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

I should also mention, probably as it's own thought, that 420HC certainly seems to be better in every metric Larrin measured, but as the community seems to be hyperfocused on edge retention specifically, I'd suggest those concerned look at the values given in Larrins article again for some better perspective. Particularly the graph showing the relationship between HRC and TCC in mm cut for a selection of steels, and compare that to the ratings chart...

The difference is less than you might imagine.
 
To add to the variability discussion: 1095 is supposed to be easily sharpened. Someone forgot to tell my old Winchester Black Box Coffin End Jack, because that thing was a bear to sharpen and I was even using diamonds.
 
1095 can be tougher if treated to a lower Rockwell hardness. It is still going to have low corrosion resistance and edge retention will be very low too at that hardness. I imagine the reason it is widely used is its easy to heat treat and has some name recognition. It is, after all, a good steel that has been around forever.

I'll always default to Larrin, though. He has a PhD in metallurgy, has recently developed a fantastic new super steel, and he just seems to know his stuff. His contributions to the knife community have been exceptional. I don't think he is bashing 1095, but rather providing accurate data. 420hc can be good budget steel.
 
Both are perfectly good IMHO. Buck's 420HC is tough, very corrosion resistant and will take a very fine edge that is easily maintained. 1095 has been around even longer and will stand up to hard use just fine. A lot depends on blade geometry.
 
The way I read Larrin’s article, is that the best steels to pick out of the 3 families (1) Carbon, (2) High Alloy, or (3) Stainless, is to pick a steel on one of the dashed lines, as they have the best toughness/edge retention combos.

Yes it’s academic, geometry and heat treatment rule, etc., etc., but the 3 charts are a real nice way to think about corrosion resistance / toughness / edge retention, IMO.

For example, if you don’t care about corrosion resistance and want tough, pick 8670, 5160 or 52100.
 
Last edited:
I'm honestly not surprised by this...

In spite of it's reputation for rugged toughness, I've seen all manner of 1095 blades which are beat up and rusted out just from regular use in outdoor environments, yet I've seen Buck Knives like the 119, 120, and 124 that have seem hard use yet still appear to be in excellent working condition. (Granted that older Bucks were made out of 440C and 425M rather than 420HC, and I can't be entirely sure if all of them I've seen were 420HC if their Date Code wasn't visible, but I digress...)
I was actually looking at Tops Knives like the Steel Eagle back in December because they seemed to have a reputation as tough, all-purpose outdoors knives, but abruptly lost interest once I read that the models in my price range were 1095 Carbon Steel and saw in subsequent reviews of the blade just how easily it wore/rusted under basic use, despite having a rust-resistant coating applied to it.

I don't want to bash 1095, as it obviously has been around a long time, it's a proven steel, and has it's uses, but it is overrated by some within the greater blade community. In addition, 420HC is often times looked down upon, (especially if it isn't Buck's 420HC with Paul Bos' Heat Treatment) just because it isn't some modern super steel that everyone will also look down upon within the next few years after it has been improved upon.
 
From my understanding:

Carbon steels like 1095 are very, very difficult to incorporate into a "standardized" chart. Their performance can vary massively in different heat treatments and production processes in general. Unlike high alloy steels, whose performance are a lot more "baked-in" in their element composition. Also, knife makers does a lot of "differential heat treatment" with carbon steels.

Check out DBK's destructive review of Tops Storm Vector. Given its edge geometry, that level of toughness I'd call it very, very promising.

 
I have quite honestly stopped paying attention to any and all spec/comparison charts and tests - no offense to Larrin or others - but it is simply data overload.

Actual performance attributes are directly related to the specific user, with a specific knife, with a specific heat treat, with a specific edge geometry, cutting specific material with a specific force - and no chart is going to be able to summarize what my needs are, and what works "best" for those needs.

What works for me in a certain steel, may not work as well for others with a different brand of knife - even IF the steel type is the same. All that matters is what performs well FOR ME - and no chart is going override that.

With that said, I will always choose a quality 1095 knife (Tops, Becker, Esee, etc.) over 420HC, for my requirements.
 
Last edited:
shane45-1911 said:
I have quite honestly stopped paying attention to any and all spec/comparison charts and tests - no offense to Larrin or others - but it is simply data overload.

The actual performance attributes are directly related to the specific user, with a specific knife, with a specific heat treat, with a specific edge geometry, cutting specific material with a specific force - and no chart is going to be able to summarize what my needs are, and what works "best" for those needs.

What works for me in a certain steel, may not work as well for others with a different brand of knife - even IF the steel is the same. All that matters is what performs well FOR ME - and no chart is going override that.

With that said, I will always choose a quality 1095 knife (Tops, Becker, Esee, etc.) over 420HC, for my requirements.
Click to expand...

This sums it up for me too!!!👍💯👍
John 🍺
 
420HC. Even if not by Buck. But by Condor or Ontario. Flat out is a great steel and has a bad undeserved reputation. I have a Condor Machete in 420 HC that has shrugged off bad swings and occasional rock strike while landscaping without ever chipping. It is nice to have a knife that I can leave outside overnight if I forget to bring it in without it rusting. It is so nice to not have to oil, clean, and baby a work knife constantly. I do also have axes, hatchets, and scythes made from 1095 or 10XX steels. And they constantly dull and chip easy. And need to be oiled when in the shed for the winter. Or they will be pitted by spring.
 
I think you are misunderstanding the way he presents the data. I think 420HC has a rating of 9 relative to the group it is being compared to (i.e. Stainless Steels). Same with the 1095. The rating is within that group of high carbon steels not overall.

Edit: Idiot me. Actually I browsed through the rest of the article and I saw that he has actual toughness values measured at the same hardness. So, seemingly, 420HC is way tougher than 1095 at a hardness of 57HRc. 🤨
 
Last edited:
The_Iron_Joe said:
I should also mention, probably as it's own thought, that 420HC certainly seems to be better in every metric Larrin measured, but as the community seems to be hyperfocused on edge retention specifically, I'd suggest those concerned look at the values given in Larrins article again for some better perspective. Particularly the graph showing the relationship between HRC and TCC in mm cut for a selection of steels, and compare that to the ratings chart...

The difference is less than you might imagine.
Click to expand...
Toughness gets no credit despite being more important than edge retention.
 
shane45-1911 said:
I have quite honestly stopped paying attention to any and all spec/comparison charts and tests - no offense to Larrin or others - but it is simply data overload.

Actual performance attributes are directly related to the specific user, with a specific knife, with a specific heat treat, with a specific edge geometry, cutting specific material with a specific force - and no chart is going to be able to summarize what my needs are, and what works "best" for those needs.

What works for me in a certain steel, may not work as well for others with a different brand of knife - even IF the steel type is the same. All that matters is what performs well FOR ME - and no chart is going override that.

With that said, I will always choose a quality 1095 knife (Tops, Becker, Esee, etc.) over 420HC, for my requirements.
Click to expand...

Come on ... data matter !

i-NNqbZZv-M.jpg


:D
 
JAF1973 said:
Toughness gets no credit despite being more important than edge retention.
Click to expand...
Depends entirely on what you're using the knife for. For ordinary EDC tasks, I rate edge retention much higher than toughness, because I'm not likely to chip or break a blade on cardboard or packing tape. If I was batoning a bunch of wood, then I imagine toughness would be more important.
 
3D Anvil said:
Depends entirely on what you're using the knife for. For ordinary EDC tasks, I rate edge retention much higher than toughness, because I'm not likely to chip or break a blade on cardboard or packing tape. If I was batoning a bunch of wood, then I imagine toughness would be more important.
Click to expand...
Correct you are. To a good degree. Even in EDC carry there are times toughness comes into its own. Depending on the scenario. Which is why I carry a Hogue Deka in CPM20CV for great edge retention. Along with my Khan in AUS8 or a swiss army knife. In case I need to use it for the rare task that requires toughness in order to avoid edge chipping or breaking.
Examples can include thick cardboard, zip ties, occasional hidden staple or bread tie, some thermo plastics. certain tough woods, Etc. I personally feel like toughness is superior to edge retention for my uses. And gravely underrated by 90% of the knife community.
.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Much appreciated and respected.
 
Question: The Deka shows a bit of a tendency to chip. Does that play into your decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top