Is crap stainless cheaper than carbon steel?

O

Omega Leather Works

Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,743
I got to thinking about carbon steel knives tonight and it occurred to me...

Why don't companies use carbon steel in place of cheap stainless more often? I wouldn't even consider a Taylor knife in mystery stainless, but I've gone out of my way to buy a Schrade in 1084.

Looking at reviews that people wrote about the knife that I bought many cited the fact that the also bought it because it was done in carbon.

I can't imagine that 440A or even 420J would be cheaper than say 1095, and the heat treat is more complex to boot.

I have a hard time believing that the general public would shun knives made in carbon steel over junk stainless. At least for fixed blade knives, which is mostly what I'm talking about, but even in folding traditionals I'll always take carbon over SS.
 
My guess is the average Jo Schmo wouldn't notice the better edge holding or ease of sharpening (since he probably doesn't sharpen it), but he would notice the orange rust spots from not taking care of it.
 
I'm just guessing, but it the stainless steel may be used because because it wont rust. If these companies used carbon steel they might have to oil them from the factory. And the product would not store as well either.
 
On the website of a large outdoors retailer, someone complained about how they bought an Opinel and it "rusted" (read: slight patina) on them after cutting a tomato.




They returned it as defective.
2095c354.gif






I'm guessing the average non-knife person sees "rusty" carbon steel as nonsensical and "lacking quality".
 
These folks have pretty well covered it. Carbon steel would require a thorough oiling before shipment from the factory and (sadly) the inclusion of instructions to oil the knife regularly. A crap brand subbing manufacturing to a crap Asian factory using crap materials and crap processes wouldn't find it economical; the market for crap knives isn't one that values carbon steel... or edgeholding... or ease of sharpening... or tool maintenance... etc.

JR
 
Last edited:
Even if the average buyer is wary of rust, companies like Mora and Opinel (not to mention Case and all the others) sell a huge number of knives in carbon at a great price.

Why then do the companies that sell cheap knives not sell more (or any at all) in carbon steel?

I'm not sure I explained myself in the initial question. Why do companies that sell crappy cheap knives choose stainless all of the time over carbon, even though carbon may be cheaper and also knowing that other companies successfully sell good knives (cheaply) in carbon?

I know that I'd like more variety and I bet others would too. It'd also be an easy way to boost the image of any company in my eyes as a company to be taken seriously. No?

Ack... I'm still not sure that that makes sense...
 
Most of us are lazy and taking more time to clean our knives more would be too much of a hassle. You are right though, I would love using akd seeing more carbon steel blades. I can understand using stainless when living near a salty or humid environment.
 
BlueyM said:
Most people who buy crappy knives only see two things; $$$, "shiny".
Click to expand...

That's my point though.

Take a company like the one I mentioned before, Taylor knives. They make plenty of fixed blade knives under different banners using whatever stainless it is that they use. Then they offer a few knives in high carbon steel at the same price. Which knife costs them more to make? All else (besides steel) being equal, I'd bet the stainless knife would cost them more. So what advantage does offering their knives in crappy stainless have? Plenty. More people are likely to buy them, maybe it's easier for them to stock, um... can't really think of many others, but that's not the point either. What advantages does selling their knives in high carbon bring to the table... That's the point. The people who know, and are likely to care are going to be excited about that. It's going to bring the brand some cred, which, if we're honest, it needs, and it's going to be cheaper for the company to do in the first place. At least in materials. Unless I'm wrong, and that's why I'm asking that question.

It's even weirder when you look at slipjoints. Carbon steel folders are extremely popular in that case (no pun) and you'll notice, if you look, that nearly all of the companies selling inexpensive knives do so using stainless blades.

Why?
 
Your average John Smith impulse buying a <$40 folder while in line at his local hardware store is even going to consider what the blade is made out of. So long as it looks nice and shiny it's a sale. Manufactures know this. Aesthetics sell. I'd like to see cheaper folders in carbon steel too, but to the average user rust/corrosion resistance matters more. Someone showing off their Kershaw Skyline in 1095 with a patina would just look like a dirty rusty blade to the average dude.
 
Strigamort said:
That's my point though.

Take a company like the one I mentioned before, Taylor knives. They make plenty of fixed blade knives under different banners using whatever stainless it is that they use. Then they offer a few knives in high carbon steel at the same price. Which knife costs them more to make? All else (besides steel) being equal, I'd bet the stainless knife would cost them more. So what advantage does offering their knives in crappy stainless have? Plenty. More people are likely to buy them, maybe it's easier for them to stock, um... can't really think of many others, but that's not the point either. What advantages does selling their knives in high carbon bring to the table... That's the point. The people who know, and are likely to care are going to be excited about that. It's going to bring the brand some cred, which, if we're honest, it needs, and it's going to be cheaper for the company to do in the first place. At least in materials. Unless I'm wrong, and that's why I'm asking that question.

It's even weirder when you look at slipjoints. Carbon steel folders are extremely popular in that case (no pun) and you'll notice, if you look, that nearly all of the companies selling inexpensive knives do so using stainless blades.

Why?
Click to expand...

In your example, customers have a choice of Taylor knives inexpensive stainless or carbon. If they only made carbon, customers would have a choice of their carbon or some other company's cheap stainless. Sounds like good business to me.
 
In my opinion lower cost knives dont get the care that a higher dollar knife would and in lower cost cutlery corrosion resistance is preferred to almost everything. Carbon steel just isnt suited well for a tackle box knife. As far as price it all depends on the alloy. Exceptional carbon steels still cost a lot of money. I dont know how well cheaper carbon steels compare to the lower end stainless varieties. I would think though that if it was desirable in any way it would be being done.
 
PURPLEDC said:
In my opinion lower cost knives dont get the care that a higher dollar knife would and in lower cost cutlery corrosion resistance is preferred to almost everything. Carbon steel just isnt suited well for a tackle box knife. As far as price it all depends on the alloy. Exceptional carbon steels still cost a lot of money. I dont know how well cheaper carbon steels compare to the lower end stainless varieties. I would think though that if it was desirable in any way it would be being done.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is it. I feel like when the average Joe wants a knife to open boxes at work, he isn't going to take the time to research the proper care of the steel, he just wants something that cuts. And when that knife is carbon steel and begins rusting due to (what we know of as) lack of maintenance, it's defective to him and gets returned.
 
Goosey said:
On the website of a large outdoors retailer, someone complained about how they bought an Opinel and it "rusted" (read: slight patina) on them after cutting a tomato.




They returned it as defective.
2095c354.gif






I'm guessing the average non-knife person sees "rusty" carbon steel as nonsensical and "lacking quality".
Click to expand...

I copied this from Amazon. I found it when I was looking for what Mora to buy.

"The knife is fairly sharp however after 5 hand washed with soap and water and paper towel dried, the knife blade itself showed stains and rust formed near the handle area. I am disappointed that Amazon selling defective products which costing me money for shipping it back, which is deducted from the return."

A lot of people just think stainless is better than carbon because carbon will rust, And therefor must be lower quality.
 
I'd speculate it comes down to consumer preference for "low maintenance". IE no rusting.

Looking at USA knife maker, 440c typically does cost more than equivalent sized 1095. I've seen 1095 flat bar for as little as $2.00 a blank.
 
On a side note I've bought a lot of 1095 and O1 blades over the past year. I acquired and used these blades during drought conditions. The rust that formed on the tang near the butt, if it formed at all, could be removed with a scotch bright pad. Typically all I had to do was wipe the knives off, no rust. This year we've had a lot of precipitation. Now it's humid around here. I have to keep the knives oiled or they will rust within hours of use, even if I wipe them off after use.
 
"Is crap stainless cheaper than carbon steel?"

The short answer is a resounding "YES".

It's not just the cost of the raw steel, not by a long shot. And in fact if we're talking about quality 1095 vs 420-series (or something vaguely similar to it), I'm not so sure the stainless is in fact more expensive. Regardless...

You need to remember that factories typically stamp out hundreds of blade blanks at a time and HT them all on what amounts to a Burger King conveyor belt. Cheap stainless steels will harden in air simply by coming down to room temperature as they exit the furnace; carbon steels need to be oil-quenched. That's an extra step, and it costs more.

Then the hard blanks are tempered and the bevels are ground. It seems counter-intuitive, but tempered carbon steel is actually more difficult to machine than tempered cheap stainless. That means more time, more labor, more wear on grinding wheels... again, more cost. (it's the same reason even good factory knives (carbon or stainless) are generally tempered at hardnesses that many custom makers regard as almost laughably soft - it's just easier/quicker to grind that way).

By the same token, why do you think tumbled finishes and various coatings are pushed so hard? Because they make a better-performing knife? No. Because they're cheaper than putting a fine finish on a blade. This may all seem like nickel-and-dime stuff, but if you're cranking out thousands of blades a year, or month, it adds up to huge money.

On a related note, keep all that in mind next time someone asks "why in the world does knife A in (high-end steel) cost twice as much as the same knife in (low-end steel), the bar of steel only costs $10 more?" The cost of the actual steel is one of the smallest factors involved.
 
because people these days want NO MAINTENANCE knives, not low maintenance. The average knife buyer will NEVER sharpen a knife, knives are essentially disposable tools. They want something that can be left in their truckbed, thrown in the dishwasher, put in the leaky shed after gardening, etc...

But I agree with the OPs sentiment. I will take cheap 1084 over no name, stainless pot steel. And I think low end knives would be a lot more desirable with simple carbon steels over whatever low carbon stainless they use.

Hell, even here on BF, where people clearly have more interest in keeping and maintaining their knives people are still often clueless about rust. "I put tuff glide on my blade, and after cutting a bunch of wet wood and leaving it in my garage for a week it still rusted!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top