Why 440c lost popularity in Spyderco knives ?

[Thomas Linton]

You didn't go back far enough, Joe. It was "the" super steel in the 20's when stainless was in its infancy. Queen used it for decades and had pretty much the only stainless knives on the market that were worth having. But yes, it was surpassed half a century ago.

I understood that in the 1920's, SS came in two versions - brittle and soft. The "modern" SS dates to the 1950's. Or at least Bernard Levine and others think so.

I have a Victoria Inox kitchen knife from pre-WWII. Holds a great edge. Hard to sharpen. Thin as it should be but incredibly stiff.

 

[brownshoe]

Very interesting and thought provoking response Brownshoe as you've done so many times in the past. And I do appreciate your timely contribution especially when you point out that the new SERRATA fixed blade Spyderco model is made from "440C cast">> and I don't profess to be a metallurgist so I hope someone will chime in and explain the differences between the "Cast" and the conventional 440C.

And I'll take back some of what I said about 440C being a mundane performer because I just remembered that I did have one other Spyder that had 440C that did take a decent edge and that was my old "Q" model>> I truly almost forgot that many of the Spyderco "Q" models were made with 440C and the really popular "Q" I had with the Spyder & Web was a decent cutter and I owned it about 10 to 12 years ago but ended up trading it to a guy here at BF.

But again I've personally had much better luck with VG-10, ZDP-189, S90V, D-2 and even S30V>> not to mention my new favorite M390. And I can list at least 6 more blade steels I've had better luck with personally with the cutting jobs I do>> I guess to be fair about it we're probably in a "Ford versus Chevy" type discussion here for the most part.

But please do tell us why the SERRATA model with 440C CAST is so good? I'm all ears at this point.

Cast 440c was pioneered by David Boye. I have three of his knives. The casting process gives a dendritic pattern to the carbides. These small carbides in a fine pattern are like micro serrations; hence the name Serrata. What this means in use, is the knife keeps cutting after it is "dull" or won't shave hair.

The dendritic steel has a slight tendacy to chip, not roll, such as when you cut through the stems of a flower bouquet not knowing there is a wire in it. David Boye restored the edge for free.

The steel works great for rough cutting, such as on boats, Boye's big market for many years. I follow his suggestion and sharpen with a medium stone or the coarse sharpmaker rods. Boye's 440c is a little on the soft side, so touch up is easy.

At one time there was talk about a Boye/Spyderco collaboration, but it did not happen.

I gave a flag Q to one of my ladies close to 15 years ago. It was used as a screwdriver, and where some steels would chip or lose a tip, the Spyderco 440c did not. The tip bent and the edge folded, but it was restorable with little effort. Super steels are not as forgiving.

 

[brownshoe]

But Mr. Brownshoe sir ... I was reading an article by Chuck Buck sr. Who stated that the reason Buck knives stopped using 440c was because the blade had large carbides which made it dull real quick and hard to sharpen. The article is bfc. You can Google it.

Well you can't argue with a legend A lot of old timers on the Traditional forum say Buck 440c holds an edge better than their current 420hc and that it was replaced because it is "hard to sharpen". I do not have any personal experience, but have been looking for a 440c buck 110 to try it out.

 

[Gaston444]

The only edge holding test I've ever seen that had knives built specifically for the test, to a uniform shape and standard, in Blade of KI in the mid-late 1990s, had 440C crush everything else in every respect, including D-2, ATS34, INFI, and the first two CPM cutlery steels of the time... The disparity in cutting Manilla rope was pretty wide to even the next best one...

Also when a Randall Model 14 in 440B was pitted agaisnt a Busse INFI Sasquatch, at similar edge thicknesses, chopping concrete, even for that less than scientific test medium, forged 440B came out way on top...

440C has never been replaced for many industrial applications.

Of course newer steels could be a little better, but quite frankly the idea that vs most of them the disparity would be great, at equal heat treatment, seems a little, shall we say, farfetched... It wouldn't surprise me at all if it turned out to be still the best in some mediums. And S30V doesn't stave off staining as well as 440C does, so it is still hard to beat for stain resistance...

Gaston

 

[wolf-man-12]

For me it comes down to these "3"** { 440C ~ VG-10 ~ ZDP189 == now what more could I really need another Steel for.!? }
I have a lot of different Knives with different Steel ~~ but these 3 just won't go away or let me down.!**

 

[The Mastiff]

The only edge holding test I've ever seen that had knives built specifically for the test, to a uniform shape and standard, in Blade of KI in the mid-late 1990s, had 440C crush everything else in every respect, including D-2, ATS34, INFI, and the first two CPM cutlery steels of the time... The disparity in cutting Manilla rope was pretty wide to even the next best one...

You posted this stuff before in another thread. I'll ask you to come up with the article. There is some things in it I don't believe or think is possible. I believe I read an article that is the basis for your memory but it reads different in my memories. It wasn't in the 90's either.

90's testmule in infi for the article? Nope. There are too many inconsistencies to give any validity to what you posted here. Untill you can come up with details of what you claim I'm going to call bull on it. Sorry Gaston 444 but you are posting incorrect results.

 

[carbonsteelfan]

You posted this stuff before in another thread. I'll ask you to come up with the article. There is some things in it I don't believe or think is possible. I believe I read an article that is the basis for your memory but it reads different in my memories. It wasn't in the 90's either.

90's testmule in infi for the article? Nope. There are too many inconsistencies to give any validity to what you posted here. Untill you can come up with details of what you claim I'm going to call bull on it. Sorry Gaston 444 but you are posting incorrect results.

I agree with Mr. Mastiff. I doubt 440c could oust D2 in terms of edge retention.

 

[brownshoe]

I agree with Mr. Mastiff. I doubt 440c could oust D2 in terms of edge retention.

It is not just the steel but the heat treat and edge. There is a reason why Dozier is known to have D2 better than most and why Queen uses Peters and marks the tang with a P for their D2. From what I have read, the reason is D2 takes more expertice and sophisticated equipment than some other steels. It is easier to get less than max performance.

 

[DeadboxHero]

Still can't wrap my head around 440C cast. I was complete put off by the Serrata when I found out it had 440c not realizing that "cast" was a big deal. I'm almost curious enough to try it. But if cast 440c is so great why is there no great testing information showing its superioty? Is it that it's been written off for being 440c? Or is it an extinct steel after the CPM process came about?

 

[The Mastiff]

Still can't wrap my head around 440C cast. I was complete put off by the Serrata when I found out it had 440c not realizing that "cast" was a big deal. I'm almost curious enough to try it. But if cast 440c is so great why is there no great testing information showing its superioty? Is it that it's been written off for being 440c? Or is it an extinct steel after the CPM process came about?

Cast 440C has been pretty rare up to now. Now it's more available and in a production knife we may see it tested and reported on more. Time will tell. It doesn't have the newness or sexiness needed to cause a stampede to grab it up like Super blue or 10V did when announced and released, or S110V before that. There aren't many knife steels I haven't tried yet but cast 440C is one of them so I can't do anything but quote what others have said. No point in me doing that.

Interesting point of fact is there is a clean, powder form of 440C available from Carpenter. CTS 40CP. It should take care of the biggest problem 440C has for cutlery use which is lack of toughness or edge stability from large chrome carbide clumping but that still puts it behind the steels using Vanadium as the primary carbide former. Still I believe it is Dozier that was using the steel and he had some good things to say about the new powder version. If he says it makes good knives I wouldn't argue the point with him. He knows knives pretty well I think.

Still, why would I buy a knife with CTS 40CP when I can have one in CPM S30V/35VN/90V/110V/20CV/M390/Elmax/ etc.. Actually I'm more of a 52100, O-1,W2,3V/Cruwear,PD#1, 4V, CPM M4 type person but that's getting off topic.

CTS 40CP: https://www.cartech.com/ssalloysprod.aspx?id=3696&terms=*CTS%2040CP*

 

[Don M]

I had a Buck 110 I purchased in 1976. I did not have problems sharpening it, but then again I have never really had problems sharpening knives. I used Arkansas stones back then (Washita, and hard Arkansas). It was slow, but it worked.

The edges were quite thick and had a more obtuse angle back then, which made them challenging to sharpen for many folks. But their 440C was good stuff. They switched to the 425M and then the 420HC when they changed to a thinner edge and a smaller angle (about 30 degrees inclusive). Their testing showed they could get at least as good performance (CATRA), and sometimes better, with the lower grade steel at a more optimal angle than they could with a more premium steel at a more obtuse angle.

 

[Gaston444]

You posted this stuff before in another thread. I'll ask you to come up with the article. There is some things in it I don't believe or think is possible. I believe I read an article that is the basis for your memory but it reads different in my memories. It wasn't in the 90's either.

90's testmule in infi for the article? Nope. There are too many inconsistencies to give any validity to what you posted here. Untill you can come up with details of what you claim I'm going to call bull on it. Sorry Gaston 444 but you are posting incorrect results.

You can't say I misrepresent the article if you haven't found it yourself, can you?

The article in question is, again, from KI or Blade, and dates very close to the first time I ever heard of "powder" Crucible Particle Metallurgy steels, so long, long before these "powder" steels ever became widely available in knives you could easily buy...: I was surprised the testers were even able to include two "powder" steels in the test, as I only knew of one existing at the time I read the article, and that was CPM 3V...: That was a big surprise... This is the timeline for the appearance of the first CPM "powder" metallurgy steels, in reverse order of appearance, from S30V back (From Crucible's very own site):

2001 - Developed stainless tool steel CPM® S30V® for applications requiring improved corrosion and wear resistance.
2000 - Developed VIM CRU® 60* and VIM CRU® 80* for hybrid bearing applications.
2000 - Developed advanced iron based powder metallurgy calibration standards for X-ray and optical emission equipment.
1999 – Developed second stainless tool steel CPM® S90V® for improved corrosion and wear resistance.
1998 - Developed CPM® Rex® 121, a new ultra hard (HRC 70-72) and abrasion resistant high speed steel.
1997 - Developed VIM CRU® 20* for hybrid bearing applications.
1997 - Developed CPM® SS100®, a new high strength corrosion resistant steel using nitrogen as an alloying element and rapid solidification processing.
1997 - Developed CPM® 3V®, a high toughness steel with good wear resistance.

I believe the steel 440C beat the daylights out of was CPM 3V (and CPM SS100, since I remember clearly there were two CPM "powder" steels included in the test): As I said, that test included two CPM "powder" steels long before I ever heard of production or even custom knives being offered in one "powder" steel... The magazine had really pulled all the stops on that one...

Now we know the the most problable date for the article is 1997-98, and it makes sense because by 1998 I got a Spyderco Civilian (a knife without peer then or now), and I kind of lost interest in all other knives for about 15 years after that...: I certainly would not have read this article much past 1998, as by 1999 my hobby interests had completely changed, towards miniature modelling...

INFI began in 1998, so it fits within that timeframe... It was very new then too I remember...

You certainly have the wrong article if it is not from the late '90s. I do remember the "1997-98" article was very odd in that it failed to praise 440C's results, despite the data within the article being quite overwhelming... There was a sense of downright schizophrenia in the conclusions, as if the 440C results had to be downplayed... ATS34 did very, very poorly, as did INFI, CPM 3V, CPM SS100, and even D2 did not do much better (though I vaguely remember D2 might have been a bit ahead of the large pack of distant losers). In fact there was really nothing that even came close to 440C for edge-holding on soft or semi-hard materials, particularly manilla rope...

I lost all interest in "supersteels" after that... Other than 440C that is...

Surely there is someone out there with a complete 97-99 run of both KI or Blade...

Gaston

 

[The Mastiff]

You can't say I misrepresent the article if you haven't found it yourself, can you?

The article in question is, again, from KI or Blade, and dates very close to the first time I ever heard of "powder" Crucible Particle Metallurgy steels, so long, long before these "powder" steels ever became widely available in knives you could easily buy...: I was surprised the testers were even able to include two "powder" steels in the test, as I only knew of one existing at the time I read the article, and that was CPM 3V...: That was a big surprise... This is the timeline for the appearance of the first CPM "powder" metallurgy steels, in reverse order of appearance, from S30V back (From Crucible's very own site):

2001 - Developed stainless tool steel CPM® S30V® for applications requiring improved corrosion and wear resistance.
2000 - Developed VIM CRU® 60* and VIM CRU® 80* for hybrid bearing applications.
2000 - Developed advanced iron based powder metallurgy calibration standards for X-ray and optical emission equipment.
1999 – Developed second stainless tool steel CPM® S90V® for improved corrosion and wear resistance.
1998 - Developed CPM® Rex® 121, a new ultra hard (HRC 70-72) and abrasion resistant high speed steel.
1997 - Developed VIM CRU® 20* for hybrid bearing applications.
1997 - Developed CPM® SS100®, a new high strength corrosion resistant steel using nitrogen as an alloying element and rapid solidification processing.
1997 - Developed CPM® 3V®, a high toughness steel with good wear resistance.

I believe the steel 440C beat the daylights out of was CPM 3V (and CPM SS100, since I remember clearly there were two CPM "powder" steels included in the test): As I said, that test included two CPM "powder" steels long before I ever heard of production or even custom knives being offered in one "powder" steel... The magazine had really pulled all the stops on that one...

Now we know the the most problable date for the article is 1997-98, and it makes sense because by 1998 I got a Spyderco Civilian (a knife without peer then or now), and I kind of lost interest in all other knives for about 15 years after that...: I certainly would not have read this article much past 1998, as by 1999 my hobby interests had completely changed, towards miniature modelling...

INFI began in 1998, so it fits within that timeframe... It was very new then too I remember...

You certainly have the wrong article if it is not from the late '90s. I do remember the "1997-98" article was very odd in that it failed to praise 440C's results, despite the data within the article being quite overwhelming... There was a sense of downright schizophrenia in the conclusions, as if the 440C results had to be downplayed... ATS34 did very, very poorly, as did INFI, CPM 3V, CPM SS100, and even D2 did not do much better (though I vaguely remember D2 might have been a bit ahead of the large pack of distant losers). In fact there was really nothing that even came close to 440C for edge-holding on soft or semi-hard materials, particularly manilla rope...

I lost all interest in "supersteels" after that... Other than 440C that is...

Surely there is someone out there with a complete 97-99 run of both KI or Blade...

Gaston

You can find the mule test talked about in the forums archives here if you know where to look. It's not from the 90's and sure doesn't read like you have represented here.

When you can find the evidence of the test with these results please post or link to them. I'd love to read the test.

In any event one article whether the one I recall or the one you do shouldn't be one a person hangs their hat on as fact now and forever. There are too many different batches of steel. Too many different heat treats. Too many different geometries and too many different skill levels of knife smiths, sharpeners and knife users. Even mechanical tests that repeat cutting strokes to an extent no human can like CATRA shouldn't be the end all of ones knowledge.

 

[Vegas Blade]

My only thought would be that many of the steels mentioned in the article that you recall Gaston444, were very new at the time, and 440 was not new at all. Perhaps the test was as you recall, far be it from me to say otherwise, but think about this: the heat treat on the "new" steels could have been vastly improved upon since then. Busse started with A2, so INFI was super new. As was 3V. The heat treatment of 440C was as tweaked as it could be for a relatively uncomplex SS.

Just saying that as steels progress, and we learn more about the intricacies of each element, HT's change. I would bet quite a bit of money that the 440C of today could not hold a candle to properly HT'd INFI or 3V when smashing bricks and such.

ETA: while I know a bit about steels, Mastiff is still one of my go to sources with steel questions. I have never found his knowledge to not directly correlate to the performance I have found when I test the steel I ask him about. Not that we couldn't both be full of beans, but his knowledge is pretty vast.

 

[Gaston444]

Maybe the heat-treat was not optimal on the new steels, and that is a valid argument for brand-new steels.

But remember that all the other major steels were included in that test, including 154CM, D2, and a slew of others that had been around for decades... The biggest shock for me had nothing to do with any of the new steels anyway, since they were so new I made the same heat-treat assumption as you suggest...: My biggest shock was the pathetic performance of ATS34, which was one of the poorer performers: If you can put yourself back at that time, in 1997-98, ATS34 was THE standard you judged all other steels by... It was still THE hottest steel you could widely get, and for years I had read articles after articles pouring it on as to how it was superior to most other steels in edge-holding, while still combining a reduced but significant rust resistance vs 440... Article after article poured it on how it was Japanese, smelted direct from the steel factory, not recycled from any scrap steel with impurities in it... You cannot be a knife fan from back then and not remember the brain-washing that was drummed into you...

I think I had around five years of reading praise heaped on ATS34 steel before that test came around, not to mention all the magazine knife reviews piling it on in perfect unisson...: I don't think I ever heard a single dissenting comment concerning the absolute edge-holding superiority of ATS34 over AUS-8 and 440, except to mention a slight reduction in corrosion resistance vs 440 (the usual widely recognized strong point of 440 steels)...

So you have all these guys swearing up and down for half a decade that ATS34 is obviously superior in edge-holding to 440C: You don't think any of them had testing methodology as sophisticated as anything you do today? Yet I don't remember hearing a single one of those saying the emperor had no clothes... On the contrary, everyone who commented on ATS34 at the time gushed praise on how it was their favorite steel...

If I may, I think around here of some historical perspective is badly needed, and the fact no one even remembers a massive, and surprising, edge-holding test done in 1997-98, in one of the two biggest knife mags around, doesn't speak well of the memory and sense of perspective around here... In other hobbies, there is no way an article of any significance that is barely 16 years old, in a major publication that is still around, would have vanished not only from reference, but even from memory... Jeez...

As for ATS34, there was a bit of report of some slight edge chipping tendency due to the usual high hardness heat-treat, but most simply commented on how it was just the right balance of edge-holding, rust resistance and toughness...

While it is true this magazine test is over 15 years old, ask yourselves, how many tests have you seen since that have had all the blades made specifically for the test, to the highest precision standard in edge angle and finishing grit? I don't know of a single one...

Seeing how ATS34 performed (and somehow you don't hear anymore of how drastically superior it is to 440C, despite this being heard all over at the time), it cured me forever of having any trust in my, or anyone else's, ability to objectively tell just how good edge-holding is...

Edge-holding is the kind of thing that looks simple, yet accross different blades it is probably completely impossible to tell of any significant difference, since the blade geometries and surface finishes are not identical: On that test, the blade geometries and finishes were specifically made to be identical, so that is the only basis I would take seriously from now on (and no, production tolerances of identical knives are simply not good enough: I've seen how even Seki-made Spydercos can be all over the place dimensionally, particularly in bevel-base thickness)...

There is a way to truly test your own ability to know how good edge-holding is: Have someone test a bunch of highly identical purpose-made "mule" blades to a scientific, or close to scientific, standard (use #11 blades to keep costs down maybe). Establish the ranking from that trusted source, but keep it secret from those being evaluated. Then subject yourself to a blind test where you have to establish the pecking order in edge holding using your preferred testing method...

An even easier test would be to give you some mules, have you rank them, then re-polish them so you can't recognize which is which, and then have you rank them again: Want to be bet that even if we did this 5-10 times, you would not get the same ranking twice?

Until you subject yourself to such a blind test on purpose-built mule blades, how am I supposed to take seriously your claim of being able to tell the difference? And let's see the '97-98 Blade or KI article I'm talking about, unless the memories around here are really that short...

Gaston

 

[Vegas Blade]

You do have a great point on the ATS34. I whole heartily agree that it was considered THE steel of the time. The best I can recall the chic steel after that was BG42. I remember Greg Lightfoot at a small knife ahow with his then brand new 460 Mag Tanto for the insane price of $360.00. It was made of this crazy cool ball bearing steel BG42. Anyway, I'm drifting. I do concede that, for the time ATS34 was the business.

 

[The Mastiff]

Well, one can write pages but not really impart much information. OK.

ATS 34 isn't really designed to improve upon 440C's "wear resistance" or "edge holding" ( in quotes because those definitions aren't held to mean the same thing by all here, not as an insult to anyone.)

ATS 34 was meant to hold it's properties at higher temps than 440C which is one reason Moly is included. It isn't really intended for greater wear resistance as there are other steel alloys for that. ATS34 is used in things like turbines and high performance applications where 440C would fail due to heat or other issues. BG42 is similar with added vanadium. It's a high speed stainless ball bearing steel and makes fine knives. It, like 440C isn't meant to be a cutlery steel. For higher wear resistance typically a higher amount of harder carbides are added. Other steels are used, or if possible higher hardness's can also help. If not done properly either way can cause alloys to be unusable for our discussed hobby. Knife edges, which is really all that is important to us. If the edge doesn't perform than what use is the knife?

The rest of your post really just implores someone to find your stated evidence for you. I don't do that. I also don't hold abrasive wear resistance to be the only attribute of importance when selecting blade steels. If that's what I want than there are steels used in our hobby that are more than twice as wear resistant as 440C yet still have better edge properties. 10V is one. In stainless S90V and S110V are also available.

OK. The test I refer to was done with Dozier made mules in 2010 in KI and 440C isn't involved. Look it up. It's discussed here and elsewhere.

Also CATRA abrasive wear tests are referenced and discussed here and other forums. One which belongs to a banned from BF individual has the results of all known official CATRA test results listed together in one chart for easy reference.

Other than that, do your own research. I've given hints, then search terms but I refuse to do the looking, reading or learning for anybody. Even tests like these can't really tell if a user will like or have good experiences with any knife or steel.

Gaston, if you can do any of it better please contribute to the general knowledge. That includes the tests you reference. Pony up resources and time like others do and then grow a thick skin when you find there are lots of people who will try to pull it down if their pet steel doesn't show the results they feel it should.

 

[Gaston444]

You are totally missing the point that ATS34 was hyped at the time to the point of head explosion... And not a dissenting voice was to be heard in the entire knife industry... Why should I be expected to treat any edge holding claim seriously, when the track record of the entire industry, particularly the press, is so demonstrably lackluster?

You are also besides the point that I am asking you to find my evidence: There's been over 2600 views of this thread, and it's been narrowed down to basically two years of the two biggest knife mags of them all, for a major steel test that should have stuck in the head of anyone who has ever read it... I have asked more obscure reference questions in other hobbies for far older, and especially less important magazines, and let me tell you miniature modellers keep a way better tracks of what has happened and when... This kind of short-term memory does not bode well for the quality of the information amassed here...

Also, nobody who does edge-holding testing seems to have ever considered how well they would do ranking the steels in a blind test... The blind protocol might be a bit hard to figure out, but at least discussing it would actually demonstrate some attempt at some kind of marginal credibility... First you need to assess with a blind test how valid is your testing method, and how correct is your perception... Instead, all I see is testing that proceeds from the blithe assumption the methods are unbiaised and that the perception is valid... You'll forgive me if this does not exactly inspire trust about any data collected in this way...

Gaston

 

[The Mastiff]

You are totally missing the point that ATS34 was hyped at the time to the point of head explosion... And not a dissenting voice was to be heard in the entire knife industry... Why should I be expected to treat any edge holding claim seriously, when the track record of the entire industry, particularly the press, is so demonstrably lackluster?

You don't like what you read so you attack it. I was reading those KI and other knife mags through the 90's too. I've used and collected knives since the late 60's and was a steel knut before the term was even used. You are off base and seem to be grasping at straw arguments instead of attempting to learn. There are times to teach, and times to learn for all of us no matter the skill level or status. You are coming across as someone who is unable to admit being wrong about something and trying to prove everybody else is wrong instead.

There is NO right or wrong when it comes to liking a steel or knife. They are all good, all worthy and all deserve our respect. Because I prefer a different steel doesn't mean I'm smarter, or know more than you. It just means I need different things in my knife. If 440C is the best steel for you Then it is the best for you. Why? Because you say it is. No one in the world can say you are wrong. Don't feel attacked because others like different steels. Do ask yourself why you insist on going to such lengths to prove yourself right instead of just using it as a learning moment. Fact. There are Much more wear resistant steels than 440C used in knives and in other industrial uses. What point does it prove to ignore the facts?

Also, nobody who does edge-holding testing seems to have ever considered how well they would do ranking the steels in a blind test... The blind protocol might be a bit hard to figure out, but at least discussing it would actually demonstrate some attempt at some kind of marginal credibility... First you need to assess with a blind test how valid is your testing method, and how correct is your perception... Instead, all I see is testing that proceeds from the blithe assumption the methods are unbiaised and that the perception is valid... You'll forgive me if this does not exactly inspire trust about any data collected in this way...

Blind testing has been discussed for decades. Perhaps it was done, perhaps not. If you don't like the testing that has been done than quit complaining and do it better. No one is stopping you.

I recently threw away decades full of knife magazines that included the years you are talking about. If your article was so notable or comprehensive it might have been talked about and still referred to. Maybe it doesn't exist and you are just a confused guy. Maybe not and we are incompetent guys conspiring to put down 440C just to annoy you.

And 440C vs ATS 34/154cm wear resistance? The steel makers say by their test that the 154cm/ats34 can achieve slightly higher wear resistance. Not enough to get me excited but it has other advantages that I want. If a knifesmith wants he can make a set of knives for you of both steels. He can adjust grain structure, hardness and geometry of the two identical size and shape blades to make one perform better or worse than the other even though the one steel by nature should be slightly ahead in abrasive wear testing. Changing any of the three things slightly will change the test. All mules of the knife in the same steel can have different performance. The number of variables might surprise you and each will change performance. 1 in each steel is no where near enough if you really want to science it up.

I suppose one can even make 440C outperform 10V if they want by lowering 10V's performance in abrasive wear. I know I could. What would it prove? Not too much. It would prove more about me than the steel.

Denying the truth won't change the truth though. No combination of words put together in this thread changes things either. One can accept or deny facts but facts do not change.

Notice I am not proving anything. I don't have to. Facts aren't mine or yours. They are facts. Even if you come up with the article as you recall it does it really change anything?

I sometimes enjoy talking with people that are pathologically unable to admit being wrong. I believe it annoys other people here so I guess that should be enough for now. By all means though find the evidence to validate your statement about the article you are referring to. We could maybe learn something from it. Whatever truths are in it could benefit me anyway. I enjoy learning and that is exactly why I buy memberships here every year. You might consider that too. It's a good thing. Everybody that spends a lot of time here should contribute to the website.

Joe

 

[Gaston444]

There is NO right or wrong when it comes to liking a steel or knife. They are all good, all worthy and all deserve our respect. Because I prefer a different steel doesn't mean I'm smarter, or know more than you. It just means I need different things in my knife. If 440C is the best steel for you Then it is the best for you. Why? Because you say it is. No one in the world can say you are wrong. Don't feel attacked because others like different steels.

You say no one is saying I am wrong, but then you say in that same post: "I sometimes enjoy talking with people that are pathologically unable to admit being wrong." Hmmm.

I never said 440C was the best. I said there was no credible evidence one way or the other... I said the most credible test I had ever seen said it was the best, 17 years ago... Find me another test that has identical dimensionally-controlled purpose-made blades that says otherwise, and you will have a point... We are talking here about something that cuts an infinite and undefined variety of undefined soft materials, at various unspecified bevel angles, with an unspecified minimal sharpness before re-sharpening... Hardly the kind of stuff to make definitive pronouncements about...

440C is still widely used in industry, and is said to be the most shape-stable of all the commonly used stainless steels. So I take claims of its obsolescence for non-specialized soft material cutting tasks with some grain of salt...

Blind testing has been discussed for decades. Perhaps it was done, perhaps not. If you don't like the testing that has been done than quit complaining and do it better. No one is stopping you.

I would say blind testing of an evaluation procedure is a pretty minimal requirement for an industry whose general opinions are meant to be taken seriously... (Instead of, say, as a flavour of the month marketing scam, as demonstrated by the now nearly forgotten ATS34)

I recently threw away decades full of knife magazines that included the years you are talking about. If your article was so notable or comprehensive it might have been talked about and still referred to.

The very fact it has been "forgotten" so easily is rather telling...: It was more serious in its methods and means than any other edge-retention test before and maybe since, and its conclusions were totally at odds with widspread assumptions.

Gosh! And nobody then or since has ever made a mental note of it...

A more recent chop-off on this site, between a 0.020" edge 440B Randall Model 14 and an INFI Sasquatch, were the INFI got its ass handed to it chopping cinder blocks, despite harder abuse on the Randall: Let me guess, in a few years that one will be forgotten too?

Maybe it doesn't exist and you are just a confused guy.

Rest assured I made it all up...

Even if you come up with the article as you recall it does it really change anything?

So if I understand you right, selecting out contradictory evidence is part of the methodology. I never would have guessed.

Gaston