Why Doesn't BUCK Grow Beyond 420HC?

[Flatlander1963]

GAK,

That was an excellent reply. I was poking back at you. I still think your $6 to $75 statement is misleading.

I assume it has been a while since you were retailing Buck knives and at that time the exchange rate position of the Canadian dollar was poor and or Canada dings you guys with extra import tariffs.

Buck has never been a bottom feeder in pricing. Their knives has always been excellent for fit and finish and come with a Lifetime warranty; both of which come with an increase in cost to the consumer.

I agree with Confederate's OP/premise that expensive Limited Edition knives should come with a premium grade steel. Buck's two premium grade steel's are S30V and 154cm both of which are less stain resistant and will not take the mirror finish of 420HC. Both of which are priorities with LE's that almost always go to a collection or display.

This thread has gone On & On primarily due to Confederate's constant attention to keeping it going. He thinks 420HC is a cheapo knife steel but readily admits to never have used it. Here are some of his posts:

I have lots of experience with Cold Steel knives, but very little with Buck's 420HC.

I've always heard that AUS8 was a better overall steel than 420HC, but having never used the latter, I don't know.

Although Buck's 420HC is still pretty much an unknown to me (I really should get one one of these days),

I'm not sure what the point is of keeping this thread alive as most of the issues have been gone over and beat on to the point that everyone should be suffering from a repetitive motion injury. I suppose it’s like two drunks arguing over which is a better truck, Ford or Chevy…the pleasure is in the arguing.

 

[hardheart]

It would not be necessary to use a steel to comment on its price relative to others. Actual model pricing across brands, user statements, manufacturer rep comments, and prices for steel found online would all emphasize the price difference. Performance in a collector's piece would not be the major factor, perception would. Would you spend $80K on an exotic car produced in small numbers that had an engine out of a Honda Civic with chromed valve covers and exhaust, or would you want a turbocharged small displacement V-8 that produced 5 times the horsepower but could only be serviced by half a dozen mechanics in the country? One is reliable, economical, 'green', and does what it needs to do to handle common tasks, the other is finicky and harder to service, and the performance gains are not without costs elsewhere. But, which one is cooler in the garage, or out on the street twice a year, never breaking the speed limit?

 

[enderwiggin]

GAK,

This thread has gone On & On primarily due to Confederate's constant attention to keeping it going. He thinks 420HC is a cheapo knife steel but readily admits to never have used it. Here are some of his posts:

Also because of the outraged harping on anyone who would dare would point out that there are better steels than 420HC on the market.

Even if you've never used 420HC, you should still notice it's been repositioned on the chart:

Namely, that 420HC has been moved above 154-CM, where the bars on the chart show it should be. I've never seen a steel site list 420HC above AUS 8. But then again a lot of sources place edge holding as more important than ease of sharpening.

I don't understand how ease of sharpening would be more desirable than higher edge holding, but judging by the number of Buck's fans, some people seem to think it's the most important attribute of a steel.

Again, that's fine, but for some customers 420HC just isn't that much of a bargain.

 

[Hard H2O]

Also because of the ongoing tantrum-throwing by folks who can't understand why anyone would point out that there are better steels than 420HC on the market on a knife website.

Even if you've never used 420HC, you should still notice something funny about this chart:

Why don't you tell me what you find funny about it?

BTW, funny haha or funny strange?

 

[Josh K]

Also because of the ongoing tantrum-throwing by folks who can't understand why anyone would point out that there are better steels than 420HC on the market on a knife website.

Even if you've never used 420HC, you should still notice something funny about this chart:

Namely, that 420HC has been moved above 154-CM, where the bars on the chart show it should be. I've never seen a steel site list 420HC above AUS 8, but then again a lot of sources place edge holding as more important than ease of sharpening.

Funny strange.

First off, S30V is not the "be all, end all, best there is" steel. It's a matter of what you're using the knife for and personal preference. Diving knives are commonly made out of 420HC for it's corrosion resistance. No D2 in salt water, no matter how well it holds an edge.

Second, what in gods name is "Sharpenability" ? Do they happen to mean "how sharp can you get the knife" ? I've seen people whittle hair and push cut toilet paper with every steel under the sun. It may not hold an edge, but it can do it once.

 

[Hard H2O]

Funny strange.

First off, S30V is not the "be all, end all, best there is" steel. It's a matter of application and opinion.

Second, what in gods name is "Sharpenability" ? Do they happen to mean "how sharp can you get the knife" ? I've seen people whittle hair and push cut toilet paper with every steel under the sun. It may not hold an edge, but it can do it once.

I take that to mean how easy it is to sharpen. Easy to sharpen = lack of edge retention. Harder to sharpen = good edge retention. Or to say it another way "machinability". If it grinds easy on the stones it will grind easy and lose the edge in use. If it is hard to remove material on the sharpening stones andtakes work to sharpen then it will not loose material or be "machined" whin in use cutting and slicing various materials.

I do not think it means how sharp it can get.

 

[Josh K]

I take that to mean how easy it is to sharpen. Easy to sharpen = lack of edge retention. Harder to sharpen = good edge retention. Or to say it another way "machinability". If it grinds easy on the stones it will grind easy and lose the edge in use. If it is hard to remove material on the sharpening stones andtakes work to sharpen then it will not loose material or be "machined" whin in use cutting and slicing various materials.

I do not think it means how sharp it can get.

Good point. I guess I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[Flatlander1963]

Also because of the outraged harping on anyone who would dare would point out that there are better steels than 420HC on the market.

There is pointing something out and continuous pot stirring.
I do agree that Buck's High End LE's would be more personally appealing if they have a higher grade steel.
I have a hard time believing that 420hc outranks 154cm as a high-end steel. In fact, I don't agree at all with it.
But having used 420hc extensively I have no issue with mirror polished 420hc in LE's were collecting/display is the main objective of the buyer.

That's about it other than my question why Confederate has spent so much effort keeping this thread rolling?

I personally like Sharp_Newbie's statement as what should be the final word on this discussion:

"If YOU don't like 420HC, Then don't buy a F#$$%*g buck!"

 

[Razorsharp244]

I take that to mean how easy it is to sharpen. Easy to sharpen = lack of edge retention. Harder to sharpen = good edge retention. Or to say it another way "machinability". If it grinds easy on the stones it will grind easy and lose the edge in use. If it is hard to remove material on the sharpening stones andtakes work to sharpen then it will not loose material or be "machined" whin in use cutting and slicing various materials.

I do not think it means how sharp it can get.

Easo of sharpening and lack of edge retention does not go hand in hand. The term must refer to ease of sharpening and ability to get a sharp edge. But most importantly, to take a keen edge with a small geometry. There is a reason why coarse grades like D2, 154 CM etc is not commonly used in kitchen knives for instance. Wear resistance is a function of hardness, carbide size and carbide volume. with a fine carbide steel you get the benefits of high hardness and good carbide volume but not the "bonus" for large carbide size. instead you gain toughness, ease of sharpening and edge stability.

What is sharp? Some say shaving hair, some say push-cut tomatoes or paper. The only solid definition I have heard is that the edge radius should be no larger than 1-2 microns. This definition is used by the razor and surgical industri. This effectivle means that steels with carbides exceeding 4 microns in diameter will not take a "sharp" edge.

Anyway, for forumites I believe any martensitic steel out there is ok to sharpen. For the average person i believe it's different though.

 

[Flatlander1963]

OK fellas, I sent the chart in to Buck for a comment on its authenticity.
Some on the Buck forum thought it was fake which is my thought as well since Buck doesn't position/price 420hc ahead of its 154cm in its product line. I'll let you know when I hear back.

 

[Confederate]

I can assure you the chart is from Buck. Here's the scan of the paper that came with my Buck Alaskan. This is the raw state:

Although you can argue the relative merits of 420HC, you can't argue the price. S30V is definitely more expensive than 420HC. Not only that, but Buck actually says that S30V is the "best" steel available today.

 

[Flatlander1963]

Excellent Confederate...I just bought a Stag AG110 yesterday so I went and looked in the box and the chart is there as you say. I must say I'm surprised at the positioning of 420hc ahead of 154cm on the chart. Oh, I was never attempting to argue price in any part of this discussion. I did note that Buck positions/prices 154cm knives ahead of 420hc.

Interesting that the chart supports Buck tendency to use 420hc in a lot of its expensive LE knives. I've never been in disagreement with your basic point in your original post. I will be interested in hearing what Buck says about the chart. I suspect I'll be hearing its a misprint. btw, the colored chart is your own creation from the AG paperwork? yes?

So Confederate when are you going to go get yourself a 110 with plain old 420hc? You really should...you can get one at Wally world for $28 and change out the door. I for one would love to hear a review from you since you invested a lot time and keystrokes with this thread.

Anyway, no big deal; my interest in what your really up to in this thread is waning.

 

[Josh K]

Excellent Confederate...I just bought a Stag AG110 yesterday so I went and looked in the box and the chart is there as you say. I must say I'm surprised at the positioning of 420hc ahead of 154cm on the chart. Oh, I was never attempting to argue price in any part of this discussion. I did note that Buck positions/prices 154cm knives ahead of 420hc.

Interesting that the chart supports Buck tendency to use 420hc in a lot of its expensive LE knives. I've never been in disagreement with your basic point in your original post. I will be interested in hearing what Buck says about the chart. I suspect I'll be hearing its a misprint. btw, the colored chart is your own creation from the AG paperwork? yes?

So Confederate when are you going to go get yourself a 110 with plain old 420hc? You really should...you can get one at Wally world for $28 and change out the door. I for one would love to hear a review from you since you invested a lot time and keystrokes with this thread.

Anyway, no big deal; my interest in what your really up to in this thread is waning.

I doubt it's a misprint. I got the same chart in my ATS-34 Buck RUSH box a couple of years back. And to think I paid extra for an "inferior" steel.

 

[lambertiana]

Look a little closer at the chart. Yes, they put 420HC ahead of 154CM for corrosion resistance and sharpenability. This is true. They do not put 420HC ahead of 154CM for edgeholding; the chart clearly shows that 154CM is superior for edgeholding. I do not see the issue with the chart.

 

[Flatlander1963]

Look a little closer at the chart. Yes, they put 420HC ahead of 154CM for corrosion resistance and sharpenability. This is true. They do not put 420HC ahead of 154CM for edgeholding; the chart clearly shows that 154CM is superior for edgeholding. I do not see the issue with the chart.

I do see an issue with positioning on the chart. I think that anyone that looks at this chart will read it as showing improving overall desirability (as a knife steel) from left to right. Clearly S30V is the best knife steel on that chart, we all know it. I took a swag (pulled out my trusty ruler) at the total point values shown. I came up with 196-154cm, 198-HC, & 203-S30V.

So each bar is given equal weight and value. Sharpenability seems subjective. Well it is a stretch for me to rate 420HC higher than 154CM as a knife steel. Maybe the guys at Buck will shed some light on the positioning and if they are really trying to say to the world that 420HC is the second best steel on that chart.

 

[knarfeng]

Saw the chart in the Buck Forum. Figured out where it came from. Sigh.

Part of my job is to collect and display data. I construct charts a lot. IMO, there is nothing in the positioning of the steels that says that 420HC is superior to 154CM. It just does not read that way. And I would agree with the assessment of the properties given for those two alloys. I find the edge retention of 154CM superior to that of 420HC. I find 420HC easier to sharpen. I have no data on the corrosion resistance. But I would not disagree with what is presented.

That being said, I would disagree with the comparison between AUS8 and 420HC. When heat treated to the same hardness, AUS8 has superior edge retention compared to that of 420HC. When it is considered that AUS8 has about half again as much carbon as 420HC, this is hardly an unexpected result. If you compared a 420HC blade at 59 to an AUS8 blade at 56, you might get the result on the table. There is a fair amount of AUS8 that is so heat treated, but, I would still disagree with the table. IF the hardnesses are not provided, the assumption must be made that they are all the same.

 

[Confederate]

So Confederate when are you going to go get yourself a 110 with plain old 420hc? You really should...you can get one at Wally world for $28 and change out the door. I for one would love to hear a review from you since you invested a lot time and keystrokes with this thread.

Thank you for your great followup. Yes, I've already made up my mind to get one as you can't beat actual experience. I like the way the 110 slips into the palm of my hand and can be easily manipulated when cutting anything. The balance isn't what most knife makers now try to achieve and the weight is definitely in the back rather than the hilt area.

The only thing I don't like about the 110 design is the brass bolsters. I pulled one out of a box recently that I'd bought some time ago from Cabela's, and the brass had tarnished. I'd prefer stainless over brass, but it's just a minor annoyance.

As for the chart, I used an imaged editing program to colorize it.

 

[Flatlander1963]

The only thing I don't like about the 110 design is the brass bolsters.

There is the NS option but not at Wally World. Also, one thing I love about the 110 is you can change the inlay if you have a little apptitude for such things. Here's three I'm currently working on for friends. From top to bottom steels are S30V, ATS-34, & CPM-154.

 

[Razorsharp244]

Saw the chart in the Buck Forum. Figured out where it came from. Sigh.

Part of my job is to collect and display data. I construct charts a lot. IMO, there is nothing in the positioning of the steels that says that 420HC is superior to 154CM. It just does not read that way. And I would agree with the assessment of the properties given for those two alloys. I find the edge retention of 154CM superior to that of 420HC. I find 420HC easier to sharpen. I have no data on the corrosion resistance. But I would not disagree with what is presented.

That being said, I would disagree with the comparison between AUS8 and 420HC. When heat treated to the same hardness, AUS8 has superior edge retention compared to that of 420HC. When it is considered that AUS8 has about half again as much carbon as 420HC, this is hardly an unexpected result. If you compared a 420HC blade at 59 to an AUS8 blade at 56, you might get the result on the table. There is a fair amount of AUS8 that is so heat treated, but, I would still disagree with the table. IF the hardnesses are not provided, the assumption must be made that they are all the same.

Hi Knarfeng,
I agree completely. AUS-8 should get harder, have better wear resistance and lower corrosion resistance. All due to the extra carbon.

Mixing different hadnesses could present virtually any result. Either test all at the same hardness or at their maximum recommended hardness. It's unfair also but less unfair than using "random" hardness readings for different steels.

 

[cotdt]

That chart doesn't mention toughness, something 420HC is superior in. AUS-8 should be pretty tough as well. The chart is obviously Buck's heat treatment of the steels. AUS-8 should have better edge retention than 420HC if heat treated harder.