Steel Questions

peppercorn

peppercorn

Regular Dude
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
2,912
In a different thread I was asking about steel, years of production and so forth.

My question now is how does ''Buck'' 440C compare to their 425 and 420 with regard to abrasion resistance, toughness and lateral strength.

I quoted Buck because each manufacturer seems to get different results with their particular heat treat.

Thanks in advance.
 
Pepper, I'd say Buck's heat treat is in the top of the industry heap . Of the three areas you speak toughness is a very ambiguous term and hard to test . Abrasive cutting and lateral strength can be tested for which many here have done . The first steel you mention 440C is a top grade cutlery steel . Certainly within the top 7 cutlery steels . But realize all steels deliever different things to the user and different attributes to the manufacture . So, companies walk a tight rope on how much can we deliever to our customers and remain competive in the market .
425 is a good inbetween user steel comparing closely to AUS6 or 8 . 420 is a good user steel, a good stainless and easy to sharpen . Each one is an increase up the ladder in your areas of interest . You should obtain a knife with the three different steels, devise a test that can have repeatable, substanting results and do the test on each steel . You'll gain first hand experience and knowledge in your topic of interest . Good luck DM
 
I've always thought that 440C was the best, 425Mod was not quite as good, and 420HC was almost as good as 425Mod.

In other words, all good steels, but the two succeeding steels were not nearly as good as the old 440C.

David Martin corrected me on that a few days ago......he appears to think that each succeeding steel was an improvement.

I guess it all hinges on your definition of good (or "improvement").

My definition must be different.

I want a tough stainless steel that holds an edge a REALLY long time and I don't care if it's a little slow to sharpen.

The manufacturer wants a steel that's durable, inexpensive to work with and holds an edge fairly well while being pretty quick and easy to sharpen.

It's a compromise that makes everybody happy (well, almost).

That's 420HC.

I've always preferred 440C and I have never actually found it to be all that hard or slow to sharpen, even with the old stones of years ago.

Guess I'm just a patient old grouch, at least when it comes to sharpening.

:D
 
Great thread. I was just about to ask a question about steel that Buck has used over
the years and up popped this right at the top! I was curious as well.
 
BG42EDGE said:
I want a tough stainless steel that holds an edge a REALLY long time and I don't care if it's a little slow to sharpen.
Click to expand...

Me too, that's why I like S30V.

I had always thought that 425m was a drop down from 440C and was introduced to facilitate mass production, then 420HC was a step up from 425m. But maybe I'm wrong, never having done the scientific testing myself.

Nuances. Like I have said on other threads, I have a 301 with 440A (lower grade than 440C) that has served me well for almost 40 years. Can't complain.
 
DM,

Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

I read with interest your review of the two 119's and found it revealing that, had you not known the two steel types or the significance of the profile differences, you would have been hard pressed do differentiate them based upon their very similar cutting performance.
To me, this speaks volumes to Buck's heat treat, even 19 or more years ago, and how it can make an average alloy content steel perform with what we might think of as an otherwise above average steel.

Thank you again, for your insight and information.
 
BG42, Please excuse me for not making my self clear . Up the ladder; I was meaning 420, then about 20% better was 425, then about 25-30% better than 425 was 440C . DM
 
David Martin said:
BG42, Please excuse me for not making my self clear . Up the ladder; I was meaning 420, then about 20% better was 425, then about 25-30% better than 425 was 440C . DM
Click to expand...
That is more clear now David. So in other words the steps over time have been down the ladder.

But for clarification, are you talking about 420 or 420HC?
 
Wolf, Correct . Yes when I write 420 I'm meaning 420HC . Also, many things are figured into the pie of what makes a better knife not just the steel . Edge profile quickly comes to mind and others . But realize, what I was saying in my first posting in this thread, as to what a manufacturer offers to a customer and how to stay competive in this market is walking a fine line . Buck had to make some changes inorder to move ahead in production and be a viable cutlery company . I'm not going to judge their moves right or wrong as I've not been in those shoes . Their still in business and a good American company so the proof is in the pudding . Then if those steels are not enough to float your boat, there are many speciality steels Buck used over the years . The variety of which should make any knife fan happy . DM
 
I would have to reiterate that alot of steels that are passed over by one individual or company can be optimized by another through superior heat treat process which makes that, ''average'', at least on paper, steel perform unusually well.

I derived this from David Martin's report on the two 119's, one being 440C and the other ATS-34.
 
David,

I was referring to the other thread about the possibility of a new steel from Buck.

On that thread I asked....."These days, how often does a manufacturer come with a new mass market steel that's superior to the old steel?"

You said:

BG, I'm not as sure on other companies, but with Buck I'd say often . This would be the fourth time . DM
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood that answer.
 
well my two centavos...
i liked the 440C but it was like what i grew up with thing
those blades had thicker steel at the edges ..
the 425M was not a bad steel it did not rust like 440C would..
personly i did not like the edge of the 425M as i was used to thick edge
i have not used a 420HC hard like i used a 440C so i can not compare them

i would say the 420HC has what most knife uses need
or buck would not use it!

i do like S30V but
i have not put its thiner edge to the punshment limit i did years ago
but i think it would not hold up as good as
that 440C did in construction work.
but then for every other job it is better
i guess that is why Buck offers it in the custom order shop!
sniff sniff i really miss that thick edge they had back in the day...
 
BG42, In that post I was answering; "how often does a manufacturer come up with a new mass market steel" part of your question . I answered 4 meaning, the Sandvik steel would be the fourth steel Buck has majorly used across its production line not like a LE .
Then, many think that, yes, the Sandvik steel is better than 420HC and would compare close to 425M . But with the added benefit of better fine blanking qualities . A plus from a manuf. view point . Hope this clears it up . DM
 
Buck's steel usage is always an interesting topic. The progression was of course, 440C then in 1981 a move to 425M. Around 1993, Buck moved to 420HC. Each of these two steel changes were made to improve blanking capacity. So it was an effeciency decision, thus a cost reduction decision.

As pointed out above, so much goes into making a high quality blade. If you take three Buck 110s (a 1975, a 1990, and a 2005) and tested them in the main performance areas, you may just find that the 2X grind and 60 HT on the 2005 420HC is your best overall performer. Buck's current 110 certainly has as good a knife steel/blade as the average user will ever need. Oh and it won't hardly rust!! It's a winner at twice the price you can buy one everyday at any big box store.
 
The three steels first mentioned here, 440C, 425M and 420HC all are good steels and all have their place. When peopel talk about toughness, I am not sure if they are referring to the true technical term of toughness, which is a measure of a steels ductility (ability to deform/bend before fracturing). I am also not sure what is meatn by lateral strength. Abrasion resistance is closely tied to sharpness obviously.
440C is a good blade steel; it holds an edge well IF H/T PROPERLY AND EDGED AND SHARPENED WITH THE CORRECT ANGLE. Without both of these things being present, 440C doesn't function any beter than "cheaper" steels. 440C does not have as good of corrosion resistance as 425M or 420HC; 440C also has larger carbides that create a more course grain structure which affects ductility and strength.
425M and 420HC are VERY close to each other in all respects. Both have better corrosion resistance than 440C and both have finer grain structures than 440C, thus generally better ductility and more uniform hardness throughout the blade. If H/T AND EDGED AND SHARPENED PROPERLY, BOTH FUNCTION AS AN EXCELLENT GENERAL PURPOSE CUTLERY STEEL. Again, the key is both of the things must be present. We have seen 420HC (as well as 440C) out perform (initial sharpness and edge holding) ATS34, BG42 and S30V that was NOT heat treated well or edged and sharpend correctly.
You will always see me reference 420HC intentionally because 420 stainless can have a carbon content from .2% to .45%, and still be called 420 stainless. 420HC is 420 stainless with a minimum Carbon content specified, whcih is what Buck does. 420HC is really not an AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute) designation.
If you appreciate and want a "higher" performing steel in the strength and sharpness catagories, then select one of our S30V models. We heat treat them right and usually know how to edge and sharpen them correctly.

All of the info above we have developed over a number of years via testing in our QA lab, using CATRA machines, tensile test machines, salt water exposure tests and metalography.

Bill Keys
Director of Manufacturing and Engineering
Buck Knives, Inc.
 
Bill, when I asked about toughness and lateral strength I meant to group them as one in the same, ''ductility'' would have worked better as the salient term in my original inquiry as this and abrasion resistance were the two components I was interested in.

Thanks everyone, as this has been very educational, and not just for myself but apparently others as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top