Functional knives?

Hello Bailey: Welcome to the discussion. Text book annealing will erase the effects of forging on grain size. With 52100 and knife blades, I have found that I do not have to anneal above 800f to achieve all the benefits necessary. Years ago we did the textbook anneal on some 52100 blades, 1880 degrees (as I remember)for a couple of hours and dropped the temp so many degrees every hour etc. The blades lost most of the performace qualities of control blades with no discernable benefit. Essentially they were back to zero.

You brought up a very good point.
 
Originally posted by Ed Fowler
Steven Roose: Sorry I did not answer you question. The 14 grain size we have achieved exceeds what once was the theoritical limit in grain size refinement in 52100 steel. New steel, is a significant contribution. The and finer is finer than we can currently measure. Who knows where the limit is? That is why the experiment with the 10 inch round. There are other variables we can play with. This is the fun stuff!
Click to expand...

So, the limit hasn't been found yet? Crazy!

BTW, how is the grain size measured?
 
Steven Roos: That is Rex's job, but the way I understand he has a microscope with brackets,it is the fit of the grain between the brackets. He also has another way that is more technical stuff, I have not seen it done, just hear and read his results. Sorry.
 
The annealing temperature I use is actually subcritical temperature anealing. It is 1350f. This does not allow grain growth like the "text book" anneal of 1880f for two hours(?) would produce. I would imagine you did loose the performance characteristics of these blades as the grain structure would be very poor.

I didn't think 800f would be a high enough temperature to be an annealing step, but more of a stress relief or tempering cycle. Is the steel acive enough at 800f to allow for grain refinement?
 
Bailey: I call it a bladesmiths anneal, any term so we know what we are talking about. I started using the 1350f, then wondered why and started dropping the temp until I got to 800, with no adverse effect manifest on test blades. There is no grain refinement at this stage, (as far as I know)the table was set in the forging, forging quenches,normalizing, then again in the future hardening stages. Grain begins grow at 1750f (52100), anything lower is probably OK. I believe I could lower the temp. for the 'bladesmith's' anneal lower still, but don't have the time to destroy blades to see if anything bad happens.
 
This thread has encouraged very lively discussion about some physical characteristics of blade geometry, forging theory and practice. As far as I know this is the first written discussion to take place to this extent on these issues. Issues like this one need to be discussed, all too often aspects of design are accepted and no questions asked. It does not matter what path the individual blade smith takes, as long as each decision he makes is based upon a comprehensive understanding of the variables involved. The winners will be both the art and the functional knife, the folks who make them and the clients who purchase them. WE all win through underatanding.

There is still plenty of room for more thoughts.
 
OK, here's my attempt to get this thing going again.
I would still like to know why it is a good thing to forge to within 95% of a finished blade. Back in the 1800's and earlier it was necessary to conserve as many resources as possible, so forging closely to shape was probably essential most of the time. It's the 21st century now, what's the benefit? Does it increase the collectibility of the piece? Based on my experiences it's not saving any time, it's been a lot more time consuming for me to forge a blade at the proper temperatures as opposed to stock removal. Forging to me is a way to get something extra out of the steel in the way of performance. Forging that closely to shape seems to have too many possibilities for problems. Maybe it's just that smith's way of showing off his or her talent, but is it really necessary?

Here are some more areas of functionality that have either barely been mentioned or not at all. Maybe we can get this conversation going again. I have really enjoyed this thread so far, I hate to see it end with so many more aspects to discuss.

Handle ergonomics - Does the handle cause blisters or hot spots during extended use?
Lanyard or thong - When is one appropriate, if at all?
Handle material - What are some of the best materials for grip-ability wet or dry?
Checkering -vs- smooth -vs- natural handle finishes - Seems like checkering will just cause blisters under extended use, same with some natural materials.
Durability of the handle material - Shrinkage and shock resistance.
Balance points depending on intended use - Just where to set the balance point for camp knives, fighting knives, hunters, etc.
Sheath design - Does it prevent accidental loss and easy access? Does it protect the person wearing it?
Sheath material - How does it hold up? How does it affect the finish of the knife? Are some materials detrimental to the knife?
Ease of sharpening - Speaks for itself.
Stainless -vs- carbon steel. - Huge can of worms, do we want to go there?
Hollow -vs- flat -vs- convex -vs- sabre grinds - Each has it's merits and weaknesses.

I'm sure there are more aspects that I have not mentioned...

Rick
 
A couple of other functional aspects of knives that I have always wondered about the value of are thumb ramps and saw blades. Now, I can see that a thumb ramp could help in giving more security during cutting, but I have found no need for this feature. Can somebody tell me what good a saw on the back of a blade is? I tried to use one once and I would swear that I could have chewed through the branch faster.
 
As with anything a particular maker does on his/her blade. I think it may turn out to be a case of - "COS THAT'S WHAT I DO AND THAT MAKES ME HAPPY..." I'm not sure but perhaps this may have a bit to do with folks who forge 99% to shape, becuase they can, and those who forge to shape and do 50% stock removal because they feel or reason that they must... They all have their rationale for their different means for achieving pretty much the same result.

Thumb ramps. Yup, some like it, some don't. It depends I guess on how one hold a knife. A lot of grips feature a bit of a sabre grip with the thumb braced agaist the spine of the handle. Some hold it like a hammer and many martial artists might argue that that grip is the most secure... Its maybe a preference issue again. Often, a ramp may be put in because it serves the profile of the knife better. When a knife has a thumb ramp, I tend to use it. If it doesn't have one, I seem to never use it.

Sawbacks. Never liked them. They hang up on things, chew up the sheath and aren't as practical as a good field saw / bone saw. I think they came about from the survival knife, Rambo genre and a part of it IMHO is about a knife that looks mean. Serrations are one thing but actual sawteeth are a real hazard on most knives.

I wouldn't chew any tree I was trying to fell ;) :D but I'd bet your nice bowie would (should) chop pretty darn well to make mince of small trees. Just a few 2 cent pieces. Jason.
 
I forge close to shape to do the ABS proud and PRESERVE THE ART OF THE FORGED BLADE.

That brings me into something much, much bigger than I am...and I'm very proud of that.

Nick

*edited to add* This is, of course, not the only reason...but it's one of them, and to me it's a damn good one. There are many, many lost arts that have gone by the way-side to make room for faster and easier ways...so I'm glad to be able to help keep one going.
 
I agree with Nick. Forging close to shape is very difficult. The closer to shape, the more difficult. If all a maker is gonna do is just forge halfway there, and then grind away huge portions of steel, then why bother forging at all?

Brett
 
Nick, I couldn't agree with you more in regards to preserving a lost art. I will hopefully have my Journeyman's stamp some day. I want to do the ABS proud as well. More importantly, I want to do myself proud.

Jason, I also agree with you..."COS THAT'S WHAT I DO AND THE MAKES ME HAPPY". Another justified reason.

Brett, Yes, it is more difficult to forge that closely to shape. It's more difficult to forge in a proper manner than to stock remove, period. I will be experimenting in regard to your comment "If all a maker is gonna do is just forge halfway there, and then grind away huge portions of steel, then why bother forging at all?" Please read below. I think it will be very enlightening to say the least (at least for me).

Please understand that I am not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers with these questions and comments. I'm very new to forging and I want to understand not only the "hows" but also the "whys" of this art-form. This thread is about functionality of knives. I think we can all agree that a properly forged blade will exhibit a level of performance that adds to the functionality of a knife as opposed to a poorly forged blade. Does forging that closely to the final shape add anything to functionality or performance? Again, I'm new to this and just trying to understand.

The ABS leaves the forging part up to each of us to do as we will, but in the end it's the blades performance and our ability to make them look pretty (fit and finish)that earns the stamp. Has anyone ever done side by side comparisons of two knives forged from the same piece of steel, one forged 95% to shape and one forged to a much lesser degree to see if there is a performance difference (all HT etc. being equal for both knives)? Maybe this can be my first original test that I experiment with. I will forge a blade to 95% of it's final shape and I will use the forged knife as a pattern for a knife forged to a much lesser degree and I will make a completely stock removed blade of the same pattern. All HT will be identical. HMMM, sounds fun and interesting.

Personally, I am looking to find that perfect balance of performance, function, fit and finish. I want my knives to out perform all of the legendary knives of history. I have a long road ahead of me and I may never reach it's end. But the journey will be fun and interesting.

Thank you all for your replies and please don't take exception to any of my comments or questions. I do not mean for them to offend anyone. I'm just searching for knowledge.

Rick
 
Rick

Looks like your on to the no nonsence test that has proven to a bunch of the rest of us what realy is the best way. Lots of luck.

Let us know how it turned out.

:)
 
Hey all,

Good posts. I think Jason got it right when he wrote "COS THAT'S WHAT I DO AND THAT MAKES ME HAPPY...". Not every maker is searching for the same Holy Grail, and even amongst those that are, they're going to have differing opinions on more subtle aspects of knifemaking.

Brett,

I don't know if you forge from bar stock that's close to the dimensions of your finished blade. Maybe if you could imagine forging a blade from a piece of steel the size of a sledgehammer head, then you might realize how it's possible to get the benefits of forging without having to forge 95% to shape.

-Jose
 
Yes, it is each to his own. A maker should test and test so that he knows what he is doing with the steels he is working with and test more so that can keep up checking out new steels or methods. There is no perfect method or knife. There are trade offs with everything. Settle on what trade offs you want to give up and what you want to keep and be up front with your clients.
when you apply for your JS or MS ratings you may be required to forge a blade to shape. That is at the discretion of of testing master.
jf
 
What say we clear the air about forging ratios. Here is the formula:

Start Size
__________________ X 100 = reduction ratio

Finish Size

The size is in area, A 3 inch round would be
3" X 3.14 = area of start size.

Finish size would be the area of a triangle.
divide the two out x 100 and you have an extimate of the reduction ratio.

If we have any mathmeticions in the readers, I would appreciate it if you figure the reduction ratio resulting from forging a 1/4 X 1" bar to a blade, then compare that to a similar size blade forged from round stock.

This places forged to shape in an emperical light. We will be comparing exact ratios and bring scientific definitions to forged to shape.
 
Why would I want to forge from stock the size of a sledge hammer?? Is the steel higher quality? Is the grain inherently finer? I don't imagine it is. So instead, I choose barstock.

Now if a particular steel is only available in the monstrous sizes, then yes, I would go out and purchase a press or hammer and forge it into usable barstock. But I will not stop there, I will continue to forge to whatever shape I desire in order to keep the grain flow as much as possible. This also helps preserve the craft.

If I want a drop point, I forge it. Spear point, I forge it. Clip point, I forge it. Whatever I choose, I control it with my hammer. If I enjoyed grinding, I would simply buy a stick of ATS34 or whatever, a bunch of belts, and give it hell.

Forging to shape is difficult and I am getting better, but am nowhere near guys like Tai Goo, Don Fogg, and others who have even posted here. Whether or not it actually benefits the performance will always be debated. I do and as Bailey pointed out, it's been proven. Most folks believe what they do for reasons and cannot be swayed. That's fine, I am probably as guilty as any. I have seen knives, made from the same barstock that I use, perform beyond most anyones expectations. So I feel pretty good about the steels ability.

Ultimately it all lies within the maker. Are you satisfied? If so, keep it up. Just stay ahead of the hype and myths or you will get caught up in it. Test for yourself, don't just take someones word as gospel. They could be wrong.

Jeez I am long winded, Brett
 
Originally posted by Ed Fowler
I would appreciate it if you figure the reduction ratio resulting from forging a 1/4 X 1" bar to a blade, then compare that to a similar size blade forged from round stock.
Click to expand...

When you start with a 1/4 X 1" bar and end up with a blade that is close enough to a flat grind and averages 1" wide, the final size is half of the start size so using your formula you got 200% reduction. This value is very approximative, it depends on the shape of the blade after forging and how convex it is. If you have that, it can be calculated with precision.
If you start with a 3" round to make the same blade, the start area is 7 square inch and you and up with .125 square inch, so using your formula you get 5600% reduction ...
If you make the same blade (no matter what profile and how convex) from the 1/4 X 1" bar or the 3" round, the reduction ratio will be 28 times bigger for the 3" round.
 
Brett,

You wrote, "I agree with Nick. Forging close to shape is very difficult. The closer to shape, the more difficult. If all a maker is gonna do is just forge halfway there, and then grind away huge portions of steel, then why bother forging at all? "

I could be wrong but I am under the impression that the main reason to forge a blade is for the physical benefits that can be gained from the steel. Forging is a craft and an artform that I highly admire. It takes a great deal of skill to be able to forge a blade to shape, but do you lose the benefits of forging the steel if a blade is not forged as close to the final shape as possible?

I can see how that might be the case if you're starting out with a piece of steel already close to the shape of your blade. Then you wouldn't have as much time to manipulate the steel before you're too close to the final shape of the blade.

What's important to me is the smith's ability to precisely control the properties of the steel he's working with. His knowledge of edge geometry will play a crucial role in the performance of his blade, but wether he shapes the blade with a grinder, or a hammer, makes no difference.

Maybe it's specific heat treating methods that make the difference in how close to shape a blade needs to be forged. Do clay-coated, water quenched blades need to be forged more closely to shape to maintain a high degree of control when hardening the blade? As I understand it, the entire blade is heated to the same temperature and the thickness of the clay on different parts of the blade will determine the rate the steel cools and hardens. In that case I can see how having the blade too thick could prevent the steel from being fully hardened.

-Jose
 
but do you lose the benefits of forging the steel if a blade is not forged as close to the final shape as possible?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes, but there are too many variables to ever get an answer that is agreed upon.

I can see how that might be the case if you're starting out with a piece of steel already close to the shape of your blade. Then you wouldn't have as much time to manipulate the steel before you're too close to the final shape of the blade.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but the steel that I buy looks nowhere near the rough forged blade that I finish with. The only spot on the blade that hasn't been hammered on is the ricasso (hopefully).

but wether he shapes the blade with a grinder, or a hammer, makes no difference.
Click to expand...

It is the difference between being a bladesmith and a stock remover.

I don't want my posts to read in a manner in which it appears I am bashing stock removal knives. I am not. Quality knives can be made by using both methods. My opinion is that if you call yourself a bladesmith, then forge as close to shape as your skill will allow you to.

Just for curiosities sake Jose, do you forge, stock remove, or both?

Regards, Brett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top