True or False?

Ironic

Ironic

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
686
True or False:

Neither CruForgeV, 80CrV2, A2, 1084, 52100 nor 1095 steel has better toughness OR edge holding than 420HC stainless steel.
 
420HC is pretty darn tough, but it has poor edge wear. However, the other steels mentioned also have poor edge retention. Depending on heat treat, it could be true or false.

On Larrin's site, he rates these steel in general terms:

420HC as 9 for toughness and 2.5 for edge holding.

CruForgeV is 8 and 2.5, respectively.
1084 is 8 and 1.5
A2 is 6.5 and 2.5
52100 is 8.5 and 2
1095 is 4.5 and 1.5
 
Twindog said:
420HC is pretty darn tough, but it has poor edge wear. However, the other steels mentioned also have poor edge retention. Depending on heat treat, it could be true or false.

On Larrin's site, he rates these steel in general terms:

420HC as 9 for toughness and 2.5 for edge holding.

CruForgeV is 8 and 2.5, respectively.
1084 is 8 and 1.5
A2 is 6.5 and 2.5
52100 is 8.5 and 2
1095 is 4.5 and 1.5
Click to expand...

Reading through Larrin’s charts on a laid-back Sunday morning was what prompted my original post. I had noticed how high his toughness rating was for 420HC a couple of times before, but today I was looking more closely at some of the well-known carbon steels and was struck by how low they were ranked in edge holding on his charts. As I went down the list today making comparisons with 420HC, I started wondering how many others here might be shaking their heads as much as I was. I’m well past the age people ask for credentials before granting me a senior discount, and I can remember when many of these carbon steels had legendary reputations for both toughness and edge holding. Ed Fowler’s 52100. Phill Hartsfield’s A2. Don Fogg’s 1095. Even the admonitions of Julia Child, who swore by the properties of carbon steels over stainless in the kitchen. Was my imagination that completely captured by bald-faced marketing and anecdotal evidence over the years? Of course, my first thoughts ran to heat treat differences, but that’s pretty obvious. Larrin’s rankings are general in nature and would require some calibration, obviously, for individual cases. But just as obviously, his rankings don’t indicate any general caveats based on heat treatment.

Maybe he’ll comment here. Would love to see whatever he might have to add.
 
Last edited:
Simple carbon steels have soft iron carbides and thus have quite low wear resistance. A2 is a high alloy tool steel so it is in a different category, it has chromium carbides and thus its wear resistance is more in line with a stainless steel like AEB-L. 52100, 1095, and A2 all have relatively little carbide as well. Now it is importantly to remember that steel is only one part of edge retention, and the wear resistance of steel sometimes won’t matter as much for edge retention if the edges are chipping or rolling.
 
Thanks for taking time to respond—much appreciated.

Larrin said:
…steel is only one part of edge retention, and the wear resistance of steel sometimes won’t matter as much for edge retention if the edges are chipping or rolling.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming that edge retention is typically reduced even further in cases of chipping or rolling, unless a temporary “micro-serration” effect might result serendipitously from chipping that leaves a “saw-tooth” edge?
But my understanding from your response overall is that you have no other exceptions to share that might result in any of these carbon steels excelling beyond what would be expected from your rankings?
Thanks again.
 
I remember many reviewers who were disappointed that Gerber used 420HC for the Strongarm. But it passed all their heavy-duty field usage tests and they kept saying what a great knife it is. I also remember Andrew Demko praising the properties of 4116, which is fairly close to the composition of most 420HC steel compositions (420HC is not an official designation, so the composition varies a bit among the various producers). So this is not altogether shocking to me.
 
Ironic said:
Thanks for taking time to respond—much appreciated.


I’m assuming that edge retention is typically reduced even further in cases of chipping or rolling, unless a temporary “micro-serration” effect might result serendipitously from chipping that leaves a “saw-tooth” edge?
But my understanding from your response overall is that you have no other exceptions to share that might result in any of these carbon steels excelling beyond what would be expected from your rankings?
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
If you mean exceptions in terms of the properties of the steels, no.
 
Ironic said:
Thanks for taking time to respond—much appreciated.


I’m assuming that edge retention is typically reduced even further in cases of chipping or rolling, unless a temporary “micro-serration” effect might result serendipitously from chipping that leaves a “saw-tooth” edge?
But my understanding from your response overall is that you have no other exceptions to share that might result in any of these carbon steels excelling beyond what would be expected from your rankings?
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
If you look in Ankerson's test results for edge wear in the Knife Reviews and Testing subform, you'll see that CruForgeV with a custom heat treat by Luong at 62 Rc can have the edge wear ability of Spyderco S30V at 60 Rc -- each with 300 cuts of rope to a specific point of dullness.

S30V would be much better than 420HC in most circumstances. Larrin gives S30V a 6 on edge wear as a general guide, well above 420HC's 2.5. Heat treat is important.

From Ankerson's post:
CruForgeV - 300 - Bluntcut Custom - 62 HRC - .012" behind the edge
S30V - 300 - Military - 60 RC
 
I think it's often a surprise to people when their favorite steels turn out to be less tough than they thought. But does it matter if the knife is never pushed to the point of failure? Not really. "Tough enough" works for most people.

I do like the details of steel attributes though and find it interesting as a knife nut.
 
Ironic said:
Thanks for taking time to respond—much appreciated.


I’m assuming that edge retention is typically reduced even further in cases of chipping or rolling, unless a temporary “micro-serration” effect might result serendipitously from chipping that leaves a “saw-tooth” edge?
But my understanding from your response overall is that you have no other exceptions to share that might result in any of these carbon steels excelling beyond what would be expected from your rankings?
Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the still reasonable toughness of CruForgeV, 52100 and 1095 @64 RC:

1734295867539.png

(https://knifesteelnerds.com/2021/02...ate-events-that-killed-a-forging-knife-steel/)

Now try to find a 64 RC number for 420HC.
 
Larrin said:
If you mean exceptions in terms of the properties of the steels, no.
Click to expand...
This brings up an interesting (to me) point. Obviously the performance of a steel in terms of toughness and edge holding changes with the heat treat. So how do you arrive at your steel performance rankings without referencing how a specific heat treat protocol was chosen and how the rankings might change given different heat treat protocols?
Thanks again
 
Ironic said:
This brings up an interesting (to me) point. Obviously the performance of a steel in terms of toughness and edge holding changes with the heat treat. So how do you arrive at your steel performance rankings without referencing how a specific heat treat protocol was chosen and how the rankings might change given different heat treat protocols?
Thanks again
Click to expand...
Have you looked at his charts? They plot properties against hardnesses
 
Those charts are plotted in ranges, right. Yes, I’ve studied them. The rankings I’m referring to are not. For his low alloy carbon steels, for example:
IMG_9264.webp

And for stainless steels:

IMG_9265.webp
 
Ironic said:
This brings up an interesting (to me) point. Obviously the performance of a steel in terms of toughness and edge holding changes with the heat treat. So how do you arrive at your steel performance rankings without referencing how a specific heat treat protocol was chosen and how the rankings might change given different heat treat protocols?
Thanks again
Click to expand...
They are normalized to the same hardness apart from a few steels that are exclusively at lower or higher hardness. Many steels have been tested at a range of hardness with different heat treatments of course. Ratings are a simplification for comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top