Hows Bucks 420 HC

[Cliff Stamp]

I went to his website except to mention that he uses it.

Email him and see if he uses it only for the reasons you describe.

But the discussion wasn't about Phil Wilson, it was about Buck and their 420hc.

You generalized to the steel, and the steel is the same between Buck and Wilson. If it is worthless for Buck it would be for Wilson and the reverse is true as well obviously. There are also a lot of other stainless steels (and even tool steels) of the same general class - not optimally hard or wear resistant but tougher, more ductile and with a finer carbide structure. Now there will be a difference in the heat treatment, between Buck/Wilson, yes, but it would be hard to argue Buck is so incompetent in that regard given the massive number of people who use Bos.

Furthermore even Buck admits they went to the steel not for any customer based performance related issues but for ease of manufacture. You can try to ignore that fact but that's why Buck uses 420hc.

No one is ignoring it. You are ignoring the fact that this isn't unique to 420HC. When S30V first came out it was clear that this was to allow knifemakers to make knives easier, not that it actually made better knives than S90V. S30V was just cheaper, easier to grind and less demanding to heat treat. Similar now with the promotion of CPM-154CM, it allows easier grindability than S30V and isn't as expensive, not that it actually makes better knives. Note how many people who forge knives choose steels and promote them strongly due to being "forgivable" in forging/hardening.

If I were inclined to make a tool like a knife, designed for say, Cutting stuff? 420hc would be the least desirable option?

That would depend on what you were cutting and how. Just like for some knives L6 is a much better knife than M2 and for some other knives it reverses.

I am criticizing 420hc solely on it's merits. It is inferior as a cutlery steel. It fails to meet the reasonable minimum performance requirements of what is expected from a knife. Edge holding is paramount among those requirements.

Edge holding isn't so trivial an aspect to allow such a statement. 420HC doesn't have inferior edge holding to ATS-34 for example. It does for some cutting but not for others. It is softer and less wear resistant than ATS-34, but also isn't as prone to carbide tear out at fine angles, it is much more ductile, corrosion resistant and significantly tougher.

-Cliff

 

[tirod3]

As for the riveted Bucks being hard to diassemble, the blade is removable. It's reassembling it that can be challenging the first time.

It makes you wonder why you have to take it apart further - spray cans and cotton swabs will handle it, especially if you grew up cleaning pinned and riveted knives from the old school, like SAK's.

 

[Lemon328i]

As for the riveted Bucks being hard to diassemble, the blade is removable. It's reassembling it that can be challenging the first time.

It makes you wonder why you have to take it apart further - spray cans and cotton swabs will handle it, especially if you grew up cleaning pinned and riveted knives from the old school, like SAK's.

While that is certainly true, it is a pain to get the bronze bushings back into the correct orientation for the pivot when they are greased (there is a specific orientation that have to be in) It is also harder to scrub the liners should they develop rust. Despite that the 889 and other riveted Buck/Striders are still excellent buys in any of the steels that are offered. What matters is what price one is willing to pay.

 

[Vivi]

Yes, 420hc doesn't hold an edge as long as others, but is it really that big of a deal to make 2-4 swipes on a hard piece of wood to get that edge back? I can use my Bucks all day and still have a shaving edge at the end, it's not worthless.

 

[HoB]

That's lame, the ice especially. I don't think that's the expected performance however. Note 420HC is very close to 12C27m, a well respected scandinavian stainless steel.

-Cliff

Yes, I agree, it was an older knife that I don't use for much other than to make "ice cubes", so it wasn't much of a loss but I was very surprised. However, The tip broke off right were the chip in the edge was, that I didn't bother to fix (as I said, not my most loved knife). The notch probably helped it along, still, pretty lame. I don't know whether this is expected performance, but I don't think so either. The knife was not quite 7 years old and very little used.

 

[flava]

I have a Buck in 420HC and it takes a decent edge. I'd choose it over no-name 440 any time. It is not a high end steel, but it isn't bad either.

 

[Pack Rat]

Yes, I agree, it was an older knife that I don't use for much other than to make "ice cubes", so it wasn't much of a loss but I was very surprised. However, The tip broke off right were the chip in the edge was, that I didn't bother to fix (as I said, not my most loved knife). The notch probably helped it along, still, pretty lame. I don't know whether this is expected performance, but I don't think so either. The knife was not quite 7 years old and very little used.

Send that knife to Buck and they will replace the blade for the cost of your postage, which should be less than $5.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ice is pretty soft, you can chew it up with your teeth. I would be concerned with something like a fillet knife due to the lack of stiffness, but on anything else it isn't a concern. Lots of defects floating around though which is why it would be nice to have more definate performance statements from manufacturers so users could know what is defective and what is just to be expected.

I can use my Bucks all day and still have a shaving edge at the end, it's not worthless.

Most extreme statements tend to be worthless. There are lots of knives made out of steels far softer and less abrasion resistant than 420HC. Most knives used by natives are usually really low grade, often they are used as cooled meaning pearlite which is much softer than martensite. They are also often ground right out of spring tempered stock with no hardening.

Often the more inexpensive knives have problematic edges which lead to really premature blunting and even damage. In general you should sharpen a knife fully a few times before juding the performance. This tends to make a massive difference on the cheaper blades as the very edges are often hollow ground which leaves them very weak.

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

There are lots of knives made out of steels far softer and less abrasion resistant than 420HC. Most knives used by natives are usually really low grade, often they are used as cooled meaning pearlite which is much softer than martensite. They are also often ground right out of spring tempered stock with no hardening.
-Cliff

Well said Cliff, sometimes I think folks forget that there is an awful lot of work being done around the world with steels that we wouldn't give a second glance, I have been fortunate to recieve knives from Africa that the steel is very soft, but these are thier EDC's and I would hazard a guess that they really use their knives more on any given day than most of us do.

A knife doesn't have to be the latest greatest super steel to work.

 

[Vivi]

A knife doesn't have to be the latest greatest super steel to work.

This seems to be a popular misconception here. Maybe not that people believe the steels won't work, but they refuse to work with them. SAKs are a good example, many people lambast their steel when really it's very fine stuff. It won't hold an edge like S30V, but it'll give you hell trying to even make rust appear on the blade, sharpens up quicker than 99% of steels I've used and can take impacts like batoning with strides. It's not being promoted as the newest thing, like ZDP, so people won't jump all over it. Great steel regardless of how many people ignore it. Id place it above Bucks 420hc for my usages, though the 420hc seems to bite into wood better when whittling.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

The blade on my 503 holds an edge very well. I am quite impressed with quality of the steel.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

This seems to be a popular misconception here. Maybe not that people believe the steels won't work, but they refuse to work with them.

A lot of people will follow popular opinion, much of the myths about steels come from people selling them who will vastly distort the performance difference and capabilities of the common production steels. The arguement is also not even self-consistent. You can't condemn 420HC as worthless without branding an awful lot of other steels used in very well respected knives with the same label. Are Jerry Fisk's personal carry knives at 52 HRC worthless - that even seems absurd, but if you applied the same arguement to it then that is the conclusion you have to reach.

-Cliff

 

[HoB]

Send that knife to Buck and they will replace the blade for the cost of your postage, which should be less than $5.

Thank you, a nice suggestion, but really not needed. I am not somebody, that needs to get a new knife just because he can. It's not a knife that I had hung my heart on, so I don't really need a replacement. I have no ill feelings towards Buck nor do I intended to besmear their name nor did I really associated it with a lack in quality of the brand. I have always respected the company, and that has nothing to do with the fact that I am not fond of the steel (my only complained with Buck is that they use 420HC so extensively). When it happened my only reaction was:"Oh look at that, I didn't think this would happen (precisely because I thought 420HC is relatively tough), oh well". I stay away from some Buck designs because they only come in 420HC even though otherwise I like the design, but then again, there is so much choice out there. When I say, I don't like 420HC it is always a comparative statement there is so much good steel for fairly little money, for example I think the steel in the Byrds is quite good. Rereading my second post, I see now how it comes across like a complaint. But really, I had no emotions invested in this, when the tip broke I was surpised and more curious than dismayed, it was a fairly inexpensive knife (number 470, I just looked it up) that had, I though, a great shape (and a horrible sheath), but the edge never performed well for me, even though I resharpened it several times (till I gave up on it), and until you brought it up, I never really associated the lack of performance with Buck. And I still lust after 172.

And in some respects I am a bit guilty of what Vivi said, after two disappointing experiences with 420HC I have really stopped trying it. Again, so much choice, that I am really not forced to take a third look. I am also sure that it is not really the steel but always the combination of steel and what you can do with it within a production line. I think just like S30V in some cases, the steel itself might be just fine, but it did seem at some point that S30V might not lend itself to large volume production. I have no trouble believing that with a careful heat treat one at a time you can make even 420HC into something that is quite different from what you commonly would buy clamshell packed in the store.

Cliff, I seem to remember that the 119 that you tested a couple of years ago didn't turn out to be all that tough either, IIRC?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I seem to remember that the 119 that you tested a couple of years ago didn't turn out to be all that tough either, IIRC?

Yes, I have seen much improved performance from AUS-8A in general, however that was a really well used second hand knife. Wilson't 420HC was a really different animal and more towards how 420HC should behave. Very easy to sharpen, minimal burr and gets sharp very easily and is very ductile.

-Cliff

 

[SGT]

Thanks to all.I was not expecting this big debate about Bucks 420HC,but it was great reading them all.I have learned alot from this forum in a short time.I can tell from reading the replys you guys are very passionate about your knives and their steel.Thanks again. SGT