Oh my aching back

Phil in Alabama said:
I've had to reglue the shields on every single Queen I've owned. I have a stockman like pictured in this thread, the spring broke on the two secondary blades. I sent it off to Queen, and it came back "fixed", they replaced the spring, but it's so limp you can shake the knife and the blades fall open. The slightest touch moves them, like nearly zero spring pressure. It's sitting in my gun/knife junk drawer right now, trying to decide whether to see if they'd fix it right this time or just let it rust in peace. :(
Click to expand...

They need your feedback, Phil. Send it back, and maybe see some future fellow knife-owners spared the agony. If Queen "gets it" that is!
 
FYI, the backsprings in Queen's D2 folders are 420HC, not D2. I confirmed this via email exchange with them a while back.

Having said that, I'm sure the spring was defective for one reason or another. It's good that Queen has made it right in the end. :thumbup:


David
 
Last edited:
I just can't believe that. I have a Buck 110 (420HC) and it's NOTHING compared to a D2 Queen for getting an edge. And, it doesn't rust like the 110.
 
Chewy1 said:
I just can't believe that. I have a Buck 110 (420HC) and it's NOTHING compared to a D2 Queen for getting an edge. And, it doesn't rust like the 110.
Click to expand...

Queen made a great choice in D2 for the blades. But D2 would be overkill for a backspring, and needlessly complicated and expensive too. Grain & carbides are larger, which also increases chances of breakage in a spring. Edge-holding obviously isn't a consideration for a backspring either. On the other hand, a simple stainless like 420HC doesn't have the bulky carbides, and the steel is a better choice when corrosion-resistance and flexibility are the concern (lots of fillet knives are made with 420-series steels). For a spring it's the smarter choice, and much less complicated or expensive for a manufacturer to produce in quantity (less wear & tear on tooling).

420HC has both lower carbon and higher chromium. That combination gives greater corrosion-resistance than D2, which is optimized more for edge-holding (higher carbon) and wear-resistance (high carbon + chromium -> carbides) and some relatively decent corrosion-resistance in it's near-but-not-quite-stainless levels of chromium.

For what it's worth, I'd previously assumed Queen's D2 knives also had D2 springs. But in wondering if the springs would 'patina' in the same manner as their blades, I finally asked Queen about the springs. They were very clear and prompt in pointing out the springs were in fact 420HC. In retrospect, that really does seem to be the smarter way to do it, which confirms (in my mind) Queen's commitment to quality and smart design.


David
 
Last edited:
Great information Dave, as always, thank you for taking the time to explain that, I have little knowledge on the metals used, and this is a great help :thumbup: :D
 
SAK Guy said:
CarnactheMagnificent.jpg


Seeing a trend here and rethinking Queen knives for purchase..... :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah, hope they don't make any aircraft parts...
 
My apologies, Obsessed. I missed one word in your original statement and it made all the difference. I missed "backsprings". Yes, I agree those are not D2. That would be overkill. I stand corrected...and in need of glasses.
Obsessed with Edges said:
Queen made a great choice in D2 for the blades. But D2 would be overkill for a backspring, and needlessly complicated and expensive too. Grain & carbides are larger, which also increases chances of breakage in a spring. Edge-holding obviously isn't a consideration for a backspring either. On the other hand, a simple stainless like 420HC doesn't have the bulky carbides, and the steel is a better choice when corrosion-resistance and flexibility are the concern (lots of fillet knives are made with 420-series steels). For a spring it's the smarter choice, and much less complicated or expensive for a manufacturer to produce in quantity (less wear & tear on tooling).

420HC has both lower carbon and higher chromium. That combination gives greater corrosion-resistance than D2, which is optimized more for edge-holding (higher carbon) and wear-resistance (high carbon + chromium -> carbides) and some relatively decent corrosion-resistance in it's near-but-not-quite-stainless levels of chromium.

For what it's worth, I'd previously assumed Queen's D2 knives also had D2 springs. But in wondering if the springs would 'patina' in the same manner as their blades, I finally asked Queen about the springs. They were very clear and prompt in pointing out the springs were in fact 420HC. In retrospect, that really does seem to be the smarter way to do it, which confirms (in my mind) Queen's commitment to quality and smart design.


David
Click to expand...
 
Chewy1 said:
My apologies, Obsessed. I missed one word in your original statement and it made all the difference. I missed "backsprings". Yes, I agree those are not D2. That would be overkill. I stand corrected...and in need of glasses.
Click to expand...

No worries or apology needed. :thumbup:


David :)
 
Campbellclanman said:
Great information Dave, as always, thank you for taking the time to explain that, I have little knowledge on the metals used, and this is a great help :thumbup: :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for your kind words Duncan. I'd not given it much thought until I asked Queen about their springs; what they've done with theirs makes a lot of sense in retrospect.


David
 
I might try again sometime next month. Right now I'm so broke I couldn't afford the postage. Thanks for reminding me though, I had forgotten about this knife, sitting all lonesome with a bunch of gun/hunting/knife stuff. :( I know how well they CAN build a knife; I have one of the Dan Burke collaboration Cattle Knives, and it is just flawless. One of my old favorite carry knives is a carved stag bone liner lock mini-hunter (single blade copperhead liner lock actually). But I have had others, such as the stockman I mentioned here, that were very disappointing. I need a stockman operational, I lost my Case 75 a few months ago. :sorrow:
 
Chewy1 said:
Update. The good folks at Queen sent me a new one. It was a full eight weeks, but worth it. The new one is not nearly as stiff as the original. And I had to put a better edge on each of the three blades. I love D2 for use, but that abrasion resistance becomes a real pain when it's time to sharpen...even with diamonds.

Thanks for tuning in.
Click to expand...

Good luck with the new one Chewy. :thumbup:
 
I think I may be done with Queen, but I wanted to get your opinion before I write them off. I sent in a Northwoods stockman, that had a bent backspring. They replaced it, it doesn't look any different but they said they replaced it and I believe them on that. However, there is barely any pull on the blades! They are more loose than some vintage folders I've seen. Not just the main spring that was bent and was replaced, but all of the springs! I haven't had a chance to email them, and I will wait to make my decision, but the knife had some tension when I sent it in. Upon opening and closing you automatically feel the decrease in pull. If this is within tolerances, I would like to know. It is a shame because it is a very nice looking knife. I don't like a hard pull, but barely any tension? I'll stick with GEC and my Case annual collaborations if this is considered acceptable tolerances from the Queen shop.
 
Chewy1, Is that the #9 pattern? I'm glad to hear that Queen supports their products.

A softer spring = less stress on the spring = less chance of it breaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top