Edge Holding: Buck 420HC vs 5160?

Macchina

Macchina

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
5,169
Hello,
I bought a Buck 105 Pathfinder in the "Custom" 5160 steel last week because I never owned a Buck fixed blade (I love thier slip joints) and really like carbon steel. I used the knife quite a bit to clear grass and sticks to put out trail cams and hang a couple stands. I've been really happy with my Buck 301 Stockman knives and have no complaints about the 420HC. Does anyone know how this steel compares with the 5160 that Buck has been putting out? I know this usage is not the typical style you see 5160 in (it's usually a sword or large chopping knife steel). Does anyone know which steel holds a better edge? I don't think knives of this size really NEED the strength of 5160 but it's just so cool.

I was so impressed with the Pathfinder this weekend that I think I want to pick up a Woodsman but I don't know what steel I want to go with...

 
This is comparing a stainless to a non-stainless. I don't own the 105 you speak of or any knife in that steel. I do own blades in 01 and 1060 which are similar. From my experience the non-stainless is made up of less elements. Therefore that steel does not resist wear or abrasion as well as a stainless. But when you factor in the non-stainless is taken to a higher hardness this will help it cut longer than some stainless steels. A simple one like 420HC-- yes. But not a more complex stainless like S30V or S90V. Plus, you have to give the non-stainless more care. A non-stainless is normally a tougher steel and simple to sharpen. So, a trade off. Most knife folks don't gravitate toward a non-stainless because of edge retention. DM
 
Apples & Oranges and two completely different types of knives!


I personally prefer stainless in all of my blades because its just less overall maintenance.
 
Lot of people here know more than me. Here's my understanding but I'm happy to be corrected on any point.

I think the answer depends on what is meant by "edge retention. Blades and edges fail in different ways and different steels resist those failures differently. This means it's hard/impossible to declare one better than the other. The better question is what do you plan on doing with the knife and based on that, how will the edge likely fail and then based on that, which steel is best matched to the challenge.

One way a blade can fail is that it can snap in two when it strikes something. Machetes, swords and so-called "chopper" knives can fail in this way, as can knives design for battoning like the Buck Froe. Lower carbon steels like 1050, 1060, 1075, and 5160 have good reputations for handling this type of shock. I would think that 5160 would be better than 420HC in this regard (although I'm not sure you could generate enough force chopping with the 105 to matter).

Another way a blade can fail is that the edge can roll or fold over when it has lateral force applied to it, like you get from wood working or hitting something like a hard cutting board. The ability to resist rolling an edge depends on the angle the edge is sharpened and the hardness of the steel - thinner edges demand harder steel. Buck suggests their 420HC (58Rc) is a teeny bit harder than their 5160 (57-58) but I don't I can tell the difference in that RC range. I do notice a difference when hardness drops to 56Rc (Case Tru-Sharp, Opinel's 1086 Carbone) or lower (Victorinox Dullomatic Stainless).

Yet another way a blade can fail is that it can chip or large carbides in the steel can break out. Steels like Buck's old 440C or D2 are known for large carbides and taken too hard and too thin, have a reputation for getting chippy. Buck's 440C is really good though. Neither 5160 nor 420HC have large carbides and I can't believe that either would be chippy in anyway.

And yet another way a blade can fail is that the metal can get scrubbed off from cutting abrasive materials. In essence, the edge goes from a 'V' shape to a 'U' shape. Steels with a lot of carbides resist this. When carbides are the same size (e.g. 1075 some vs 1095 more), more resists abrasion better. But when carbides are bigger (e.g. 420HC small vs 440C big), big wins. If I need to cut down a lot of cardboard, I reach for my Buck 500 with 440C, and not another Buck with 420HC. I'm not sure about the carbide size in 5160, but given its carbon content, I would suspect that 5160 and 420HC are very close in carbide size and the ability to resist abrasion.

Summarizing, I would think both would take an equally fine edge since both have smaller carbides. I would expect 420HC to be able to be taken to a slightly thinner edge before rolling but not by much. I wouldn't expect either to be chippy and I would be expect 5160 to be better in terms of resisting outright breaking but to be honest, I think with a blade as short as the 105, you won't notice that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Laurence, agreed. A difficult comparison. If we were talking A2 steel I'd quickly give it the nod over 420. With the first at 61rc. I'd still take 01 second. The rest non-stainless are simple steels. The 10XX series and the 52XXX series are close in elements. Should you bring in the new non-stainless powdered steels in to this discussion. My money would ride with those. But were talking the more traditional non-stainless. I think most of them can top a simple stainless. It's the high vanadium steels that can take even D2.
But they may be more challenging to sharpen. My 01 sharpens in about the same time as 420 on a Norton India stone. One at 61rc and the other at 58rc. I'll cut some 3/8" sisal rope using 01 and give you some real numbers in a week or so. DM
 
Macchina,

To put a cap on your unanswered question the 5160 Spring Steel will hold a significantly longer edge.Unalloyed steels are very interesting because they take on a much harder state than the soft nature of common cutlery grade stainless steel in heat treatment.Now you can shun the ideal of the strength of the 5160 but like carbon steels in general...think of the hard edge.If you took both a stainless and a carbon steel with the same carbon content-let's say AUS-8 Stainless vs.1075 Carbon Steel,equally hardened and the same edge geometry....the 1075 will beat it in edge retention by a good stretch.Carbon steels sharpen up easily and bring back a micro toothy edge that's really sharp.

So is Buck's 420HC Stainless a sub-par user steel?
I personally like the 420HC on my 112 Ranger that I've carried since the late 1990's.Takes a great edge and easy to achieve one on a traditional stone.It's tough,it fights rust,very razor cutting quality,and it holds an adequate edge.I'm not going to hype it though like DocT or as others have comparing it to 440C or a gentleman on YouTube going as far to rank it with 154CM.It's weak point is coarse materials use which does dull a stainless steel's edge quickly,but 420HC dulls the quickest.Which is why I use 1095 at my job and 420HC around the house and as a sportsman's steel.Now I'm talking heavy use on coarse materials not just cutting a few pieces of rope.So 420HC is mostly a natural materials steel-so you can see where 420HC fits in as a game cleaning/farming/crafts/yardwork steel...maximum sharpness for the job to be done.

Both steels have their benefits to consider but the 5160 is more superior in edge retention.In closing I'd rather point someone to carbon steel for edge retention and sharpening ease than premium stainless steels...a lot more things to pick at.And believe it or not carbon steel knives were actually cheaper than stainless steel...because tool steel is more economical due to not being rust resistant.
 
I did not hype the 420HC but simply was pointing out that it would do well when stacked up against a low carbon steel like 5160. I actually prefer carbon steel blades for many things but stainless steels also have their plusses. (now, if Buck would only do that knife in 3V...)
 
Frotier, do you have some actual cutting test numbers to back this up. Or just speaking in general? DM
 
To give you a short answer David...no...I didn't do cutting test numbers to verify this.My observation flat out is from someone who's used carbon steel for many years.But here's the obvious...the differentials between stainless and even the cheapest tool steel.

Ask a hardware manufacturer why they don't use 420HC Stainless for lawnmower blades,axe-heads,or drill bits and they'll give you these responses...

*Carbon steel is easier to harden in a heat treatment in comparison to alloyed/stainless steel hence because it isn't alloyed it is a very hard steel

*Carbon steel is more economical than stainless steel

*In high speed use applications stainless steel will file down much faster than carbon steel

So I ask you David why would hardware companies shoot themselves in the foot and use stainless steel?Tool steel is the original material blades were made from as stainless didn't exist yet.Time travel 30 to 40 years back and ask peoples opinion on stainless steel and they'll say it performed but alloyed steels had too soft of an edge.And back then the other American manufacturers (Schrade,Imperial,and Camillus) were hardening their stainless and tool steel 57-59rc...people knew how to heat treat steel as good if not better than Paul Bos.They just thought their skill was part of the job...not marketing fluff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top