Hello members, would like to ask, whether someone has knowledge of the steel quality of the bowies made around 1850 in comparison to the steels of today. I often heard that guys in those days were wearing their knives whole the life. So, as they often were used very hard, the steel couldn't have been too bad.
-
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.
Steel quality of early Bowies
- Thread starter halbschaf
- Start date
Back "in the day", steels where run much softer then what we see now.
This gave them great toughness and made them very easy to sharpen,
...both pluses in a time when a knife was a much needed tool.
Today we demand great edge retention and clamor for higher harnesses,
...often giving up toughness and ease of sharpening in return.
Big Mike
Steel-making was fairly primitive in the 1850s unless it was for military purposes or came from some very specific mills in England, Germany or Sweden so I would imagine Bowie knives were hit or miss when it came to quality of steel. No doubt there were some amazingly talented small batch steel-makers in numerous other places and likely there were some very talented blade smiths affiliated with them too, But then again how many back country folks had both the serious coin and the wherewithal to obtain first class 'pig stickers'. I can't see ordinary people having a day to day use for a great big knife either aside from desiring the intimidation factor or the prestige. Plus it doesn't require a knife to be all that sharp nor durable in order to ventilate an assailant with one.
I don't follow what that statement is supposed to mean. By the 1850's the cutlery industry had been going in Sheffield for hundreds of years, and a large percentage of the Bowies bought at the time came from there.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,496
I think the good ones then were better than people today would imagine. Bagwell's book on Bowie knives talks about it a bit and there is a YouTube vid where he explains that he uses a centuries old way of treating and tempering.
Similar in what way? They certainly didn't look like them.
Right. I should've specified, similar in terms of steel quality and durability.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 955
They were made out of carbon steel of different quality.
We need to remember that many bowie knives were novelty items, like rambo knives.
They could be shitty.
But some were made by skilled knifemakers or companies. And steel those days was good enough, yet its quality was uneven. Some bathes of steel were probably much better than others.
Since 1866 you got modern metallurgy - steel with manganese, and then you could get as much good steel as you wanted.
Last thing - when it comes to hrc - i would say 45 to 55. Some junk bowies - much lower
We need to remember that many bowie knives were novelty items, like rambo knives.
They could be shitty.
But some were made by skilled knifemakers or companies. And steel those days was good enough, yet its quality was uneven. Some bathes of steel were probably much better than others.
Since 1866 you got modern metallurgy - steel with manganese, and then you could get as much good steel as you wanted.
Last thing - when it comes to hrc - i would say 45 to 55. Some junk bowies - much lower
Ok. Then if you are implying that Pakistani eBay Bowies are of low quality...then no. As mentioned before, the Sheffield cutlery industry had been around for centuries and produced a product that would far exceed in performance a low quality knife of today.
cbach8tw
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 12,336
Many times they had to use what was at hand, reusing old files or saw blades or springs as a source of steel, and there were many a good blacksmiths who could turn out a fine tool. The more fancy ones were more imported from Sheffield then, although there were a few good american companies around. I also bet that the hardness was softer then so they could sharpen them in the field.
I am pretty sure there was whole range of products available: from very low quality up to very high. And as today, the prices would vary accordingly.
My guess would be that expensive high quality products would have very decent steel properties even by today's knife industry standards (for carbon steel), while cheap low quality ones could be even nastier than todays Pakistani eBay Bowies (though, probably, not by much).
Of course that my opinion is not based on any particular sacred knowledge and could be completely off the mark.
My guess would be that expensive high quality products would have very decent steel properties even by today's knife industry standards (for carbon steel), while cheap low quality ones could be even nastier than todays Pakistani eBay Bowies (though, probably, not by much).
Of course that my opinion is not based on any particular sacred knowledge and could be completely off the mark.
Steel quality was fine, in fact, high quality for the time. The problem was consistency, you just don't see the consistency in heat treat that you do with modern production. Very common to see knives with Rockwells in the 30's - 40's Rc. Heat Treating was very unpredictable till around WWII, post War you see much more consistant knives coming out of factories.
Below is a list of Rockwells for various knives 1910's - 1960's, it illustrates the types of swings you'd see.
In Gun Digest of '78, an article by Robert Burmeister gives the following Rockwell N scales values:
1) Collins Machete- 71(53 C scale).
2) 1917 Bolo- 66(47-48).
3) Collins No. #18- 69(51).
4) Norwegian Bayonet- 62(43).
5) Marine F-U- 74(56).
6) Navy F-U- 66(47-48).
7) M-1(M4) Carbine Bayo.- 41(20).
8) Remington Hunter(6 1/4")- 66(47-48).
9) Marble's Expert- 66(47-48).
10) Bower Bowie knife- 54(34).
11) Wingen Skinner- 59(39-40).
12) Wusthoff Folder- 52(32).
13) Randall No # 7- 75(57-58).
14) Randall #8- 65(46-47).
15) Randall #1- 72(52).
16) Norwegian Gelio knife(Morseth)- 30 (no C-scale listing cause of multi- layered const. looks like a Morseth).
17) Wingen Yukon Hunter- 78(60-61).
18) Dexter Butcher- 76(58-59).
19) Western- 75(57-58).
20) Buck- 72(54).
21) Buck 110- 75(57-58).
22) Wilkinson- 58(38-39).
23) F-S- 57(37 -38).
In Gun Digest of '78, an article by Robert Burmeister gives the following Rockwell N scales values:
1) Collins Machete- 71(53 C scale).
2) 1917 Bolo- 66(47-48).
3) Collins No. #18- 69(51).
4) Norwegian Bayonet- 62(43).
5) Marine F-U- 74(56).
6) Navy F-U- 66(47-48).
7) M-1(M4) Carbine Bayo.- 41(20).
8) Remington Hunter(6 1/4")- 66(47-48).
9) Marble's Expert- 66(47-48).
10) Bower Bowie knife- 54(34).
11) Wingen Skinner- 59(39-40).
12) Wusthoff Folder- 52(32).
13) Randall No # 7- 75(57-58).
14) Randall #8- 65(46-47).
15) Randall #1- 72(52).
16) Norwegian Gelio knife(Morseth)- 30 (no C-scale listing cause of multi- layered const. looks like a Morseth).
17) Wingen Yukon Hunter- 78(60-61).
18) Dexter Butcher- 76(58-59).
19) Western- 75(57-58).
20) Buck- 72(54).
21) Buck 110- 75(57-58).
22) Wilkinson- 58(38-39).
23) F-S- 57(37 -38).
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 5,610
I was under the impression that most knives were just scrap metal such as spring steel from wagons. Files were too valuable to their owners to sacrifice to make a knife from and were generally resharpened then remade. The only places you might find old files for use would be larger metal or arms working factories. Local blacksmiths would generally be a source of knives until trading goods catalogs like Roebucks brought the ordering of real cutler made knives to small towns. People equipping for journeys would likely bring their own from wherever they began.
So, my guess is probably it would be rare to see knives with carbon greater than .50-.70 %. Plow steel was too valuable at first to sacrifice but had some pretty good steels by the late 1800's.
Sheffield still uses a lot of steels like EN9, which is about like our 1060-1065. Have been for a long time. Tough stuff. Not much in the way of wear resistance as we now know it. I'd imagine a lot of blacksmiths wouldn't use 1095 on knives if they had it to use. Too high carbon for them and their customers.
So, my guess is probably it would be rare to see knives with carbon greater than .50-.70 %. Plow steel was too valuable at first to sacrifice but had some pretty good steels by the late 1800's.
Sheffield still uses a lot of steels like EN9, which is about like our 1060-1065. Have been for a long time. Tough stuff. Not much in the way of wear resistance as we now know it. I'd imagine a lot of blacksmiths wouldn't use 1095 on knives if they had it to use. Too high carbon for them and their customers.
If in fact Bowies originated from Sheffield then I would be quite impressed. I can just imagine a staid Brit knifemaker puzzling over an order from America for huge knives!
The problem with this steel comparison is that it is mostly 60-100 years later. Bessemer's process for making consistent top quality steel in commercial quantities was not available in the 1850s. It is true that evolution of firearms is directly related to advances in metallurgy though. In the 1850s guns were made of soft steel and relied on simple flat springs because coil spring technology didn't exist and it was only in the 1890s that steel became strong enough to support smokeless powder (twice the internal pressure) and allow for mechanisms (ie bolt actions/semis/machine guns) that didn't suffer from undue wear.