sandvik steel..??

Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
59
This is the only steel that I am pretty unfamiliar with. I just got my BM42S today and I was just wondering as to why the use of this steel in this blade. I know that Sandvik is a large coporation that supplies steel to large industry but what are the advantages to this versus ATS34, M2 whatever. Anyone know what the copositional breakdown on this stuff is??
 
Sandvik is pretty simple stuff: .6% carbon; .35% silicon; .4% manganese; 14% chrome.

It's advantage for a user is that it is very pure and fine grained. It takes a very sharp edge, like a razor blade alloy. It is generally only hardened up to around 56 RC, but with the right heat treat can be made a bit harder. The advantage for a manufacturer is that when it is annealed it is soft enough to die cut into elaborate shapes. More complex alloys with elements like vanadium and molybdenum wear out your dies too fast when you try to cut them to allow sophisticated shapes (without hand work).

 
It is also pretty rust resistant. I own a few EKA knives featuring this steel and a couple of them are fishing-fillet knives. The blade holds its edge quite well and though I sometimes forget to take care of the knife after using it, there has never been any trouble with rust. The hardness of my IKA-fillet is 58 on the HRC scale. It is easy to sharpen (on my 204)and you will get a superb edge that holds long enough. IMO that the Sandvik 12C27 is a steel of compromise between rust resistance, edge holding, easy field sharpening and toughness. Do I have to say that I like it very much?
smile.gif
 
There is all the difference in the world between 440A and Sandvik when you sharpen them. The 440A feels tougher and doesn't like to take as fine an edge. Sandvik feels smooth and is sort of silky on the hone. The higher carbon and chrome content of 440A makes it harder, but the grain structure is also coarser. I expect 440A to dull more from edge carbide grains coming out in bits while the Sandvik edge would be more inclined to roll over.
 
I heard a story on the radio some time ago about a charity that gives grants to drug companies to develope new drugs for obscure and rare diseases. In many cases, developing a drug for a disease isn't that difficult. But, if there aren't many people suffering from that condition, then the market for any drug that might be developed is to small to justify the expenses of not only developing the drug but getting it approved and into production. In the mean time, the suffers of those afflictions have to make do with drugs formulated originally for other purposes. The story gave one example of an obscure nerve disfunction that blocked some nerve functions. There's about 200 cases of it in the US. The condition is well understood. Researchers basically knew what the drug to treat it needed to be. But, it took almost a million dollars to develope that drug, do all the testing, and actually get in on the market. No drug company would do it since the potential to even break even much less make a profit was not there with only 200 potential customers, and once they are cured, new cases are discovered at only a few per year. The market was just to small. But, with this charity paying half the costs, the drug was developed and is a great success (though even with the grant, it still ends up costing something like $30,000 per patient to cure the disease).

Developing a steel alloy is an expensive undertaking too. While we may think quite highly of them, knives are actually a very small, obscure market for metal suppliers. I'd bet money that General Motors scraps more pounds of metal each month than Benchmade, Spyderco, and throw in a few more if you like combined use in a year.

The steels we know and love for blades where, for the most part, developed for other applications. The TS in ATS-34, for example, stands for Tool Steel. ATS-34 is a tool steel developed to make machine tools out of.
This is, perhaps, why there isn't an "ultimate" alloy out there. Until some charity will pay the cost of developing an alloy for us, we've got to just make do with steels originally formulated for other applications.

The Sandvik alloys are different. They were actually originally formulated for knives and razor blades. Not surprisingly, they work pretty well.



------------------
Chuck
Balisongs -- because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!
http://www.balisongcollector.com
 
Originally posted by Gollnick:
The TS in ATS-34, for example, stands for Tool Steel.
-----------------------------------------

Golnick, you don´t happen to know what the letter A in ATS-34 stands for? Just curious
smile.gif
 
I've heard two different versions.

Advanced Tool Steel and American Tool Steel. The later was accompanied with the explaination that ATS was originally formulated and manufactured by an American supplier in response to complaints from customers of inconsistency in the quality of asian-sourced tool steel that they were supplying. I don't know if that's true.



------------------
Chuck
Balisongs -- because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!
http://www.balisongcollector.com
 
ATS-34 is the Hitachi version of 154CM. While the carbon content could classify it otherwise CPM lists 154CM as a non-tool steel product.
 
Back
Top