Tool Steel vs. Stainless

I think a whole class of alloy can be dismissed as second-rate, at least in pure performance when sharpening with diamond hones...

But not everybody wants to use diamond stones. One of the biggest selling points in carbon steel's favor is that it's easier to sharpen.

Whether that counts as a performance issue to you is another story... personally I'd rather sharpen less often and I'm fairly lazy about cleaning, so I almost always use alloys with more, well, alloy in them. But a big portion of the market is very adamant about ease-of-sharpening. It's not a right-or-wrong thing, it's just preference. Purely based on cutting performance, carbon steels are hardly "second-rate". Based on edge-holding, well that's a different parameter entirely.

I would also be real, real careful about taking anything from any particular maker's website as gospel. ;)
 
In the tool using industry? LOL I also heard that a fair bit of the CPM stuff was designed for automotive applications and that is why Crucible went bankrupt after the crash of 2007-2008.
jdm61- Used where?
 
lol! ok.
I would think that the newer stainless steels would cost more than the carbon tool steels and not cut as well but, hey, what do I know?!
lol!
 
The way I look at it is if you want a chef's knife with a super fine edge sharpened to 30,000x, then there are a handful of steels that will excel in this arena. If you are fine with a 2000x edge, which is plenty sharp for most people, you have the whole world open to you in terms of steel choice.
 
As we have discovered with using slightly different than "industry standard" heat treating recipes with steels like 52100 and D2, one objective many times in industrial tool use is maximum abrasion resistance. Tool users seem to be okay with some properties that we knife people would generally find unacceptable, like lots of RA.
lol! ok.
I would think that the newer stainless steels would cost more than the carbon tool steels and not cut as well but, hey, what do I know?!
lol!
 
lol! ok.
I would think that the newer stainless steels would cost more than the carbon tool steels and not cut as well but, hey, what do I know?!

Well, you're half-right... they do cost more.

What you're paying for with "powder" steels is raw materials (chrome, vanadium, molybdenum etc etc) and the technology required to keep the steel uniform and consistent, with very fine structure. What you get is more controllable HT, good-to-great toughness, very high cutting performance, vastly better corrosion-resistance and far better wear-resistance/longer edge-holding.

In a $100-1000 knife blade, all those things are really sort of optional, to some degree. In a multi-thousand-dollar plastic-forming die that may see hundreds of thousands of impressions, with corrosive materials/environments, all those characteristics are pretty dang important. Being able to make many thousands of extra widgets before replacing the die may very well mean the difference between a company expanding or going belly-up.

Interestingly, that's (kind of) also why you see most factory knives being made of lower-alloy steels, stainless or not, at lower-than optimal hardnesses. It's not just the cost of the steel, but how fast you wear out grinding machines/stones/belts etc. An exec from a major US knife company (now defunct, oddly enough) was asked why they didn't run their blades at 58 instead of 56Rc, to give them a big boost in edge-holding. His answer? (I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the actual quote) "Because that would cost the company $100K/year in grinding wheels alone. It's just not worth it."
 
"lower than optimum hardness" may be the understatement of the year. The common claimed "benefit" of running stuff like 1095 at 55-56 using "proprietary heat treatment methods" seems to be enhanced toughness. Sure a piece of plain carbon steel left somewhere cutting tool and the high end of spring hardness is going to be "tough" So what? Unless, of course, you want a springy pry bar. :D
 
"lower than optimum hardness" may be the understatement of the year. The common claimed "benefit" of running stuff like 1095 at 55-56 using "proprietary heat treatment methods" seems to be enhanced toughness. Sure a piece of plain carbon steel left somewhere cutting tool and the high end of spring hardness is going to be "tough" So what? Unless, of course, you want a springy pry bar. :D

I agree.
No point in shortchanging your HT ...especially with expensive alloys. You pay a lot for that extra bit of potential performance and then throw it away with suboptimal HT? What's it the point?

You see guys buy their production knives in Boutique SS alloys that are several points lower in hardness than they should be and think, "This stuff stinks!"
 
Mentioning Jay Fisher and Carbon vs Stainless makes me think of the book on sharpening that he recommends, "The Sharper Edge," I think it's called, written by a fellow that made sharpening equipment for industry.
He tested "stainless" versus non in slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities and found that in every case, the stainless knives outperformed the nons.
There's a distinct lack of info there, since he doesn't so much as mention brand names- I assume that he's talking about something like that CR X50 stuff that Wusthof and Victorinox use, vs. probably a eutectic carbon steel, both probably treated around 56.
Who knows whether his sharpening regime worked better with the stainless, and perhaps showed some fine edge overheating with the carbon *shrug* thought provoking, though.
Currently I'm using two identical knives in my kitchen, both at 60, AEBL and 1095. I can't see much if any performance difference in any category except corrosion resistance.
 
Currently I'm using two identical knives in my kitchen, both at 60, AEBL and 1095. I can't see much if any performance difference in any category except corrosion resistance.

That's because you are being rational and objective about what you observe... Most people probably can't tell any difference between most steels from their edge performance alone (given all the infinite variables in sharpening/finishing), yet they will swear up and down that they can tell a big difference between Aus-8 at 14% chromium and 0.75% Carbon, and 440C at 16-18% Chromium and 1% Carbon...

And if you think they are not dead serious about this, you have another one coming...

Gaston
 
Why not get a stainless tool steel? Any steel with 12%+ Chromium added is generally considered stainless which means, it will "stain less." D-2 tool steel has 11.5% Chromium in it...which is pretty close to stainless IMO.

Here is a link to Spyderco's Steel chart. Just click on a steel and it will tell you what's in it with a brief description of what each metal additive does to the steel. Just put your cursor over the name of the steel additive for a description of what it does.

https://www.spyderco.com/edge-u-cation/index.php?item=3

Remember each metal class has its purpose. An Axe would use a different steel than a knife for slicing would use.
 
Last edited:
That's because you are being rational and objective about what you observe... Most people probably can't tell any difference between most steels from their edge performance alone (given all the infinite variables in sharpening/finishing), yet they will swear up and down that they can tell a big difference between Aus-8 at 14% chromium and 0.75% Carbon, and 440C at 16-18% Chromium and 1% Carbon...

And if you think they are not dead serious about this, you have another one coming...

Gaston

I agree with you. I think edge geometry plays a bigger role in what you can actually feel as opposed to a slight difference in similar steels.
 
I'm not familiar with REX 121 but there are stainless steels that are MUCH more wear resistant than CPM M4. Check out CPM 110V & CPM 125V.

Hello Darrin,
People have tested steels including M4 and S110V for cutting materials such as cardboard and rope and found that S110V had more wear resistance. I realized that I have a Spyderco Manix 2 in M4 steel and another in S110V so I did my own little test with some big cardboard boxes I had in the garage. I found that my M4 cut a little longer than my S110V. People with more experience than I have suggested a problem with my methodology and I can't argue with them. It does point out that the testing is difficult and results can vary. I typically carry the stainless blade during the week and the carbon steel blade on weekends, thinking I'm more likely to need the increased toughness of the carbon steel blade in my weekend activities.

photo2014-11-13ab_zps6645e940.jpg
 
"lower than optimum hardness" may be the understatement of the year.

I was attempting to be polite :D

Of course, those companies do indeed swear up and down they do that strictly for toughness, and also why they leave their edges thick as a brick. They market such knives aggressively with those "features" as a major selling point. But that, my friends, is quite frankly baloney sausage.
 
I was attempting to be polite :D

Of course, those companies do indeed swear up and down they do that strictly for toughness, and also why they leave their edges thick as a brick. They market such knives aggressively with those "features" as a major selling point. But that, my friends, is quite frankly baloney sausage.

Couldn't agree more.
 
i find that tool steels are best for fixed blade, in my opinion D2 is optimal for neck knives, New York Knife company, o1 fo 4-6 inch knives and a2 for anything above that. carbon steels are great for large blades though, stainless iss fine for folding knives as it will hold its edge well and will nit rust, by stainless i talk about anything over 154cm
 
i certainly can, i use my knives in the woods and 440c i find to be tougher and hold a similar edge to aus-8, i find aus 8 chips when 440c does not.
 
Back
Top