Ranking of Steels in Categories based on Edge Retention cutting 5/8" rope

ritterdl69 said:
I didn't expect 420HC blades made in China to hold up well. Buck once made 440 blades made in the USA. 440a and 440c and possibly another type of 440 i'm not sure. Those blades would probably do allot better. I still have the 119 special I bought when I was a teen. That one is 440c.
Click to expand...

The one I tested was made in the USA, 2007 date code. ;)
 
ritterdl69 said:
WOW! Didn't think a pic would be on the web. Nice find :thumbup:
Mine has red hard rubber spaces in stead of black, and the stacked leather is isn't in anywhere near as good of shape. And sadly, neither is the blade. Mine might be older maybe? Not sure.
I can tell you though that's not a WW2 fighting knife:eek:
And RH does not stand for Remington Hunting. The fact that it has the symbol in the middle marks it as pre-Remington buyout. Remington Sheath Knives made in the forties don't have the symbol in the middle, no Remington knife in fact will have that symbol. It's the sybol used by the shop that Remington Bought out before WW2.
That said, it COULD have been USED as a fighting knife during WW2. Allot of military personel had their own knives that the Gov didn't supply that they used.

Anyway the advertisements of the day made the claim about Diamond dust.
Click to expand...

The PAL RH 36 was a WWII fighting knife. The gov. bought up everything that was around because we started WW II with no sheath knives.

The "PAL" means it was made after the buyout of Remington's knife business by PAL in 1939.

Remington made no knives in the 1940's, having sold out its knife business to PAL in1939.

These are generally available facts.
 
nccole said:
Were you surprised at all? The general tone I have gotten from people on here concerning Buck's 420 HC might surprise some guys and maybe disappoint them.
Click to expand...

Noctis3880 said:
Maybe slightly disappointed? Though it's low alloy and fairly cheap. Granted, it doesn't seem like a Chinese steel had been tested yet. Still, nice to know H1 doesn't slack off for being rust-proof.
Click to expand...

Disappointment shouldn't be happening. The next category up has S30V, VG-10, and SG2. Yeah, AUS8 is considered a 'lesser' steel, but it also has more carbon than 420HC.

Consider that even with a 10% difference between categories (I do not know what the difference is and am just throwing out a number), for every 100 cuts of a category 9 steel, that would mean 214 cuts with a category 1. More than twice the cutting performance incremented at just 10% at a time. The difference could be larger or smaller, but it will still have a cumulative effect with 9 categories and the same difference between them.

Not to say it is the case, but a small difference between categories 7 and 8 could still easily mean a big difference between 1 and 8.
 
hardheart said:
Disappointment shouldn't be happening. The next category up has S30V, VG-10, and SG2. Yeah, AUS8 is considered a 'lesser' steel, but it also has more carbon than 420HC.

Consider that even with a 10% difference between categories (I do not know what the difference is and am just throwing out a number), for every 100 cuts of a category 9 steel, that would mean 214 cuts with a category 1. More than twice the cutting performance incremented at just 10% at a time. The difference could be larger or smaller, but it will still have a cumulative effect with 9 categories and the same difference between them.

Not to say it is the case, but a small difference between categories 7 and 8 could still easily mean a big difference between 1 and 8.
Click to expand...
True enough, and there aren't any low-end Chinese or plain 1095 or 1080 carbon steels to really compare it to. Yet I suppose the fact that 420HC isn't much known for chipping is good enough for a budget steel on US made knives.
 
Noctis3880 said:
True enough, and there aren't any low-end Chinese or plain 1095 or 1080 carbon steels to really compare it to. Yet I suppose the fact that 420HC isn't much known for chipping is good enough for a budget steel on US made knives.
Click to expand...

People have to remember that's what it is as the knives are in the sub $40 range for the most part and made in the USA to boot so putting it against some of those other steels on an even plane, same edge geometry, edge finish could surprise some I guess.
 
Ankerson said:
People have to remember that's what it is as the knives are in the sub $40 range for the most part and made in the USA to boot so putting it against some of those other steels on an even plane, same edge geometry, edge finish could surprise some I guess.
Click to expand...
Why would this result disappoint?
Do these results not bear out the claims by steel manufacturers?
I suppose without numbers extrapolating that steel A is X% "better" than steel B in regard to edge-retention, it's hard for people to assess what advantage they paid into their more expensive knife - steel, other materials, fit&finish, warranty, etc. Does an S30V blade justify the 110's $80 tag vs $40 in 420HC? *shrug*

Regardless, thank you for running the 110, Jim. :thumbup: I for one am not disappointed by the result.
 
People would be disappointed with a 'this is just as good as that' mentality. But they should not be, because that mentality can still be right as far as specific EDC practices. What these tests show are the results from a specific method to achieve specific ends. If you strop your blade every day and haven't seen a piece of rope in three years, then yeah, 420HC is 'just as good'. Now, expecting results from a very specific test to go your way just because you find edge performance to be similar in extremely short-term cutting is unrealistic. People have different needs with knives, and even most people in modern developed areas find they don't need a knife too often. But if you need a knife to cut for a long time, this is a good comparison. If you don't need that, then this test is probably irrelevant to you. There should be no reason for surprise or disappointment, but people put emotion into choices and beliefs.
 
420HC is a "working man's stainless" so it makes sense to me. It's still a cutlery grade steel, so it's not like it performed poorly in general as much as poorly for that specific test compared to higher end steels. Which makes total sense. I mean, Condor uses 420HC in their stainless machetes, so that ought to tell you something. It's an ok steel and all--it's just not the best when it comes to extended and repeated slicing of a fibrous material.
 
Ankerson said:
People have to remember that's what it is as the knives are in the sub $40 range for the most part and made in the USA to boot so putting it against some of those other steels on an even plane, same edge geometry, edge finish could surprise some I guess.
Click to expand...
Very true, just need to see if it competes with the Chinese steels at all.

Anyways, if you feel game I've got a couple of Queen Cutlery D2 fixed blades that should be good for testing. They come the standard axe thickness, so I'll grind down one a bit thinner and can send you both to see which one is suitable for testing.
 
ritterdl69 said:
WOW! Didn't think a pic would be on the web. Nice find :thumbup:
Mine has red hard rubber spaces in stead of black, and the stacked leather is isn't in anywhere near as good of shape. And sadly, neither is the blade. Mine might be older maybe? Not sure.
I can tell you though that's not a WW2 fighting knife:eek:
And RH does not stand for Remington Hunting. The fact that it has the symbol in the middle marks it as pre-Remington buyout. Remington Sheath Knives made in the forties don't have the symbol in the middle, no Remington knife in fact will have that symbol. It's the sybol used by the shop that Remington Bought out before WW2.
That said, it COULD have been USED as a fighting knife during WW2. Allot of military personel had their own knives that the Gov didn't supply that they used.

Anyway the advertisements of the day made the claim about Diamond dust.
Click to expand...

those knives were mass produced. i doubt at that time they had very accurate ovens/tempering equipment, add in the rate at which those blade had to be produced and variations in the hardness of the steel must have been common. that knife was probably made out of a slightly modified high carbon steel, example: like 1095 cro-van (although i'm not 100% certain). 1095 can be hardened to about 65HRC and if the tempering ovens and or process was rushed or not even, that could make for varying hardness throughout the blade. that would explain why the blade is wearing faster in certain spots. also that is a fairly large blade with a thick grind. add in the idea that it might not have been tempered down right, and that would cause your trouble sharpening it. it would be like reshaping a file by hand.

besides the fact that diamonds will dissolve in steel way below steel's melting point, the fact that those knives where mass produced for the military should be the first red flag as why they wouldn't have diamond dust in the steel. only natural diamonds were available at the time and it wouldn't be feasible or cost effective for the company to even try that when they had to make thousands of them.

i found the paperwork that would come with one of those PAL made knives:

226512d1312799247t-help-rh-pal-knife-not-issued-paper-work-packaging-stp80015.jpg



as you stated, the advertisements of the day mentioned diamond dust. i have yet to find one of those advertisements or read about a reference to it, but it was probably just marketing.


.
 
Last edited:
chiral.grolim said:
Why would this result disappoint?
Do these results not bear out the claims by steel manufacturers?
I suppose without numbers extrapolating that steel A is X% "better" than steel B in regard to edge-retention, it's hard for people to assess what advantage they paid into their more expensive knife - steel, other materials, fit&finish, warranty, etc. Does an S30V blade justify the 110's $80 tag vs $40 in 420HC? *shrug*

Regardless, thank you for running the 110, Jim. :thumbup: I for one am not disappointed by the result.
Click to expand...

The 110 in S30V isn't a standard item for them so you are paying a premium for it along with that S30V is harder to work with and more expensive than 420HC.
 
Stupid question here ......... isnt D-2 all the same except for the heat treat ??
and maybe CPM and not cpm.
 
djdawg said:
Stupid question here ......... isnt D-2 all the same except for the heat treat ??
and maybe CPM and not cpm.
Click to expand...

CPM D2 is made from a different process than standard D2, one is a PM Steel (CPM D2) and the other is an ingot steel (D2).

Standard D2 is all pretty much the same (Slight variations in batches as with any steel), the difference is the way it's heat treated and tempered.
 
Ankerson said:
Diamond Blades.
Click to expand...

it's going to be interesting to see how their friction forge process and claimed hardness of 65-68 stacks up. i didn't even know D2 could get to 68HRC, the highest i've seen right out of hardening is 65HRC.
 
Last edited:
jimnolimit said:
it's going to be interesting to see how their friction forge process and claimed hardness of 65-68 stacks up. i didn't even know D2 could get to 68HRC, the highest i've seen right out of hardening is 65HRC.
Click to expand...

I dunno, we will see what happens I guess, have to run them for another testing process so while they are here I will see what they will do and if they can be ranked or not.
 
Ankerson said:
I dunno, we will see what happens I guess, have to run them for another testing process so while they are here I will see what they will do and if they can be ranked or not.
Click to expand...

i hope the blade geometry fits into your testing guidelines. a few years ago sal mentioned "The FF blade that we tested did very well on the CATRA"

thanks again for doing all this testing and sharing the info :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top