I am thinking of getting one of these as a gift for someone, but having new handled either I can't decide. The handle of the Cara Cara is G10, which is an advantage, the blade is also slightly bigger, but they are both the same price. I know both are quality knives, especially for the money, but which would you rather receive as a gift? The KaBar Dozier Hunter or the Byrd Cara Cara G10?
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
KaBar Large Dozier Hunter or the Spyderco Byrd Cara Cara w/G10 handle?
- Thread starter Brutus013
- Start date
Martin Swinkels
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 760
You won't regret it!
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 42,728
That's probably almost a coin flip. I have the Large Dozier and really like it. Don't have a CaraCara so I can't compare.
The composition of both steels are about the same. The Dozier has AUS8, the CaraCara has the Chinese knockoff version. Not sure of the hardness spec for the CaraCara. The Dozier runs 57-58 per spec. My blade was measured at 59.
I guess I would ask this one question, then reach for that coin:
The CaraCara is made in mainland China. The Large Dozier is made in Taiwan. Would your friend care? Some folks do. Some don't.
The composition of both steels are about the same. The Dozier has AUS8, the CaraCara has the Chinese knockoff version. Not sure of the hardness spec for the CaraCara. The Dozier runs 57-58 per spec. My blade was measured at 59.
I guess I would ask this one question, then reach for that coin:
The CaraCara is made in mainland China. The Large Dozier is made in Taiwan. Would your friend care? Some folks do. Some don't.
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 413
8Cr13MoV is more wear resistant and harder than AUS 8. Not by a huge amount, but it is definitely not a Chinese knockoff steel.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 42,728
I have seen no such data. (That does not mean it isn't so.) Can you point me to your source?
Add: Hardness is a function of heat treat in steels that similar in composition. I've not been able to find the hardness spec for the CaraCara. Do you have a link for that also?
Thanks,
Knarf
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 413
Our own Cliff's site:
http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/blade_materials.html#S_8C13CrMoV
http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/blade_materials.html#S_AUS8A
AUS 8 is in between 12C27 and 13C26 in hardness and wear resistance. 8Cr13 is an upgrade to 13C26.
Edit: I don't know why Cliff's site calls it 8C13CrMoV. But it is cross-linked to the Byrd knives on the page, and the Spyderco site says Byrds are 8Cr13MoV. So they're probably the same thing.
http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/blade_materials.html#S_8C13CrMoV
http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/blade_materials.html#S_AUS8A
AUS 8 is in between 12C27 and 13C26 in hardness and wear resistance. 8Cr13 is an upgrade to 13C26.
Edit: I don't know why Cliff's site calls it 8C13CrMoV. But it is cross-linked to the Byrd knives on the page, and the Spyderco site says Byrds are 8Cr13MoV. So they're probably the same thing.
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 413
Unless you know the person will not like non-traditional-looking knives.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 42,728
I would contend that the differences in composition are not significant.
_________8C13CrMoV_________AUS8
Carbon_________0.8__________0.70-0.75
Manganese______0.4____________1
Chromium______13___________13.0-14.5
Nickel__________0.2___________0.49
Vanadium_______0.1_________0.10-0.26
Molybde________0.15_________0.1-0.3
Silicon__________0.5____________----
I wasn't able to extract a direct comparison between the performance of the 8C13CrMOV vs AUS8 from Cliff's comments. But thanks for the links. I'm not certain one could say that the Chinese steel was superior. However, Cliff links the CaraCara blade hardness of 61 to a post from Sal. That's the horse's mouth indeed. The CaraCara would have the harder blade and based on that, plus the similarity in composition, would be expected to have better edge retension.
Thanks,
Knarf
_________8C13CrMoV_________AUS8
Carbon_________0.8__________0.70-0.75
Manganese______0.4____________1
Chromium______13___________13.0-14.5
Nickel__________0.2___________0.49
Vanadium_______0.1_________0.10-0.26
Molybde________0.15_________0.1-0.3
Silicon__________0.5____________----
I wasn't able to extract a direct comparison between the performance of the 8C13CrMOV vs AUS8 from Cliff's comments. But thanks for the links. I'm not certain one could say that the Chinese steel was superior. However, Cliff links the CaraCara blade hardness of 61 to a post from Sal. That's the horse's mouth indeed. The CaraCara would have the harder blade and based on that, plus the similarity in composition, would be expected to have better edge retension.
Thanks,
Knarf
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 42,728
I'm sorry, znode, (and Cliff too, if he reads this). I don't buy it.
The differences might be real if the data were complete. I do not consider them so. I do not doubt Cliffs calculations. I doubt the compositional data that were processed by them in the case of the 8C13CrMoV.
Cliff's calculations are based on nominal values for 8C13CrMoV, but complete ranges for AUS8. Nobody holds to a single concentration of any one element. Look at the Carbon % in AUS8. It ranges from 0.7-.075. That is a realistic range. The Carbon content for 8C13CrMoV is a single value, 0.8. That single value is not a realistic number. There is batch to batch variation. An actual report that covered the composition of multiple batches would have to be a set of ranges as we see for AUS8, not a single set of values as we see for 8C13CrMoV.
If the compositional values for 8C13CrMoV were given as actual ranges, and those ranges were processed through Cliff's calculations along with the AUS8 expressed as ranges, I contend that there would be enough variation in the results that it would no longer be possible to differentiate performance based on composition. The data cloud for each alloy would be spread out enough that you would not be able to differentiate between the two compositions.
Aside from this, the Carbon value for 8C13CrMoV is given as a single digit. If I were providing the Carbon composition of AUS8 in terms of one digit, I would say....0.8. Again, flawed input data.
The hardness I believe. That is a function of heat treat, not a function of composition. The compositional differences I do not believe to be significant. I believe the compositions are too close to be accurately differentiated by Cliff's equations because steel compositions are actually ranges.
Show me cutting data from several RC 61 AUS8 blades compared to cutting data from several RC 61 8C13CrMoV blades, all with similar geometry, and I will believe there is a difference. Shucks, Sal might have such data then I'd have to eat this long post. However, the 2006 Byrd Knife catalog says about 8C13CrMoV that it "...is similar to AUS-8 in it's properties and performance." Maybe he has accrued more data since then.
Theory shows you expectations. Data confirms them. The differences in the performance of these specific alloys are only theory, and I doubt them, not because the theory is wrong, but because the input data are flawed.
The differences might be real if the data were complete. I do not consider them so. I do not doubt Cliffs calculations. I doubt the compositional data that were processed by them in the case of the 8C13CrMoV.
Cliff's calculations are based on nominal values for 8C13CrMoV, but complete ranges for AUS8. Nobody holds to a single concentration of any one element. Look at the Carbon % in AUS8. It ranges from 0.7-.075. That is a realistic range. The Carbon content for 8C13CrMoV is a single value, 0.8. That single value is not a realistic number. There is batch to batch variation. An actual report that covered the composition of multiple batches would have to be a set of ranges as we see for AUS8, not a single set of values as we see for 8C13CrMoV.
If the compositional values for 8C13CrMoV were given as actual ranges, and those ranges were processed through Cliff's calculations along with the AUS8 expressed as ranges, I contend that there would be enough variation in the results that it would no longer be possible to differentiate performance based on composition. The data cloud for each alloy would be spread out enough that you would not be able to differentiate between the two compositions.
Aside from this, the Carbon value for 8C13CrMoV is given as a single digit. If I were providing the Carbon composition of AUS8 in terms of one digit, I would say....0.8. Again, flawed input data.
The hardness I believe. That is a function of heat treat, not a function of composition. The compositional differences I do not believe to be significant. I believe the compositions are too close to be accurately differentiated by Cliff's equations because steel compositions are actually ranges.
Show me cutting data from several RC 61 AUS8 blades compared to cutting data from several RC 61 8C13CrMoV blades, all with similar geometry, and I will believe there is a difference. Shucks, Sal might have such data then I'd have to eat this long post. However, the 2006 Byrd Knife catalog says about 8C13CrMoV that it "...is similar to AUS-8 in it's properties and performance." Maybe he has accrued more data since then.
Theory shows you expectations. Data confirms them. The differences in the performance of these specific alloys are only theory, and I doubt them, not because the theory is wrong, but because the input data are flawed.
I used a Meadowlark about 3 months for EDC, and now hard tested a CS AK47, a CRKT Pharaoh and a Triumph (for a newspaper article).
I'd say the edge retention of the chinese 8C13CrMoV at 61 HRC is better (at similar edge angles) than taiwanese AUS8A at 58-59 HRC. But it seems that even AUS8 bear some _serious_ cutting/stabbing job without breaking or bending :O - so it is your choice now, which one is better for YOU...
I'd say the edge retention of the chinese 8C13CrMoV at 61 HRC is better (at similar edge angles) than taiwanese AUS8A at 58-59 HRC. But it seems that even AUS8 bear some _serious_ cutting/stabbing job without breaking or bending :O - so it is your choice now, which one is better for YOU...
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 153
Wow, am I reading this info correctly?
Is 8C13CrMoV at 61 HRC, or is this just a mental exercise comparison? Forgive my ignorance, as I am pretty new with steel info.
Is 8C13CrMoV at 61 HRC, or is this just a mental exercise comparison? Forgive my ignorance, as I am pretty new with steel info.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 42,728
Sal Glesser, the chief spyder, says that the Chinese are heat treating the Byrd steel to RHC 61. He said it on the forum at Spyderco. The man is an icon. If he said it, I believe him.
Cliff has been saying for some time that many steels (AUS8 among them) could be heat treated to a higher hardness than they commonly are. That is apparently not the case with the Byrds.
8C13CrMoV at 61 HRC would be expected to have better edge retension than the same steel at 57-58. The hardness difference is real.