Buck's blanking issues with 440C weren't about the RC hardness of the steel. It was about the steel's wear resistance, i.e., the carbides. The blades are fine-blanked before heat treat anyway - so heat-treated hardness isn't a factor at all there, for the sake of stamping out the blade blanks. But the carbides in 440C, straight from their manufacture in the raw steel, are about 2X as hard as the matrix steel itself and there are much more of them in 440C as compared to 425M or 420HC. And that's what created issues of excessive tool wear in stamping out the 440C blade blanks, and the reason they transitioned away from 440C. There were also complaints about difficulty in sharpening Buck's 440C on natural stones - and part of that could be attributed to the heat-treated hardness, in addition to the wear resistance of the steel. Natural stones are already just marginally harder than most mainstream stainless cutlery steel anyway - never mind the carbides, which are nearly 2X as hard as the novaculite grit in Arkansas stones. So a few points harder in a knife blade can still make all the difference on natural stones.

Buck's heat treat has always been good, no matter their steel choice. But I believe the best thing they ever did for sharpenability's sake is changing their blade & edge grinds to something MUCH thinner than the old 440C blades, which were notoriously thick and wide-angled behind the edge. After Buck went to the 'Edge2000' spec with thinner primary grinds and narrowed edge angle specs (26°-32° inclusive), both sharpenability AND edge retention improved (as verifed in CATRA testing). A big part of edge retention is about the useful thinness of the apex after the steel begins to wear at the apex. In a blade with a thinner grind at & behind the edge, even if the steel is less wear-resistant and the apex dulls a little bit faster as a result of abrasive wear, the steel behind the apex is still thin enough to sustain functional usefulness in cutting, whereas a thick-edged blade's cutting usefulness will be stopped in its tracks by just a little bit of wear at the apex, leaving thick & blunt steel immediately behind it, which can't cut anything. That's what CATRA verified in testing Buck's more recent blades in the 'Edge2000' spec.
 
Last edited:
A useful and interesting thread. Thanks to all but particularly Obsessed with Edges Obsessed with Edges

One of the things I’ve encountered with buck 440c is the old timers told me that you had to file it before you could sharpen it on a stone. I tried it and it worked it seemed. Now I think I understand what was actually happening, I was breaking out some of the carbides and exposing more steel, which in turn would take an edge easier.

I have a question. When buck began using 440c stainless, where there no other choices? Did they use it because it was basically the only decent stainless for knife blades available?
 
JM2 said:
A useful and interesting thread. Thanks to all but particularly Obsessed with Edges Obsessed with Edges

One of the things I’ve encountered with buck 440c is the old timers told me that you had to file it before you could sharpen it on a stone. I tried it and it worked it seemed. Now I think I understand what was actually happening, I was breaking out some of the carbides and exposing more steel, which in turn would take an edge easier.

I have a question. When buck began using 440c stainless, where there no other choices? Did they use it because it was basically the only decent stainless for knife blades available?
Click to expand...
I get the impression that for cutlery steel, and especially for hunting knives & other outdoor-use knives, it seems like 440C was the 'super steel' of the time, with higher attainable hardness (therefore better edge-holding), better wear resistance and very good corrosion resistance. Queen Cutlery used it from the post-WWII era, from around 1946 into the 1980s/90s, calling it 'Queen Steel'.

Not sure what Buck's specific motivation was, for initially selecting 440C for their knives. It was probably 'all the rage' at the time for it's wear resistance and corrosion resistance, which would've seemed ideal for outdoor-use knives, I'd think. Other grades of stainless steel were not well-reputed for outdoor knives (or edge-holding) back then - that's apparently the reason Queen referred to 440C as 'Queen Steel', instead of stating outright it was stainless steel, as they felt there might be too much consumer bias against it, back then.

I have vague memories of seeing ads in magazines & such for high-end hunting knives back in the 1970s or maybe earlier. It seemed like many of the expensive outdoor knives at the time were very eager to advertise their use of 440C steel in their knives. I think the '440C' moniker is my earliest recollection of anything unique about stainless steel in cutlery, in general. Everything else to me at the time was 'just stainless steel', and I understood NOTHING at the time about what made any of them different or special, other than the price tag.
 
Obsessed with Edges said:
I have vague memories of seeing ads in magazines & such for high-end hunting knives back in the 1970s or maybe earlier. It seemed like many of the expensive outdoor knives at the time were very eager to advertise their use of 440C steel in their knives.
Click to expand...

A friend has a hunting knife in 440C that came from his father and his father's father. In his grandfather's time, 440C was indeed considered a "super steel" because of its edge retention. Nowadays, 440C is nothing special and is used in inexpensive knives. But 440C is better than 154CM, which is used in quite a few $200+ knives.

420HC is generally known for excellent toughness, not for edge retention. I tend to favor toughness over edge retention, but that is a matter of personal preference and applications. I strop frequently and I would rather fix a rolled edge than a chipped edge. I rarely cut cardboard or deer, YMMV.
 
Another Shepherd said:
A friend has a hunting knife in 440C that came from his father and his father's father. In his grandfather's time, 440C was indeed considered a "super steel" because of its edge retention. Nowadays, 440C is nothing special and is used in inexpensive knives. But 440C is better than 154CM, which is used in quite a few $200+ knives.

420HC is generally known for excellent toughness, not for edge retention. I tend to favor toughness over edge retention, but that is a matter of personal preference and applications. I strop frequently and I would rather fix a rolled edge than a chipped edge. I rarely cut cardboard or deer, YMMV.
Click to expand...
The toughness vs. edge retention comparison is something I think about quite a bit with Buck's knives in particular. As well-reputed as 440C was for Buck in their older blades, I've always been struck by how many of their older 110/112 models I've seen on the 'Bay and elsewhere online with tips broken off the blades. It's in those moments that I tend to think the older blades might've been a little too hard for their own good, better edge retention or not.

I have a modern folder in ZDP-189 hardened well into the 60s HRC. The steel is known for crazy-good edge retention, hardened as such. But it's also very brittle at such hardness. I broke the acutely-pointed tip off that blade when it dug into a strop. Having seen that trade-off between edge retention and toughness, I can't even trust that blade anymore for any serious work. So, I do tend to favor toughness instead, even if a blade needs more frequent touching up. And that's easy with such simple steels, so it's not a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top