Why is 13C26 better?

[Cliff Stamp]

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...

13C26 has inhernetly greater edge stability than 12C27M not less, so it should offer greater performance at more acute angles.

... you would like to see a 13C26 blade ground very thin and run full hard.

Yes, depending on the knife it would be full deep hollow or high flat. The heat treatment would be oil+cold for maximum as quenched hardness and tempered low to maximize edge stability.

It makes no sense to use it in thick profiles because in such a grind you don't need edge stability in the steel because it is inherent in the grind. Thus you would use a higher carbide steel and get the benefits of more wear resistance.

The only reason you would use it in such a grind is that it is actually a cheap steel and easy to grind but you are likely not going to promote that.

Though, you really can't 'see' a different steel outside of the name etched on the blade.

Yeah, I meant "see" in the general sense meaning that it is an obvious fact such as you can "see" one knife is heavier than another by just picking them up. It is much harder to sell the idea for example that production was upgraded to minimize time after the quench before cold treatment and thus minimize stabilization of austenite. That isn't something a user can directly appreciate when looking at the knife and a lot of sales are made on direct and quick impressions.

A lot depends on the market though, if you are selling to a much smaller and niche market you can use the fact that those individuals often want to be "in the know" and will soak up that kind of promotion. This is the classic "emperor wears no clothes" approach. Only an elite knife user will appreciate the work we put into our steel. This of course has people running to say "I see the difference." because if you don't see the difference you are simply not elite.

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.

I would assume this has been done by the manufacturers, but they also have to factor in what sells, not simply what gives optimal performance. As an extreme example of this consider the smiths who work with pretty much the cheapest steels (1095 and similar) in $1000 knives. The materials cost is basically nothing, many of them even use recycled steels, but they put a huge amount of time and effort into working the steel.

Note inherently that the higher alloy steels are so designed to actually allow less complication in heat treatment, use of air over oil/water, less warping, inherent high stability, etc. . In many cases in industry tool uses is so focused that you don't need to care about the other properties, this is why as noted D2 is heat treated to a very coarse grain structure because it isn't used when a very one is needed. It just offers high compressional strength and wear resistance.

The first question you should always ask is simply what are you trying to achive? Then this is followed with, how does what you do obtain those goals and what are the compromises made. The answers to these questions are very telling especially the last one. Now turn around and ask those exact same questions to a competiting manufacturer and compare the results. Given a set of criteria, only one design/material can actually be optimal. The trick is actually figuring out the criteria.

-Cliff

 

[Larrin]

I think it's a sign of a good knife company to continue to improve the heat treatment of a steel, or to optomize it for new models, as Kershaw appears to be doing with 13C26.

 

[Dog of War]

Thanks for the clarification on edge stability of 13C27 vs 12C27M, Cliff. Had to refer to the chart in your stainless steels classification thread yet again, also your blade materials page but I think this is slowly getting absorbed.

Unfortunately I think we're right where we started: different experiences reported by different users, pretty much all of it anecdotal. And of course for me or anyone to just test one more example of Kershaw's 13C26 isn't going to prove much of anything either, no matter how systematic and objective the testing is.

 

[STR]

It can't be scientific and not make sense

Cliff I read stuff everyday that is very scientific and makes no sense whatsoever.

I can only report what I see and experience with the steel. Its a good performer and in my opinion a better choice than some of the steels we have had in the past to choose from.

My point was that to most end line users all this carbon and chromium analysis doesn't mean squat. All that really matters is what works and what doesn't. For example, I have good ole boys from all over Oklahoma, some of which don't own computers or even read all that well but they can do anything with their hands from building a car from scratch for their mom using three junkers they got from their uncle Harry for parts or building their sister a brand new house using lumber they got in a yard sale and out of box cars. The science doesn't mean a lot to these types.

These same guys, come in here to my shop with their newer S30V blades and other harder more brittle new class of steels with nothing but bad things to say about it because the edge chipped (again) or the tip broke prying up a staple. These are guys that used and speak very highly of the cheaper steels in mass production Wal Mart specials referring to it as that "old steel" they used to use, and how, "that was some good stuff, why'd they quit using that?' They don't even know what the steels are they just see the difference in performance from it over what they had and carried before and find that some of the 'new steels' don't meet their needs as well.

Harder seems to equate to easier breakage in a lot of these new steels and in the hands of the working man it just breaks. They forget all about the good edge it keeps after that happens. This is just one example of when the science all says the steel should walk on water and yet in the hands of some I've met it doesn't matter what the science may say, "that stuff ain't no good!"

On another side note, I think a $30 knife is an expensive knife to most of these guys. I also think that they believe that when they are sold a newer better steel in their knife and pay a higher price for better and get out in the field and it breaks easier than their old $30 one that it doesn't sit well with them. Kershaw has found a way to get a better edge keeping steel in the hands of the average working man without the price increase associated with getting a better steel. For that alone they have done something I think is deserving of praise. I like this Sandvik steel a lot and I've been hearing good things from some of the guys here local that I have talked into buying it.

STR

 

[a223cat]

I usually only buy, use, and carry a different type of knife; like Sebenza's, Strider's, or Handmade customs- but this thread has impressed me with Thomas' participation in it and his professional manner. I am going to find and buy a kershaw knife this week to support the company.

I have never looked at the line they sell, so have no clue what I will end up with! But thats part of the fun!

 

[EDCeeker]

... this thread has impressed me with Thomas' participation in it and his professional manner.

This thread, and the one on the Boa, has impressed me, as well.

I am going to find and buy a kershaw knife this week to support the company.

I've got a Chive on my Christmas list, and a Scallion and a Boa on my want list.

I have never looked at the line they sell, so have no clue what I will end up with! But thats part of the fun!

See above

 

[madfast]

all i have to say is science is BS if you can't sell it. let's remember that x may not be better than y or z, BUT if x works fine enough and makes a profit who the heck cares about y or z?

cliff is too hung up on y's, z's, and abc's... the reality is that we all have to make compromises.

cliff's initial statement was that kershaw runs their 13C26 too soft. this has been shown to be false so lets forget about that one.

cliff then says that 13C26 is a poor steel choice for the knives kershaw makes. ok valid point scientifically. BUT economically that statement is loaded with more BS than the Plaza de Toros in Madrid. if 13C26 works well enough and makes kershaw money, who's to say it's the "wrong" steel choice?????

i think the mission of all knife makers, big or small, is to make a product that will satisfy the customer while still making an honest profit. to the regular ELU who's to say that 154CM or S30V or ZDP-189 is better than 13C26???? in fact in reality 13C26 would be BETTER simply because it's cheaper and thus the savings will be passed on to the customer. i wager the average ELU is more concerned with value than with optimal steel choice for a given knife design. if we're talking about uber expensive knives for ONE given purpose, like cutting comp knives, THEN we can nitpick the small details. BUT to criticize a production knife, especially at kershaw's price point, is pretty much useless banter. what's next the cheap chinese knives sold on the street corner?

i honestly enjoy cliff's reviews and applaud what he does for the knife community in general. BUT his statements really should come with a disclaimer because many people DO read his work and many people DO take his words as gospel or should i say DOGMA. BUT one really must understand that what he looks for in a knife may NOT be what YOU look for in a knife. one must also understand we can't always use what is "optimal" for a plethora of reasons mainly cost and practicality. STR's story is REAL WORLD proof of that.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Unfortunately I think we're right where we started: different experiences reported by different users, pretty much all of it anecdotal. And of course for me or anyone to just test one more example of Kershaw's 13C26 isn't going to prove much of anything either, no matter how systematic and objective the testing is.

A single case study on a sample which is prone to high levels of uncertainty has its problems, specifically do the results indicate the behavior of the population. But is that all the work has to offer? No. A well constructed piece of work will both enable you to learn about the process itself and provide for intelligent and informed discussion which should be the primary goal of experimentation. There is a reason for conferences after all. Note as well that even with individual sample sizes of one you can bound your results by the population variance, in this case it would be the QC of Kershaw, specifically the defect rate. Unless Kershaw is above 5% defective then your single case study is actually at an accepted level of discrimination as that is actually a standard in most fields. But generally I woult not take such a responce to reviews. This is why on the new site I will have meta-reviews. They are essentially a compilation of the existing reviews which then eliminates the smaple size issue and as well provides specific feedback on responce to user skill/physical attributes.

Cliff I read stuff everyday that is very scientific and makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, german is the same way to me but that doesn't mean the language doesn't make sense and in any case it can not possibly be worse than english.

My point was that to most end line users all this carbon and chromium analysis doesn't mean squat. All that really matters is what works and what doesn't.

I think the point is being misinterpreted or simply nor being presented clearly because no one would contend what you just said. The reason you develop a theory isn't so you overrule experimental evidence, it is to explain the experimental evidence and thus reduce the need for further experimention and the ability to instead actually do productive work.

So for example if an individual uses a steel and finds it suits him, it would be of benefit to do some research and find out about the steel. This way when he looks for another knife he doesn't have to basically shoot blind and pick a steel at random and then do all that experimental work over again to find out if the new steel works as well.

Now are most people going to learn about the inner structures in detail, tie lines and such, probably not. But they could easily learn that there is a relation between carbon and chromium in stainless steels and how the steel reacts when either increases or decreases as they are quite simple rules.

This is inherently no different for example than a carpenter knows that there is a huge difference between a screw gun which has a high speed and low torque and a hand drill which has a low speed and a high torque. They know what each can do and thus can give you a very good idea of what an increase in torque or speed will do and they choose tools accordingly.

They forget all about the good edge it keeps after that happens. This is just one example of when the science all says the steel should walk on water and yet in the hands of some I've met it doesn't matter what the science may say, "that stuff ain't no good!"

The science says that those steels are very brittle with both a low impact toughness, a low flexibility and a very low edge stability. It has to say that because science can't contradict reality, by defination it has to explain it. However there are lots of people who give you only part of the picture and will rave about the high wear resistance and not mention the low toughness of such steels, but that isn't the fault of the science no more than if you burn a good steak you should blame the cow.

On another side note, I think a $30 knife is an expensive knife to most of these guys.

Yeah because common trade knives are $0.50. Give them a $1000 custom and ask them to use it and see what happens. But only tell them the price after they have used it for a week or so.

I also think that they believe that when they are sold a newer better steel in their knife and pay a higher price for better and get out in the field and it breaks easier than their old $30 one that it doesn't sit well with them.

Yeah, most tradesmen tend to focus a lot of durabilty because tools get banged around a lot and they are used very hard and extensively as a lot of the time you are working by the job rather than by the hour. So it is natural for them to think that if you pay 10x the cost for something it pretty much better be invunerable to all harm.

I like this Sandvik steel a lot and I've been hearing good things from some of the guys here local that I have talked into buying it.

It is a knife steel so that is to be of expected, most of the european knives tend to be made out of actual knife steels. What is kind of amusing is that the Sandvik steels are praised and steels like the AUS series denegrated but they are the same class and several of them almost overlap, AUS-6A and 12C27M for example and 10A is just further up the critical tie line than 13C26..

Again what you see here is mainly just the influence of hype from manufacturers repeated by customers. There is no way you can argue AUS-6A is low end but 12C27 is a great steel. Of course there is always the idea that new is better and how many customers are actually going to actually compare the two steels or look at the compositions and the positions on C/Cr graph and ask the obvious question.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

I don't think a lot of the guys I've spoken with have heard any hype from dealers or manufacturers. Most just wandered into wally world and came out with a folder that happened to have the Sanvik steel for the blade. Some bought it after asking me what I thought would be a good user for a good price but the most they would have heard from me is that it seemed pretty decent just like I say here. I think the comparison to AUS6 with 12C27 again only shows up on paper Cliff.

After sharpening both steels and using them I felt that the 12C27 took a much better edge and seemed sharper to me overall for longer. I haven't formed an opinion on toughness but both seem to be relatively tough for a less expensive beater upper. I've said more than once that I bought my Vapor and my Storm II to use for things I'd never use more expensive knives for like traveling across country for example so I don't have to donate another expensive folder to a law enforcement officer feeling needy at a traffic stop.

I much prefer the Storm II over my Vapor because it just flat out cuts better than the AUS6 Vapor or my AUS8 Spydercos for that matter. I am not arguing that either of them are super steels. I'm just saying I feel that the Sanvik is a better one than the 420, 440, and AUS line of steels overall across the board from an end line user perspective. The others work though and have their strengths and weaknesses too obviously.

STR

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I think the comparison to AUS6 with 12C27 again only shows up on paper Cliff.

I was speaking of the general perspective reflected by the forums which is very different on those two steels but the materials themselves are very similar.

I much prefer the Storm II over my Vapor because it just flat out cuts better than the AUS6 Vapor or my AUS8 Spydercos for that matter.

This is geometry more so than steel, and this can easily dominate the performance of a knife. Witness in an extreme the difference between how a bowie from someone like Kirk or Fikes handles and cuts compared to a Trailmaster but the steels have basically the same properties. How a steel cuts, how the knife handles, etc., are how it is ground, a better steel just allows you to create a better grind.

-Cliff

 

[FWO]

The Sweds do a fine job with 12C27 and 13C26. In a correct profile it holds a suprising edge. At 59-60 it will give you good results in a fine design. The one steel we see little of from there is the powdered metal Super El Max. It is much like some of the Crucible CPM steels . They also have others that are in the CPM catagory but you do not see them in knives. Uddleholm is another steel producer from that area of the world and compets here with our steel makers. They have factory outlets for their U.S. customers here. The Germans also compete in the Mini mill business of the new steels .
I believe there was a merger of Uddelholm and Bohler and it is now Bohler /Uddelholm .

Take care
Floyd

 

[EDCeeker]

all i have to say is science is BS if you can't sell it.

And I say that attitude, taken to its logical extreme, is why, in the U.S. and much of the rest if the world, you simply cannot buy well-made, quality products of certain types any more. That attitude is why jobs and production are being shipped-out to sweatshop, even slave labour areas of the world. That attitude, taken to its logical extreme (which, of course, it is) ends-up in a take-no-prisoners, slash-and-burn mentality that sees only the "bottom line," sees only the short-term profit and sees not the consequences of "winning at any cost."

cliff then says that 13C26 is a poor steel choice for the knives kershaw makes.

No, he did not. He said he didn't feel their heat treat was optimal for that steel. He also readily admitted it was probably not economically feasible for Kershaw to heat-treat the steel (what he felt to be) optimally.

BUT economically that statement is loaded with more BS than the Plaza de Toros in Madrid. if 13C26 works well enough and makes kershaw money, who's to say it's the "wrong" steel choice?????

You're talking typical slash-and-burn production economics. The rest of us are talking in the real sense of something having better quality than another thing. Regardless of price, regardless of how much money it makes its maker, regardless of any other considerations, some things are of better quality than others. Some of us care about that.

in fact in reality 13C26 would be BETTER simply because it's cheaper and thus the savings will be passed on to the customer.

No, nothing is ever "better," from a strict quality consideration (which is, after all, what we've been discussing) solely because it's cheaper. And if that "cheaper" means "more shoddily made," which if often does, "cheaper" is almost never "better."

BUT one really must understand that what he looks for in a knife may NOT be what YOU look for in a knife.

One suspects most everyone here is old enough to have figured that out.

I've only twice in my 55 years encountered situations where "cheaper" (I don't mean "less expensive," I mean "cheaper" in all it implies) turned out better, in every respect, than more expensive and allegedly higher quality: Cordless phones and VCRs. I won't go into the details, but, suffice it to say I learned several years ago that spending good money on either was counter-productive. This speaks not so much to the idea that something can be made both better and more inexpensively (tho it can, of course) but to the point I made right off: Things have gotten so bad in certain market segments that there are some products for which one simply cannot obtain quality anymore. IOW: Why spend good money when it's all crap quality, anyway?

Two areas, at least, in which one can still buy quality products: Firearms and knives. I think that's why I enjoy each. Oh yeah: And Scotch. Thank heavens the production of Scotch whisky can never be out-sourced.

 

[Larrin]

Kershaw saves money in several ways by using 13C26, including the ability to blank it and the cost of the steel, also, if it is noticeable, less wear in grinding equipment compared to steels like CPM154 or S30V. These savings don't necessarily mean that the rest of the construction of the knife will be sub-par. There is a general opinion that a stamped blade isn't as good as a laser cut or forged blade, but that is mostly because manufacturer's generally use very low carbon steel for blanking. 13C26 allows Kershaw to use a high carbon steel and also blank it, saving oodles of dollars, I'm sure, and allows them to offer an inexpensive product, regardless of whether or not 13C26 is the best choice for their type of grind and thickness of the secondary bevel (I've also read primary bevel for the bevel that actually does the cutting). It does allow them to use a steel that can achieve a relatively high hardness even though it can also be blanked.

 

[madfast]

And I say that attitude, taken to its logical extreme, is why, in the U.S. and much of the rest if the world, you simply cannot buy well-made, quality products of certain types any more. That attitude is why jobs and production are being shipped-out to sweatshop, even slave labour areas of the world. That attitude, taken to its logical extreme (which, of course, it is) ends-up in a take-no-prisoners, slash-and-burn mentality that sees only the "bottom line," sees only the short-term profit and sees not the consequences of "winning at any cost."

well that's reality. deal with it.

No, he did not. He said he didn't feel their heat treat was optimal for that steel. He also readily admitted it was probably not economically feasible for Kershaw to heat-treat the steel (what he felt to be) optimally.

Cliff said "It makes no sense to use it in thick profiles because in such a grind you don't need edge stability in the steel because it is inherent in the grind. Thus you would use a higher carbide steel and get the benefits of more wear resistance." so basically he's saying the way kershaw grinds their blades 13C26 is not optimal. the HT issue has already been said and done. thomas himself said that they use Sandviks HT. is it the best you can get? of course not. is it the best compromise in terms of cost and performance? YES! i'd take Sandviks word over any of yours anyday. it's just BS to say you know more than Sandvik. just plain BS....

You're talking typical slash-and-burn production economics. The rest of us are talking in the real sense of something having better quality than another thing. Regardless of price, regardless of how much money it makes its maker, regardless of any other considerations, some things are of better quality than others. Some of us care about that.

of course this steel or that steel is better than this one or that one. but unless you're really wealthy all this is just armchair metallurgy. in the real world people have bills to pay. we all can't afford to have $1000 customs to cut cardboard!!! yeah lets bash kershaw because they can't make custom quality work on a production folder, seems fair to me....

No, nothing is ever "better," from a strict quality consideration (which is, after all, what we've been discussing) solely because it's cheaper. And if that "cheaper" means "more shoddily made," which if often does, "cheaper" is almost never "better."

that's the thing, we're NOT talking about strict quality. re-read the posts. where oh where did thomas ever say that 13C26 was better than any other steel? "cheaper" doesn't alway have to mean poor quality.

that's the thing with cliff. he talks about how if this knife isn't up to snuff for him he'll go custom. ok fine if he wants to spend x amount on a knife fine. but don't BASH a production knife for not being a custom. don't bash them for using "industry standard" heat treats and grinds and edge bevels, etc. if they plan to sell it, to a large customer base, for a reasonable price.

if cliff ever ran a knife company he'd go bankrupt!!!!!

 

[Cliff Stamp]

cliff's initial statement was that kershaw runs their 13C26 too soft. this has been shown to be false so lets forget about that one.

It has not shown to be false, 13C26 can be made significantly harder than is ran by Kershaw which will raise the edge stability. This is materials fact. It also isn't simply about the hardness but the structure of the steel. Simply because you obtain a hardness doesn't mean the heat treatment is optimal.

cliff then says that 13C26 is a poor steel choice for the knives kershaw makes.

No I have said the edge geometry used in knives such as reviewed by kel_aa is completely opposite the indended purpose of the steel. Again this is materials fact. The steel has a very low carbide volume so it will be stable in very acute edges at a high polish.

in fact in reality 13C26 would be BETTER simply because it's cheaper and thus the savings will be passed on to the customer.

If you are going to use that arguement then you would instead suggest 12C27 or 12C27M because they are both cheaper and tougher and more corrosion resistant than 13C26. The advantage of using 13C26 is that it can obtain a significantly higher hardness.

This of course would also make the obvious point that if this is the viewpoint being used, finding a way to make knives cheaper rather than make knives better, this is again what several companies such as CRK&T are heavily criticised for but now Kershaw recieves praise?

I've also read primary bevel for the bevel that actually does the cutting.

This is only true if the material is being cracked apart by extreme wedging forces like a splitting maul. For most cutting the sharpness of the edge and then the edge angle are much more critical because the forces on a knife through most material are concentrated at and around the edge.

However this isn't relevant to the issue of the optimal geometry for 13C26 as that has to do with the carbide volume and edge stability. If you are using a geometry which is inhernetly stable then you don't need the steel to be which means you can obtain higher wear resistance with no materials compromise.

He also readily admitted it was probably not economically feasible for Kershaw to heat-treat the steel (what he felt to be) optimally.

Once the criteria for performance is defined the heat treatment is constrained, it isn't something than can be dismissed as a subjective claim, though of course bounding the criteria can be so debated. In general, optimal is always constrained by something, usually cost. For example when you multiple temper a HSS steel it is a iterative process which means each time you temper you remove a little more austenite and each time the change is less. You can never remove all of it so you have to pick some point which is cost effective. However in most cases knives are heat treated less than optimal simply because of the incentive that steels can be promoted on a hardness only and to aim for the magic 60 HRC regardless of the type of steel.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

Cliff you seem to say with confidence that Kershaw is underhardening their 13C26 steel. On the surface this is not such a bold statement but when Sandvik makes a recommendation to Kershaw as to what is the best way to do it and Kershaw does that how can you say that? Even with the added statements here I do not see how you can suggest that its underhardened unless you are suggesting you know more than Sandvik does about their steel.

Please explain.

STR

 

[Kohai999]

Cliff you seem to say with confidence that Kershaw is underhardening their 13C26 steel. On the surface this is not such a bold statement but when Sandvik makes a recommendation to Kershaw as to what is the best way to do it and Kershaw does that how can you say that? Even with the added statements here I do not see how you can suggest that its underhardened unless you are suggesting you know more than Sandvik does about their steel.

Please explain.

STR

He would be quoting Roman Landes, who seems to know more about heat treating than any other metallurgist in the world, just like Kevin Cashen knows more about forging than any other bladesmith.

Funny thing though, is that when you ask Kevin, he says that Cliff constantly argues with HIM, and also takes his quotes out of context.

Go figure.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Cliff you seem to say with confidence that Kershaw is underhardening their 13C26 steel.

In regards to optimal edge stability. The first specifications on the steel were very low, 55-57 HRC, It was at that point which I made the statements about Kershaw's choice of hardness in the review forum. Thomas then corrected this and noted it was 58-59 HRC. Thomas has noted futher of this thread than the hardness has been increased to 59-60 HRC. This is exactly the type of change I suggested origionally several months ago. All I am saying now is that it could be refined further.

Even with the added statements here I do not see how you can suggest that its underhardened unless you are suggesting you know more than Sandvik does about their steel.

My statements do not make such an implication because Thomas's assertion is to vague and is thus without meaning. The heat treatment used on a steel is chosen depending on what properties you require. I could easily go to a steel manufacturer and ask :

"I need a steel for a knife which is relatively unknown, can get to 60 HRC without oil/cold, and is very cheap. What steel do you offer and which heat treatment should be used to get that hardness."

Now I have a steel specifically chosen by the manufacturer for cutlery with their recommended heat treatment but of course it could never be argued that this is optimal from a perspective of performance of a cutting tool because that isn't what I asked for. As for Sandvik, this is directly from their spec sheet on 12C27 M :

Deep freezing i.e. cooling to below room temperature increases the hardness with about 2 HRC and improves the corrosion resistance.
With deep freezing the highest possible hardness will be achieved by increasing the austenitising temperature above the recommended value in the hardening data.

Increasing the austenization temperature will also increase the corrosion resistance, a known problem reported by Kershaw with 13C26. The cooling raises the hardness from 57 HRC (325 F temper) to 59 HRC and further since the increase in austenization temperature which is allowed due to the cold treatment produces 59-60 HRC. This is the same hardness Kershaw is using in 13C26, but yet 12C27M is tougher, more corrosion resistant and cheaper.

I say what I say because it is supported by facts and logic. It also should not have to be said, but I will say it, I am posting as a user who is interested in getting the best performance in the products he buys. Can I appreciate that a manufacturer has to work from a viewpoint on profit margin - of course. As I noted recently to kel_aa in detail the move of Benchmade from M2 to D2 can easily be explained from such a perspective. But this isn't how I, as a user, make choices on the tools I buy.

In general I severely doubt anyone here does. When you buy a car are you most concerned about the ability of the manufacturer to make the car easier, cheaper, faster and with the most profit or do you want the most performance for your dollar? If you wanted to know if the manufacturer was using the optimal materials and methods would you actually just ask them and accept that on faith? I would not and I know you would not either.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas W]

finding a way to make knives cheaper rather than make knives better, this is again what several companies such as CRK&T are heavily criticized for but now Kershaw receives praise?

In regards to your above statement (cheaper rather than better) Cliff, there is a pretty clear difference between one who is in charge of manufacturing their own products, and one that relies on overseas factories to build their products for them, and how that invalidates your above statement.

As a true volume manufacturer (Kai USA) you can become really efficient in the way you produce your knives.
Here is an example; our best selling blades are our SpeedSafe assisted opening knives, and we have not had a price increase on them in 5 years. During this time span, steel prices have increased dramatically, labor cost are way up, insurance(s) prices have gone through the roof, basically the cost of doing business is so much more expensive now than it was 5 years ago....yet, we have not had a price increase, and the materials and quality of our these knives have not been sacrificed, nor have margins.
How is this possible?
We have learned our trade very well, and the SpeedSafe knives we produce today are superior to the knives we finished up 5 years ago. Tolerances are tighter, and defectives and warranty are down.
The knives are constructed much more rapidly than in the past, as our experienced crew is very well organized and much more proficient than long ago.
The plant has continued to increase in size, and the machinery that once was lacking, has now turned into a state of the art facility. We are now self sufficient and rely less on costly outsourcing.
All this and more, has in fact enabled us to move away from in our minds, an inferior 440A blade on SpeedSafe knives, and into a much more performance oriented 13C26 blade with no added cost to the end line user. This change is on our absolute best sellers, Leeks, Blurs, Blackouts, Whirlwinds, Mini Mojo's, and further goes on to be incorporated in our brand new SpeedSafe knives as well.
Larrin said it well, "To the manufacturer, it (13C26) can be blanked, probably the best blankable stainless there is". We concur, and believe you the consumer will as well.

I don't see cheaper rather than better with Kershaw Cliff, I see less expensive and better!

When you rely on outsourcing your manufacturing, one of the only ways to make knives cheaper is to sacrifice and lower the grade of the materials that you put into your knives. Production is out of your control, as are unforeseen increases that can complicate your margins, thus the material downgrades you will see.

Kershaw Knives, Kai USA will continue to evolve into the type of manufacturer that offers you more for less.

I hope this open up the minds of a few that were lacking understanding in this area, and puts to rest any validity to Cliff's comparison.

 

[hardheart]

did you just say you'll be offering all your speedsafe knives in 13C26?

rawr