steel, geometry. heat treat.. Pick two

FortyTwoBlades said:
As others have said, geometry and heat treatment by a longshot. Of course most manufacturers opt for steel (it's trendy and sells knives) and heat treatment (it keeps knives from being returned) and they ignore the geometry in favor of something flashy looking that sucks for actually cutting things.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So I pick geometry and geometry.
 
Just some examples of why for me it would be steel and HT:

You can fix geometry....actually, you can change it completely if you want, but I didn't go that far.







 
It's a pointless question. You need all three.

Pick two: brain, heart, blood. Any choice leaves you dead.

If heat treat, steel composition or geometry are only a little off, not a problem. If if you have big problems with any of those three, the knife is worthless.
 
Twindog said:
It's a pointless question. You need all three.

Pick two: brain, heart, blood. Any choice leaves you dead.

If heat treat, steel composition or geometry are only a little off, not a problem. If if you have big problems with any of those three, the knife is worthless.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
This thread is about HAVING to pick 2 of the 3.

If I HAVE to pick 2 out of the 3, I will pick the two I can't change.....

There are a few very talented craftsmen that can change the geometry with precision, they cannot however, change the steel or the HT.

My two examples above, and these are not wholesale changes in geometry, but if I wanted to, it could have been.
Both knives have perfect regrinds from tip to scale, neither had even bevels from the factory. (Not many production knives do)

Both of those knives, while not known in standard form to be anything close to "slicers" will out slice any FFG Spyderco.

I got to keep the steels I love (CPM-154 and 20CV) lost zero toughness, as there was more than enough left behind the edge for hard use, and personally, I have not found better HT's than what Strider or RHK can do, considering these are not custom blades....

If you Mic'd these blades, you would see just how exact everything is.
You have 15DPS (Strider) and 18DPS (RHK) from tip to scale.
You have 0.20 behind the edge's from tip to scale. (Actually, the Strider has 0.25 at the tip, for more strength)
The primary grind is Perfect throughout the entire regrind.

You don't get this in a production knife.
 
^
Just to add, I think that another point OP was making is that many makers focus on getting only one or two of the three right which a lot of times makes me end up selling it off or outright passing on what could have been a great knife.
 
JR88FAN said:
I disagree.
This thread is about HAVING to pick 2 of the 3.

If I HAVE to pick 2 out of the 3, I will pick the two I can't change.....

There are a few very talented craftsmen that can change the geometry with precision, they cannot however, change the steel or the HT.
Click to expand...


So you pick geometry as the key variable, because you can change it. Then you are not picking three, you are picking two and changing the third. So effectively, you are not making a choice.


Let's say all three factors are less than optimal for any given task by less than 1 percent. Then it really doesn't matter what you choose.

But if one or more of those factors is off by a large amount -- say only 1 percent of optimal -- then you don't have a knife that can accomplish its task. You choice doesn't matter.

To make this a meaningful question, you'd have to know what the task is and the specific properties of the heat treat, steel and geometry. But without some stated parameters, the question doesn't make sense.
 
Twindog said:
So you pick geometry as the key variable, because you can change it. Then you are not picking three, you are picking two and changing the third. So effectively, you are not making a choice.


Let's say all three factors are less than optimal for any given task by less than 1 percent. Then it really doesn't matter what you choose.

But if one or more of those factors is off by a large amount -- say only 1 percent of optimal -- then you don't have a knife that can accomplish its task. You choice doesn't matter.

To make this a meaningful question, you'd have to know what the task is and the specific properties of the heat treat, steel and geometry. But without some stated parameters, the question doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting way to spin what I wrote!

I will repeat it.....

I can pick two things, as per the OP.
HT, Blade, Steel, Geometry.

Of course I am not going to pick the one I can change, who would?!

Nowhere did it say that it was against the rules in OP's question.....

If I was stuck with the geometry, then I would pick Geometry and HT obviously...
 
I have to agreed with Twindog.


Having a great steel, great geometry but real suck heat treat, you can send it to Peters or Paul Bos for reheat treat plus the cost of blade refinishing...

But when you have too poor geometry... you has real limitation on fixing them.

The word "geometry" doesn't mean only the very edge of the blade.... It mean the overall of the blade design... shape, grind, and thickness.
 
Proper geometry is what made you cut properly...

Proper material is the fundamental to support the geometry.

Proper steel is the combination of proper steel type and proper heat treat.

A block of the best steel with the best heat treat won't cut anything...

Therefore, these three criteria are all essential in order to be a good blade.... without either it would be a worthless blade.
 
Last edited:
It is obvious that no one is wrong here... I think we are all answering the question through very different angles. So, what you may perceive as agreeing and siding with one person, doesn't necessarily make other comments incorrect. Example, re- heat treating might be an option for you, but to others, re grinding is much easier to get done. Example, some are answering this with knives "as they are" and not to be reground...Heck 99.9% of end users wont regrind or blah blah blah.... Some like myself look at it like this: Similar to what OP said, plenty of knives do not get all three right for what they want it for. A maker calls a blade "slicer grind" yet it is as thick as an axe for example. A maker produces a limited run of S110v in a popular flipper but the HT is two whole points from the ideal....
 
Stays Sharp said:
It is obvious that no one is wrong here... I think we are all answering the question through very different angles. So, what you may perceive as agreeing and siding with one person, doesn't necessarily make other comments incorrect. Example, re- heat treating might be an option for you, but to others, re grinding is much easier to get done. Example, some are answering this with knives "as they are" and not to be reground...Heck 99.9% of end users wont regrind or blah blah blah.... Some like myself look at it like this: Similar to what OP said, plenty of knives do not get all three right for what they want it for. A maker calls a blade "slicer grind" yet it is as thick as an axe for example. A maker produces a limited run of S110v in a popular flipper but the HT is two whole points from the ideal....
Click to expand...

Preach on, brother
 
Stays Sharp said:
^
Just to add, I think that another point OP was making is that many makers focus on getting only one or two of the three right which a lot of times makes me end up selling it off or outright passing on what could have been a great knife.
Click to expand...
Yes this is what I was thinking.
What I think is bad geometry someone else might find exceptable or even ideal. I like a thinner slicing knife. What I think is good steel you might find junk.
Seams a lot of times one of the three are sacrificed at least a little.
 
LG&M said:
Seems a lot of times one of the three are sacrificed at least a little.
Click to expand...

Usually geometry. Seriously. i.e. - great steel, great heat treatment, freaking brick that won't cut a damn thing due to blade or edge grind, or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top