Importance of Hardness of Steel

D

David Berkowitz

Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
4
I hope I posted this in the correct category. If not, please advise and I will post it elsewhere.
I have Sebenzas 21 & 25, both with hardness ratings of 59-60 RC. I use them for EDC and use them a lot. I'm extremely happy with the blade performance, specifically edge retention. Mostly they just need a touch up with the ceramic. I have not "sharpened" them, so I can't say how hard it will be, but I don't mind the effort to get the result.
I am now in the market for a large fixed blade. I really can't see myself using the knife for survival, other than possible urban survival. Actual use is probably bragging, display and some camping and hiking.
The Green Beret and Pacific blades are only hardened to 55-57 RC. The Nyala steps up to 58-59. The size and shape of the Pacific is about right; the GB a little too large and the Nyala a bit small. But I am concerned about the hardness or softness of the steel.
What do I gain or give up by going with the softer steel? Why aren't the fixed blade knives made to the same hardness as the folders, since they work so well?
Thank you in advance.
 
Mid 50s for a fixed blade makes the steel tougher (less likely to break) and easier to sharpen in the field. If you are proficient with a strop a steel that is "softer" will be brought back much more easily.
In a folder, harder is usually better because most of your use will be simple slicing and not stress the blade:)
As for personal experience with CRK mid 50s heat treat, I have and frequently use a Sable and the knife performs well.
 
^ that summarizes it nicely.

Just member harder, bigger, faster, thicker, whatever-er is not always better. Generally speaking people use a fixed blade differently than a folder.

The idea of asking a folder to do things someone might ask of a fixed blade is a relatively new concept...and it has perhaps led to confusion for some who would like to believe that they can buy a single knife that will "do it all". Simply put, this is flawed fantasy.

There is a reason craftsmen have more than one wrench, screwdriver, hammer, etc. Knives are exactly the same (once you get to a certain level of use and understanding). Chefs serve as a good example...generally they have/use more than one knife.

Depending on what you will be asking of the knife, and how you intend to perform the tasks, softer may be superior.

Hardness of the steel if very important. But harder is NOT better (they *could* produce Sebenzas at much higher hardness, and they would be a fragile as a result). The RIGHT hardness for the use is what you are after.
 
There is an optimum hardness for steel that will give you the best general performance possible*

This relates to edge retention, toughness, etc...

The only time you would want to deviate from that would be if one of those factors would be more preferable over another for a specific application. However, improving one part of a steels performance usually comes at the cost of another part.

Example, if you where to harden S35Vn to 65HRC you should see a huge improvement in edge retention, however it would most likely be much more brittle and prone to chipping.

As for "sharpen ability" I don't put much stock in that being an important factor in how hard you should make a steel. If you can sharpen, you can sharpen....

I find 59-60HRC perfect for S35Vn.

If I could be really greedy, I would prefer 60-61.
 
While I agree, I believe 'sharpen-ability' (or however you spell-type it) refers to the ease and speed one can sharpen a blade in the field. Yes, I know how to sharpen, and have worked on steels in the 65 Rc range and slightly higher....but these would take a lot more time to sharpen/repair in the field where I have limited resources (mini-hones at best), therefore, some prefer a softer blade that can be manipulated easily/quickly in the field.

As an example. I went on a fishing trip where two knives were along for filleting the catch. One was soft carbon steel and the other was much harder stainless. Nearly constant contact with bone was degrading the edges on both knives quickly. The harder knife would get through a fish before significant edge loss had us wanting a sharper knife, while the softer would only fillet one side of a fish before needing a touch up. Harder is better? Well, a few strops on the board we were processing on brought the edge back nicely on the softer blade, but it did little for the harder blade, and after a few days no one would even bother with it anymore.

So, the softer steel had a superior "sharpen-ability" given no one brought appropriate hones, and we would all rather do other things than work on a fillet knife even if we had hones, but rest assured, we were all capable of doing so, we just had other priorities;)
 
Thanks all for your input. I'm getting an education, and being new at this, I need it. From what I am reading, the amount of hardness a manufacturer puts into a blade is based on it's intended use and the type of steel used. The ideal for S35VN is 59-60, offering a good combination of durability and edge retention. I can see that in my Sebenzas.
As stated above, I am considering the purchase of The Pacific. It is made out of S35VN but is only hardened to 55-57. This gives it a potential softening of 5 points. That seems like a lot in terms of percentage down, but it might not mean anything in the real world. So with this softer approach, what characteristics should I expect? In what performance areas will it excel and where will it be deficient?
If the ideal for this steel is 59-60, why isn't it being used?
If I am missing something here, I don't mind your telling me. As I said, I'm new and I have to start someplace.
 
I would not call 55-57 RHC soft.
Optimum hardness depends on the intended use (fixed blade vs folder).
Ernie1980 made a nice summary.
Probably you will find more (detailed) info on the general forums.
 
HRC hardness of steel is like a cc of car engine. Its definitely an importance technical number but wouldn't tell every thing.
 
Look at it this way: What's the hardness of the hardest thing you intend to cut? Even hard wood is a lot softer than any steel. If the thing you cut has an equivalent hardness of, say, 30, what does it matter if the blade is 55 or 60? (Just an example for the sake of the argument - I do not know what the Rockwell equivalent hardness of some specific wood might be.) Sure, the softer steel may need touching up a bit sooner, but so what? The basic performance is plenty good enough.
 
Thanks for the input. Guess I will check out more on the general forums.
A question still remains as to if the Pacific fixed blade at 55-57 would be better if it was hardened more, similar to the Nyala, which is also a fixed blade. I'm certain that CRK would say no, otherwise they would have made it harder.
Thank you again.
 
You gain nothing and lose a lot.

I have and use Chris Reeve fixed blades and overall the Professional Soldier is my favourite.

As you said, both the GB and the Pacific are "softer", but in my mind it's not a problem of hardness, but of optimization.

S30v & S35Vn should be harder than 55-57 rc. I dont mind if they're "easier to sharpen" because in reality you can sharpen any steel anywhere with a sharpening stone.

Indeed, they would be better if they were harder, because there's a very noticeable blunting of the fine edge when hacking through wood at the current hardness. As a survival knife, I dont recommend either (GB or Pacific), although both could work fine I guess, they're just not optimal. There are just many other better choices, even on Chris Reeve's catalog.

The Green Beret is too straight and maybe uncomfortable for long intrincate use, and the Pacific has a very brittle tip by design. Bear in mind both are military knives, and militarymen don't really use their knives as purely outdoors tools but as light use combined with a little prying and maybe as a weapon. Both the GB and the Pacific are excellent weapons, and both cut extremely good.

I find the handle on the Green Beret uncomfortable unless you have big hands, because of the finger notches, and I consider the Pacific to be the ultimate Chris Reeve knife, just because it's such a good design. So good it feels lighter than other lighter knives. I just wish it had less handle material and more blade.

If you're fixed on a Chris Reeve for survival get the Impofu or the Nyala, both better at outdoors tasks. If not I recommend buying something else or waiting until Chris Reeve comes out with the new outdoors knife.

For display both the Green Beret and the Pacific are excellent, but I would choose the Pacific on the basis that it's rarer and better overall for use in my oppinion. It's just a joy of a knife.

Now, to end, if you're seriously planning on using the knife for hiking, I strongly recommend the Professional Soldier. It's the perfect alternative to a folding knife and all you need. I've climbed countless mountains with the Professional Soldier on my shoulder.
 
DPC said:
You gain nothing and lose a lot.

I have and use Chris Reeve fixed blades and overall the Professional Soldier is my favourite.

As you said, both the GB and the Pacific are "softer", but in my mind it's not a problem of hardness, but of optimization.

S30v & S35Vn should be harder than 55-57 rc. I dont mind if they're "easier to sharpen" because in reality you can sharpen any steel anywhere with a sharpening stone.

Indeed, they would be better if they were harder, because there's a very noticeable blunting of the fine edge when hacking through wood at the current hardness. As a survival knife, I dont recommend either (GB or Pacific), although both could work fine I guess, they're just not optimal. There are just many other better choices, even on Chris Reeve's catalog.

The Green Beret is too straight and maybe uncomfortable for long intrincate use, and the Pacific has a very brittle tip by design. Bear in mind both are military knives, and militarymen don't really use their knives as purely outdoors tools but as light use combined with a little prying and maybe as a weapon. Both the GB and the Pacific are excellent weapons, and both cut extremely good.

I find the handle on the Green Beret uncomfortable unless you have big hands, because of the finger notches, and I consider the Pacific to be the ultimate Chris Reeve knife, just because it's such a good design. So good it feels lighter than other lighter knives. I just wish it had less handle material and more blade.

If you're fixed on a Chris Reeve for survival get the Impofu or the Nyala, both better at outdoors tasks. If not I recommend buying something else or waiting until Chris Reeve comes out with the new outdoors knife.

For display both the Green Beret and the Pacific are excellent, but I would choose the Pacific on the basis that it's rarer and better overall for use in my oppinion. It's just a joy of a knife.

Now, to end, if you're seriously planning on using the knife for hiking, I strongly recommend the Professional Soldier. It's the perfect alternative to a folding knife and all you need. I've climbed countless mountains with the Professional Soldier on my shoulder.
Click to expand...

Very helpful overall view of the fixed CRKs. I have been thinking a lot about what my first fixed blade from CRK will be. Your assessment of them and and their respective RC ratings is appreciated. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top