Seems that 420HC is way better than 1095 according to the article at Knife Steel Nerds

[SteelByMySide]

https://knifesteelnerds.com/2021/10...ness-edge-retention-and-corrosion-resistance/

I was reading the article above at Knife Steel Nerds and in the article there are several steel rated by toughness, edge retention and corrosion resistance.

In the article there are several images (I won't be putting here because I don't know if I have permission both from the forum and/or the author of the article) and in those images you can see that he rates:

420HC as having toughness as an 9 (I suppose 9 out of 10 was what he meant), edge retention as an 2.5 and corrosion resistance as an 8.

and

1095 as having toughness as an 4.5, edge retention as an 1.5 and corrosion resistance as an 0.

Basically:

	Toughness	Edge Retention	Corrosion Resistance
420HC	9	2.5	8
1095	4.5	1.5	0

So my questions boils down to:

Does that means that 420HC would be better than 1095 for survival knives?

Wouldn't companies like Tops, ESEE and Kabar be better off using 420HC on their fixed blades instead of carbon steels?

Does carbon steels suck? Because it seems so.

The carbon steels seems pretty lousy by that article.

 

[Lesknife]

5160 is a very tough carbon steel and 52100 i fairly good to and have decent edge holding. You should read Larrins articles in the stickies and the comparisons of many different blade steels.

Bucks 420hc with Bos heat treatment is a very good hard use blade steel and it’s corrosion resistance is real good and the edge retention is decent but not like a super steel. You also want to consider the geometry and blade grind to what you want to use it for. There’s a lot to consider in choosing a knife that will work the best in the environment, type of use and your sharpening skills.

 

[luethge]

Interesting article. Thank you for posting S SteelByMySide .

I’m a Carbon steel fan. Fixed blades are my favorite. I’m not a expert at anything. I do know what steels I tend to avoid when choosing a tool. The thought of a camp knife in something like CTS-XHP always makes me cringe. The thought of a (modern frame lock) folder in 1095 makes me cringe as well. I wholeheartedly respect the writer ( Knifesteelnerds ).. but, I’d say a lot of the toughest steels depend on heat treatment and maker ( and obviously composition ). I’d take a Gossman in A2 over a Hinderer in 3V ( fixed blades ) if I wanted a tool to beat through logs and chop. Heat treatment makes the knife ( or breaks it ). I’m sure there will be many comments from the community with good information soon.

That does seem crazy 1095 weaker in strength than 420 HC.

Paul Bos(s) is a wizard though

 

[catspa]

Another consideration, important to some, is grain size (on a microscopic level) which along with geometry, can affect how keen an edge a blade will take.

Like Les, I’ve had good luck with Buck 420HC. But I can’t seem to get it quite as sharp as some of my vintage and antique 1095 blades. One Green River skinning knife comes to mind, takes a screaming sharp edge, and also a Marbles Woodcraft I believe to be over 100 years old.

Maybe it’s just that my gear and techniques happen to be dialed in for carbon steel. I’m an old man after all, I learned to sharpen when there wasn’t much good stainless in the knife market. Some knives I like weren’t ever made in stainless. The knives I make myself are from carbon steel, including 1095, because it’s easier to forge, grind and heat treat with primitive methods than most stainless.

Is 1095 the best in every category? No.

Are there, or have there been, thousands of 1095 blades that have performed the needed functions for decades, if not a century? Well, yes.

Seems like that article compared a few properties of a few steels and tried to draw a pretty ambitious conclusion. Might be a better idea to consider a steel as a whole in the context of intended use.

Parker

 

[Arathol]

The thought of a folder in 1095 makes me cringe as well.

If you ever come across any of these horrendous 1095 folders, you just send them along, and I'll dispose of them properly.
I cringe every time I see what they are selling for on the secondary market....

 

[Arathol]

Are there, or have there been, thousands of 1095 blades that have performed the needed functions for decades, if not a century? Well, yes.

Nope. Not thousands. Millions....and millions.....

 

[DocJD]

The carbon steels seems pretty lousy by that article.

I'm not sure this is true in most real life , actual mass produced knives .

I'm not questioning the science ,but the actual HT that is applied may not be up to the highest standard possible .

4034 is supposed to similar but has a poor reputation as a knife steel .

Confuses me greatly ,but I'm no expert .

 

[luethge]

If you ever come across any of these horrendous 1095 folders, you just send them along, and I'll dispose of them properly.
I cringe every time I see what they are selling for on the secondary market....

I feel like I owe an apology., this , is a beautiful exception to my 1095 folder comment. I was referring to modern style folders with moving parts. Traditional folders.. oil and a good wet stone / strop - all you need.

A Arathol - beautiful collection by the way. I wouldn’t mind some red jigged bone handles in rotation

 

[Another Shepherd]

I recently tested the sharpness of a new, unused Buck 110FG Folding Hunter in 420HC right out of the box using an Edge-On-Up PT50A. The average force required to cut the thread (test medium) at five spots spaced along the edge was 116 grams. The only knife that has beaten this score, out of more than 100 knives that I have tested, was a Benchmade Pardue Spearpoint Auto in 154CM, which scored 98.

My personal experience using 420HC (in a different knife) is that it benefits from frequent stropping, which I do not mind nearly as much as fixing chips. Buck knives in 420HC are very popular around here, and I have never heard anybody say they are hard to sharpen, but perhaps there are occasional lemons.

Because it is very wet in the summer where I live, I would never buy a knife that corrodes as easily as 1095. Actually, I can't see any reason to ever buy a 1095 knife at all, when you can get ESEEs in S35VN or Guardians in 3V.

I get the impression that not everybody has read the article in question.

 

[knarfeng]

Choice of blade steel is always a compromise.
"Good enough" is the enemy of "better".
Blade Geometry is more important than Blade Alloy. You use a geometry that supports the property you are trying to maximize.

Cold Steel has been touting the performance of 4034 steel. Even Demko was enthused with it. 4034 is kissing cousin to 420HC.
Certainly Buck, Gerber and Cold Steel have made a lot of reasonably tough blades using 420HC, especially Cold Steel and Gerber.

For the past 25 years Buck has used a blade geometry that maximizes edge retention. Gerber and Cold steel use thicker geometry that results in a tougher blade.

 

[DocJD]

Cold Steel has been touting the performance of 4034 steel.

I'd sure like to see some meaningful proof tests , because GSM is putting this steel on some models like their Warcraft that used to be 3V .

 

[EatingSarma]

Cold Steel and Gerber

They seem to have more and more things in common.

 

[killgar]

I'm not into all the scientific gobbledygook. I'm just a dumb caveman. If a knife does what I need it to do, I'm happy. I don't need to study charts and graphs to figure out if a knife performs well or not.

My problem with "scientific testing" of knives is that I wasn't there, I don't know if the knives were properly heat-treated, if there was a flaw in the steel, if they truly were sharpened EXACTLY the same, and accepting the results is pretty much a matter of faith, both in the testing methods used, and the people doing the testing. What if they or their methods were flawed?

For me, the best knife testing has always been to take a knife out and use it.

But don't get me wrong, we all enjoy knives in our own way. If people are really into the "science" of knives, whether it be performance tests, or metallurgy, I say more power to them. Whatever floats your boat .

 

[G. Scott H.]

I'm not into all the scientific gobbledygook. I'm just a dumb caveman. If a knife does what I need it to do, I'm happy. I don't need to study charts and graphs to figure out if a knife performs well or not.

My problem with "scientific testing" of knives is that I wasn't there, I don't know if the knives were properly heat-treated, if there was a flaw in the steel, if they truly were sharpened EXACTLY the same, and accepting the results is pretty much a matter of faith, both in the testing methods used, and the people doing the testing. What if they or their methods were flawed?

For me, the best knife testing has always been to take a knife out and use it.

But don't get me wrong, we all enjoy knives in our own way. If people are really into the "science" of knives, whether it be performance tests, or metallurgy, I say more power to them. Whatever floats your boat .

As is so often the case, too, "lab" results don't necessarily translate out on the "street," as there are so many unforeseen and unpredictable variables not accounted for in the lab. I enjoy looking at controlled and scientific testing of many things; however, that is just one aspect, one piece of the puzzle as it were.

 

[shqxk]

I have Buck 110 in both 420HC and 5160 and the 5160 version holds an edge noticeable better and sharpens wayyyy better too. My friend who have the same set of 110 and uses it regularly also said the same.

 

[Murdamook]

Larrin states repeatedly that this is based on his sampling and doesn’t necessarily include all iterations of a specific steel. The primary reason survival knives and traditional folders are utilizing 1095 is because the steel is cheap, less costly to manipulate, and easier for the end user to sharpen.

 

[afishhunter]

The thought of a folder in 1095 makes me cringe as well

Why? Traditional slipjoints have been made with 1095 or some other hardenable carbon steels since the 1600's. There are a lot of 100 plus year old slipjoints that are in use today. Friction folders date back at least to between 600 and 400 BC. (They just haven't found an older one yet.) They were made with simple steel or iron blades ... possibly with bronze blades. 100 plus year old friction folders are still in use, as well.

 

[luethge]

Why? Traditional slipjoints have been made with 1095 or some other hardenable carbon steels since the 1600's. There are a lot of 100 plus year old slipjoints that are in use today. Friction folders date back at least to between 600 and 400 BC. (They just haven't found an older one yet.) They were made with simple steel or iron blades ... possibly with bronze blades. 100 plus year old friction folders are still in use, as well.

I think I had too much coffee. I have a problem communicating. What I Intended to say was not a complaint against 1095 in a folder , but better uses for steels possibly. I think 1095 is excellent steel , in fact it’s one of my favorites right behind 80CRV2, 5160 and 01. When I said cringe with regard to CTS-XHP in a camp knife , I meant it - it’s better suited in a folder where edge retention is more important than durability ( in my opinion ). A folder in 1095 would require more maintenance than one in XHP or 154CM, but it might have a tougher blade or would it ? Based off the article this thread is about ( opinion again ). I had no intention of knocking 1095 as a steel choice for a folder, more of example to compare a “super steel” to be used in a “harder” use knife.

I also have no intention of completely derailing this thread.

1095 is great steel for folders , especially the original slip joint style. It’s easy to keep sharp, ages well, and performs predictably . I personally prefer something like PD1 or Cruwear if possible these days ( in a folder ). I have very little experience with slip joints. I was around them as a kid, “Grandpas cattle cutter knife” ( castration knife. We Lived on a farm in Iowa ). Pretty sure that old case he carried was 1095 - worked for a few decades just fine. The old 110 lockback I had was definitely not stainless, it cut for days ( must of been years between sharpenings - I was a kid ). My Fathers only Deer knife was an old re forged file with a convex edge.

I’m absolutely no expert. I love Carbon steel though. I’ll choose it over stainless anytime. I like the way it works for my uses.

Also - I completely appreciate the feedback found here. There is always something to learn from you guys ( and gals ). Wealth of excellent information, opinions and experiences on blade forums. This is one of my favorite places to kill time.

 

[The_Iron_Joe]

Well, like the saying goes...

"Perfection is the enemy of Good."

And think of the use cases we often see 1095 in... slip-joints, fixed blades meant for utility / tactical use... 1095 is certainly good enough. MORE than good enough, in many's estimation. I can say that 1095 and similar steels like SK5 or 1075, have worked very well for me and many others outdoors. Would any of them be my first choice for an application where edge retention was of the upmost importance? No, but neither would 420HC. Neither would S30V, for that matter, as much as I like it.

I'm absolutely not suggesting we stop searching for improvements to existing materials like steel, or searching for other materials that can achieve the same goals or have similar properties. However I think it's important to not get too caught up in the mindset that "because A is objectively, measurably worse in many qualities compared to B, A is now dung." Look at many high end, collectable custom knives. Many, many big names still continue to use 154CM (a favourite of mine, by the way), which seems to be rapidly becoming something of a "budget" steel in the wider knife communities eyes. But it is good enough for use in that application, maybe because it polishes more easily, can take a super fine edge, is fairly stainless and is fairly readily available...

So maybe 1095 is good enough to be used in a slip joint or fixed blade because the most abrasive thing you'd normally cut with it is twine or pine wood, maybe because it's so inexpensive and plentiful to come by as a manufacturer you can keep material costs down while delivering a stellar fit and finish, maybe because it's so darn easy to hone and sharpen you'll be able to maintain it yourself very easily and without much investment in tools to do so, even if you use it hard enough to chip out the edge while scraping it along a hard surface...

A better question to ask than "Does carbon steel suck?" Would probably be "What tasks and environments are carbon steels best suited for?", and go from there, knowing the limitations of the materials you're dealing with.

 

[luethge]

A better question to ask than "Does carbon steel suck?" Would probably be "What tasks and environments are carbon steels best suited for?", and go from there, knowing the limitations of the materials you're dealing with.