Choosing a new steel for marketing reasons?

When I first got into knives 440C was considered a good steel . Then it faded out with the newer stuff and then we had the import invasion and the mislabeling as mentioned previously .

My advice is to a couple different stainless steels and try them out. I find if you follow manufacturers specs when heat treating you can pretty much nail the target RC . I like stainless steel blades on my folders and I have a few fixed in CPM154 that I really like . Takes a very nice edge.

But you should give D2 a look as Nathan said. I find it easy to heat treat and I am just a regular guy . I don't have all the lingo down as some of these hardcore guys but I find if I follow the directions I am just fine. I have had a blade of D2 we use in the kitchen every day and it has never even looked like it was ever going to be close to rusting.

Good luck lots of good steel but stick to just a couple and learn to heat treat them well
 
I'm won't say that 440C is a bad steel; in fact, I know that properly heat treated it's a fairly good steel. That said, I'm don't think there's very much incentive to use it, other than it's a few dollars cheaper than steels that are arguably better to begin with. Is it really worth the the couple of bucks that you save per knife, over using steels like AEB-L, 154CM, etc...? What qualities, other than being $2 to $3 cheaper per foot than 154CM, makes it better than any other "comparable" stainless?

In other words, I think it's becoming somewhat of an obsolete steel, independent of the misconceptions that steels like 440A, 440B, and poorly heat treated 440C might give it.
 
Some of the replies I saw to Strig's post reminded me of the blissful ignorance I had concerning my knowledge of blade steels prior to the last 2 years of study centered around this forum. A couple of those guys seemed as if they were just listing all the steels they have heard about. Which still is useful info. I think a lot of the 1095 love comes from currently popular brands like ESEE. (Did you know that on their website they list the hardness as 55-57! Can you imagine advertising that about your creation in the exchange here!)

I have this chart saved, and I have been waiting to acquire enough knowledge to make my own judgement as to it's accuracy. I think that I found it on either AKS or USA Knifemakers website but it might have come from google. So can anyone attest to the accuracy of it, please? I hope this is still on-topic and useful for the OP, even though the gentleman has made a preliminary choice thus far.

knifesteel_zps7250ecfc.jpg


By accurate, I only mean relatively speaking since the y-axis is just 1-10 units of, something.
 
Last edited:
Willie71 said:
AEB-L is cheaper than 440c from my suppliers.
Click to expand...
Yeah- If I could find out where these guys are getting good 440c so cheap, I'd be tempted to go back to using it for some things! A bit hard to find and not so cheap, as far as I can see....
 
Yeah, I started that thread specifically so that you guys could get a sampling of what the buyers want.

Perrin, I couldn't agree more about 1095 being popular because certain brands use them and also that people are just making a useless list. Those were my exact thoughts.
 
Perrin said:
So can anyone attest to the accuracy of it, please?

knifesteel_zps7250ecfc.jpg


.
Click to expand...

That's a good example of one of those meaningless charts that are out there. Presumably the information is based on some kind of data, but the reality is that it is so far removed from real world use of knives that it is quite deceptive.

That has 3V more than twice as tough as A2? I don't think so. Abrasion resistance as good as D2? No way. 154 CM the same abrasion resistance and toughness as D2? That's ludicrous. Presumably there is some kind of impact test or card cut test that generated those numbers and they didn't simply make them up, but the reality is that when applied to knives in the real world the conclusions drawn in that chart are simply not true. This is Crucible hype. These are the same people who told us how great their S30V was and most people simply accepted it as true.

I like Crucible just fine. I've used more pounds of CPM steels than 99% of the people on this forum. But I can say without a doubt that it is not exceptional. They're good reliable materials, and like anything else there are pros and cons to them. Their charts showing their special blends being so superior to other standards are wishful thinking.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
That's a good example of one of those meaningless charts that are out there. Presumably the information is based on some kind of data, but the reality is that it is so far removed from real world use of knives that it is quite deceptive.

That has 3V more than twice as tough as A2? I don't think so. Abrasion resistance as good as D2? No way. 154 CM the same abrasion resistance and toughness as D2? That's ludicrous. Presumably there is some kind of impact test or card cut test that generated those numbers and they didn't simply make them up, but the reality is that when applied to knives in the real world the conclusions drawn in that chart are simply not true. This is Crucible hype. These are the same people who told us how great their S30V was and most people simply accepted it as true.

I like Crucible just fine. I've used more pounds of CPM steels than 99% of the people on this forum. But I can say without a doubt that it is not exceptional. They're good reliable materials, and like anything else there are pros and cons to them. Their charts showing their special blends being so superior to other standards are wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I have seen this chart a few times and I've always disagreed with it too. Another discrepancy I see is the comparison between plain ol' D2 & CPM-D2. There is no way they can more than double the toughness by the PM process alone. Looks like marketing hype to me.
 
I really only use high carbon and my own damascus, however if I was using stainless I would not hesitate to use the hot, hyped, new stainless. Why not? You get to benefit from all the hype and press that someone else is paying for and capture the part of the market that is into new steels. The material cost between the new hottest thing and older steels is a small percentage of the price of the knife. Also the new steels are designed to be used for knives, so just follow the manufacturers heat treat protocol exactly. Some people have claimed success by "dialing" in their HT with older steels, which may have merit for something like D2 because it was developed as a die steel, not knife steel, so tweaking the HT may improve its performance as a knife. However claiming the same on new hot hyped steels seems silly. I really cant see a reason not to use it if its qualities are something that work for the type of knife you are making.
 
jmjones said:
if i was using stainless i would not hesitate to use the hot, hyped, new stainless. Why not? You get to benefit from all the hype and press that someone else is paying for and capture the part of the market that is into new steels. The material cost between the new hottest thing and older steels is a small percentage of the price of the knife. .
Click to expand...

DING DING DING! We have a winner!


jmjones said:
Also the new steels are designed to be used for knives, so just follow the manufacturers heat treat protocol exactly. Some people have claimed success by "dialing" in their HT with older steels, which may have merit for something like D2 because it was developed as a die steel, not knife steel, so tweaking the HT may improve its performance as a knife. However claiming the same on new hot hyped steels seems silly.
Click to expand...

The tweaks are very simple and things like D2 can be pretty pitiful without them.

It is my opinion that steel manufacturers core competency is in the design and production of steel, and not necessarily optimizing the HT to eek out every bit of performance from that material in different applications. For example, Crucible does not dictate a quench to Mf for their S30V to reduce RA despite the clear benefits. I don't know if they are simply unaware, or perhaps they didn't want to make the HT appear too complicated, but following their prescribed HT will result in less than optimal results. Other steels they produce were not developed for knives, 3V for example, and while their HT protocols for 3V work pretty well, there are techniques for avoiding the secondary hardening hump and the pitfalls that come with it.

I used to be of the same mind as you. It's hubris not to just follow the rules isn't it? Follow the manufactuers perscribed techniques. Right? Nope. The amount of testing and experience it took for me to finally dispel that as a myth was not trivial, so I can't reasonably suggest you go prove it to yourself with some simple test because setting up the various heat treats and then accurately, meaningfully and objectively evaluating the results is fairly involved. And I don't expect you to just take my word for it either. However I would ask that you keep an open mind.
 
^ I agree 100%.

Even if you follow the industry or manufacturers ht regimen there is a lot of "play" involved. Soak time, quench temp, sub zero process, temper temperature, time, etc...



As far as choosing a steel for marketing reasons, that sounds like a good business decision if it is backed by testing to optimize results. I have to feel good about what I do otherwise it doesn't happen... so I research a lot before changing steels on a large run.

There are some truly impressive supersteels out there, I am seeing things over in the testing subforum here that are very interesting.

I also believe you can stick with something you know well and just knock it out of the park, the knife and overall package is what really matters.
 
Last edited:
Nathan the Machinist said:
That's a good example of one of those meaningless charts that are out there. Presumably the information is based on some kind of data, but the reality is that it is so far removed from real world use of knives that it is quite deceptive.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Those things are just close enough to reality to sort of imply a comparison, but I trust 'em about as much as the ones claiming "old leaf springs are 5160" and so forth... which is not very much at all.

Daniel Fairly Knives said:
Even if you follow the industry or manufacturers ht regimen there is a lot of "play" involved. Soak time, quench temp, sub zero process, temper temperature, time, etc...

As far as choosing a steel for marketing reasons, that sounds like a good business decision if it is backed by testing to optimize results. I have to feel good about what I do otherwise it doesn't happen... so I research a lot before changing steels on a large run.

I also believe you can stick with something you know well and just knock it out of the park, the knife and overall package is what really matters.
Click to expand...

Agree on all your points as well. :thumbup:
 
A lot of it has to do with perceived value.

There's a lot that goes into making a knife - the blade, the handle, the lock, etc. And there are a thousand and one ways to do just about anything, all of which roll up into the overall cost of the knife. The target market for these knives are experienced enough to know this, so the cost is justified. The issue comes along with buyers right on the cusp who might think to themselves, "well, I can get a Para 2 in S30V for $100, whereas I'd end up with 440C in a $300 custom. Why spend $200 more for a lesser steel?". Now, they're aware that just about everything on the custom is better, but the fact that one of the most important - certainly one of the most visible and emphasized - parts on the knife is perceived to be of lower quality, they have trouble justifying that extra cost since they expect everything to be better.

I myself am guilty of it time to time. Whenever I look at a Sebenza, tight tolerances and a great warranty immediately come to mind. But so does soft S30V, and then I get to thinking about the aforementioned Para 2 that I can get for a quarter of the cost with identical - and perhaps better treated - steel. Maybe it won't have all the bells and whistles that the Sebenza has, but the perceived value of the Para 2 is much higher than the Sebenza. On the other hand, if the Sebenza jumped up to using M390, S90V or the like, I'd most likely think to myself, "now that knife has perfect/top of the line everything". And although the value perhaps isn't drastically increased, because everything is now the highest end, the perceived value starts to rise because people will naturally pay a bit more for high quality.

The simple fact of the matter is that "premium" carries value to it, even if it's not seen in actual use. And there's not a much more easily understood and accepted premium category to a large portion of the market than blade steel.
 
My 2cents and I think they matter. Heres why. Back ground I am 31, spend time in the shity and alot in the woods, welder, boiler operator. So I have some metal experience but not much. I had never made a knife only had been a user.
I bought a SK5 this winter (stainless) broke it battoning and noticed the edge retention sucked and breaking it was another issue. Then I got a Esee LS which I love but the edge retention sucks. So I sold it.
I decided to look up what steels would hold a edge and were tough. Bing CPM3V was the first one to pop up. After researching the only down side compared to 1095 were a little pricier, no spark throwing and can be difficult to field sharpen.
Well in my own dumb way I look at it that If it is hard to sharpen odds are is then its harder to dull and my problem has been edge retention NOT ease of sharpening. I also have a ferro rod with my knives. So if it gets to the point where I dont have the rod odds are is the knife is sitting on my dead body.
So when I made, am making my field knife I bought CPM3V. If I were to have bought a similar knife I would have also picked a premium blade steel. I think for the younger crowd we want those modern steels.
I posted a picture of the blank before heat treat on another non knife related forum and was offered to buy the knife. I think it is a important fact the picture was semi blurry, i am not a knife maker and the knife was not done however upon knowing it was a super steel it became desirable.
If I were making knives for sale going forward you better be dam sure I am using supersteel. Even if not just for marketing.
Heres another thing my friend was asking about my knives. I told him how much I would want. He said on the phone "holy shit". I said google CPM3V. Well if you dont know anything it looks like the greatest thing since sliced bread off a google search. He totally changed his mind and it was like he was now at a Benz dealership not the first time knife maker used car lot.
JMO
 
I have asked most customers of mine what steel (stainless) they think they might like for their custom knife and they almost always say "What do you recommend?" And I say "I have CPM 154, ATS-34, 440C, and 154 Cm on hand. My own personal hunting knives happen to be 440C not that I prefer it over the others but of the eight knives I have kept for myself 7 of them happened to be 440 C" and here they are". My customers always say "Use that for mine too" To be fair I get 90% of my customers from word of mouth and most of them do not attend knife shows or read Blade magazine except for two of them. If I were showing knives at the Pomona , California show I would show mostly CPM 154 stainless knives which I have made several dozen of and knife enthusiasts seem to respect. It seems that this thread has relegated 440 C to a status barely above lawnmower blades and truck springs. I'm no expert in metallurgy but my knives cut up game animals quite well and are suitable to bigger chores than slicing salami and cheese in hunting camp. Just my opinion. Larry
 
I think marketing is a fine reason to change your steel. 440C has an unwarranted bad stigmatism in the marketplace. Same as brass. Both are fine materials to use on knives, but, if you want to sell knives, whether you like them or not, don't use it. IMO, 440C is my favorite SS to grind, holds an edge just fine, and is very sharpen-able. And that is another good reason to pick your steel. Do you enjoy working it? Do you enjoy using it? Can you sharpen it? Does it sell? All fine reasons to pick a steel IMO.

Why is marketing some bad word around here?
 
It's worth mentioning that choosing an old steel to reach certain markets can be very helpful, too. For instance O1 and 1095 are not going away anytime soon. Lots of people love 'em and won't buy anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top