Performance: Forged vs Stock Removal

[betzner]

Is it time yet to discuss the real-world performance of stock removal vs. forged as it pertains to secondary market value??

The kinds of knives we collect are, to most collectors, just as important from a fiscal performance perspective as a cutting perspective.

 

[Don Hanson III]

Kevin, with due respect I find that the guys I communicate with in on the forged side spend ALOT more time focusing on heat treat, edge geometry and performance in general than do my stock removal buddies. From my view it seems that the forge guys are much more interested in whats going on with the steel... if they truly want to make good performance knives they MUST be.

I greatly respect the info. you share, but from my view, and from the folks I know on both sides (forging/stock removal), the nod would definitely go to the forged guys on performance.

I have to agree with Matt, well said.

Kevin, I have great respect for you, your written word and mostly agree but Painting a picture with too broad of a brush......well, you know what I mean

There are good and bad on both sides of the fence.

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

Kevin, with due respect ...

With due respect? Who are you and what have you done with Matt Lamey? Come on Matt, if we were having this conversation in person you would just come out and tell me I am full of %&$!

I entirely agree that many forging guys spend a whole lot more time focusing on their heat treatment, and performance, in fact they obsess over it and endlessly go on about it, but what is it? Performance under who’s definition? We all know guys who will always make the best knives in the world as long as they get to define what “performance” is. So much so that the word “performance” has become a meaningless cliché. In centuries past there were guys who obsessed over the philosophers stone, they spent their whole life devoted to it until they were the undisputed experts in turning lead into gold. Nobody knew as much about it as the alchemists, yet any peasant with a shovel could produce more gold than they could. However let’s not forget all the alchemists that did make gold, if you would just close your eyes and look the other way first.

If you are working with a steel with even a moderate ammount of alloying and all you have is a flame, a magnet and a bucket of oil, the chances are good that the guy who sends that same steel to a facility that can dial in the exact temp and time and quench it with tight control, will have things nailed more consistently.

Edge geometry I will give to you, forging guys do so much outlandish cutting with their knives that have they to play with geometries a lot, and many times adjusting geometries is an excellent way to allow a knife with an “interesting” heat treatment to live up to its billing. A lot of what I have seen tells me that many smiths have to be experts in edge geometries.

… From my view it seems that the forge guys are much more interested in whats going on with the steel...

I need to find the guys you hang around with then. However, I will also concede that many of the fresh new faces are exactly what you describe and really do care about what going on in the steel. But many of the big boys and old timers who would be the ones who supposedly can forge the superior blades are the one group of people who have most commonly told me that they don’t care what goes on inside the blade as long as they get the results the perceive they are getting. To do otherwise would require questioning their long held beliefs, and that is a very difficult thing to do. Most of the talk of superior blades tend to come from us in the forging crowd, that kind of puts the burden of proof in our corner.

Before folks warm the tar and break out the feathers, remember I am a bladesmith myself who wouldn’t want to make a blade any other way, but I always have felt we owed our grinding brothers an apology for our arrogance, especially since so much of it was based on false premises.

In the end I have never been told by a stock remover that he could make steel denser, align crystals better, make a lost ancient super steel, or break grains into uber-fineness, on a grinder. Just being a straight shooter has to count for something as well.

 

[2knife]

Kevin,
I'm glad to see you are adding your thoughts to this. I have had one question that has been ringing around in my head, generated by a thread you had going a few weeks or month ago.

This, related to Lateral strength. Can you explain in very simple terms, for me, the substance of the issue regarding the bending/breaking point/failure of a blade (fully hardened/ vs. fully soft?) ..how these both require the same exact exerted force before damaged/weakend/broken?
..trying to get some understanding of the principle at work, as it applies to ALL STEELS, uniformly? -is this correct? And, what does it say for real world application, if it matters.

Mike's Vascowear would only be as strong as a piece of rebar?
Thanks,
David

 

[Tai Goo]

Although it is impossible to make any sweeping generalizations on which is better…

Performance is subjective.
Performance is about steel type, geometry and heat treating, and personal preferences.

I think the only argument one could possibly make in favor of forging in general is the “grain flow” thing, but it’s probably a trivial point with most knife blades. There may be some exceptions though... but not that differential hardening or heat treating is necessarily "better" in all cases.

Don, I think it is possible to differentially harden air hardening steel, if you only heat the edge. I don’t recommend it though, because it probably means using a torch, and there isn‘t much control that way...

I don’t think forging is necessarily cheaper as a process than stock reduction. All you need for stock reduction is files or stones.

I like the smell, taste and texture of carbon steel,... and the feel or character of it.

Stock reduction is probably a safer way to go with less chances to screw up the steel, but I find it boring.

Forging is more efficient and less wasteful of steel by nature than stock reduction.

I like forging and doing my own heat treating because it’s more interesting than stock reduction and farming out the heat treating, at least to me.

I can make a "good knife" using either method.

What's "better" or "best" is subjective and should remain up to individual tastes, opinions, concepts, preferences and perspectives.

 

[Tai Goo]

I could make two identical blades in my shop and do the heat treating myself, one through stock reduction and the other through forging.

Everything else being equal,... In long term field use (in the field),... I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference...

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

Tai, are you sitting down and ready for this…? I agree 100% with both your posts! I honestly don’t give a hoot about any steel that is not a pleasure to heat up and hammer. Why? Because it is simply the coolest way I have found to make knives. Just grinding a bar to shape is just boring for me in comparison. I can’t go along with the idea that forging is quicker, I am no slouch with a hammer and I do believe that a guy who really knows how to use a grinder could turn blank stock into multiple blades before I could forge, normalize and begin to anneal just one, and the ground ones wouldn’t need any anneal. As for cost, we have all the same expenses and tasks that stock removers have plus countless other of our own added. Industry is driven by cost effectiveness and efficiency; there is a reason that grinding pretty much replaced many forging operations in production facilities. I am not saying that there was an increase in quality, but certainly in cost effectiveness and efficiency.

I personally find stainless steel of any kind about as interesting as watching paint dry, not better or worse, just completely uninteresting to me. To me it is like the difference between a beautiful hardwood table and a plastic patio set, one can set in the weather and be maintenance free but the other has so much more class even though you have to take care of it.

 

[Tai Goo]

That's cool Kevin. I'm sitting down. I'm glad we agree! It's not the first time though.

I think on the vast majority of blades that you couldn't say one method is quicker than the other, but maybe for certain specialized shapes, forging might be faster with your average type set ups,... like integrals and socket handles, etc. To do those in stock reduction you'd have to start with a dang big chunk of steel and hopefully have the equipment to do it in any reasonable amount of time,... but it really has nothing to do with "performance".

You can get certain specialized shapes more easily with forging, and some easier with stock reduction. The differences have mostly to do with “shaping” or forming the steel, not with general performance...

... should we throw "cast blades" into to soup? hee hee

 

[2knife]

Kevin,
I'm glad to see you are adding your thoughts to this. I have had one question that has been ringing around in my head, generated by a thread you had going a few weeks or month ago.

This, related to Lateral strength. Can you explain in very simple terms, for me, the substance of the issue regarding the bending/breaking point/failure of a blade (fully hardened/ vs. fully soft?) ..how these both require the same exact exerted force before damaged/weakend/broken?
..trying to get some understanding of the principle at work, as it applies to ALL STEELS, uniformly? -is this correct? And, what does it say for real world application, if it matters.

Mike's Vascowear would only be as strong as a piece of rebar?
Thanks,
David

Well, I'll try again... Any comments from Anyone about this.. -not trying to hijack, just want to get the basic ideas, physics of steel, whether all STEELS obey certain fundamental principles, and behave similarly - where tolerances and limitatons concerned.
David

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

Sorry David I started typing an answer for you much earlier but had to run some errands tonight before finishing.

Kevin,
I'm glad to see you are adding your thoughts to this. I have had one question that has been ringing around in my head, generated by a thread you had going a few weeks or month ago.

This, related to Lateral strength. Can you explain in very simple terms, for me, the substance of the issue regarding the bending/breaking point/failure of a blade (fully hardened/ vs. fully soft?) ..how these both require the same exact exerted force before damaged/weakend/broken?
..trying to get some understanding of the principle at work, as it applies to ALL STEELS, uniformly? -is this correct? And, what does it say for real world application, if it matters.

Mike's Vascowear would only be as strong as a piece of rebar?
Thanks,
David

David, you question is much more involved than it may seem and many properties could fall into your categories. I may need clarification as to what you mean by “Lateral strength,” but “strength is a touchy term and is often misplaced. Strength (tensile, compressive etc…) specifically is actually profoundly influenced by both heat treatment and alloying. Elasticity, specifically stiffness, may be what you refer to and that is virtually a constant in steel of the same cross section regardless of alloying or heat treatment. For any steel we work with the force required to elastically deform it will be the same number, when the steel stops flexing and become permanently changed in shape is a function of heat treatment. Softer ductile steel will bend much quicker thus shortening the elastic range. While hardened steels having more strength to resist will flex and return to it original shape much more with a wider elastic range. The tradeoff is that after the yield point the softer steel will have a much wider range of plastic deformation (bending) before ultimate failure, while the stronger steel will resist this to the point of breaking.

 

[jdm61]

Knives, particularly the types that many of us make, are archaic tools. I forge because I want to go full bore archaic.........please ignore the KMG and the Paragon oven in the corner of the shop It justs seems like a cool way to do things that gives me a lot of satisfaction. Fortunately, there are buyers out there who seem to feel the same way.

 

[2knife]

Elasticity, specifically stiffness, may be what you refer to and that is virtually a constant in steel of the same cross section regardless of alloying or heat treatment. For any steel we work with the force required to elastically deform it will be the same number, when the steel stops flexing and become permanently changed in shape is a function of heat treatment. .

Thanks Kevin,
This is the part that intrigues me. I read over what you wrote, liKe a chimpanzee studying a microwave oven for the first time.

it seems contrary to my preconceptions- that a fully hardened blade would not resist bending more than a soft blade. (forgive me, i may have a distorted understanding, or mix terms). Is this right? .. i read over your explanation and get confused what you mean. Quickly.

If this is the wrong thread for this or a separate issue, i apologize. I can ask later..
David

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

Your preconceived notions are correct- a fully hardened blade will indeed resist bending before a softer one. A major part of the problem is the misguided use of "flex" testing by bladesmiths, or more importantly the use of the word "flex" when describing a bend. Take two identical blades made of the same steel, just one is dead soft and one is Rockwell 60 throughout. Clamp both tips horizontally and hang weights off the tangs- both will flex the exact same degree and then return to true when the weight is removed, they are "flexing". You can continue to add weight and subtract weight and both will be identical until you exceed the yield point of the softer one, then that blade will stay bent -at this point it is not flexing, it is bending. The 60HRC blade will take many times more weight and continue to flex and when you have practically run out of weights to put on it will yield a small bit before breaking.

Most bladesmiths use the word "flex" in honest error, but a few out there use it so strategically that I have come to suspect that deception is their game. Either way "flex" testing for heat treatment is almost useless when you factor in the effects of cross section which is the only real way to change the stiffness or flex. A thin piece of steel will flex better than a thick piece of steel due to less resistance and forces generated. If you doubt this simply take a piece of 1" x12" stock that is 1/32" thick and see how far you can flex it and have it return to true, versus a 1/4" thick 1"x12" bar which will take more force to flex but will bend permanently at a much lesser degree.

The disturbing thing is that one doesn’t have to do a lot of reading to realize these simple principles, they are common sense that we could readily see if we were not pre-conditioned to believe otherwise.

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

On the original topic and my Benedict Arnold assessment of the forged blade, another thing that is often mentioned is the ability of the smith to turn any shape steel into a blade while the grinder has to work with specific bar stock. This sounds great until you ask how many top stock removers regularly make blades from any old mystery scrap that can be reshaped, welded together or easily scavenged, regardless of what the heck its chemistry may be. I have had guys who are grinding their very first knife ask if old truck springs are good, but I haven't ran into many seasoned stock removers who would. Yet I regularly encounter bladesmiths who have no problem setting a knife on a show table made from old mystery metal. Damascus is one of our banes in that we often feel we can dump anything into it and magically transform it into any steel we wish for in the folding and welding process. We need to stop thinking like hammers are magic wands. Once again if I were a collector I would not exclude stock removers because of any imaginary edge that forgers claim to have, especially if it comes down between two $800 knives; one that was made from the best known steel the guy could buy to precisely lay out a knife on, and the other was made from unknown dumpster gleanings.

Once again, ease off the trigger and remember that I myself am a bladesmith, and all I am saying is that we can do a whole lot better, but we never will if we are not capable of critical self examination. In all our extra heating and cooling operations there are opportunities to gain some slight advantages inside the steel, but we won’t get there with all the gibberish, parlor tricks and sales pitches we have been relying on for too long. The problem with deception is often that to be truly convincing the first one you must deceive is yourself.

 

[jdm61]

On the original topic and my Benedict Arnold assessment of the forged blade, another thing that is often mentioned is the ability of the smith to turn any shape steel into a blade while the grinder has to work with specific bar stock. This sounds great until you ask how many top stock removers regularly make blades from any old mystery scrap that can be reshaped, welded together or easily scavenged, regardless of what the heck its chemistry may be. I have had guys who are grinding their very first knife ask if old truck springs are good, but I haven't ran into many seasoned stock removers who would. Yet I regularly encounter bladesmiths who have no problem setting a knife on a show table made from old mystery metal. Damascus is one of our banes in that we often feel we can dump anything into it and magically transform it into any steel we wish for in the folding and welding process. We need to stop thinking like hammers are magic wands. Once again if I were a collector I would not exclude stock removers because of any imaginary edge that forgers claim to have, especially if it comes down between two $800 knives; one that was made from the best known steel the guy could buy to precisely lay out a knife on, and the other was made from unknown dumpster gleanings.

Once again, ease off the trigger and remember that I myself am a bladesmith, and all I am saying is that we can do a whole lot better, but we never will if we are not capable of critical self examination. In all our extra heating and cooling operations there are opportunities to gain some slight advantages inside the steel, but we won

 

[Hmathews]

Charlie and I both like the "class" that a carbon steel knife gains over time. I love one that shows the miles traveled and the scars of use and it shows in my collection. Although we both really like the carbon steel blades for our own personal use and collections, for most of our knives we use either CPM S30V or CPM 3V. While the 3V is not considered a stainless it is more stain resistant than high carbon steel. In Southeast Georgia the humidity hovers around 95% to 100% most of the year. The Patina that our personal knives gain through use can almost be watched forming on knives in our shop. On a knife being sold it is called rust. D2 will pit hanging on the wall waiting for a handle. 1095 blades must be waxed to prevent rust from forming almost immediately. All it takes is one spot and it is a do-over. We still make knives out of high carbon steel, both stock removal and forged and will continue to. They just cause us to be more careful.

As to the speed of making a blade either from stock removal or forging, Charlie can have a stock removal blade ready for heat treating before the forge comes up to temperature and I get the steel hot. I'm not as fast with a grinder as he is, but I can grind out a blade a heck of a lot faster than I can forge one. While I am still convincing Charlie how much fun forging is, he will readily admit that there are some blade shapes that are much easier to make by forging than grinding. There are also some steels, like 1084, that we have been able to get that aren't conveniently shaped for making knives using the grinder alone. I think that both grinders and anvils are necessary if a maker is going to offer the customer a knife that can meet the various requirements the customers have for knives and that is everything from chopping limbs to a rolled up piece of news print.

I you want an argument try to lump Charlie into a group of grinders that don't know anything about knife use, steel, heat treating, edge geometry, edge retention or testing of knives just because he grinds blades out of steel. We both try very hard to not lump knife makers into generic groups because they are all individuals. Most or all statements starting with words like "most" or "all" will likely be wrong or insulting or both. We don't know most or all knife makers. I doubt anyone else does either.

 

[Tai Goo]

Kevin, it seems like you are talking both sides of the fence, which is fine. I do it too, all the time...

On the one hand you are saying that the reason you forge is, "Because it is simply the coolest way I have found to make knives.", with no definite scientific explanation or advantage in terms of performance. On the other hand you seem to be saying that if someone else thinks analyzing and using mystery metal is cool, with no definite scientific explanation or advantage,… that it is unacceptable by your standards.

At the same time, I can't help but feel that with your understanding of steel, that I could hand you a piece steel, composition unknown to you, and you would be able to analyze it well enough in your shop to determine whether or not it would make a good blade or be an acceptable blade steel,... and if it were, you could make a good knife from it. I'm not saying that it would necessarily be the "best" way to go. But there again what's "best" is subjective. However, as a matter of personal individual perspective, and concept,… what's "coolest", may also be thought of as best.

As an abstract, intuitive and circular thinker, I have no problem holding two apparently opposing truths together at the same time either… However, I avoid speaking my opinions and preferences as if they were facts and right or best for everyone all the time... If I did it would appear contradictory...

 

[Tai Goo]

As far as the “possible” thermal advantages of the forging process go, there are also "possible" thermal disadvantages,... and there is nothing to stop a person from doing extra thermal processing or getting creative with heat treating on stock reduction blades.

 

[David Schott]

Looks like we are back to "It depends on the maker" and "buy what you like" since performance is more a function of execution of a process than the process itself. In a "perfect" forging and stock removal world, the resulting steel would be identical in performance, therefore its almost 100% dependant on who is doing the work. I do sometimes wonder if collectors "pay more" for a forged work assuming it to be of a different caliber without knowing why. Some collectors might be upset to find they are paying for a smith to draw a bar into a billet while others are buying billets and yet others are forging to shape and yet others are forging pre-cut billets and others are doing a process closer to stock removal while they all are being called "forged." Im not saying anything about the value of the forging process, simply that there are wildly different kinds of forging across makers just as some stock removal guys are having knife and handle blanks waterjet cut, outsourcing the HT and just grinding the bevels and doing the finish work while others are totally sole authorship and under the same "stock removal" blanket.

 

[Tai Goo]

This has nothing to do with general performance, but as far as forging vs. stock reduction, which is faster or more efficient goes,... I'd like to reiterate the point I was trying to make about,... It depends on the form and desired character of the knife.

I doubt any stock reduction maker could duplicate this knife nearly as fast as I could forge it or capture the character of it,... and I'm sure there are others that they could do much faster with a totally different character.