- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 492
An old thread that caused a lot of interesting discussions on a famous knife makers product breaking under hard use, brought up more Qs/thoughts for me. One of the best posts was by Jerry Hossom (1) on possible reasons for the failure. However, one statement in particular really jumped out at me:
“Because stainless steels are not as tough as tool steels, but they also don't rust and to many, especially those in the military, rust resistance is a key consideration.”
I know there's a lot to unpack in such a statement (and he does in the full post) but I still thought that was an interesting overall assessment. No doubt, some of that depends on the tool steal and the stainless, but I also suspect the top end stainless steels may only be marginally better, if at all, to much less expensive tool steels in terms of shear abuse it will tolerate before failure. Other factors like edge retention and so forth has to be considered, but that and other threads, etc make me wonder if using stainless steels - other than the main concern of rust - is really the right stuff for the job in a large fixed blade knife intended for field use. That is, pretty much expected to anything it's asked of under worst case conditions.
Mostly thinking outloud, but it's not uncommon to hear some say for example S30V is not an optimal steel for a hard use field knife. I know, HT makes a big difference and all that, and I don't discount that at all and there's no doubt in some designs, S30V is a great choice.
It also goes without saying very few people will ever push a well made knife made from quality stainless to the point of failure anyway, so more intellectual interest than real world for most.
To be honest however, a knife you need to sharpen more often and wipe down with a oily rag occasionally is preferable to a knife that's failed totally under hard use conditions, not to be confused to abuse no knife is expected to survive. Of those two options, I'll take the former over the latter.
If someone wanted tolerance to abuse/hard use over all else, such as edge retention, rust resistance, etc, it sounds like all things being equal (size, grind, design. etc) one is better off with quality tool steel via Hossom's quote above, at least as it applies to large fixed blades intended to handle what ever is thrown at them. Top end of carbon steel would be CPM V3 perhaps?
No doubt, knife makers are under much pressure to use latest greatest super steel and that plays a big part of what they use.
Like any industry, you have to keep pumping out new and better to stay relevant, so that has to be factored also.
Thoughts? (Flame suit on)
(1) https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...on-test-completed.543407/page-16#post-5493834
“Because stainless steels are not as tough as tool steels, but they also don't rust and to many, especially those in the military, rust resistance is a key consideration.”
I know there's a lot to unpack in such a statement (and he does in the full post) but I still thought that was an interesting overall assessment. No doubt, some of that depends on the tool steal and the stainless, but I also suspect the top end stainless steels may only be marginally better, if at all, to much less expensive tool steels in terms of shear abuse it will tolerate before failure. Other factors like edge retention and so forth has to be considered, but that and other threads, etc make me wonder if using stainless steels - other than the main concern of rust - is really the right stuff for the job in a large fixed blade knife intended for field use. That is, pretty much expected to anything it's asked of under worst case conditions.
Mostly thinking outloud, but it's not uncommon to hear some say for example S30V is not an optimal steel for a hard use field knife. I know, HT makes a big difference and all that, and I don't discount that at all and there's no doubt in some designs, S30V is a great choice.
It also goes without saying very few people will ever push a well made knife made from quality stainless to the point of failure anyway, so more intellectual interest than real world for most.
To be honest however, a knife you need to sharpen more often and wipe down with a oily rag occasionally is preferable to a knife that's failed totally under hard use conditions, not to be confused to abuse no knife is expected to survive. Of those two options, I'll take the former over the latter.
If someone wanted tolerance to abuse/hard use over all else, such as edge retention, rust resistance, etc, it sounds like all things being equal (size, grind, design. etc) one is better off with quality tool steel via Hossom's quote above, at least as it applies to large fixed blades intended to handle what ever is thrown at them. Top end of carbon steel would be CPM V3 perhaps?
No doubt, knife makers are under much pressure to use latest greatest super steel and that plays a big part of what they use.
Like any industry, you have to keep pumping out new and better to stay relevant, so that has to be factored also.
Thoughts? (Flame suit on)
(1) https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...on-test-completed.543407/page-16#post-5493834
