What is wrong with 420HC?

Interesting chart. The 154CM and ATS34 differences (since they are essentially the same), as well as putting AUS6 over AUS8, pretty much make me doubt the rest of the table.

I do agree that BG42 is at the top, as far as my limited experience goes...

schiesz
 
fishbulb said:
I find it ironic that many who demand "nothing but the best" in blade steel rarely if ever use their knives for more than cutting paper or string.
Click to expand...

+ FRACKING 1

Just head on over to the Busse forums and take a gander at all the pristiene busses that will never get used.
 
I think I'm less of a steel snob than I was a year ago, but I'm still recovering from the addiction.

I suspect that Buck 420HC is as good as 420 comes...after all, with Mr. Bos overseeing HT it's got to be right.
:)
 
ATS-34 and 154CM aren't the same. It says so in that chart, and the internet is always right.
Sirusly, I was wondering about that as I have always heard the two are the same. ATS-34 being the Hitachi trade name.

Here's an article I was just reading for the heck of it:
http://www.knives.com/engnath_steel.html

Here's another graph. This one rates ATS-34 better than BG-42. So, obviously these are not scientific results (in my opinion) but rather subjective opinions. So, as your mileage may vary, it is interesting reading for a novice like me.
http://www.warrenknives.com/blade steels.htm

Still can't find anything much on 440HC.
 
Check out this chart:
http://www.agrussell.com/knife_information/steel_guide/index.html
Not all agree with the rockwells listed, but that is common with all charts. IMHO heat treat is the most important factor. Bos is certainly one of the best, if not the best in many peoples opinions. Blade angle is also a very important factor. 420HC is not all created equal. Bos does the best job to make 420HC a great working blade steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top