ESEE vs. Becker

[pastormarty]

I know this will start a fight, but honestly, which one gets the edge in steel? I know that Becker/Ka-bar uses 1095CV, which theoretically would be an enhanced formulation of 1095. On the other hand, everybody raves about the Rowen heat treat on the ESEE. I have and like knives from both manufacturers, and I know the difference is probably small; but if you HAD to bet on one knife's steel over the other, which would it be?

 

[KennyB]

I don't really think the difference is appreciable in any way unless you took samples of each steel, ground a blank at the exact same geometries, and then ran them on a CARTA machine to take out human variable--and even then you'd probably be talking about percentile type differences. The amount of chromium and vanadium in the 1095 CV is negligible, but I believe Becker does harden slightly harder than ESEE ( ESEE deliberately runs their stuff a little softer ) and so maybe you'll see more edge retention with the Beckers but I've never heard such reports.

As for the Rowen heat treat... Well, I think there's a lot of talk about how great it is, but it's not as if it's really superior to much else out there and doesn't make a huge difference, they just do it very well. ESEE tries to run their blades soft, sometimes when you do that you get a blade softer than you intended, and with 1095 that's a hit on wear resistance you don't need... Rowen does a great job of keeping the knives in the 57 HRC range, so that the steel is still tough as nails but still holds a reasonable edge as well.

In this race it will always come down to the cutting edge geometry, and I think ESEE wins on that side of things.

 

[JV3]

both steels are comparable in edge holding in my experience (i've used/owned plenty from both brands over the years)...what you should really be focusing on is handle ergonomics and balance - that comes down to the specific knife for me. for example, i like the bk-2's handle shape way better than the esee-5. on the other hand, i like the junglas' handle and it's more nimble fee/tip heavy design over the bk-9...i could go on and on about the various comparable models from each brand.

edit: i do have a new bk-10 (as opposed to the limited edition one) that has insane edge holding that i've never seen in 1095 before from both brands. ka-bar either accidentally made one with d2 that was meant for the d'eskabar or it was on the higher end of their target hardness range. now i kinda wish both brands would bump up the hardness on their belt knives.

 

[ozgooner]

I agree with JV3, it really comes down to the style and ergo of the knife as the steels are so close in terms of quality. In the small range I have two BK-11s but have never handled a Candiru or Izula. Mid-size I far prefer the ESEE-4 over the BK-16, but go larger and I'd take the BK-9 over the Junglas any day. That's just me and there will be those who have the exact opposite opinion. Bottom line is you can't go wrong with either knife.

 

[Shotgun]

I agree with the two posts above but would add edge geometry is very important as well. One of the reasons I like the Izzy 2 is it hits all of those things for me and my hands. Wish it was 3V but a knife can't be perfect or we would stop buying new ones.