Tigershark, Old SK-5 steel or New AUS6-A

B

Bill Lamb

Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
47
Hi,
I wanted a Tigershark after watching a guy on Youtube almost chop a 4X4 in half in 60 seconds. The video said he was using the old style with the SK-5 steel and no serrations. A nice guy I met on this site named Carl said he preferred the old SK-5 steel as well. I watched an old one on Ebay last night with sheath and box go for $192.49 plus $12.00 shipping. I can buy a brand new one on Ebay with the AUS6-A steel and a kydex sheath for $109.00 plus 8.95 shipping. My question, how many SOG owners think the old SK-5 steel is a better blade? If the majority agrees SK-5 was better why did SOG change to AUS6-A? If I read correctly the Tigershark has always been made in Seki Japan. I see Cold Steel makes a huge chopper called the Trail Master that sells for around $100.00 on Ebay that uses SK-5 steel in the blade, anybody have an opinion on that one?
Thanks, Bill
 
If I'm not mistaken, that video is made by a bladeforums member, I think his user name is noss4. I've got no experience with the Tigershark but the SK5 steel should perform better. Nonetheless, the Tigershark AUS6 version is still a great knife
 
Hi Bill,

Let's make a quick comparison.

The SK-5 version is satin, has no serrations (major selling point), a wicked zero bevel edge, and has a Rc of 57-58. It has a reputation for toughness, but corrodes/pits readily. It also comes with a stunning leather sheath.

The current AUS6 version is tough (for a stainless steel) while still providing excellent corrosion resistance, the blade has a Rc of 56-57 and is powered coated for extra resistant. The edge is beveled. The serration is essential diving and fibrous materials like cords and webbing. A jump rated kydex sheath is provided.

Why did SOG change the Tigershark to AUS6-A? Corrosion Resistance.

The SK-5 version is more suited for general outdoors, while the current AUS6A version is probably geared more towards diving and military use. So, if you're gonna be in a wet environment, near salt water or in the military... the corrosion resistance of the AUS6 is favored and the serrations/jump rated kydex sheath will come handy.

I have both versions, and personally prefer the older SK-5 version.

AND

Yes, SOG should really bring the carbon steel Tigershark back.
 
Thanks for all the info, I do not plan on using my knife around water at all and since I am left handed I do not need the leather sheath, would anyone have an old Tigershark they would like to sell? If so, you can send me a message to billnrhea@juno.com Any comments on the Cold Steel Trail Master?
Its supposed to have the same steel as the old Tigershark.
 
Hi Bill !!

Welcome !!

I also have the Trail Master, heck of a knife !! It's carbon steel blade also takes a nice razory edge, and it's 5/16th's thick blade makes for a nice heavy and very effective chopper. The handle doesn't seem quite as comfortable as the Tigershark's handle.

Cheers,

Carl
 
I have an older SK-5 Tigershark I got a few years ago. It has the old Leather sheath too. I rather like it. I'm all about big knives being made in Carbon steels like SK-5, 5160 and others. Though if someone gave me a new AUS6 Tigershark I wouldn't turn my nose up at it. ;)

Heber
 
I have both the SK-5 tigershark and the CS Trailmaster in SK-5. The Trailmaster is obviously not as nicely made, fit and finish wise. The SOG also seems heavier, though I'm not sure of it really is. If you can find one, get the SOG. They are worth a little trouble to find them. Good luck. Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top