My Buck 112lw (420hc) just out cut my Spyderco Delica 4 (VG10) - Is this a fluke?

Ankerson said:
Just to clear a few things up here for some as these threads seem to go sideways pretty fast with people quoting urban legends and such.

420HC is 420HC, and it's the same as 420HC, it doesn't matter who does the heat treating as long as it's done correctly. Any good heat treater can heat treat 420HC.

There is no magic here. These are production knives, not one of a kind customs that are hammered out one blade at a time.

Bucks 420HC they use is the same 420HC that others use and or have used, it's the same steel.

Now, BUCK has done their research and testing and puts great blade and edge geometry on their knives so they cut well.

But it's not magic, it's geometry, and the steel is still 420HC.

Carry on. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Hi Jim, thanks for jumping in.

So what's with almost mystical reverence people bestow on "Bos"? Marketing success?

Would it be fair or accurate to say that something like Case's TruSharp is most likely hardened to the same range as Buck's 420HC Bos? I would think one company run them softer if they chose too but just trying to understand if you're saying they are basically the same.
 
Hey all - thanks for the fantastic feedback and great discussion. While I do my best to process all this info and apply it I still have a couple questions.

- . As many have said edge/blade geometry does play a role. Why is this not more heavily utilized and marketed by the big manufactures? You would think it would be more cost effective to nail a great clean edge (something perhaps like Bucks 2k) and prove it can perform close to higher grade steels (within reason) and do so at a much lower cost. It seems several company just keep making thicker more obtuse edges with a new premium steel that would have a hard time cutting an apple. Honestly I have even purchased flagship knives from top line brands that could not cut paper with the factory edge. At least for the typical end user; wouldn't it be better to nail the edge and geometry in a lower grade steel they can still sharpen opposed to selling a garbage edge on a premium steel can cant........?
 
Ankerson said:
Just to clear a few things up here for some as these threads seem to go sideways pretty fast with people quoting urban legends and such.

420HC is 420HC, and it's the same as 420HC, it doesn't matter who does the heat treating as long as it's done correctly. Any good heat treater can heat treat 420HC.

There is no magic here. These are production knives, not one of a kind customs that are hammered out one blade at a time.

Bucks 420HC they use is the same 420HC that others use and or have used, it's the same steel.

Now, BUCK has done their research and testing and puts great blade and edge geometry on their knives so they cut well.

But it's not magic, it's geometry, and the steel is still 420HC.

Carry on. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I believe Buck uses a cryogenic treatment on its 420HC (says so on the packaging). Don't know if other makers do as well.
 
Eli Chaps said:
Hi Jim, thanks for jumping in.

So what's with almost mystical reverence people bestow on "Bos"? Marketing success?

Would it be fair or accurate to say that something like Case's TruSharp is most likely hardened to the same range as Buck's 420HC Bos? I would think one company run them softer if they chose too but just trying to understand if you're saying they are basically the same.
Click to expand...


Bos, they know what they are doing, after awhile the marketing thing stuck I suppose.

There is only so much you can do with 420HC so...
 
steelhog said:
Hey all - thanks for the fantastic feedback and great discussion. While I do my best to process all this info and apply it I still have a couple questions.

- . As many have said edge/blade geometry does play a role. Why is this not more heavily utilized and marketed by the big manufactures? You would think it would be more cost effective to nail a great clean edge (something perhaps like Bucks 2k) and prove it can perform close to higher grade steels (within reason) and do so at a much lower cost. It seems several company just keep making thicker more obtuse edges with a new premium steel that would have a hard time cutting an apple. Honestly I have even purchased flagship knives from top line brands that could not cut paper with the factory edge. At least for the typical end user; wouldn't it be better to nail the edge and geometry in a lower grade steel they can still sharpen opposed to selling a garbage edge on a premium steel can cant........?
Click to expand...


Having tested pretty much everything as far as steels go...

Buck's 420HC doesn't perform any better than 420HC should perform, it really doesn't perform better than VG-10 does either.

Buck used to use 440C, but so many people complained they couldn't sharpen it back in the day they started using 420HC.

As far as the edges go etc they are normally a result of feedback and or what they see coming back the other way from my understanding.

As far as production knives go Syderco and Cold Steel normally have great factory edges.

As far as BUCK goes they have a different typical end user than Spyderco does as an example. People that would be looking to buy a Buck 110 aren't generally going to be looking at $150 - $200 knives.

Heck some people won't even spend the money to buy a Buck 110 so... They are too expensive for them... "That much for a Knife?"


There are so many different factors involved here there really isn't just one answer to it all.
 
Last edited:
The blade performance of a knife relies on three main factors:
  1. the grind or blade geometry,
  2. steel chemistry, and
  3. heat treat.
The secret to Buck’s 420HC stems from its proprietary Paul Bos heat treat. Many years ago, Buck formed a collaboration with Paul Bos, Blade Hall of Fame member and probably the most famous heat treater in the world.
Most steels come with instructions on how to heat treat them from the steel maker, but Bos modified 420HC’s heat treat protocol and in the process made the steel perform exceptionally well which is evident from CATRA based edge retention tests.
 
P D said:
The blade performance of a knife relies on three main factors:
  1. the grind or blade geometry,
  2. steel chemistry, and
  3. heat treat.
The secret to Buck’s 420HC stems from its proprietary Paul Bos heat treat. Many years ago, Buck formed a collaboration with Paul Bos, Blade Hall of Fame member and probably the most famous heat treater in the world.
Most steels come with instructions on how to heat treat them from the steel maker, but Bos modified 420HC’s heat treat protocol and in the process made the steel perform exceptionally well which is evident from CRATA based edge retention tests.
Click to expand...


Ah, no....

That's marketing and urban legends.

420HC is still 420HC.. No matter what you do with it.

The blades did well in CATRA due to geometry.
 
P D said:
Check out @duck57's and @David Martin's post from an old thread in BF.
Click to expand...


A lot of us know the history, the real history because we were alive when it was happening.

Buck went from using 440C to 420HC.

Then they changed the geometry on the blades, that was the biggest difference.

This is production heat treating, they all have their own protocols and methods.

But in the end they are all for the most part the same result.

The parent company sets what standards they want, then the heat treater does what they need.

BOS is actually more famous for figuring out how to heat treat S30V reliably in a production setting.
 
Last edited:
Hey all. First of all - thanks all so much for the input and feedback. This post got way more responses than I ever imagined. Second this is the summary of my garage/totally non scientific test. In the end this is all really just back road drag racing. Its total flawed in every way, but honestly this is how most people get a feel for things.

1st test - Buck 112lw compared to a Delica 4 (Correction - saber ground. Thanks to all who mentioned that it was most likely saber). Both paper slicing sharp tested to making poor paper cuts.
2nd Test - Same Buck 112lw compared to a Delica Stainless (hollow ground - as luck had it I have one of these also. Its older but still great and still in vg10). Both paper slicing sharp tested to making poor paper cuts.

In both test the 112 was substantially more proficient and comfortable at cutting the cardboard throughout (Both the handle and the blade just seem to work better for this). The vast majority of the cardboard was the thick diaper box cardboard that is much thicker and tougher than your typical amazon box. Cuts were each done in a set of 5 cuts alternating between knives. In the end of both test the Delica in VG10 began to pull the paper and make poor cuts before the 112 in 420. The Delica also started to make poor cardboard cuts first also. End - Both were no where near as sharp as in the beginning, but the Delica was just making worse paper cuts starring to pull rather than cut. It is worth mentioned that the hollow grind delica did perform better than the saber.

Yes I know this test is totally flawed and it honestly started as just me trying something out. I had not intentions of sharing outside of getting an unexpected result and requesting feedback from BFs. There are 1000000 variables to why this could be.........but at the end of the day this is all just for fun.

My thoughts as to why this happens as VG10 should on paper be the better steel. I was really was more thoughtful the second time and took note of small differences in the cutting. Now this is going to be the super controversial part = I think its the Spyder hole. Although the Delicas best feature it kept hanging up on the cardboard and I would have to make another cut motion to get through the cardboard likely causing increased wear. The cardboard that is really ragged in the photo - that's all the Delica. The 112 would glide through with less effort and a single forward/back motion. Take what you want from this but this was my fun test. Both knives are great but the 112 for me performed better and is like $40 cheaper.

I will keep doing this for fun - but this will likely be my last post on this type of topic. People just get too invested in one side of the other. Thanks all. https://imgur.com/a/mSA1hQZ
 
lambertiana said:
Exactly. In tests in abrasive materials, all things being equal, a high carbide steel, especially hard carbides like V, will last longer. But geometry makes a huge difference. As was noted when Buck went to the E2K, a decent steel with optimum geometry will outlast a super steel with poor geometry.
Click to expand...
True, we can increase the total card cut by ten times on catra just with a reduction in edge angle. Larrin did a spectacular job writing it up. https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/06/18/maximizing-edge-retention/

I think an important piece of that is that the angles are built in to sharpening devices. It's crazy how much performance we can give up by assuming these device settings are all optimized.
 
IMO, a FFG Delica would probably be a closer comparison to the 112’s edge geometry than either the saber or hollow-ground versions.

Jim
 
For a lot of people that's what matters most, what ever THEY can get the sharpest and what ever is thinner and cuts better.

The end user is the biggest variable after all.

Keep in mind though brotha, there have been folks doing this a long time and have gotten very skilled at sharpening. What they realize is that they are not limited to what sharpens easier because that's a user limitation not a cap on the steel itself since the steel itself is capable of getting sharper than most folks could ever hope, however there are some details about what helps a steel get sharper than another and 420hc is not at the top of that list either, but that is another thread.

I must say there is a magical moment when you realize you can sharpen when you want, not because you have to and that's definitely the wonder of a knife in Rex121 at 70hrc that 420hc can never match and perhaps is something that can only be experienced rather than articulated.

Plenty of options for folks. Best advice is to just "do you"


steelhog said:
Hey all. First of all - thanks all so much for the input and feedback. This post got way more responses than I ever imagined. Second this is the summary of my garage/totally non scientific test. In the end this is all really just back road drag racing. Its total flawed in every way, but honestly this is how most people get a feel for things.

1st test - Buck 112lw compared to a Delica 4 (Correction - saber ground. Thanks to all who mentioned that it was most likely saber). Both paper slicing sharp tested to making poor paper cuts.
2nd Test - Same Buck 112lw compared to a Delica Stainless (hollow ground - as luck had it I have one of these also. Its older but still great and still in vg10). Both paper slicing sharp tested to making poor paper cuts.

In both test the 112 was substantially more proficient and comfortable at cutting the cardboard throughout (Both the handle and the blade just seem to work better for this). The vast majority of the cardboard was the thick diaper box cardboard that is much thicker and tougher than your typical amazon box. Cuts were each done in a set of 5 cuts alternating between knives. In the end of both test the Delica in VG10 began to pull the paper and make poor cuts before the 112 in 420. The Delica also started to make poor cardboard cuts first also. End - Both were no where near as sharp as in the beginning, but the Delica was just making worse paper cuts starring to pull rather than cut. It is worth mentioned that the hollow grind delica did perform better than the saber.

Yes I know this test is totally flawed and it honestly started as just me trying something out. I had not intentions of sharing outside of getting an unexpected result and requesting feedback from BFs. There are 1000000 variables to why this could be.........but at the end of the day this is all just for fun.

My thoughts as to why this happens as VG10 should on paper be the better steel. I was really was more thoughtful the second time and took note of small differences in the cutting. Now this is going to be the super controversial part = I think its the Spyder hole. Although the Delicas best feature it kept hanging up on the cardboard and I would have to make another cut motion to get through the cardboard likely causing increased wear. The cardboard that is really ragged in the photo - that's all the Delica. The 112 would glide through with less effort and a single forward/back motion. Take what you want from this but this was my fun test. Both knives are great but the 112 for me performed better and is like $40 cheaper.

I will keep doing this for fun - but this will likely be my last post on this type of topic. People just get too invested in one side of the other. Thanks all. https://imgur.com/a/mSA1hQZ
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ankerson said:
Actually no it won't...

It takes a lot to overcome that much of a difference in wear resistance, a whole lot.

Lets keep things on planet earth here. ;)

For steels that are somewhat close geometry can make some difference that can sway the results one way or the other. But for steels that are far apart performance wise that will NEVER happen. At least not in any above board honest test.

In short 420HC will NEVER even come close to something in the S110V range, doesn't matter what the geometry is. Not even in anyone's wildest drug induced fantasy delusions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I could have phrased that better - a decent steel with optimum geometry will work better than a better steel with poor geometry, but there are limits to that. As you have said, in any realistic test or use in abrasive materials, 420HC will not come close to S110V. Buck's tests just compared 420HC with BG-42.

For the average Joe on the street, it is simply a matter of whether the knife cuts without too much work. In that sense, your tests, which measure force rather than apex sharpness, are useful for that purpose. And by including the different results with different thickness behind the edge, it is possible to see the effect that geometry has. For example, for your initial test of the S110V Manix, it rated lower than other blades that on paper are lesser steels, especially the Darrin Sanders S35VN blade. It was only when you thinned the edge that you could show what S110V can do.

The first thing I do when I contemplate a knife purchase is to look if the edge bevel is reasonably thin. I do not have the means to regrind a thick edge properly, so I generally avoid those. The best is when I can get a good steel with a good grind. For example, my K390 Urban is around 0.005 behind the edge, and my US2000MC Enigma is even better than that. I also have a WH ZDP blade that is around 0.005, but I am hesitant to push that one with side loads, like whittling seasoned hardwood, since WH runs their ZDP pretty high.
 
If one uses their knife, it will eventually dull (unless you have a light saber I suppose).
One of 420HC's best properties is that it extremely easy to get a hair popping edge even with just an old Arkansas Stone.

I've have better steels, but some are a real PITA to sharpen.
So one must consider...do I want a knife that dulls a bit quicker but is super easy to re-sharpen.
Or do I want longer edge retention but I'll spend 3 X as long re-sharpening it?
 
allenC said:
If one uses their knife, it will eventually dull (unless you have a light saber I suppose).
One of 420HC's best properties is that it extremely easy to get a hair popping edge even with just an old Arkansas Stone.

I've have better steels, but some are a real PITA to sharpen.
So one must consider...do I want a knife that dulls a bit quicker but is super easy to re-sharpen.
Or do I want longer edge retention but I'll spend 3 X as long re-sharpening it?
Click to expand...


I haven't found any noticeable difference in the time it takes to sharpen the various steels.
 
The only way that statement is true is if you spend way more time sharpening 420HC than you need to, or, you're not using the same sharpening methods that 99% of us here use.
 
allenC said:
The only way that statement is true is if you spend way more time sharpening 420HC than you need to, or, you're not using the same sharpening methods that 99% of us here use.
Click to expand...


I can normally reprofile & sharpen in about 5-10 mins, steel doesn't matter. I am using Silicon Carbide Stones on the Edge Pro, not their OEM stones.

Sharpening alone is less than a min normally. Actually the high hardness super steels are easier because you don't have to chase the burr as much.

I use the Edge Pro and Ceramics for touchups.
 
Last edited:
allenC said:
The only way that statement is true is if you spend way more time sharpening 420HC than you need to, or, you're not using the same sharpening methods that 99% of us here use.
Click to expand...

I disagree. As long as I use the right sharpening media for the steel, they are all more or less the same. I know people routinely say this as fact but it just isn't. Now, are softer, simpler steels more receptive to most any abrasive and less refined techniques? Yes but that isn't the same thing as saying the so-called super steels take more time. They may take more understanding and expertise, but they don't automatically take more time.

And now I'll await the inevitable "bottom of a coffee mug" comment that will sooner or later come to the thread... :D

EDIT: Except ZDP-189. It hates me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top