Forged or stock removal Let's dispell the myths

[Phillip Patton]

but can you efficiently grind an "S" guard?

No, but I don't like S-guards, and wouldn't make one using any technique.
Also, you don't need a forge to make an S-guard, either. Most of the ones I've seen we're made from stock thin enough it could have been cold formed.

 

[canineforge]

Collectors, just like makers, should have an idea of what they like best, and go for the brass ring. I was slinging the crap , and although I don't care for Mr. Mandt's Moran, I CAN appreciate that HE cares for it, it may be the cornerstone of his collection, and that passion and commitment is to be respected.

The same can be said of the makers, regardless of production methodology. The skill, passion and commitment, specifically to be full-time, and to have faith and dependance on one's skills to put food on the table, ESPECIALLY in this day and age is to be respected.

STeven,

Well stated. This sums things up nicely, IMO.

Also, thanks for starting this thread, Bailey.

- Joe

 

[Kevin Jones]

I don't know where genius smiths like Fogg and Fikes got their inspiration, but a lot of the "newish" current crop got their inspiration, nay, patterns to a "t"- from Jerry Fisk.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

Who was inspired along with the ABS to a great degree, by one of the most talented and interesting forgers in knife history; Mr James Black.

[/IMG]

 

[dmarx]

Just had to throw in here. I can understand both methods having pro's and con's. There's things that can be done with forging that can't be done with stock removal. Likewise there's things that can be done with stock removal, that can't be done with forging. The argument has been going on for 30 years at least. Personally, I think it's completely a matter of style. I see wonderfull examples of both arts.

What I do have a problem with is hearing how vastly superior a forged knife is in one sentence, and then hearing how they're getting their steel from some scrap heap somewhere. Maybe I'm missing something, but how is a knife made from a 1930's era Ford truck spring better than a knife made from cpm154 say, or any of the other modern steels? I mean, this is almost 2007, right? Or is this some kind of Tolken style magic I'm too dumb to comprehend?

Dave........... go ahead, fire away.

 

[Bailey Bradshaw]

Larrin,

I don't think forging stainless adds any benfit. Reduction in carbide size doesn't occur since carbide formation is accomplished during heat treating. Reduction in grain size is most effectively done with thermal cycling, and yes you can thermal cycle stainless, but with the CPM steels for instance, the grain is so small due to the CPM process, it's a waste of time to try to refine it more. This is all information I have received from metalurgists at Crucible, not my own conjecture.

 

[Larrin]

Larrin,

I don't think forging stainless adds any benfit. Reduction in carbide size doesn't occur since carbide formation is accomplished during heat treating. Reduction in grain size is most effectively done with thermal cycling, and yes you can thermal cycle stainless, but with the CPM steels for instance, the grain is so small due to the CPM process, it's a waste of time to try to refine it more. This is all information I have received from metalurgists at Crucible, not my own conjecture.

If carbide size is reduced by heating up to 1950F to heat treat, than it would be reduced by forging, and yes, carbide size is reduced by forging; go ask Crucible again. I was just recently talking about thermal cycling stainless with Scott Devanna, it's not necessarily possible, he's reading up on it for me. I still have questions about a duplex grain (large grains forming with small ones) forming when heat treating multiple times, and whether this is also the case when normalizing/thermal cycling. And you're right, it's a waste of time to reduce the grain size of a CPM steel because the grain size is already way smaller than carbon steels ever get through thermal cycling and multiple quenching. And for conventional cast steels, most of them have a carbide size that is too large to get any reduction in grain size (grain size is dependent somewhat on carbide size). The only steels that have a potential for grain size reduction are conventional cast stainlesses that have a small carbide size such as 12C27, AEB-L, 12C27M, 13C26, etc.

And to fire one back at you, I still think 154CM and 440C benefit more from more reduction from forging than carbon steel, because of their large carbide size. Carbon steels carbides all dissolve at 1700F anyway, so there are rarely problems with carbide size or carbides forming in "strings" from rolling in one direction, which reduces toughness, but 154CM and 440C carbides do not break down as easily, and they form in "strings"., if any steel has a noticeable benefit from forging to shape, it would be 154CM, 440C, D2, etc. Also, the more they are reduced in size by forging, the more their large carbide size will be reduced. I'm not saying 154CM, 440C, or D2 are any better than simple carbon steels, only that they have more to improve on through forging than simple carbon steels.

Grains all recrystallize anyway, so forging to align the grain isn't much of an argument. You can normalize/thermal cycle and multiple quench a 52100 blade without every touching it to a hammer, and I guarantee you it would get just as small a grain size as if you forged it with low temperatures and then thermal cycled and triple quenched, and the blade that was not forged would perform just as well as one that was. Oh, and of course, there's no rule that says that you can't differentially heat treat if you don't forge.

We commonly make stainless damascus, and for somewhat proof of my point: we heat treated three blades, one out of D2, one out of 154CM, and one out of D2/154CM damascus. Obviously, if you have a ladder pattern of D2 and 154CM, each individual layer of D2 and 154CM has been reduced considerably, and there is at least some reduction in carbide size, and also grain size. When the carbide size is reduced, heat treatment is more effective; if you heat treat one blade of out 154CM, and one out of CPM-154, the CPM-154 will get harder every time. Anyway, the D2/154CM got harder with the same heat treatment than either the D2 or 154CM blade.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

Who was inspired along with the ABS to a great degree, by one of the most talented and interesting forgers in knife history; Mr James Black.

No one really knows if the Bart Moore bowie was made by James Black, and though there is some anecdotal evidence to support that it was owned by Bowie, there is no definitive proof. Some bowie knife historians believe it was made at a much later time.

I don't know how much influence James Black would have had on later era bladesmiths, since to this day there is a debate as to whether Black ever even made a knife, and there are no knives that can be definitively linked to him. Many of the historians that believe Black did make knives, think that he was the maker of Bowie No.1 and a few other knives that look to have been made by the same bladesmith. Bowie No.1 and its brethren do not seem to have been much of an influence on bladesmiths that came along later.

So as not to send this thread of on another tangent, I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[Habber]

I don't have the expertise to try and claim one or the other to be of a superior product.I do however have some fine examples of both forged and stock removal blades in my collection,and I will probably still be either,if the knife and maker strike me.
I did want to comment on this though

I think stock removal of Damascus is a friggin' disgrace to the Maker who put his time into making it in the first place.

Karl,I couldnt disagree more with this.Many of the folders in my collection are stock removal of someone elses damascus.Some of,in my opinion,the finest makers always tell me they seek out the best materials for thier knives,wether it be handle material or blade steel.By virtue of these fine makers seeking out,and often waiting for it to become available,these forgers steel being ground by others is not a disgrace,but a testament to the amount of work and skill that they put into thier craft.Forgers such as Jerry Rados,Mike Norris,Devin Thomas,George Werth..and that's just to name a few, are well sought out to supply material by thier peers in the industry.I hardly find that a disgrace to thier hard work and talent.I'm sure if asked none of the above mentioned would feel disgraced that not only other makers,but collectors as well,find that adding thier product to a knife not only adds value,but also desirability.Just as the use of other makers(Lovelss,Fowler,Moran,etc...) designs does not disgrace either maker,but shows a level of respect and again,a testament to the work the original put into making it what it is.

Rob Lindquist

 

[jdm61]

Just had to throw in here. I can understand both methods having pro's and con's. There's things that can be done with forging that can't be done with stock removal. Likewise there's things that can be done with stock removal, that can't be done with forging. The argument has been going on for 30 years at least. Personally, I think it's completely a matter of style. I see wonderfull examples of both arts.

What I do have a problem with is hearing how vastly superior a forged knife is in one sentence, and then hearing how they're getting their steel from some scrap heap somewhere. Maybe I'm missing something, but how is a knife made from a 1930's era Ford truck spring better than a knife made from cpm154 say, or any of the other modern steels? I mean, this is almost 2007, right? Or is this some kind of Tolken style magic I'm too dumb to comprehend?

Dave........... go ahead, fire away.

That raises and interesting question.......what is a "modern" steel? Many of the steels used by smiths are ones that have been around quite a long time and yet they are still used because the still suit the purpose for which they were originally formulated. I was thinking specifically about tool steels like 0-1, L6 and the W series, which for specifically formulated, at least in part, with cutting tools in mind. With steels like 5160, 52100, etc., the issue becomes a little hazy because, while they make great blades, you could argue that they were never really intended for cutting tools
the CPM steels are a curious lot. Is the chemical mix of the steel really all that "modern" or just the method of getting it into a usable bar form? Isn't it "sintered" from powder? Ed Fowler among others wouold argue that when you forge a lot, you are refining and even correcting what ever "bad" was done to the steel when it was rolled.....or "forged" as someone said earlier. Also, consider this. We know that grinding, forging, etc can cause a lot of stress on the steel and that the thermal cycling process relives that stress. But by creating and relieving those stresses, have you possibly "altered" something like a CPM steel from its original "ideal" condition?

P.S. I don't know about other smiths, but i would not use a 1930's Ford truck spring if i was looking for optimum performance and lieklihood of success. I think people use steel like that because it is either all they have or because the idea sounds cool. Just my opinion.

 

[Kohai999]

....... Maybe I'm missing something, but how is a knife made from a 1930's era Ford truck spring better than a knife made from cpm154 say, or any of the other modern steels? I mean, this is almost 2007, right? Or is this some kind of Tolken style magic I'm too dumb to comprehend?

Dave........... go ahead, fire away.

Welcome Dave!

1. Part of it has been written before-It is fun for the maker to forge. If they don't like their job, they tend to do it not as well.

2. Say that spring is "good" 5160. Now, Joe Smith knows this because he did his Wayne Goddard metalurgical quickies on this here piece o' steel. Well, Joe has worked up an awesome differential hardening to this piece allowing a softer spine, and a harder edge, really super quality to have in a 5" sliver of steel where there will be twisting torque on the knife.

Point is, having control over the heat treatment of the knife would be a superior to what many stainless steels can yeild, in specific areas, which may or may not matter to the end user, at all.

3. Distal taper, done well, will make any knifeblade better balanced, with the spine thickness of the blade tapering towards the tip. I have seen amazing things done with steel forging re:distal taper. It makes such a huge difference, and not many stock removers can grind in tapers that way that is as quick, effecient or evenly proportioned.

The areas that forging carbon steel really shines in, using knives, can be unfortunate, because there are also so many of them that are costly(relatively), and are so beautiful that you could never bring yourself to use them. Unless your name was Cliff or Hans(sorry, semi-private joke)

I have this Burt Foster Bowie that looks really similar to this one:

http://www.burtfoster.com/available/available_02a_popup.htm

IF you could get a hamon (hardening line) on a piece of stainless steel, and have the distil taper balance the knife visually and physically, there might be little superiority, but in truth, the current crop of flavor-of-the months supersteels were designed for stock removal guys.

Bruce Bump recently forged Keith Montgomery an S30V chute knife:http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59640&d=1157350469.

Maybe Bruce will come in and offer some insight into his feelings about forging this knife, and what was gained or lost?

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Larrin]

the CPM steels are a curious lot. Is the chemical mix of the steel really all that "modern" or just the method of getting it into a usable bar form? Isn't it "sintered" from powder? Ed Fowler among others wouold argue that when you forge a lot, you are refining and even correcting what ever "bad" was done to the steel when it was rolled.....or "forged" as someone said earlier. Also, consider this. We know that grinding, forging, etc can cause a lot of stress on the steel and that the thermal cycling process relives that stress. But by creating and relieving those stresses, have you possibly "altered" something like a CPM steel from its original "ideal" condition?

P.S. I don't know about other smiths, but i would not use a 1930's Ford truck spring if i was looking for optimum performance and lieklihood of success. I think people use steel like that because it is either all they have or because the idea sounds cool. Just my opinion.

Crucible has patents one all of their CPM steels, they are new compositions designed specifically for the CPM process, which is a "modern process."

You can't "fix" steel through forging, especially since we're dealing with a couple pound bar of steel that started out as a several metric ton billet. If you start with crap steel, you end up with crap steel. There's no way you're going to forge the impurity out.

 

[jdm61]

No one really knows if the Bart Moore bowie was made by James Black, and though there is some anecdotal evidence to support that it was owned by Bowie, there is no definitive proof. Some bowie knife historians believe it was made at a much later time.

I don't know how much influence James Black would have had on later era bladesmiths, since to this day there is a debate as to whether Black ever even made a knife, and there are no knives that can be definitively linked to him. Many of the historians that believe Black did make knives, think that he was the maker of Bowie No.1 and a few other knives that look to have been made by the same bladesmith. Bowie No.1 and its brethren do not seem to have been much of an influence on bladesmiths that came along later.

So as not to send this thread of on another tangent, I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Robert Wuhl has a special that he did for HBO where he is lecturing a group of college students. One of the topics was "When the legend becomes fact. print the legend". His best example was Paul Revere. I think that applies to James Black. Regardless of how many knives he made and what style, the "legend' has influenced many smiths because of his connection with Jim Bowie.

 

[Larrin]

Karl,I couldnt disagree more with this.Many of the folders in my collection are stock removal of someone elses damascus.Some of,in my opinion,the finest makers always tell me they seek out the best materials for thier knives,wether it be handle material or blade steel.By virtue of these fine makers seeking out,and often waiting for it to become available,these forgers steel being ground by others is not a disgrace,but a testament to the amount of work and skill that they put into thier craft.Forgers such as Jerry Rados,Mike Norris,Devin Thomas,George Werth..and that's just to name a few, are well sought out to supply material by thier peers in the industry.I hardly find that a disgrace to thier hard work and talent.I'm sure if asked none of the above mentioned would feel disgraced that not only other makers,but collectors as well,find that adding thier product to a knife not only adds value,but also desirability.Just as the use of other makers(Lovelss,Fowler,Moran,etc...) designs does not disgrace either maker,but shows a level of respect and again,a testament to the work the original put into making it what it is.

Rob Lindquist

Not to mention most forgers actually grind their blades after making the damascus so not to ruin the pattern.

 

[jdm61]

Crucible has patents one all of their CPM steels, they are new compositions designed specifically for the CPM process, which is a "modern process."

You can't "fix" steel through forging, especially since we're dealing with a couple pound bar of steel that started out as a several metric ton billet. If you start with crap steel, you end up with crap steel. There's no way you're going to forge the impurity out.

I was not referring to impurities. But alas......can't you "fix" grain gowth, etc?

 

[jdm61]

Not to mention most forgers actually grind their blades after making the damascus so not to ruin the pattern.

Ummmm.....when you buy a complicated pattern such as multi bar twist or one of the mosiacs from Ed Caffrey, he recommends that you let him forge your blade to shape so as not to mess up the pattern. Specifially, so that the pattern follows the countour of the blade like is designed to do.

 

[jdm61]

Crucible has patents one all of their CPM steels, they are new compositions designed specifically for the CPM process, which is a "modern process."

You can't "fix" steel through forging, especially since we're dealing with a couple pound bar of steel that started out as a several metric ton billet. If you start with crap steel, you end up with crap steel. There's no way you're going to forge the impurity out.

Yes, but is there anything NEW as far as basic chemical ingredients in the steel? patents can be awarded for "improvements" and new production methods....it doesn't have to be a totally new and unique product.

 

[Larrin]

Ummmm.....when you buy a complicated pattern such as multi bar twist or one of the mosiacs from Ed Caffrey, he recommends that you let him forge your blade to shape so as not to mess up the pattern. Specifially, so that the pattern follows the counour of the blade like is designed to do.

But even if they forge to shape they don't forge the bevels. They generally only do for random pattern.

 

[jdm61]

But even if they forge to shape they don't forge the bevels. They generally only do for random pattern.

Are you SURE? Let's get some input from smiths who forge their own damascus. The most extreme argument made agasinst stock removal is that you "cut across the natural grain pattern". Maybe the most extreme argument against forging is that all of this talk about grain, etc, is malarky and that by forging, you. as a rank amateur in the field of metallurgy, mess up steel that was produced to be as good as possible for it's intended purpose. Makes for a fun time on the forums, don't it?
Personally, i like the process of forging. I really dig what i can do with a hammer. I hate grinding becuase that is where 90% of my screw ups happen. But that's just me.

 

[Joss]

It all depends on the pattern you want to achieve. Some patterns are meant to be forged to shape, others can be either.

I have long wanted an integral with deep hollow grinds carved out of a straight laminate bar. I think it yields great patterns.

 

[RAN]

I have Knives from both Schools I enjoy them equally ..love my Lovett's and Johnsons..and just ordered a Hartsfield

I love my Fisks ,Deans, Dunns and Newtons and just ordered a Burke

I found this Ed Fowler quote applicable

"Forging gives me the Freedom to make the best knives I can make.."

though I'm sure the word "Forging" could easily be replaced by "Stock removal"
somehow that doesnt roll off the tongue quite as nicely...