Why is 13C26 better?

[JayAndersson]

nozh2002 wrote "I am not sure - may be sombody correct me if I am wrong, I do not remember where did I read it, but Sandvic is the name of mountan in Sweden wich has iron ore deposit and this ore by nature has no any S or P in it - usual addition to ore which everybody else try to get rid of in steel production."

I'll be happy to correct you. Sandvik is a Multinational company with about 40 000 employes in over 150 countries. There is no mountain named Sandvik, although the head office is located in Sandviken, Sweden.

But Sandvik does make pure steels, but that is about process control and not the quality of the iron ore.

As for the 13C26 it's a razorblade steel as many here have pointed out. Used by the major brands on the market. Sandvik is one of two major worldwide players in this field.

Just a comment about carbon/chromium content: The combination of these two elements produces hardness in the shape of carbides. If there is excessive amounts of carbon+chromuim it will end up as large primary carbides. These will not dissolve during forging or rolling. These carbides will make the edge micro-serrated for good and bad. Good for cutting maybe cardboard, bad for cutting meat (it will rip the meat instead of cutting it).

The razorblade steel 13C26 is designed to have as much chromium as possible for a carbon content of 0.65%. For a razor primary carbides are unacceptable. To me it is somewhat strange that it is so widely accepted in the knife community.

Hardening facts: By correct "traditional" hardening 13C26 will end up at 59HRC typically, by means of deep frezing to -70 degrees centigrate it will go up to about 61 HRC. Good for edge retention but problems for the guy who uses his knife as a screwdriver. Toughness and hardness are basically opposites.

 

[EDCeeker]

Cliff,

Okay, I see what you're saying. I've studied statistics and a bit of psychology. What you're saying makes sense. That's not agreement, per se, merely an acknowledgement that I grok your argument.

... certain manufacturers become accepted to critize. Witness for example how CRK&T gets severly criticized for using "low end" steels but Kershaw uses the same steels in many knives but the same lambasting isn't applied to them.

I haven't been around here all that long--just a matter of months, but it's been my impression that CRKT has only lately been criticized for the lower-end steels it's been moving to, not so? Certainly nobody criticized CRKT for using ATS34 on the S-2 series? It's using things like AUS6 (and even AUS4?), where they used to use better steels, that's garnering them the criticism. Kershaw, OTOH, appears to be working on using better steels.

 

[nozh2002]

I'll be happy to correct you. Sandvik is a Multinational company with about 40 000 employes in over 150 countries. There is no mountain named Sandvik, although the head office is located in Sandviken, Sweden.

But Sandvik does make pure steels, but that is about process control and not the quality of the iron ore.

Thanks, I always wondering is it true or not - so it was one of this creative marketing I guess.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

CRK&T using AUS4 which is far "lower" then 13C26 which Kershaw using.

Kershaw uses 420J2 as one of their knife steels and CRK&T uses 154CM.

It's using things like AUS6 (and even AUS4?), where they used to use better steels, that's garnering them the criticism. Kershaw, OTOH, appears to be working on using better steels.

Both companies use a range of steels from the relatively soft and low carbide alloys to the very high carbide stainless. Now if you wish to disparage a company for offering a product line based on its inherent materials flaws then such criticism, unless biased, would apply equally to all who use similar materials.

Note 420HC stainless, highly praised in Buck Knives, lies on an near idential position to the carbon saturation line as AUS-4A and thus these steels will have near identical carbide volume, hardness and corrosion resistance. Now of course you can argue quality of manufacturing but that is a different issue and isn't generally what is being done.

Consider simply the following :

Some M16s (like the M16-13z) are made of AUS 4 crappola steel and I wouldn't waste my money.

There was no reaction of outrage to such a statement as it is accepted to criticise CRK&T in that manner. What reaction due you think Thomas would have if someone refered to Kershaw in a similar manner. Is there any arguement he would encourage such statements?But unless he does this just as strongly as he encourages praises then he is intentionally creating a biased enviroment which of course you would expect.

Now I do think that statements such as the one Confederate made there could be a bit more defined (he has done that elsewhere) but it is inherently no less problematic than positive attributions which are just as vague. However the fact that negative statements are reacted to so differently shows a severe bias against contention of quality/performance. Under such conditions you would never expect feedback to be population representative. This is exactly why of course such an enviroment is created.

Note the whole idea of "better" steels is hype used by salesmen to convince you of the superiority of their product. Materials properties of steels are always in direct contention with another property, this is why there are so many steels and why they all have not just been replaced with "better" ones.

-Cliff

 

[KFLEISIG]

Returing to the topic of the merits of Sandvic 13C26... I do not have the technical knowledge regarding steel composition, but speaking just from experiance, I have been quite pleased with this steel. I have a Speed/Spec with a 13C26 blade, and it has not given me anything to complain about. It takes and holds an edge quite well for a steel of this price range, and has not shown any tendancy towards rusting. Good stuff.

Cliff- I think that bias you refer to is know as reputation, and has been earned.

Thomas- Don't let the criticisms get to you, you have many more fans than detractors, and for goood reason. :thumbup:

 

[Kohai999]

There was no reaction of outrage to such a statement as it is accepted to criticise CRK&T in that manner. What reaction due you think Thomas would have if someone refered to Kershaw in a similar manner. Is there any arguement he would encourage such statements?But unless he does this just as strongly as he encourages praises then he is intentionally creating a biased enviroment which of course you would expect.

Now I do think that statements such as the one Confederate made there could be a bit more defined (he has done that elsewhere) but it is inherently no less problematic than positive attributions which are just as vague. However the fact that negative statements are reacted to so differently shows a severe bias against contention of quality/performance. Under such conditions you would never expect feedback to be population representative. This is exactly why of course such an enviroment is created.

Note the whole idea of "better" steels is hype used by salesmen to convince you of the superiority of their product. Materials properties of steels are always in direct contention with another property, this is why there are so many steels and why they all have not just been replaced with "better" ones.

-Cliff

Cliff,

CRKT does that majority of their work overseas, and Kai USA/Kershaw does the majority of their work in the USA. CRKT acts as a sort of design house, and importer, and Kershaw is an actual full-blown manufacturer

You might not care about that what with NAFTA and you bein' a Newfie and all, but it IS more than a simple steel comparison, when you denigrate Kershaw you are denigrating everyone that works at that company, a great many of whom are respectable and decent people.

Your technobabble and incessant tearing down of companies that certainly will be successful, with or without you must make you feel very warm and important. YOU ARE CLIFF STAMP!

On a personal happy holiday note-E.S.A.D.-M.F.!

STeven Garsson

 

[hardheart]

I want to see more production knives in 2mm stock, does 13C26 come in this stock thickness?

 

[Thomas W]

Cliff you wrote quite a bit with your posts, but I am unsure if you actually said much. Case in point:

You don't want to blindly advocate "industry does it so it has to be optimal". What are the inherent compromises? Are they the tradeoffs that are ideal for your products? Can you put more money into the process because you have the ability to work in a lower performance/cost ratio? Landes has described an optimal heat treatment of 13C26 to produce maximal edge stability so you can use that as a reference. It is quite involved though and likely the cost is simply too high outside of true customs

We are taking the traditional HT approach Cliff, to get caught up in some "involved" obscure HT to gain a couple points, is as you say Cliff, "simply too high of a cost outside of customs".
I'm not sure why you needed to bring up a costly and difficult HT alternative that is totally unrealistic for any volume manufacturer to use, but apparently you felt strongly enough about it to write it. To me this again shows that your expertise and understanding of producing knives in volume can be impractical at times.

It seems you have an issue with us because we have opted to use Sandvik and 13C26 as a vendor and primary steel, and since for some unknown reason (maybe because we have gone a few rounds) we are not your favorite maufacturer you look to disparage how we process and utilize 13C26 on a regular basis. Concerning this, I'll take the positive and supportive words of our customers and the majority of 13C26 affirmative posters on this forum, over the minute minority and the verbose psychology analysis you mention earlier.
The reason I have to bring this up, is that there are a handful of folks that take what you say as gosple, and in fact you are not always accurate or without partiality.

Originally Posted by Cliff Stamp
I have seen it noted as low as 55-57 HRC, that is even soft for 12C27M. The $5 stainless Mora's are harder.

Cliff, FYI, we have never run 13C26 at 55-57, currently it is as hardheart said, 59-60.

Larrin said, "To the manufacturer, it can be blanked, probably the best blankable stainless there is". We agree with this statement.
We love the steel, and have found that the customers are more than satisfied with it as well.

 

[EDCeeker]

Your technobabble and incessant tearing down of companies that certainly will be successful, with or without you must make you feel very warm and important. YOU ARE CLIFF STAMP!

On a personal happy holiday note-E.S.A.D.-M.F.!

And here I was, certain I'd read BF had a relatively strict policy against personal attacks (outside of a certain couple of selected forums).

 

[STR]

Sometimes all the scientific knowledge is great and at other times it doesn't make sense. Why does the Sandvik steel perform so well? I don't know. All I know is that it takes a great biting edge, seems to keep it for a long time, and is as easy to bring back as anything else I own. I've been very pleased with both 12C27 and 13C26 blades. My Storm II is a great cutter and I like the performance of the blade better than my AUS8 blades, 440C blades and even some of my S30V ones just because the edge is more stable and less likely to fracture. If you look at the carbon content of the 13C26 and the other element content it may not look all that impressive on paper but in the hand where it counts it more than meets the needs of the manufacturer and the end line user. What more is there to argue about?

If Kershaw follows Sandvik's advice as to the proper method for heat treatment, and the optimum hardness for this steel I don't know what else they can be expected to do on their end. I rolled the edge on my Storm II cutting harder mediums and a gritty old carpet I removed for a neighbor. Does that mean the steel could be harder just because the edge rolled? I kind of thought so until I rolled the razor edge of my D2 handmade heat treated for me by Bob Dozier on that same carpet. Seeing that happen made me realize that it doesn't mean either knife is not optimum for hardness. I think it just means the blades hit something in the carpet when cutting it down to pull it up that was harder than steel and something had to give.

STR

 

[hardheart]

Cliff has praised the steel, and I think he just wants to see it used to what he feels is its full potential. To have a quality steel used in regular production knives from a recognized manufacturer is great, but Cliff is at the highly experimental end of knife usage. I think all reasonable readers understand this, and Cliff himself will often state 'If all you want to do is this or that, then knife xyz is ok as it stands.' I really like where Cliff goes with his work, but still know that production knives are going to be a compromise in some aspects. (this line of thinking is why I asked about Kirk, so that's my excuse for the drift )

I guess a valid question, not just of Kershaw, but of all manufacturers, is why do we get new models and sprint runs of expensive/flashy steels and handle materials that are flavors of the month, which knuts readily pay for, but we don't see sprints of knives with more costly/involved heat treats or more radical grinds, which could also be paid for with higher prices.

Of course, there is user scope, warranty issues, company reputation, etc. influencing this.

 

[Jeff Clark]

Cliff commented:
"I have seen it noted as low as 55-57 HRC, that is even soft for 12C27M. The $5 stainless Mora's are harder."

The stainless Mora's that I have used generally feel like they are in the 54 to 56 RC range. They are soft when honed and the edges impact easily. If 13C26 came in at around 58 and was tough at that hardness it would hold interest for me.

 

[EDCeeker]

N.B.: I'm not taking sides in this. I don't know enough about the practice and science of knife-making, nor have I enough experience with quality knives, to take a side.

We are taking the traditional HT approach Cliff, to get caught up in some "involved" obscure HT to gain a couple points, is as you say Cliff, "simply too high of a cost outside of customs".
I'm not sure why you needed to bring up a costly and difficult HT alternative that is totally unrealistic for any volume manufacturer to use, but apparently you felt strongly enough about it to write it.

FWIW, Thomas, coming from one of those "handful of folks who [might] take what Cliff says as gospel," I read those comments as being there for completeness. Cliff is a scientist. He is prone to pedanticism. It's the nature of the beast.

To me this again shows that your expertise and understanding of producing knives in volume can be impractical at times.

Again, FWIW, I read his comments as pretty much acknowledging that.

 

[alittle_edgy]

This is mainly directed at Thomas.
I know I'm butting in a conversation here but, I purchased my Kershaw Storm II because I wanted to see how 13c26 performed, and it was just a heck of a knife for the price. The day I got it I decided that Kershaw must have been turning this out in mass to get their name out there. Well, I sent an email to Kershaw and told them how impressed I was with it. I got a response back, from a person, that seemed pleased that I liked the product. So, I had/have a good product experience, as well as a good customer service experience. I still by other brands of knives also, but Kershaw really added me to the customer base. When I talk to someone who isn't a knife knut, but wants to know of a good knife they can buy and keep, I direct them to Kershaw. I also want to say that my girlfriend specifically asked me for a pink Kershaw Leek for Christmas. I already gave it to her and she loves it. I am getting the S30V Leek for myself.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Sometimes all the scientific knowledge is great and at other times it doen't make sense.

It can't be scientific and not make sense, as that is the fundamental defination of what it means to be scientific. As for what they can do compared to what is done, consider what you have found in regards to liner lock construction and what is commonly found in production and custom locks.

Many of those people are following an "industry" standard but would you argue that is the optimal path? A viewpoint which holds that this should be followed blindly is also one which accepts that there will never be any evolution of the product - ever.

It is only through change and non-standard materials and practices that you can improve. Note that there are many makers and even manufactures who do exactly this because they realize that they can afford to put more time/money into the product.

... he just wants to see it used to what he feels is its full potential.

It makes no difference to me personally what any manufacturer does with any of the steels they do because I don't own shares in any of the companies. If they don't offer what I need I will simply go custom. I don't collect knives so the higher expensive of customs is not an issue.

The point I was making is that the choices made by Kershaw do not represent utilization of the steel by its actual design characteristics and why complaints like kel_aa has made should not be taken as a criticism of the steel.

This would be no different for example if someone took a large bowie and compared it to a small axe for some wood work and the bowie had a tactical grind. You should not use the results of such a comparison to infer properties of a blade vs axe because what you are seeing is simply tactical vs wood working grinds.

I guess a valid question, not just of Kershaw, but of all manufacturers, is why do we get new models and sprint runs of expensive/flashy steels and handle materials that are flavors of the month, which knuts readily pay for, but we don't see sprints of knives with more costly/involved heat treats or more radical grinds, which could also be paid for with higher prices.

Because steel fads sell. You also can't "see" more involved heat treatments and they would also raise the question as to why continue to use the inferior methods on the rest of the line.

... to get caught up in some "involved" obscure HT to gain a couple points ...

The gains are not simply hardness but a refinement of the structure of the steel, in particular the reduced level of retained austenite and lower amount of secondary carbide precipitation. Among other things this increases corrosion resistance, a known problem you have reported with the steel. Landes work also isn't obscure, he is a well published metallurgist and knifemaker who worked in the the commercial steel industry.

And yes, as I said, you would expect with smaller volume a greater ability to work in a lower performance/cost ratio and that with higher volume you have to focus towards the end of raw numbers over performance. This is why you would use Landes treatment as a reference in prototypes to know exactly how much performance you are losing out of volume/cost concerns.

As a direct example of the effect these kinds of issues (steel structure) can make, see the work Brent Beach has done with planer blades. He found that A2 suffered significant edge damage readily and in general compared poorly. This is due to the fact that standard industry heat treatment will leave the steel with a lot of retained austensite (enough to lose 2.5-3 HRC points) and this severely weakens the steel in fine edges.

It seems you have an issue with us because we have opted to use Sandvik and 13C26 as a vendor and primary steel, and since for some unknown reason (maybe because we have gone a few rounds) we are not your favorite maufacturer you look to disparage how we process and utilize 13C26 on a regular basis.

No Thomas, it isn't about you or Kershaw. The comments I made are about the steel and I would say the same if anyone used it in a similar manner. Now if you can find where I praise another company for using 13C26 in the manner you do I would be interested in seeing such a reference. Or are you just making unfounded claims to spin a smokescreen?

Cliff, FYI, we have never run 13C26 at 55-57, currently it is as hardheart said, 59-60.

As I noted it is commonly promoted there, a brief internet search will turn it up across many pages :

"Quality Sandvik 13C26 stainless-steel blades with 55-57 Rockwell hardness rating."

If this is indeed a misrepresentation then you might want to contact the dealers and correct it.

-Cliff

 

[hardheart]

It makes no difference to me personally what any manufacturer does with any of the steels they do because I don't own shares in any of the companies. If they don't offer what I need I will simply go custom. I don't collect knives so the higher expensive of customs is not an issue.

The point I was making is that the choices made by Kershaw do not represent utilization of the steel by its actual design characteristics and why complaints like kel_aa has made should not be taken as a criticism of the steel.

Yes, this is what I meant, and why I mentioned that the steel is used in razors and your requested change in the geometry of the U2 and work with Alvin's M2 blade. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you would like to see a 13C26 blade ground very thin and run full hard. (I think perhaps you mentioned a desired HT and temper schedule before)

Because steel fads sell. You also can't "see" more involved heat treatments and they would also raise the question as to why continue to use the inferior methods on the rest of the line.

It was a bit rhetorical. Though, you really can't 'see' a different steel outside of the name etched on the blade. Some maker could call a 420HC blade ZDP-189, and we'd just end up with some funky results being posted on the forums until an analysis of the steel was done. That's just the latent conspiracy theorist in me talking.

And yes, as I said, you would expect with smaller volume a greater ability to work in a lower performance/cost ratio and that with higher volume you have to focus towards the end of raw numbers over performance. This is why you would use Landes treatment as a reference in prototypes to know exactly how much performance you are losing out of volume/cost concerns.

I wonder what the difference in labor and materials cost would be between more involved heat treats and using more expensive steels, on case by case basis. Of course, there is also making sure you have a steady supply and demand for the product to justify usage of any particular material or method.


Thomas mentioned a little while back that their web page was wrong on the hardness of the 13C26, which is quite unfortunate

As I noted it is commonly promoted there, a brief internet search will turn it up across many pages :

"Quality Sandvik 13C26 stainless-steel blades with 55-57 Rockwell hardness rating."

 

[M Wadel]

I want to see more production knives in 2mm stock, does 13C26 come in this stock thickness?

its stripsteel it comes in rolls, i bet it can be had in any thickness you want, if you order some serious amount that is, but they probably have all their steel in lots of thicknesses.

 

[Dog of War]

Thomas W - I wanted to email you with this but can't, so will post it here.

I've recently been doing some systematic testing of edge retention, with very good showing from 12C27M; see:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=433156

If Kershaw is running its 13C26 at 59-60 HRC as you say I assume it should compare well. Does this sound reasonable to you? If so I'll likely pick up a Mini-Cyclone or JYD (when available) to test, and would like to ask if you have any particular requests if I do this. For instance I wouldn't expect 13C26 to have the same edge stability as 12C27M at very acute angles so might run a slightly more obtuse geometry, but would really like your input since it's your product. Or any side-by-side tests you'd like to see performed against other knives.

Also I suppose it's fair to ask, would you actually have any interest in my doing this, or would there be concern over my objectivity? Be candid here, please, I'd really only be doing this to satisfy my own interest and perhaps that of others as well, not to put you on the spot or anything like that. Of course I would hope the knife performs well - if I have any bias I'm aware of it's that I actually could use another decent working folder of this size right now - but whatever the outcome I'll post my results honestly. Email me if you like with any suggestions or requests.

 

[JSR]

Hmm, seems to be getting a bit heated. I didn't intend for, nor expect, any heated discussions and I don't know the history of the members and their relationships with one another. I've gotten some very good information in this thread and I hope it continues to be civilized discussions.

 

[Thomas W]

The point I was making is that the choices made by Kershaw do not represent utilization of the steel by its actual design characteristics and why complaints like kel_aa has made should not be taken as a criticism of the steel.

I'm gonna say it again, I'll take the positive and supportive words of our customers and the majority of 13C26 affirmative posters on this forum, over the minute minority.
I have confidence with those on the board that they report what they experience, and believe them when they say the 13C26 Kershaw Knives they use have been positive.

The ELU is not looking to make an impression with me by lying about the performance of their knife! Please, let's give the members here more credit than that. I know STR speaks the truth about 13C26, and is not swayed by a presence here on BF's, and I honestly believe alittle_edgy when he spoke up about his 13C26 incident. Heck he liked it (13C26) so much, he went out and bought additional Kershaw products for himself and his gal (thanks edgy).

These and so many other real world occurrences confirm with me that we are working 13C26 accurately, and it is translating into satisfaction with those folks that carry our knives everyday.