steels?

sodak said:
It is often said that the 3 important parts of knife performance is steel, heat treat, and geometry. You would need to have knives that were identical in 2 of the 3 to be able to test the 3rd. In reality, this is a HUGE problem that will not be solved without making several dozen knives with identical geometry and heat treats but different steels, then different heat treats and the same steel, then different heat treats (optimal for that steel) and different steels.
Click to expand...

Very good point that Cliff Stamp constantly repeated. It's difficult to make meaningful comparisons without an array of different knives in different steels with the exact same hardness and geometries. 420J2 with good geometry will outcut the latest magic steel with poor geometry. This demonstrates a great deal about cutlery, but very little specifically about steel.
 
sorry guys, didn't mean to stir the pot like this! i understand that it may be impossible to have a good realworld comparison, i guess thats one reason i joined this forum, and i am learning as i go!
 
You didn’t start anything. You had a question that doesn’t really have an answer, that’s all. We all want the ‘do everything’ steel. It just doesn’t exist.

The manufacturers know what works best overall, otherwise, the majority wouldn’t use it right? There is no junk steel offered by major manufacturers.

Folders use more stainless. Fixed blades use more tool steel. Simple huh?

Here is a chart from a steel vendor. It isn’t comprehensive, {no S30V for example}, but does show the main knife steels. This information is unbiased. They are not promoting any particular steel for fixed/folding knives.

http://www.cbmfg.com/rawmaterials.htm

This chart is only a BASELINE.

Heat treating and tempering, to say nothing of blade size and geometry, make the final outcome vary. But, it is a start. It does show the two characteristics most important to most knifeknuts: Wear resistance and Toughness.

The ‘wonder’ steels are on this chart also. They are listed by their designations, not necessarily by their marketing names. Do some research and you will figure out which is which.
 
It's cheap....
Nothing wrong with it, I have blades made of the stuff. It's tough but you have to sharpen it fairly often compared to some other steels.
 
Wow, says a lot about this forum that this didn't degenerate into a "Metal War". Still haunted by another forum's endless wars over the M16 vs. AK-47.

Thanks for the link Bearcut.

Regards,

Dave
 
mytowrig said:
good chart. didnt know 1095 was almost bottom of the barrel though...
Click to expand...

Its sort of the baseline against which all others are judged. It can be very good, depending upon heat treatment and geometry. At high hardness and for light duty, ie not impact, battoning, twisting, it is reported to hold an edge for a very long time, in dry applications. It rusts quickly and the edge goes down hill pretty quick. The thing to remember is that all the materials on that list were designed to excel at something the others are only average doing, even if the desired property is low cost. The trick is to match your application to the most appropriate steel.
 
bearcut said:
You didn’t start anything. You had a question that doesn’t really have an answer, that’s all. We all want the ‘do everything’ steel. It just doesn’t exist.

The manufacturers know what works best overall, otherwise, the majority wouldn’t use it right? There is no junk steel offered by major manufacturers.

Folders use more stainless. Fixed blades use more tool steel. Simple huh?

Here is a chart from a steel vendor. It isn’t comprehensive, {no S30V for example}, but does show the main knife steels. This information is unbiased. They are not promoting any particular steel for fixed/folding knives.

http://www.cbmfg.com/rawmaterials.htm

This chart is only a BASELINE.

Heat treating and tempering, to say nothing of blade size and geometry, make the final outcome vary. But, it is a start. It does show the two characteristics most important to most knifeknuts: Wear resistance and Toughness.

The ‘wonder’ steels are on this chart also. They are listed by their designations, not necessarily by their marketing names. Do some research and you will figure out which is which.
Click to expand...

I need to specify here, that many manufacturers use steel not appropriate for blades, and they are not all bad companies either.
Sometimes crappy steel is used simply because people don't care, or don't know any better.
 
mytowrig said:
good chart. didnt know 1095 was almost bottom of the barrel though...
Click to expand...

You always have to take into account the intended application. This chart was compiled by a company that sells machine knives. Those are often used in applications in which the geometries are fairly obtuse and where demands on abrasion resistance are very, very high. This is not necessarily the case in pocket/fixed blade knives that we are interested in. Most dedicated choppers don't have significant demands on abrasion resistance. Instead they encounter situations in which toughness, and edgestability become important. Even though 5160 is listed a good deal below 440C the former is actually far tougher, which doesn't have to be but can be a decisive advantage. 1095 is a very simple steel. But in the simplicity lies also the advantage of it. It can be very fine grained despite having a good amount of carbon, giving it good toughness and edgestability at fairly high hardness

Also interesting to notice is that the chart does not list any of the more popular pocket knife stainless steels.
 
The referenced chart is very high level. And, as Hob pointed out, is directed at other markets than ours. Some of its abbreviated definitions can be milseading.
D2 is described as "OUR MOST POPULAR AND AVAILABLE STEEL. ESPECIALLY LOW COST IF YOU CAN WAIT 5 MONTHS FOR STEEL." Ummm... I've not noticed any low cost D2 pocket knives recently. D2 costs extra for us.

The one for 1095 we have already had interpreted by a reader in this thread as saying the 1095 is bottom of the barrel stuff. Not true for knives, but possibly true for that manufacturer's usages. And I would not consider 1095 equivalent to SK5 for cutlery uses. Both are good, but they are each optimal for different types of knives.

The comment that 420HC has only slightly less edge retention than 440C is statement to which I would take exception for pocket knves. It may be true for that mfg's applications.

I find some of Cliff's work to be very helpful. But some seems to me to be too wrapped up in proving his theories. It is not a site to which I would direct the uninitiated.

For a lot of alloys the results can differ depending on the heat treat. MFG A's alloy can perform better than MFG B's same alloy because MFG A has a better heat treat.

I keep my own chart of the few knives I own and have tested
I track mfg, alloy, the mfg's stated hardness range, the hardness that my knife was measured at, it's edge retention relative to my other knives in cutting manila rope. I have only done this with a few knves, but it is my solution to my own problem of keeping the data straight in my mind as to steel performance differences for my own cutlery.

Blade steels are a complex subject. People spend their lives learning about them. Trying to boil it down into a single easy to read table that tells you everything is not a realistic quest.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." --Murphy's cousin.

For people just getting into pocket knives, my best advice is to buy a knife from Benchmade, Buck, Kershaw, Spyderco, or KaBar. (I lreave out some others that make good blade values because they also make some poor ones, and you cannot tell the difference from their promos.) They all make good knives with decent steel. Then you can concentrate on the blade design, size, and price. It simplifies the choice of a first decent knife. Based on the experience with the firt knife, you can see if you want to spend more time learning about what you want and more money obtaining it.
 
The only problem with the chart is that not all of the number are directly relevant, or don't include all of the information. For example, they list 3V as having greater wear resistance than D2, which it does, in a crossed-cylinder wear test, which is what Crucible usually employs for wear resistance testing. However, in abrasion resistance, D2 will do much better than 3V, and the argument could be made that abrasion resistance is more important in our application.
 
Larrin said:
The only problem with the chart is that not all of the number are directly relevant, or don't include all of the information. For example, they list 3V as having greater wear resistance than D2, which it does, in a crossed-cylinder wear test, which is what Crucible usually employs for wear resistance testing. However, in abrasion resistance, D2 will do much better than 3V, and the argument could be made that abrasion resistance is more important in our application.
Click to expand...

If you read Joe Talmadges essay on steel you will see that wear resistance is the same thing as abrasion resistance.
"Wear resistance - : Just like it sounds, wear resistance is the ability to withstand abrasion. Generally speaking, the amount, type, and distribution of carbides within the steel is what determines wear resistance."

I could site many other references in agreement with that statement.

In my experience, 3V holds an edge better than any D2 blade I've owned.

Perhaps you meant hardness or some other attribute?
 
I am pretty sure Larrin meant exactly what he said. He doesn't advertise it in his handle and I know quite a few people have fallen for it, but he knows a thing or two about steels, knife steels in particular.....you know, from a professional point of view..... similar with mete.
 
I have some D2 that holds a great edge for a very long time, and some that holds a great edge for a very short time. Must be the heat treat. I only have a couple of 3V, but they also hold a good edge.

It's also hard to know which property is the most beneficial for the type of cutting that you do. For example, I have a custom in CPM 10V that is ground very thin, 64.5 HRC. This thing will slice through rope and cardboard for a very long time with little apparent dulling. It does much better than almost all of my other knives, it's also more expensive. The only knife that I have that can cut near it (but not as well) is an old M2 HSS hacksaw homemade knife. It's hardened at 66HRC.

So, for cutting rope, is it the hardness or carbides that keep it going? Or both? Given that the next hardness I have in other knives is 60 - 61, and they don't come near these 2, I would vote for the hardness, but the carbides can't hurt, and neither can the thin grind. Perhaps it's all 3, I don't know. I can't afford to get 10 variations of this knife to test, though... ;)

This is also just cutting clean rope. Dirty rope, dirty carpet, or dirty hide might be different, I haven't had the time to check that out yet either.
 
bearcut said:
If you read Joe Talmadges essay on steel you will see that wear resistance is the same thing as abrasion resistance.
"Wear resistance - : Just like it sounds, wear resistance is the ability to withstand abrasion. Generally speaking, the amount, type, and distribution of carbides within the steel is what determines wear resistance."

I could site many other references in agreement with that statement.

In my experience, 3V holds an edge better than any D2 blade I've owned.

Perhaps you meant hardness or some other attribute?
Click to expand...
No, I meant abrasion resistance, or abrasive wear resistance. The crossed-cylinder is a type of adhesive wear test. If you would like more information about the differences I might be able to find some sources.
 
Larrin said:
No, I meant abrasion resistance, or abrasive wear resistance. The crossed-cylinder is a type of adhesive wear test. If you would like more information about the differences I might be able to find some sources.
Click to expand...


Does this mean we need to change the terminology? Otherwise, this is going to get confusing.

It seems to me that the standard meaning of 'wear resistance', in knife blades, includes resistance to abrasion.

This definition extends from knife manufactures catalogs, to articles written by KnifeKnuts such as Joe T. and Blade magazine writers. Would you agree with that statement?
In fact, I personally have never read anything contrary to this until your thread.
----------------------------------------------------------

"The crossed-cylinder is a type of adhesive wear test."

Is this a 'Charpy' type of test? What I mean is, does this have anything to do with how knife blades really act, or is this a metalurgical method of testing bar stock?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying that what we've been told concerning wear resistance equating to abrasion resistance, in knife blades, seems to contradict what you are saying.

By the way, I usually go with what the honest knifemakers say about steel. When all is said and done, the blade either performs with similar charateristics of the 'steel chart' ratings, or it doesn't. i.e. 1095 is pretty tough, but doesn't hold an edge very long due to wear.

Like I said, the chart I submitted was intended as a baseline. From my experience, the steel ratings were pretty close to what I see happen with my knives.
 
what you are looking for is basic information on steels, and blade geometries. beyond this is a world of mental illness. p.s. get knife you think you need, and forget about the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top