Carbon steel question

[idahoguy]

"In general, how does the steel from the 30's and 40's era compare with that produced today?

 

[Macchina]

In general it's 75 to 85 years older.

 

[markv]

In general it's 75 to 85 years older.

certainly sounds like a rough guess.
i'd say it's rustier and more worn.
buzz

 

[Railsplitter]

I only have two user knives from that time period. A Case from the Tested era and a Remington. I haven't been much of a fan of carbon steel until just recently when I started to carry these two vintage knives. Before that it was stainless steel all the way for a user knife. I have sharpened a few of the newer carbon steel knives from Case and GEC in an attempt to bond with them as an EDC. For reasons that I haven't quite put my finger on yet, I like carrying the vintage knives but the newer carbon blades, not so much. I think it's probably the nostalgia and not the steel.

Having said all that, I can't tell much difference in actual use but I do detect a difference when sharpening the vintage Case knife. The steel on my vintage Case knife feels substantially harder when sharpening than the CV steel on my newer Case knives. It also feels harder than the steel on my vintage Remington which feels similar to modern day Case CV steel.

Just a humble opinion from someone with minimal experience with old and new carbon blades.

 

[idahoguy]

Thanks for sharing the experience guys, interesting. I must have in mind the old boys knife with the loose blades and bolsters. I'm taking an interest in some old knives, and it's good to hear that the steel technology hasn't changed since when I was born.

 

[knarfeng]

I disremember his user name off hand, but one of the knifemakers had an opportunity to run Rockwell hardness on blades from the 30's and 40's. He reported the hardness was in the mid to high 40's. These days carbon steel is considered "too soft" if it is less than 55HRC. I'll try to dredge up his post.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

Thanks for sharing the experience guys, interesting. I must have in mind the old boys knife with the loose blades and bolsters. I'm taking an interest in some old knives, and it's good to hear that the steel technology hasn't changed since when I was born.

If anything, technology might've improved the consistency & purity of modern incarnations of the 'same old' steels, like 1095 and such. I still think the biggest differences in blades have more to do with skilled heat-treating & tempering, as opposed to the steel types themselves. There's great value in some of the 'old school' expertise with steel; it might become a lost art eventually, among mainstream manufacturers of knives. Both very old knives and modern ones will always benefit from knowledgable, skilled and attentive heat treat; OR, they'll both suffer if the skill or attentiveness is lacking. I've seen great and terrible examples of each, at both ends of the age spectrum. I do believe that some makers have become a little too conservative with hardening blades in more recent decades (maybe since the '70s or so), maybe (speculating) as a response to fears about warranty coverage for broken blades & such, and maybe due to some complaints about harder blades being more difficult to sharpen by 'traditional' means.

(I see Frank^ beat me to it, but...) At least some older traditional knives have been hardness-tested and found to have blades only the mid-to-high 40s on the Rockwell C scale of hardness; compare that to more recent blades usually in the mid-high 50s. Even then, lower hardness of some older knives may not fully reflect their quality, if the steel is still capable of taking very fine edges and if the blades are used responsibly like Traditional knives should be.


David

 

[Lemmy Caution]

I disremember his user name off hand, but one of the knifemakers had an opportunity to run Rockwell hardness on blades from the 30's and 40's. He reported the hardness was in the mid to high 40's. These days carbon steel is considered "too soft" if it is less than 55HRC. I'll try to dredge up his post.

I was just going to say in my experience old carbon blades seem to be quite soft. A breeze to hone to razor like sharpness, though a bit quicker to dull. That said the full flat profile and thinner blades still slice relatively well even after the edge has rolled or dulled. That softness combined with hard use and daily sharpening must account for how used up most blades from that period are. Even contemplating daily hard use and coarse sharpening of one of my GEC's I find it hard to imagine using them up as much as some of the vintage blades I've seen.

 

[Ernie1980]

I don't have any knives from that era, but I have lots of razors. The steel on my vintage razors takes and holds just as good an edge as the new versions, maybe even better in some cases. However, I think the consistency we have and expect now wasn't the same due to the "primitive" methods of heat treating and the making of the steel itself.

 

[coffeecup]

In a thread on another forum, I've posted some results of testing various aspects of knives, including hardness of blades and springs. One of the things I found was that generally speaking, the "spread" of hardnesses was wider in the past. Right now I'm working on studying some of the steels (from old blades, springs, and tools--punches etc) under a microscope, looking at carbide size etc.

 

[idahoguy]

Interesting that the RC was down in the 40's on some knives. I would guess that electronic temperature control of ovens makes for repeatability nowadays. I just bought a pre '46 Camillus on Ebay. Got the yellow cover material much like my more modern one. These damn knives get just a little bit addicting. Now the wait.