Carbon steel or stainless steel...?

[GregS]

Is HRC a logrhythmic scale? If it's linear then is there really much difference between 59 and 60?

I was thinking the same thing when I read that.

 

[bekylane]

I live in a tropical environment and have never had an issue with 1095 rusting as long as it is properly oiled.

 

[cotdt]

I like the "semi-stainless" steels with about 5-8% Cr. They are very tough yet they don't rust as easily as plain carbon steels. They still develop a patina quite easily, but seem to stop at that.

My 1095 doesn't have any rust issues when I mirror polish it, but my fingerprints on the blade develop an interesting deep black patina.

 

[Outdoors Fanatic]

Nor carbon neither stainless. I prefer a good TOOL steel such as: A2, O1, INFI, D2, M2, M4, CPM-3V, S7 and BG-42.

 

[Outdoors Fanatic]

To be honest I prefer tool steels developed for cutting tools, like O1 or M2, sadly which is not
among the choice.
Plain carbon steels are not a bad choice of course as they get excellent edge very easily.

+1

Sadly there isn't this option to vote on...

 

[ipm]

how does infi fit into this in terms of 'stainless-ness'?

 

[banana-clip]

1095 steel for fixed blades because it has some give and will bend a little if used for prying. Its easy to touch up the edge with a stone or steel.

 

[Blue Sky]

Is HRC a logrhythmic scale? If it's linear then is there really much difference between 59 and 60?

Rockwell hardness is performed with a conical penetrator and the depth of penetration determines hardness. Since the penetrator is conical, the further it goes in the greater the surface area of the penetrator in contact with the sample. So resistance to penetration increases the further you go. Therefore the scale would not be linear, but that doesn't necessarily make it logorithmic either. If you were to plot the rate of change in surface area of a cone as H increases, that should also translate to the hardness values (I haven't done that and don't intend to ). The harder the sample, the more pronounced this effect would be, so there could be (and probably is) a significant difference between Rc 58-59 and Rc 60-61.

 

[Thalestin]

Rockwell hardness is performed with a conical penetrator and the depth of penetration determines hardness. Since the penetrator is conical, the further it goes in the greater the surface area of the penetrator in contact with the sample. So resistance to penetration increases the further you go. Therefore the scale would not be linear, but that doesn't necessarily make it logorithmic either. If you were to plot the rate of change in surface area of a cone as H increases, that should also translate to the hardness values (I haven't done that and don't intend to ). The harder the sample, the more pronounced this effect would be, so there could be (and probably is) a significant difference between Rc 58-59 and Rc 60-61.

That makes a fair amount of sense. Thanks for that

 

[OldPhysics]

I know ... for a fact! ... that both will work, just fine.

I'm simply more comfortable with a carbon steel for this purpose. It could be my age showing, though.

The many carbon steel blades I've owned just seem tougher to me ... not harder, tougher. I feel it's easier for them to survive such abuse, and generally easier to re-sharpen them.

 

[OldPhysics]

how does infi fit into this in terms of 'stainless-ness'?

INFI is not stainless. Like D2, it's near-stainless. In fact, my INFI blades resist rust better than my D2 blades.

Many people equate %chromium with stainless properties. That's not always true, though.

 

[Joshua J.]

In a hard use knife you usually hit the edge on rocks before it ever goes blunt. No reason to pay all the extra money for capabilities you'll never use.

 

[CL01]

I voted carbon steel, but like most things, it depends. Since D2's not considered a SS, I guess I should just leave it at that, but would ad that I generally prefer D2 to 1095, unless it's a hard use "larger" FB, then I'd prefer something along the lines of 1095 or similar carbon steel.