Case CV steel

[rifon2]

I have also looked over a couple of original Case documents with the analysis of their CV steel, one from the 50s' and the other from 2008 I believe. The CV from the 50s' is 1095 with .50% chromium and .19% vanadium added. Very close to W2 (great steel), if had a bit less chromium. Or 01, if a bit more manganese.

The 2008 CV was basically the same except .86% carbon and more manganese. Pretty close to Howard Clark's 1086M which is one of the finest steels I've worked with. Right next to W2.

Thank you for taking the time to post in this thread, and to confirm with some real specificity what many of us Case fans always "felt" about the quality of Case CV blade steel.

 

[db]

Not directly related to this topic, but more to the "CV vs SS" debate, here is a quote from a Case factory price list dated January 1, 1934. Apparently the debate has been raging for many years. This quote was likely from Russ Case himself, though that was not stated on the document. Also interesting are the comments about Rockwell hardness.



There are two distinct classes of Stainless Steel, one known as low grade stainless with a carbon content of around twenty to thirty-five point. This is commonly known and is sold by the manufacturers of stainless steel as Stainless Iron. The majority of so called stainless steel on the market is this class of stainless and is not of the high grade stainless which is about ninety point carbon. The high grade stainless found in our line is the best that we can procure and will hold a very satisfactory cutting edge, but not as good a cutting edge as found in our high grade Chrome Vanadium Steel.
The word “Stainless” has been very much abused for the reason that the
low grade stainless as well as the high grade stainless can both legally be stamped Stainless Steel. For your information, high grade stainless steel has a tendency towards brittleness while the lower grades are all soft.
An article of cutlery in the Butcher and Slicer lines in order to hold a good edge should have a hardening point of not less than fifty-five point Rockwell C test. A Pocket Knife should have a hardening point of not less than fifty-eight point Rockwell C test. A Razor should have a hardening test of not less than sixty-two point. The hardest hardening point obtainable in the so called low grade stainless is forty-five point hardness. Forty point hardness is dead soft.

I wonder if even the current pocket knives are no less than 58 rc? A very interesting quote from Case thanks.

 

[jackknife]

The newer CV knives held an edge a good bit longer while cutting cardboard, two to three times longer. The newer CV blades were also a bit harder to sharpen, which leads me to believe they have a higher Rc hardness.

12-13 years ago I also ran into a guy who owned and ran a machine shop, he also collected old Case knives. He pointed out an interesting bit of info. He Rockwell tested (hardness test) a number of old Case CV knives, Tested, XX, and USA, 1920s-1960s. They all tested in the high 40s, which is basically a spring temper. These old knives are known to be easy to sharpen and folks liked em that way.


Hope this helps,

This is something I've wondered about for a very long time.

Before the modern age, where a pocket knife was elevated to a zombie killer tool, and it was suited for everyday mundane tasks of (dare I say it) simply cutting things, our fathers and grandfathers got by wonderfully with knives that by the standards of todays knife knuts, were junk.

I've seen posts were they argue about a point of Rockwell hardness, about the absolute latest wonder steel, about the absolute longest edge holding knife out there. But much food for thought is in the fact our grandads skinned things, made things, opened packages, whittled, all with knives in the upper 40's and lower 50's on the Rockwell scale. I think I read someplace that the averige machete was in the upper 40's, and I haven't heard of too many machete's that didn't do the job, whatever the job was.

But if they do run the RC rating up, what happens? Buck tried that in the mid 60's and lots of people complained that Buck knives were too hard to sharpen. Being old fashioned, I can see thier point. I was used to seeing old timers (the men of liers circles all over, not the knife) strop thier knives on a boot top, the bottom of a coffee cup, back of a belt, and other makeshift items. I think most people who really use thier knives, do preffer a knife that is easy to sharpen vs the mythical super edge holding blade.

A knife gets dull by virtue of it's mission; its a cutting tool. You cut things, eventually it gets dull, then you sharpen it. Those old Case XX's from many years ago served thier owners well, even being RC 40 something. Thats not really that soft if you think abouyt it. Hatchets, machete's, cut very well. A small pocket knife of cv in 40 something with a sharp edge will open packages, mail, cut string, cut open feed sacks, ream a pipe bowl, and many other thigs. But the big thing here is, with very little effort it can be made very sharp again. I remember my dad's nightly habit of after dinner, leaning back in his chair and getting the little strop out of the kitchen drawer. It was the lower half of a wood 5 gallon paint stir stick with some leather glued down on it. He'd take a few minutes to strop his peanut to razor sharpness again from it's days work. Only took a few minutes.

Don's comments don't surprise me at all. Back in the old days, before large disposable incomes, a pocketknife was a tool. Sometimes tools get used for many things. Sometimes a tool gets used up, and they go buy another one. A spring temper blade will stand up to light prying, or heavy use better. Maybe those old guys at Case knew what they were doing, making the blades a little soft. People abuse pocket knives, thats fact. How many old knives do we see with a broken blade? I know my favorite pocket knives have blades that I can get very sharp again in just a minute or two. I don't want to fool with fixtures and gizmos to sharpen my knife, and I don't think those old timers did either. I like to strop it a bit on the back of my belt, or even if I have to, take out the little diamond home from my wallet and touch it up in 2 minutes or less. Easy to sharpen was a very important thing.

Rockwell isn't everything.

Thank you Don for your very interesting info!:thumbup:

 

[knifeaholic]

I would question whether the older knives were really all that soft...

If you look at the quote that I posted from the 1934 Case document, it certainly seems that Case at that time at least had the intent of making pocket knife blades at a hardness level of 58 RC.

Now, it is probable that not all blades achieved that due to lower precision in heat treating instrumentation at the time, but Case was aiming for the higher RC and they believed that was the correct hardness not the lower 40's RC levels.

Note that at the end of the quote, the lower RC levels are denigrated as being "dead soft".

I agree with Jacknife's basic point though, today's super steels would not have passed muster back then. Its also due to the fact that in those days there were no modern diamond or ceramic sharpeners or sharpening systems either. Sharpening of pocket knives was done freehand on a simple carborundum or Arkansas stone. Whereas today, even the non-knife nut has ready access to diamond and ceramic sharpening tools.

 

[Blues]

I agree, Steve, and even relatively "simple" steels which rockwell in the mid to high 50's are plenty hard and tough enough for most any task. (I often laugh when I think back on all the years I spent backpacking and climbing from Alaska to the Adirondacks without ever knowing the peril I was in for not knowing the quality and hardness of the blade steel that accompanied me. ) And most folks back then, (and today for that matter), have other things to do besides spend hours putting an edge back on a knife.

When I was talking to Don Hanson yesterday, you can't help but get infected by his enthusiasm for steels like W2 and the aforementioned 1086M (from another good friend, Howard Clark) and their capabilities.

Everything is a trade-off and in the end if the knife does what you need it to do, then it is clearly up to snuff.

 

[RKH]

This is an excellent thread and I really learned a lot about the steel in Case knives. My Father and Grandfather both carried Case Pocket knives. My Dad carried the small pen knife and my Grandfather carried a Barehead Single Blade Trapper.
Thanks Don Hanson and Jackknife. Also, Knifeholic I used soft Arkansas stones to sharpen Buck knives in the early seventies and had a hard time sharpening those knives. When I bought a 12 inch Norton India Combo stone my sharpening time was reduced. Also, I was able to get my knives sharper thanks to guys like Wayne Goddard and Steve Dick and using the right stone. Right now I touch up most of my knives with a Spyderco Sharpmaker which is great but only if the knife already has a good(thin) profile on the edge.
In regard to the newer and harder steels I am not a big fan because so many knives need to be reprofiled made from this steel. Trying to reprofile a ZDP189 blade is no fun. I like a steel that is easy to sharpen and hold an edge for a reasonable amount of time opposed to a super steel that keeps a edge for a long time but is very difficult to sharpen. I wonder if the knife steel snobs every use these knives. I like Vg10 by Spyderco a lot as it is my favorite Stainless stell and I like Case's Cv steel. I have a Sodbuster in CV and will be getting a Swayback jack in CV. I have a swayback Jack in stainless but like the CV better. Thanks for all the good information. Oh, BTW, a nice traditional slippie with bone or stag just gives me a nice warm feeling of simpler and kinder past times.

RKH

 

[knarfeng]

Whether that "40's" Rockwell measurement was correct or not depends on what model was tested. The blades on pocket knives such as stockman models have to be anealed at the base so that they can be bent to shape to fit in the knife. This leave the base of the blade, the only place where you can get a Rockwell hardness reading, in the 40's. The rest of the blade is in the 50's.

But, some the blades on models such as the trapper or Sodbuster don't have to be bent to fit the knife. So, those don't have to be annealed. So sometimes those blades aren't.

I have measured the hardness on stockman blades from several companies and they are all in the 40's. But the blades aren't. I can tell when I test the edge retention. I believe the current Case hardness is 54-56HRC for both CV and Tru-Sharp. I wish they would run them both harder. Camillus used to run theirs harder. But Schrade used to run their about the same, I think.

Edited to add: But when I measured the hardness of a Case Sodbuster or Trapper they were in the 50's as one would expect.

 

[neeman]

You're welcome, Elliott !



The above is very true!

I could do without the chromium but do give me a little vanadium
Although a very small amount of chromium is OK with me.

Don,

Thanks for all the information.

Do you have percentages for a little and very little ?

Thanks,

 

[Blues]

Don,

Thanks for all the information.

Do you have percentages for a little and very little ?

Thanks,

Don's favorite steel is W2:

Carbon: .85 - 1.5%

Chromium: .15%

Vanadium: .15 - .35%

(Other elements left out intentionally)

Rockwell hardness range: 57 - 64

 

[knarfeng]

Forgot to add about annealed blades and stockmans.
The Buck Stockman models don't have annealed blades. Because it is a 3-spring design, the blades are all straight and do not have to be bent. So Buck does not have to anneal its stockman blades (and doesn't) and you can get a valid Rockwell hardness from them.

This may also apply to other 3-spring stockmans, but I've only the Buck that I have tested.

An odd piece of info that I think is cool...but then I am an engineer and have a weird sense of "cool".

 

[lamepro]

wow so much great info.. and it all started cause i decided to buy a case trapper in CV and was curious about the steel and how people liked it. i gotta say it seems easy enough to sharpen and takes a wicked edge
thanks guys!

 

[Blues]

wow so much great info.. and it all started cause i decided to buy a case trapper in CV and was curious about the steel and how people liked it. i gotta say it seems easy enough to sharpen and takes a wicked edge
thanks guys!

Oh, this discussion comes up pretty regularly around these parts.

 

[Don Hanson III]

And the exact specs on the W2 I's using;

C .95,
Mn .22,
V .19,
Cr .15,
Si .23,
Mo .013,
Ni .08,
Cu .14

 

[Blues]

And the exact specs on the W2 I's using;

C .95,
Mn .22,
V .19,
Cr .15,
Si .23,
Mo .013,
Ni .08,
Cu .14

Well, as long as we're sharing, Don, what's the usual rockwell?

 

[knifeaholic]

Regarding the annealing of the tangs, I believe that Case anneals the tangs on all pocket knife blades, regardless of pattern. When I toured the Case factory last fall I was told that there are several reasons for the annealing...blade crinking as required, but also to give the blades more of an ability to "flex" slightly in use therefore less likely to break, and to reduce the potential of wear on the tang.

 

[Unsub]

I want a blade that is easy to sharpen but I would like it to hold an edge as well.

The 1095 blade in My GEC Northfield seems too have gotten the tradeoff between the 2 pretty good. I would not mind a little bit of chromium because it seems to me anyway that steels like 5160 with just a little bit of chromium are quite a bit less susceptible to rust
without losing the ease of sharpening and toughness.

I would love to try a nice W2 blade but so far I don't know of any production offerings?

There is a very interesting article in the current issue of Knives Illustrated where they test an old vintage Marble in forged 1095 a modern China Marble in 420HC and a modern USA Marble in 1070C-6 that was mentioned earlier in the thread.
Both the old 1095 and the newer 1070C-6 did very well with the older Marble holding an edge to 500 cuts vs the 1070C-6's 450. 420HC only did 50 but was tougher ,easier to sharpen and a 23$ knife.

Another interesting article suggested that different batches of the same steel could make a big difference in the quality of the blades produced.

Someone mentioned not wanting Vanadium in their carbon steel? I am really curious as to why?

 

[Don Hanson III]

Well, as long as we're sharing, Don, what's the usual rockwell?

For my knives, it's 59-60 Rc. The extremely fine grain of W2 allows a tough blade at this hardness and is still fairly easy to sharpen. But holds a fine edge for a relatively long time.

If I had to guess the Rc of the newer Cv blades based on my use, I would say mid 50s'. I'll rockwell test a newer CV blade next chance I get and report back.

 

[Blues]

For my knives, it's 59-60 Rc. The extremely fine grain of W2 allows a tough blade at this hardness and is still fairly easy to sharpen. But holds a fine edge for a relatively long time.

If I had to guess the Rc of the newer Cv blades based on my use, I would say mid 50s'. I'll rockwell test a newer CV blade next chance I get and report back.

Thanks again, Don. Appreciate the info! :thumbup:

 

[Don Hanson III]

Unsub, it takes a lot more chromium than 5160 has (.50-.90%) to effect staining. Much more than I like in a blade steel.

No production knives available in W2, it is no longer being made in this country.

And this is the difference between production knives and custom knives that are heat treated one blade at a time

Another interesting article suggested that different batches of the same steel could make a big difference in the quality of the blades produced.

 

[SHEBOP]

Got's my popcorn...this is GREAT!
Thanks, Folks!