Camillus steel

T

troutbum243

Joined
Oct 4, 2023
Messages
72
What steel did Camillus use for their contract 300 series knives made for Buck? Did Camillus ever make any of the 700 series knives?
 
My understanding is the same as jbmonkey jbmonkey 440a
As bertl bertl says. I understood the original intent was for the 700 series to replace the 300 series Camillus contract knives.
Cost won out and the 300 series were brought in house.
 
I am very cognizant of the fact that most on this forum know much more than I do about Buck history but something about Camillus using 440a for all Buck contract knives is problematic. Buck brought certain models in house in the mid 80's and presumably at some point used 425m and then 420hc with the proprietary heat treat. Camillus made many Buck knives well into the late 1990's but with a lesser grade steel? If so did they advertise as such or was it just never mentioned? Were the Camillus knives priced accordingly? If true it doesn't seem like the greatest business model to me. Am I missing an important part of the scenario?
 
yes.....

440a was and still is a good stainless steel for a knife. when China makers slapped 440 on lower grade pot metals and bad heat treats is when it started to appear to be not so good.....but those weren't actually 440a. China makers slapped 440 on it as it was a good steel and known as such. randall uses 440b for their stainless.
 
Then why did Buck switch to 425m and the 420hc? They still use 420hc in most of their knives, they obviously believe it is a superior steel to 440a.
 
troutbum243 said:
Then why did Buck switch to 425m and the 420hc? They still use 420hc in most of their knives, they obviously believe it is a superior steel to 440a.
Click to expand...
It was because of the supply of 425m at that time and suppliers weren’t making it so that’s when and why they switched to 420hc.

Edit to add, it was also because of price of the steel. 440c was being used on some other models such as the 110 and fixed blades but for slip joint pocket knives they usually went with a ease to sharpen steel and 440c was a bit harder to sharpen. 425m was a good steel that was easy enough to sharpen but held an edge better than 440a . So they were using it for a few years until it became hard to get and the cost was more than 420hc.

There is a thread that had a lot of information on the subject I think CJ and Joe contributed to it but I can’t remember the thread. Sorry
 
Last edited:
Yes I know the reason for switching to 420hc from 425m (from reading it here on this forum) but that doesn't answer my original inquiry. BUT, I am not trying to create a problem, I have a couple Camillus made Bucks and was curious, then the question of part of a product line being markedly different from another part presented itself. Oh well there are much more important things to ponder, thank you for your input
 
troutbum243 said:
Then why did Buck switch to 425m and the 420hc? They still use 420hc in most of their knives, they obviously believe it is a superior steel to 440a.
Click to expand...
Buck never used 440a. they used 440c, which bout eveyone considers a better steel than 425m or 420hc. you can read on the why they switched from 440c to 425m and then 420hc. its well covered in other posts, no point in repeating it.

Camillus used 440a in folders for stainless and since that's what they had, its what they used for the Bucks they made. Buck obviously didnt think it was inferior or they wouldn't have had their name slapped on it.
 
troutbum243 said:
..... something about Camillus using 440a for all Buck contract knives is problematic. Buck brought certain models in house in the mid 80's and presumably at some point used 425m and then 420hc with the proprietary heat treat. Camillus made many Buck knives well into the late 1990's but with a lesser grade steel? .....
Click to expand...
I think the point is that Camillus did not make anything unique or specific to Buck. All the 300 series knives made for Buck were rebranding of existing Camillus product with just minor cosmetic changes like the angle of the bolster and the shield. Buck contract knives were made with the same steel Camillus used for their own. There are known examples of identical "Buck" and "Camillus" blades assembled into the wrong frames.
 
Last edited:
There’s several posts in the sticky threads at the top of the Buck sub forum that cover the topic pretty extensively. I think there’s some in the 300 series history, the 110 threads and some others. I’ve read through a lot of them and learned much more than just the steel used. Lots of good info in the sticky threads.
 
troutbum243 said:
Camillus made many Buck knives well into the late 1990's but with a lesser grade steel? If so did they advertise as such or was it just never mentioned?
Click to expand...
troutbum, maybe you should go to the Camillus Collector's Forum here on bladeforums. It may take a while since activity is pretty low there, but if Phil Gibbs shows up, I am sure he can explain things for you. I think many of the Buck-Camillus knives sold in the 90s were a case of selling off inventory from earlier years.

Bert
 
I didn't know Buck contracted out to Schrade and Camillus when I was growing up. It said Buck. I knew they were stainless and sharp and my dad carried one (305) so I had to have one (309). Were people big on steel back then? How many types were there? Mine could split a bolt in half with a hammer if needed. Never tried.
 
BuckShack said:
I didn't know Buck contracted out to Schrade and Camillus when I was growing up. It said Buck. I knew they were stainless and sharp and my dad carried one (305) so I had to have one (309). Were people big on steel back then? How many types were there? Mine could split a bolt in half with a hammer if needed. Never tried.
Click to expand...
I remember back in the 1960s, guys arguing over stainless vs carbon steel. I think most people back then thought stainless was just stainless not knowing there were different composition and same for carbon. Lol. Times were simpler back then.
 
I took the advice to go to the Camillus forum and see what they said. Much like the discussion here, somewhat uncertain. The consensus seemed to be 440a up til "around" 1990 then switched to 420HC. Sort of vague on whether this included Buck contract orders or just Camillus products, one employee was reportedly quoted saying "we kind of used what we had on hand" There you have the definitive answer.
 
Nothing at all wrong with the 440 family of steels. As my colleague Lesknife says the only real controversy over steel was the stainless versus high carbon steel argument. I'm sure they existed back then, but largely the steel junkies are a product of the internet.
 
I know I’ve seen several Camillus line build tickets back in 1969 - early 80s for Buck 300 series including 301 stockman that the blade material was spec’ed for 440a blades. Then in later years they used 420hc but I can’t be sure what year but it seems i recall around the mid 90s. After that time frame until they closed I don’t know .
 
dsutton24 said:
Nothing at all wrong with the 440 family of steels. As my colleague Lesknife says the only real controversy over steel was the stainless versus high carbon steel argument. I'm sure they existed back then, but largely the steel junkies are a product of the internet.
Click to expand...
You are most likely correct regarding the internet, the same could probably be said for many other areas of interest as well. I don't believe there are a lot of knife tasks that could not be handled as well with a knife from 25 years ago as with new knife ( new steel) today.
 
troutbum243 said:
I am very cognizant of the fact that most on this forum know much more than I do about Buck history but something about Camillus using 440a for all Buck contract knives is problematic. Buck brought certain models in house in the mid 80's and presumably at some point used 425m and then 420hc with the proprietary heat treat. Camillus made many Buck knives well into the late 1990's but with a lesser grade steel? If so did they advertise as such or was it just never mentioned? Were the Camillus knives priced accordingly? If true it doesn't seem like the greatest business model to me. Am I missing an important part of the scenario?
Click to expand...
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're assuming 440a was inferior to the steels Buck used because they chose not to use it and based on that assumption are wondering if the Camillus contracted knives offered alongside similar Buck made knives were priced lower according to that presumably inferior steel used or even advertised as a lower grade knives ?

I have had a few vintage American made knives in 440a ( a Camillus 305, a couple imperials, a Schrade, another Camillus, and a Colonial) and never noticed much difference between those knives and my 425m or 420hc Bucks.
I figure that Buck probably didn't see much difference and weren't going to bother making a thing of it when the knives met their high quality standards and most people would not have noticed any difference.
Had they gotten cocomplaints the issue would be addressed, but remember that back then very few people were obsessed with blade metallurgy.


Btw when it comes to the 700 series, they were the 1st Buck made slipjoints and were set to replace the 300 series which is why they have that very distinctly " Buck knife " look to them.
They were intended to be a series of slipjoints that would undeniably be a Buck knives product and really exude that Buck knife DNA.
I have found reference to early dealer info advertising the 1st 700 series knives as using some kind of swedish sandvik steel but as far as I'm aware nobody really knows whether they actually did use that steel or not.
My early script font 704 sure seems to have a harder blade steel than 425m making me think they did use a swedish sandvik steel for them early on, but blade steels are not really a focus or interest of mine so my assessment of them probably doesn't mean much because I don't really know squat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top