Steel/Hype?

Lycosa

Lycosa

Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
43,271
Hi All. Back in the 80's, a well known maker told me that he tried all the SS available but nothing could out perform tool steel, so he stuck with it. I know the CPM's perform a little better than the older SS, but I do not think they can out perform tool steel. INFI and tool steel are still at the top of the hill, imo. What do you all think?
 
I think "tool steel" is too vague of a category.

If you have a choice between X50CrMoV15 stainless and 1.4116 tool steel, which would you choose?

Would you rather have an overpriced set of Cutcos in 440A or a hand-forged, hand-finished set of the same knives made in SAE 43L75?

Which do think is tougher: 1095 hardened to RC58 or 12C27 hardened to RC58?

Yes, they're trick questions, but your answer to question two is important.
 
Thombrogan---You stumped me again!
I'm relying on expert answers from experts like you.
 
at least its my understanding that stainless is always 'softer' than its carbon steel counterparts, no matter if its at the same RC or not. So in theroy the carbons should be a bit better, plus the carbon matrix is what defines the usability of a steel for a knife blade.
 
Hi,

Yeah, to just say tool steel vs stainless, is kind of ambiguous. Anything you make a tool from is "tool steel." Even stainless steel. And which might be better, will depend on usage.

But, back in the '80s, top shelf stainless steels were kind of new to cutlery. 440C was about the best you could get. And the heat treats were pretty hit and miss. I had a Buck 119 Special made from 440C, it had a very brittle edge and it chipped easily.

On the other hand, plain high carbon or simpler alloy high carbon steels, were easier to get good results from because everybody had been using them to make blades from since the invention of steel. And high carbon steel is fairly forgiving stuff. Both during making and during use.

The perception from customers is also important. Stainless was pretty much considered junk steel due to all the cheap knives floating around. And if you got good stainless like that Buck 119, you often learned to dislike it. Because not only was it prone to chipping, but we didn't have the really good sharpening tools we have today. There were no diamond hones and sandpaper sharpening was unknown. All I had to sharpen that 119 with was a medium and fine arkansas stone. It took forever to put an edge on that knife. That one knife in 440C made me swear at and off Buck knives for 30 years. I still prefer plain high carbon to stainless to this day. And a lot of us older guys still think that way.

So back in those days, yes, plain carbon steels were often considered "better" than stainless steels. Today with all the new types of stainless steels and the knowledge on heat treatment, they are every bit as good. And it can be argued, better than plain high carbon steel.

dalee
 
thombrogan said:
I think "tool steel" is too vague of a category.

If you have a choice between X50CrMoV15 stainless and 1.4116 tool steel, which would you choose?

Would you rather have an overpriced set of Cutcos in 440A or a hand-forged, hand-finished set of the same knives made in SAE 43L75?

Which do think is tougher: 1095 hardened to RC58 or 12C27 hardened to RC58?

Yes, they're trick questions, but your answer to question two is important.
Click to expand...
I'll bite.

. X50CrMoV15 stainless or 1.4116 tool steel.?
Click to expand...
Neither. I'd take Krupp 4116 instead

440A or SAE 43L75
Click to expand...
I don't know what 43L75 is, and the L which I'm assuming stands for Lead confuses me even more. I'll stick with 440A. It may not be the best but at least I know how it will perform

1095 RC58 or 12C27 RC58?
Click to expand...
Sandvik 12C27 is tougher because of its finer grain.

How did I do?
 
Come on give the guy a little bit of a break. I think it is pretty safe to assume he is refering to the more common knife blade tool and stainless steels. This is a thread posted on a knife forum after all. :)
 
Lycosa said:
Hi All. Back in the 80's, a well known maker told me that he tried all the SS available but nothing could out perform tool steel, so he stuck with it.
Click to expand...
I think back in the '80s that was probably true. The readily available stainless steels (420, 440A, etc.) was noticably inferior to the good carbon steels in terms of edge holding, etc.

I think these days the differences are much less noticable, to the point where I don't think they will really matter to the average user. IMO you really can't go wrong with a properly tempered blade in AUS-8, VG-10, S90V, or any of the better modern stainless alloys from a good maker. They may not have the ultimate edge qualities of the best tool steels, but they are still very good knife material. :cool:
 
If by "tool" steel you mean simple carbon, then we can throw D2 into the stainless-ish category?

Lot's of steels have differing properties. I highly doubt that 1095 @ Rc 58 will outperform S90V at the same rc.

Simple carbon steels can be heat treated higher, and with a finer grain structure, then stainless and other highly alloyed steels. It's a tough steel. There's a reason RAT uses 1095. Takes a great edge and is almost indestructable.

In terms of edge holding however, I would still give the nod to alloyed and stainless steels. 10V/S90V/M4 all have exceptional edge retention and wear resistance due to their high alloy content.
 
tabeeb762 said:
Neither. I'd take Krupp 4116 instead
Click to expand...

Good answer!

tabeeb763 said:
I don't know what 43L75 is, and the L which I'm assuming stands for Lead confuses me even more. I'll stick with 440A. It may not be the best but at least I know how it will perform
Click to expand...

The L does stand for lead. It's added to some tool steels to improve machineability.

tabeeb763 said:
Sandvik 12C27 is tougher because of its finer grain.
Click to expand...

They're both about equal with the difference being whichever batch of either alloy had less contaminants at the time of the test would be the tougher steel.

tabeeb763 said:
How did I do?
Click to expand...

Very well!
 
I'd still take M2 over just about any stainless steel I've tried, for most of my folding knife uses.
 
db said:
Come on give the guy a little bit of a break. I think it is pretty safe to assume he is refering to the more common knife blade tool and stainless steels. This is a thread posted on a knife forum after all.
Click to expand...

154CM and ATS-34 weren't common until Bob Loveless went after them. BG-42 and 52100 were ball-bearing steels that are now coveted knife steels. CPM-S60V and CPM-S90V were die steels for use on plastic before they became latest, greatest steels. Gerber made L6 and M2 legendary back in the day as well. I don't think letting it go at "common" is something any knife knut will do.
 
Thanks for the history lesson. It's my opinion if every question must be asked in Cliff Stamp details no question will ever be asked. It's my opinion that the gap between well heat treated steels aren't as wide as most people beleive. Stainless got a bad wrap from some cheaply produced and heat treated steel back in the day. I personally prefer carbin/tool/nonstainless steels over stainless but can admit, I do like alot, my loly SAK and it's stainless blade. With a good heat treatment most of the commonly used knife steels are damn good stainless or nonstainless.
 
Thombrogan , many myths on this thread !!!.
Vascowear and the company that made it no longer exist !! The equivalent is Crucible's Cru-Wear , 1.1 C, 1.15 W, 7.5 Cr, 2.4 V, 1.6 Mo
Finer more evenly distributed carbides give better toughness ,better wear resistance, finer edge. The CPM process of Crucible does just that .Compare CPM154 with 154CM.
Finer grain size gives toughness and finer edge .W2 with a bit of V for finer grain is better than W1.
Carbides are different .V,Mo,W carbides are more wear resistant than Fe,Cr carbides.
Proper HT can make a huge difference .We try to educate people in the Makers section to get the best HT and properties by explaining the detailed hows and whys of the process.
Which to choose ? It comes down to compromise of how fine is the edge, how long edge holds up, how easy to sharpen, and of course how expensive. Put aside your prejudices [stainless is terrible etc] .We have a huge choice today , a wonderful thing.
Some of my favorites are CPM154, S30V, A2.
 
I have no problem sharpening S30V, just got my first BG42, based on someone's recommendations. Except for a Helle, I don't think I have any other stainless fixed blades. Except for a Case CV, I don't have any carbon steel folders. A local maker, who uses primarily tool steel folders, got me hooked on tool steels. Now, he's starting to use stainless steels, and I don't feel the need to use them, because he uses tool steels.
 
I should think that part of the decision depends on where the knife will spend a majority of its life, coupled with the user's maintenance program (or lack of it). If it's going to ride under the seat in a truck, stainless would be the choice. Same with living near the coast, I suspect. In Hawaii, everything rusted that wasn't wrapped up and maintained periodically, or stainless. If you intend to keep the knife in a safe or in a home, and occasionally wipe your stuff down with oil, high-speed tool steels don't present a problem.
 
Lycosa said:
Hi All. Back in the 80's, a well known maker told me that he tried all the SS available but nothing could out perform tool steel, so he stuck with it. I know the CPM's perform a little better than the older SS, but I do not think they can out perform tool steel. INFI and tool steel are still at the top of the hill, imo. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "Outperform"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top