-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Stainless Steel Survival Knife
- Thread starter robi12
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,116
HAHA what?
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2014
- Messages
- 5,370
Depends on the environment.
If its wet outside, the fuel is wet, and ones clothes are wet.
A sharp knife is need to process fuel to reach the dry materials. Then to process it for tinder to make fire and get dry.
A rusty edge is a dull edge. Some environments benift from stainless.
To each there own though.
Well you have a choice between a test made by Knives Illustrated or Blade, mid to late 90s... I'm sorry but I can't be more specific than that: Given the wide distribution of these magazines, am I really the only one to remember the most rigorous cutlery steel test ever made by a knife magazine? Not to mention one that made 440C the winner, by a huge margin, over D2, ATS34, 154CM, the two early CPMs, and INFI?
Curiously, I do remember the article made no fuss at all about 440C's overwhelming edge-holding superiority: They just presented their findings quite flatly: I remember feeling that bit was borderline bizarre...
I do think 440C did generally beat D2 in that test (but I vaguely remember D2 being one of the few close contenders)... I'll freely admit D2 has more wear resistance, since it is used in die tools and some saws: It has after all the highest carbon content of most steels... Maybe die-tool wear resistance is not the be all end all of a fine cutting edge? 440C was generally the best edge-holder in most materials (I remember its superiority on the manilla rope cutting test being especially crushing), but there may have been a few materials were D2, or another steel, ranked ahead (by a much smaller margin than 440C beat them on other materials: At least 40-50% + on the manilla rope)...: I remember myself being mainly focussed on the beating ATS34 (still a bit in vogue back then) and even INFI were taking on most materials... The test was very comprehensive, yet the "conclusion" part seemed to have been very, very discrete for some reason...
It is a fact that more chrome, up to a point, increases edge-holding and wear-resistance: That is the scientific reality: In that context, how can you take seriously a ranking that puts 440C near the bottom? This is just laughable: 440C is one of THE standards of the steel industry (if not quite as widely used or as old as D2), and is apparently the one standard steel to which all other high wear stainless steels are compared: It has never been replaced for many industrial applications... There is no way properly heat-treated 440C is near the bottom, unless all the other cutlery steels somehow had much higher chrome or carbon percentages: Fat chance of that...
The rankings by Ankerson are totally meaningless for comparison purposes for another, far more important reason: None of the knives in Ankerson's tests were specifically made for the tests... In fact, not only are these just factory blades, with all the laughable tolerances this implies, but they are not even identical knives to begin with...
Not only are they not identical knives, they are listed as not having the same blade thickness at the top of the edge bevel (!!!)...
Do you really want to give credence to such a large potential for errors, when out there exists a test where all the blades were completely identical, made specifically for the test by a reputed custom maker? This test controlled not only the blade shape, bevel angle and thickness, but also the bevel's grit surface finish, heat-treating and cutting pressure, this accross a wide range of materials and uses... Which test do you think is the more scientific one: One that uses off-the shelf factory blades, or one that uses dozens of identical generic blades made in different steels specifically for the test?
Until we see this kind of effort, now you know the standard I consider minimal for a steel cutting test comparison to be treated seriously: All the blades must be identical, and made to high tolerances specifically for the test, with the purpose of providing an accurate comparisons for steel cutting performance.
Otherwise it is not a steel comparison test: It is a knife comparison test...
Since we already have such a test made (and apparently one that is forgotten by everyone here with an Internet-era memory), why pay any attention to later tests that introduce all kinds of unnecessary variables?
Mind you, the variables are fine if you want to compare knives: They are totally useless for forming an opinion about steel...
As to why 440C is still a superior steel, easily the near-equal (and probably better) to anything that has come since, why not listen to what Jay Fisher has to say about it?:
" As detailed in the Machinery's Handbook: "This steel has the greatest quenched hardness and wear resistance upon heat treatment of any corrosion-resistant or heat-resistant steel."
"There are new alloys all the time, and you'll see one thing in common with all of them: They compare their subjective performance details to one steel in particular. This one steel that is the benchmark for all comparisons of new stainless and wear-resistant alloy steels is (surprise) 440C."
Jay Fisher does praise D2's edge-holding as being something unbeatable, but that is still only theory largely based on how hard it is to sharpen...: He describes ATS34 as being especially tough, but that has not been most people's experience with it... In any case, he speculates that 440C's poor reputation may be due to its finicky and unforgiving heat treatment, which can produce a wide variety of results; Another reason that makes tests of off-the-shelf knives utterly useless for forming an opinion about a specific steel rather than a specific knife...
Note I claim no great knowledge of all the newer steels to have come since then, but none of them have dominated the tool industry and replaced all the older steels, so I'll stick with this: Make a rigorous test of these newer steels, and they will be included as a useful reference to make a purchasing decision...
A rigorous steel test means, at the minimum, identical generic blades, custom-made specifically for the test, using the steel manufacturer's heat-treating procedures, period. Then rigorous consistency controls at every subsequent level of the test (like cutting motion, motion angle, force, material consistency etc). Anything else is nice to hear about, but is not to be considered relevant for an opinion about a steel, instead of just a knife...
Until that happens I'll pick 440C as my first choice, and in fact probably the only reasonable choice for a large using knife. I buy mostly Randalls nowadays, strictly because they have the thinnest fixed blade V-edge bevels -0.5 mm- combined with hollow grinds (I don't care so much about their finish quality), but I'll note they also have come to the same conclusion: Their 440B is said to be often in between 440B and C in carbon content, and is in fact sometimes 440C in all but name... And in a concrete chopping test against INFI, Randall's 440B didn't exactly come out second best... Yes I know, different knives, but nice to know for a seventh rate steel right?...
Gaston
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 457
strategy9
Gold Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 4,233
That's the best answer; as per the op saying he "heard" 154cm is not "that good" at resisting rust, one has to wonder, where he heard that and what was that in comparison to? Both are very rust resistant under normal circumstances with very minimal maintenance; just wipe it off if/when it gets wet... Unless you're planning on leaving it out in the rain, or on a heavy salt water environment with little to no care, rust should not be a problem for either...
Seems like rusty machetes seem to work just fine for most living in tropical environments around the world for regular life not just "survival".
People generally don't choose a "survival" knife, then immediately get into a survival situation. I know people whose lolsurvivalknives have been in a bag for decades. If you do, finally, need a survival knife it won't work so well if it's been rusting away for some time. Like someone else said, "a rusty edge is a dull edge".
For a lot of people, regular life is "survival". They use their blades constantly, they're not sitting around so the corrosion is superficial. For most people in the first world, a "survival" knife is something that they take camping a few times a year.
For a constant user knife, 'high carbon' steel works extremely well. For an lolsurvival or emergency knife, that will spend most of it's time in a sheath (or a bag or wherever) rust is more of a concern.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2014
- Messages
- 5,370
How about the temperate rain forest, or the boreal forests?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2001
- Messages
- 6,135
I vaguely remember this test. It would be interesting to read it again. I have the Blade Magazine 1973-1997 DVD. Do you think the article was 1997 or earlier?
If the test was indeed performed under these strict guidelines, that does seem like the best way to get accurate results on the steel itself.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 175
There are plenty of new tool steels that have higher chromium content if you think that is the end-all piece of content. 440C is 16-18% Cr, Elmax is exactly 18%, CPM 20CV is 20%, M390 also 20%, CTS-204P 20%, ZDP-189 has 20%, Vanax has 21%, MPL-1 has a whopping 24% Cr content... You get the idea.
I mention the above because of its importance to you, but in addition to that all of the powder steels above and ZDP-189 are going to be better, pretty much objectively, than 440C, at least in terms of edge retention and wear resistance.
As far as adoption as evidence this is easily explained. First the tool and die industry doesn't really use stainless steels, D2 remains the standard. Other industries I can't really speak to but the obvious answer is that any business using a steel is going to opt for economy above all else. Powder steels are extremely expensive so why bother switching when 440C is good enough. It really isn't the best, but if it costs 1/10th the price why bother buying something that will only give you 2 times the performance? You just replace the tooling more frequently. Luckily in the knife world we aren't all looking for the most economical option otherwise we'd all be carrying a box cutter and a hack saw. Definitely a hyperbole, but you get what I'm saying. Knife collecting is much more than pure utility and we are pretty much always willing to pay a premium for these extra things.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2013
- Messages
- 3,197
Something in INFI. It's not "stainless" but mine has proven to be very rust resistant.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,300
Anything INFI is going to be much more expensive than the OP's budget though
OP, take a look at the Muela Rhino or the Cudeman MT5, both seem to be good knives.
You can get the Cudeman for around 60, thats a great deal for a N695 knife.
The Muela should be around 100 and is 14C28N steel, which I like a lot
OP, take a look at the Muela Rhino or the Cudeman MT5, both seem to be good knives.
You can get the Cudeman for around 60, thats a great deal for a N695 knife.
The Muela should be around 100 and is 14C28N steel, which I like a lot
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,206
The OP is the functional equivalent of asking what car to buy. Trying to dig the useful out of the useless will take some time. Be prepared for advice from folks with limited knowledge and experience and 180 degree contradictions between posters.
Be especially prepared for your actual question to be ignored. I for example, think 5160 is best for a sword.
Be especially prepared for your actual question to be ignored. I for example, think 5160 is best for a sword.
The cliche "Best survival knife is the one you have on you" comes to mind. Why someone would neglect a knife they allegedly trust their life to makes no sense. A Set and Forget mentality isn't what I'd call a winning attitude for preserving ones life in any situation emergency or not.
Exactly, regular life for tribes in the amazon, southeast asia, africa is survival. Everyday. They don't have problems with their blades because they have the one on their hip for all occasions. Most don't even have a bag to leave a knife in and neglect even if they wanted to. I'd be hardpressed to say those humans are wrong simply because they can't afford a bag or stainless option. As for the OP, don't worry about if a knife is stainless or not, but if stainless is a must, then yes, many many types have been issued as good suggestions above. To which I'd add, get something you'll use all the time, as the knife you're most familiar with will always be your best option.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2009
- Messages
- 175
As others mentioned it is easy to get sidetracked in threads like this...
So to return to your initial question if the fallkniven F1 sounds good to you I would go for it. It is a tried and proven knife that may not be the strongest out there certainly but it should be quite stainless, take and hold a very good edge, and be tough enough.
Some have picked on the term "survival knife" but I'm guessing based on your question that this is a knife you intend to use regularly and are just trying to frame the category for us. If you do intend to just throw a knife in a bag, the F1 should be fine for that, but if it is going to be a life or death tool you may want a tougher steel than VG10. Your best bet in my opinion would be go for a tougher, less stainless steel and get it coated. If you aren't using it regularly you won't have to worry about the coating wearing off and this will help inhibit rust while it sits. If you do plan on making this knife a user I wouldn't worry about the durability of VG10 much because really unless you abuse it you shouldn't see an issue, and if one does arise just replace the knife.
Finally if you really are willing to spend more if you find something that is just right I'd definitely recommend looking at knives in Elmax steel. Check out the "Scrap Yard Knife Company 375 Elmax" not too far over your price range and Elmax is going to be significantly tougher AND more stainless than VG10.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,050
Okay, so you are basing you argument on fun article written in a non-scientific magazine that's sole purpose is to sell knives that was written 20 years ago and you don't even know which article or magizine it is? You can't be serious.
Like in the above quote you can't even remember what magazine wrote it, when it was written, or what it was called. If you are going to hold it up as evidence then you must know these things.
So an article written by an unknown magazine that you cannot reference is more valid? Not to mention, this unknown magazine makes its money by selling advertizing, IE selling knives. It is in no way the unbiased scientific tests with "non-laughable tolerances" of which you claim. Ankerson has no dog in this fight. And the reason his tests are valid is because he uses actual knives that are specifically not made for a test. Anything can be taught to pass a test.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board on your critique.
Geometry has more of an effect on edge retention than the alloy used. Without controlling for geometry any test of edge retention is worthless. That variable has to be controlled to produce meaningful data.
Survival knife is a marketing term that doesn't mean anything. Get a Becker tweener model and call it a day.
Survival knife is a marketing term that doesn't mean anything. Get a Becker tweener model and call it a day.