What steel did buck use in the 80's/90's?

T

The_Monkeyboy

Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
168
Ok, setting aside things from the custom shop or limited editions, if any. What kind of steel did Buck use in their basic 110 knives in the 1980s and 90s? Was it the same 420HC as today? Or did they use something else? And how close is the model 110 that I can go down to Wallyworld and get today to the ones from that time period? And if you use a 110 for EDC and hunting, what areas do you see the most wear in? What, if any, areas develop problems over time? I don't normally carry mine, nor do I use it to clean game, so I am clueless as to how these knives hold up long term. Aside from their general reputation for lasting. Let me know if you guys have any specific info.

-Mb
 
425m

Add:
They switched to 420HC in 1994
 
Up until about 1980 Buck used 440C, which was very difficult to sharpen (no diamond hones back then; I think I wore out a couple of carborundum hones trying to put an edge on my Bucks). Then they switched to 425 modified. In 1994, Buck switched from 425 modified to 420HC (High Carbon), which IMHO is much better than the old 440C and I believe out-performs 440 in the CATRA tests. It is a lot easier to sharpen, takes a wicked edge, is tough, highly corrosion resistant and very affordable.
 
Alberta Ed said:
Up until about 1980 Buck used 440C, which was very difficult to sharpen (no diamond hones back then; I think I wore out a couple of carborundum hones trying to put an edge on my Bucks). Then they switched to 425 modified. In 1994, Buck switched from 425 modified to 420HC (High Carbon), which IMHO is much better than the old 440C and I believe out-performs 440 in the CATRA tests. It is a lot easier to sharpen, takes a wicked edge, is tough, highly corrosion resistant and very affordable.
Click to expand...

The statement above in blue bold is untrue. What was tested was BLADE SHAPE.
Same alloy. Different blade shapes.

Given the same blade shape and edge geometry, 440C outperforms 420HC in edge retention by a wide margin.

Add: 420HC has lower edge retension properties than AUS8. And AUS8 has lower edge retention than 440C.
 
The only common problem that I've seen is broken tips. Usually, it's about 1/8 of an inch, almost always less than a centimeter. You can fix them fast, but they're never the same.
 
knarfeng said:
The statement above in blue bold is untrue. What was tested was BLADE SHAPE.
Same alloy. Different blade shapes.

Given the same blade shape and edge geometry, 440C outperforms 420HC in edge retention by a wide margin.

Add: 420HC has lower edge retension properties than AUS8. And AUS8 has lower edge retention than 440C.
Click to expand...

There was an extensive discussion of this a while back on these forums, which I found interesting enough to save. One of the observations, to which I was referring, stated, "Note as a further aside the 440C blade is clearly inferior to the 420HC blade even after it is reprofiled. This was explored in detail by Landes and Verhoeven who strongly criticize 440C as a knife steel because of the edge instability due to the large and segregated carbides."
 
There's plenty of academic discussion, yet people choose to ignore metallurgists and knifemakers on the subject.

It's a simple fact that 440C will out perform 420HC. 440C is a more expensive steel, and it's harder to sharpen for some folks.

One thing I still cannot wrap my head around is how people will complain that higher-end steels are hard to sharpen and more expensive, then turn around and try to argue that their easy-to-sharpen steel holds an edge "just as well" or "outperforms" a higher end steel.

This has been shown to be the case in controlled laboratory testing, yet every time someone goes out in their back yard and cuts up a bunch of cardboard, then announces that their single test has conclusively proven that one of the most inexpensive knife steels on the market outperforms anything and everything else available, suddenly it's "The Steel Debate" again.

It has almost nothing to do with steel, but it has a lot to do with what manufacturer the end user has decided they like, and users who don't mind re-sharpening their knives vs. users who are willing to pay for a little extra boost in edge holding.
 
There's plenty of academic discussion, yet people choose to ignore metallurgists and knifemakers on the subject.

It's a simple fact that 440C will out perform 420HC. 440C is a more expensive steel, and it's harder to sharpen for some folks.

One thing I still cannot wrap my head around is how people will complain that higher-end steels are hard to sharpen and more expensive, then turn around and try to argue that their easy-to-sharpen steel holds an edge "just as well" or "outperforms" a higher end steel.

This has been shown to be the case in controlled laboratory testing, yet every time someone goes out in their back yard and cuts up a bunch of cardboard, then announces that their single test has conclusively proven that one of the most inexpensive knife steels on the market outperforms anything and everything else available, suddenly it's "The Steel Debate" again.

It has almost nothing to do with steel, but it has a lot to do with what manufacturer the end user has decided they like, and users who don't mind re-sharpening their knives vs. users who are willing to pay for a little extra boost in edge holding.
 
Alberta Ed said:
There was an extensive discussion of this a while back on these forums, which I found interesting enough to save. One of the observations, to which I was referring, stated, "Note as a further aside the 440C blade is clearly inferior to the 420HC blade even after it is reprofiled. This was explored in detail by Landes and Verhoeven who strongly criticize 440C as a knife steel because of the edge instability due to the large and segregated carbides."
Click to expand...

Please provide the reference so that we may see the context and who was doing the quoting.

There is significant usage data that says that the theory you reference is incorrect for most usages. Landes often talked about edge stability in very acute edge angles that most folks do not use. That "edge stability" at acute angles of less than 10° per side should not be confused with "edge retention" at common usage angles of 15° to 20° per side.

As for personal usage, I have both 440C and 420HC blades. The 440C far out-performs 420HC for edge retention in both side-by-side tests and everyday use.
 
enderwiggin said:
There's plenty of academic discussion, yet people choose to ignore metallurgists and knifemakers on the subject.

It's a simple fact that 440C will out perform 420HC. 440C is a more expensive steel, and it's harder to sharpen for some folks.

One thing I still cannot wrap my head around is how people will complain that higher-end steels are hard to sharpen and more expensive, then turn around and try to argue that their easy-to-sharpen steel holds an edge "just as well" or "outperforms" a higher end steel.
Click to expand...
440C is more wear resistant, has larger carbides, and is less tough than 420HC, it's basic metallurgy. I would expect it to outperform 420HC in CATRA testing, and 420HC would outperform it in some other tests. Everything is a tradeoff.
 
Doesn't matter what steel it is if the heat-treat isn't done properly.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top