forging better than stock removal? damascus?

Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
262
Question about forging vs. stock removal,. and how it relates to damascus. So (bare with me I'm learning) from what I can gather the purpose or principal behind forging a blade and how it's 'better' than stock removal is because the grain doesn't run out into the cutting edge ? I don't know if I'm wording that right.. but forging a blade will taper the grain with the knife's edge.. yea? What about Damascus steel, where the grain is flip flopped all over the place, and the layers themselves also run into the cutting edge? Is this a factor when making a knife from damascus without having an added core? I feel like in my head it could possibly be worst than stock removal.. but it's obviously not, so anyone care to give my head a shake and elaborate on what's going on there?

Or if I'm not making sense whatsoever.. lemme know! haha Thanks! :thumbup:
 
No, no, no, and no. Makes no difference except forging is more fun and allows you to make patternwelded steel in the first place. Move along, nothing to see here....

(you have no idea the can of worms you are opening, oh, the carnage)
 
This X10000 Makes no difference LOL
No, no, no, and no. Makes no difference except forging is more fun and allows you to make patternwelded steel in the first place. Move along, nothing to see here....

(you have no idea the can of worms you are opening, oh, the carnage)
 
^^^ True, true.

Forging is fun and fascinating. It offers some different possibilities for design. And, damascus is beautiful and it's fun to make.

Those are good reasons to forge... it's not an either/or though. Do whatever you want! If forging intrigues you, go for it! We'll help you learn. Either way, you'll be grinding a lot, and that can be learned here as well.
 
Ok,, I must have just read into a thread on the subject a little too deeply then. I just remember seeing a diagram someone had drawn up of a forged blades grain vs a stock removal. Seems like an awful lot of work if it makes no difference. Anyway,. Thanks for replies!
 
Ok,, I must have just read into a thread on the subject a little too deeply then. I just remember seeing a diagram someone had drawn up of a forged blades grain vs a stock removal. Seems like an awful lot of work if it makes no difference. Anyway,. Thanks for replies!

You are not alone. There is tons of BS out there about the superiority of forging for a knife blade. The truth is that it is mostly exaggerations, wives tales and repeated "wisdom" that is not true. This group of knife makers has looked at the facts vs the fiction and mostly agreed that it does not matter. I agree completely.

As for the "lot of work", it depends. It may be more efficient to just grind a blade out of barstock than to forge it out of larger stock in many cases but in other cases, forging is much more efficient. For example a full integral knife can be forged from much less steel and require much less grinding than a stock removal full integral that would have to start with a bar that was much larger that needed to have maybe 90 of the steel cut away.
 
Forging is still used in many industrial processes, often prior to machining. Why? Because it's often quicker and more efficient than the alternatives.
It can be a lot of work until you get good at it, though....
 
The primary advantage of forging is that it allows you to shape the raw material to the desired shape. With stock removal you have to start with a larger piece of raw material and reduce it to the desired shape. Grain size is not any different between the two unless you don't do the proper steps in HT. All forged blades need to be cycled to refine the grain and relieve stress as part of the HT. Many makers do the same cycling during HT for stock removal steel, because you really have no idea what the structure and grain are from the supplier.

In damascus there is a secondary issue. With plain patterns - random, twist, ladder, raindrop, etc.- forging will reduce the layer spacing, making the pattern finer as it approaches the edge. In stock reduction of the same patterns the space between the layers is exaggerated as it approaches the edge. I much prefer to forge in the basic bevels in plain damascus before doing the actual flat grinding of them.
On mosaic and some of the fancier patterns - feather and fancy composites - the pattern may be greatly distorted by forging. This is usually very bad and these types of damascus should be stock removal only.
 
As the guys above have pointed out, there has been a huge amount of discussion about the inherent superiority of either a forged or stock-removed blade over the other.

Without wishing to fan the flames, it's probably best to avoid ideas like "better" and "worse" and just think "different".

There seems to be a general consensus among those with an apparently (to my eye) unbiased view, that it makes little or no difference with Monosteels.

With Damascus though, Things are different. The aesthetic aspect of the pattern actually matters quite a lot and it is worth noting that different things can happen to the visual effect when grinding or forging.

In many cases, grinding a pattern-welded blade will make a nicer-looking knife than forging, by revealing the patterns at the "cut" surfaces. Twist patterns in particular tend to be much more attractive nearer the centre of the bar and a lot of grinding can be needed to get to the pretty bit.

It's not a clear-cut thing: you need to understand what is happening in the bar you have and process it in a way that gets the desired result.

I've heard it argued (by folk I respect) that alternating layers along the cutting edge can give a "toothy" cut as the softer layers wear faster and leave the harder layers raised. I've also heard a counter-argument (also by folk I respect) that carbon migration generally leaves the layers at pretty much the same hardness and that the toothiness doesn't seem to be the case in reality.

The sceptic in me points out the technical difficulty involved in measuring the hardness of the individual layers of a typical Damascus blade; I am on the fence and expect to remain there for some time.

The best advice is probably to do whatever most appeals to you, but gather all the information you can and cultivate a "question everything" attitude.
 
Thanks for the insight, I think my "question everything" attitude is the reason I find myself scratching my head at all the different theories and concepts out there haha

I didnt really mean grain size or grinding the bevels, sorry if I didnt word that properly. The diagram I had seen was only related to the actual direction of the grain.

This is what the diagram looked like that got me thinking, and really I was just wondering.. if it mattered.. how it would relate to damascus steel, but if it doesn't then that's great. Again, thanks for making things clear

 
Without wishing to fan the flames, it's probably best to avoid ideas like "better" and "worse" and just think "different".

:)

Another difference between forging and stock removal is the choices of steel you can easily work with. High-alloy steels require higher temperatures to become malleable and are much more difficult to move under the hammer, so you don't see a lot of forged stainless or powder-metal tool-steel blades. (the major exception is mass-produced stainless kitchen knives, which are forged with very large, powerful dies... usually not one man standing at an anvil with a hammer). So generally speaking, bladesmiths stick with relatively simple alloys. With stock removal it doesn't matter much; you can grind pretty much any type of steel you want. For instance, I grind knives out of everything from the simplest (1084) to some of the most complex (Elmax) steels. So I have more freedom in that regard. That's a trade-off to being limited to working with nice flat barstock that's at least as wide and thick as I want my finished blade to be; whereas a skilled smith can start with round bar or a sphere of simpler steel and shape it into a huge variety of shapes and sizes.

It can also be said that forging requires more skill to really do it right; it's not that a bladesmith is making the steel any better by hammering on it, but instead there are a lot of things that be done wrong to make the steel much worse. Over-heating, working it too cold, not paying attention to thermal cycling... all these things are very bad for the steel. A stock removal guy basically just grinds away the bits that don't look like a knife, and simply avoids all those potential problems.

All these factors work together... what size/shape stock you can start with, what type of steel lends itself best to one technique or the other, whether it's efficient to waste a large percentage of your material grinding away thick stock, and so forth. But as the others have said, "grain" and the final quality that can be achieved has very little to do with it (assuming the knifemaker knows what he's doing, of course).

This truth is, most knifemakers use both forging and stock removal (whether we realize it or not). New steel from the mill has been heated and rolled or extruded several times, and that's about as forged as it's ever going to get, in terms of "grain" and structure. And I don't know too many bladesmiths who don't own a grinder and use it to at least clean up their bevels and/or begin the finishing process.
 
This is what the diagram looked like that got me thinking, and really I was just wondering.. if it mattered.. how it would relate to damascus steel, but if it doesn't then that's great.

That's not an issue of grain, it's just a question of mushing different layers around or not, as Tim said. It's perhaps 98% aesthetic... any difference in performance would be so small as to be extremely difficult to even measure.

Do a little experiment... take two colors of clay or play-doh and stack them up in thin layers. Cut one at a bias and squish the other one to the same shape... that will sort of illustrate what I'm saying here...
 
I've got a large billet of damascus, approximately 1.5" x 3/4" x 12". I cut off two pieces 2" x 3/4" x 3/4" leaving plenty of the billet for next time. I forge each of these pieces out to a 5" blade. At this rate I can get probably 10 blades out of this billet. Stock removal only would probably yield only 4 blades. That's the reason I forge this highly expensive, precious metal instead of beginning with stock removal.
 
Thanks for the insight, I think my "question everything" attitude is the reason I find myself scratching my head at all the different theories and concepts out there haha

I didnt really mean grain size or grinding the bevels, sorry if I didnt word that properly. The diagram I had seen was only related to the actual direction of the grain.

This is what the diagram looked like that got me thinking, and really I was just wondering.. if it mattered.. how it would relate to damascus steel, but if it doesn't then that's great. Again, thanks for making things clear


This is what I was referring to. By forging the blade, you can compress the layers in such a way as they will flow around things, and down to the edge. In the two drawings, it is clear that the forged blade will be more pleasing to the eye.
 
:)
It can also be said that forging requires more skill to really do it right; it's not that a bladesmith is making the steel any better by hammering on it, but instead there are a lot of things that be done wrong to make the steel much worse. Over-heating, working it too cold, not paying attention to thermal cycling... all these things are very bad for the steel. A stock removal guy basically just grinds away the bits that don't look like a knife, and simply avoids all those potential problems.


That is 100% correct.
When I first started making knives I was forging in coal. I had an old black smith saying passed along to me:
"The most a black smith can ever hope for is to end up with as good a piece of steel as the one with which he started."
 
Some patterns lend themselves to be forged very close to final. Some do not. Here is a blade I made that was NOT forged very close.

F-Shunterfullyforgedtoshape_zpsad7adb4a.jpg


I did a v cut at the tip and forge welded it back together. This gives a more pleasing, less distorted pattern in this blade.

This blade was forge more closely to shape.

WPattern_Fighter1_zpsc701a239.jpg


You can see the layers distorting at the tip. It is pleasing on this knife with this pattern. It just depends on what you want your final outcome to be.
 
Thanks for the insight, I think my "question everything" attitude is the reason I find myself scratching my head at all the different theories and concepts out there haha

I didnt really mean grain size or grinding the bevels, sorry if I didnt word that properly. The diagram I had seen was only related to the actual direction of the grain.

This is what the diagram looked like that got me thinking, and really I was just wondering.. if it mattered.. how it would relate to damascus steel, but if it doesn't then that's great. Again, thanks for making things clear


What, no carnage?...:)

This is in fact true when one is using pre-industrial steel, such as wrought iron, bloomery steel, and to some extent, shear steel. These materials have a very pronounced grain and do benefit from being forged to shape. With modern steels, it makes no difference. With slaggy carborized wrought iron, it makes a huge difference....
 
Back
Top