Stainless. The better choice?

R

Ralf

Joined
Oct 11, 1998
Messages
565
On the main forum there was a similar thread about the "Cast Away" movie
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum64/HTML/001167.html

Many people stated that they would like a Talonite knife for survival purposes, since (carbon-)steel would get rusty too quickly which degrades performance.

I think that's not quite it. I'd rather have a big, sturdy blade which can handle heavy duty chopping tasks without the risk of breaking it. Maintaining the edge shouldn't be a major problem and require just a little effort. When I look at all these "primitive" users who have blades out of leaf springs it seems they are quite happy with what they can achieve with it, even when they live in wet jungel environment.

So what's your opinion, in a survival scenario, would you rather have a low maintenance but potentially weaker blade which may keep the edge longer because of less corrosion or a solid tool steel chopper which might need a little more maintenance?
 
Strength is everything...carbon steel with no hesitation. Any rust could easily be removed if necessary. Talonite is a tad too soft for prying although it holds an edge real well.
 
My preference would be for carbon steel; rust didn't seem to be a big problem with machetes when we were in Peace Corps in Micronesia. It's also easy to sharpen.
 
I would take a stainless folder or small delicate fixed blade and a large beefy carbon steel chopper combo.
For an interesting test, see:
Mission Knives salt water tests:
http://www.missionknives.com/articles/CorrTest/index.html
My conclusions:
No leather handle for me. No narrow tangs either. Handle slabs, sheaths, screws and small parts have to match up blade in durability (rustproofness, waterproofness ) for full durable construction without weak spots.

Best,

HM
 
Talonite (r) is not too soft for prying. Kit Carson has made many U2 dive knives out of Stellite (r) and Talonite (r), and the tips are blunt so the knife is designed for prying. He has never had a blade fail.

Remember that stainless steel, when it does rust, will pit. This causes more severe structural damage to the knife than the surface rust of high carbon steel.

Walt
 
I know an aweful lot of guys who did their time in hell already. Most of those who I've talked to readily stated that they wish they had or they did have relatives send them a stainless steel folder and fixed blade. NOT one of them, however, would have replaced their issued carbon steel machete.
 
Very general statement here: Carbon steel, with minimum of care, will outperform stainless for most "survival" tasks.

Carbon steel seems to have so many "abuse friendly" characteristics that its care requirements seem so little to ask in return.

Again, this is a general statement. IOW, don't flame me with techno-babble, I only speak from "general" outdoor experience.

Need speel-check on this rpogram!!!

[This message has been edited by Nimrod (edited 01-09-2001).]
 
Concerning jungle blades and rust, while I don't live in a hot and humid enviroment, I know blademakers that do and who make blades for native use. I asked one of them about rust and stainless steel awhile ago and surprising to me, one of the main reasons that he does not use stainless steel blades has nothing to do with performance - it is simply cost.

For many tasks, rust resistance is often desired (preparing food), and it is achieved in fact by using Al alloys to make blades. I have handled them. They will cut soft material, fruits, meats and such readily and are commonly used for such light jungle work. Even mild steel is often used for such blades, they rust *very* quickly however.

For the chopping work (parang style) it will be forged from tool steel. Do they rust - yes very readily. However the manner in which they are sharpened (full convex grind) removes all the surface rust (about once a week) and the edge degrades from constant use rather than rusting. But this constant surface grinding does thin out the blade. Stainless steel is again not an option because of cost and availability.

In regards to stainless vs not, yes stainless steels are far less ductile and far more brittle. However, that is a relative term. To really damage a quality stainless blade, even the very hard ones, you need to hit something very hard (like a decent sized nail or a rock etc. ) and be swing very hard. Or be pounding on it with a large rock or hammer. This type of work is generally not well recieved, regardless of the type of steel in the blade.

Now the lifetime of stainless blades used for high impact work like wood chopping is less than that of non-stainless blades, but you are talking about years at the minimum, and many thousands of chops. There are a decent number of people making stainless chopping blades and you might want to contact them about such things.

Personally I would prefer the greater impact toughness and ductility of the non-stainless blades. Not as much so as it allows me to chop up nails, but when accidents happen (inclusions, hidden objects), the damage will be minimized. But then again, I don't live in a humid enviroment. I would actually need to leave a blade out in the rain to get it to rust, even on 1095.

In regards to Talonite, yes it is far weaker than most cutlery steels and so it bends under much less force. It is also far softer and indents much more readily. For it to be as durable as a steel blade you would need a much more obtuse geometry and thus end up with a blade that doesn't cut nearly as well.


-Cliff
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sgtmike88:
NOT one of them, however, would have replaced their issued carbon steel machete.</font>
Click to expand...

Well said....and that has always been the case with the tons of knives we have given away to primitive cultures. They might like them and use them but they always revert back to their machetes.

Jungle conditions - nothing beats a cheap machete.

Jeff

------------------
Randall's Adventure & Training
jeff@jungletraining.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top