why the hatred for S.S. blades

Jack O'Neill

Jack O'Neill

Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
7,174
I've read here several times that there seems to be a dislike for stainless blades . I am curious as to why and which S.S. in particular .

Just my curiosity .
 
I've always heard that stainless doesn't hold an edge as well, and it's harder to heat treat.
 
I love it, many high quality stainless steels will hold an edge much longer than simple carbon steels. Getting into tool steels is another story, however. Heat treating really couldn't be any easier than most stainless steels, you just have to have to right equipment.

I think the stigma comes from the low grade and/or poorly heat treated 440A/B and 420 steels that were so profilic in years past.
 
I have had good experience with ATS34 so I like it. High carbon have also worked for me. In my neck of the woods its an uphill battle fighting moisture and rust.

When I would think of SS I think of the gas station chinese knives. Now that I have learned about the higher quality SS my mind is changing.
 
I use and like 440C. Alot of my customers do not want SS because they think it won't hold an edge and is hard to sharpen. I think AcridSaint is correct in his thinking, that 440A, 440B and 420 series has caused some of this thinking. It is a myth that is hard to overcome. My brother inlaw was one that thought SS was no good, until I made him a guthook from 440C, he loves it now, and there are better SS than 440C. Just my.02.
 
i don't think its hatred... just some people won't give up edgeholding and toughness for overly expensive shiney lookin.. haha

by the way...i don't hate SS...i have kitchen drawer full of them..doesn't mean i'd take it hunting with me..;)
 
I believe Acridsaint has it. I worked with 440-C and Ats-34 all through the 80's. I sent my blades out to Paul Bos for HT+cryo, and never had any complaints on edge holding. I changed over to carbon steels around 1990 because I could Ht them at home, and not have to wait on them to come back from CA. I will say, my orders picked up greatly after going to carbon though, and I have always blamed bias against the SS for this. Now a days I only make period style knives, and stainless just doesn't work for those. Another unfounded bias is that against stock removal, thanks to all the hype the smiths used to put out about forged steel being much superior in performance and strength, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Of course there are still some that believe that foolishness, but their numbers are in decline.
 
I've made many knives of 154CM. My customers bring them back to me to sharpen, but it'll normally last them a year.
Stainless is good stuff.
 
AcridSaint said:
I love it, many high quality stainless steels will hold an edge much longer than simple carbon steels. Getting into tool steels is another story, however. Heat treating really couldn't be any easier than most stainless steels, you just have to have to right equipment.

I think the stigma comes from the low grade and/or poorly heat treated 440A/B and 420 steels that were so profilic in years past.
Click to expand...

I agree.
The nice thing about 420hc is that it is malleable enough to be used in the big stamping presses allowing many blades to be made, it is also cheap and easy to HT. This makes it great for the manufacturing industry.
The problem is that is is only barely servicible as a knife steel, and we know there are many better knife steels out there.
Del
 
What's the best source of 420 hc, 440c, and 154cm etc.?

Also, how does 15n20 hold up compared to other stainless, and how is the HT on it compared to like 1080s?
 
If you pay big money for a knife you want it to be made from "special" steel. For many people stainless is what the cheap knives are made from. It sounds much better to get a knife made from "tool steel". Many folks expect a "special" steel to be tougher than regular (stainless) steel. For that reason a tool steel or a carbon steel may seem superior. For a wall hanger that you are only going to look at even cheap stainless would function well, but knowing that a knife is only ornamental really lowers its value. Even if you never sharpen it you want at least a superior grade of stainless steel.

For me the measure of a good steel is whether it takes an excellent edge and holds it reasonably well when honed to a really low angle. I generally don't like the wear resistant stainless alloys like 154CM and 440C. They just don't take the edge that I like. I much prefer AUS8 or 420HC to those. My personal preference is BG42, but you just about don't find it anymore. This typically doesn't polish up as nicely as 440C, but is pretty tough and takes and holds a nice edge.
 
I'm doing a quick inventory in my head here. I've got five oin S30V, one in AUS8, one in 1095, 13 in O-1, and the rest are 440C. (Lots of Randalls in there in case you're wondering.)

Most get used; all of the users perform admirably if you take their own strengths and weaknesses into account. I wouldn't use an S30V knife as a pry bar; I wouldn't shave with a Randall.

My best friend is an old Georgia boy who hates stainless steel and bad-mouths it every chance he gets. He also complains about rust every chance he gets. It's quite entertaining, really.
 
There are three reasons that I do not use stainless, unless a customer specifically demands it. I'm sure I'll get a lot of responses that disagree with me, but these are MY reasons:

1. Toughness: I can achieve a much higher level of toughness with a steel that can be differentially heat treated. Most stainless steels negate the possibility of differential heat treating. This brings up the old argument of whether a blade should bend or break.....some will say that they want a knife that is so "tough" that it should break if they ever have to put enough force on it to do so. My opinion is that I would rather have a blade that will bend, and could be somewhat straightened out with a rock or by tweaking it in the fork of a tree, and continure using it, instead of having a blade in multiple pieces that is useless.

2. Cutting ability: Let me qualify this one..... Cutting ability based on a specific hardness level with non stainless steels allows me to create a much finer edge geometry, which in turn creates much less cutting resistance than a stainless counterpart, which by virtue of its hardness level must be ground with a more obtuse edge geometry, in order to increase its toughness to the point where chipping isn't an issue. In order to understand this, take a look at just about any issue of the Knives Annual. Pay particular attention to the edges of the various blades pictured. By and large you will notice that the majority of stainless blades have a huge primary edge bevel, which is visible in the photos as either a brighter or darker portion along the cutting edge. This overly obtuse edge geometry is bult in to increase the toughness of the edge, and keep it from chipping. However, it also greatly increases cutting resistance, and will often times make even a blade that is sharp, seem dull when its being used because it requires much more force on the user's behalf to make it cut. This same phenomenon MAY be visible in SOME carbon steel blades, but generally not from those makers who know what they are doing.

3. Ease of the customer/client to maintain usability: By this I mean that even though a non-stainless blade will require more care to maintain its cosmetic appearance. The blade will generally be easier for the client to sharpen and keep sharp than a stainless counterpart. Karl even said it in his post when he mentioned that his customers generally send their stainless knives back to him to be sharpened....in my opinion thats simply a hassle for the customer.

Finally....and this is probably gona get me all kinds of flak.... I have asked far too many makers who use stainless exclusively, why they apply a specific grind or a specific Rc hardness to a given blade/steel. More often than not the answer I have received is because either someone else told them thats how it should be, that its the easiest way, or its come from a heat treat manual's "recommendation". I would have expected to hear them tell me that their reasoning was to add/improve the overall useability or functionality of the blade. I'm not being malicious here....just trying to make the point that unless you have a specific reason(s) for doing something to a blade, and its not related to increasing the performance/usability, then you need to think about why your doing it.

Both Carbon and Stainless steels have their places within the knife world.... and although I favor non-stainless steels, I don't really think a person can whole heartedly say that one is wrong or one is right.....but they are very different, and how an individual maker chooses to exploit the unique characteristics that each possess is what makes the difference between a knife, and an object that looks like a knife. My reasoning for using the steel types that I do, is that I cannot achieve the COMBINATION of characteristics that both I, and my clients, deem important in the finished product with stainless steels. When I do have a customer who simply demands stainless steel, I do my best to please them, but also make it very clear that I will not place a lifetime warranty on a stainless blade as I do all my non-stainless knives.
 
most people that "hate" stainless are simply stuck with the bad taste of made in pakisan, poorly heat treated gas station specials.
 
Ed, just curious as to why you won't warranty a stainless knife and you will a carbon steel knife? Properly heat treated, either should hold up just fine under knife-related work. I understand you preference towards a blade that is able to bend and take abuse and not break, so is the warranty thing just an issue with not being able to differentially heat treat a stainless blade and then having that blade break under less-than-knife-friendly abuse?

Also, I wonder if your observation with geometries in SS blades has more to do with the maker than the steel. I don't know of a reason that an appropriately heat treated blade of the appropriate stainless steel couldn't be ground to the same geometries as a carbon steel blade without edge chipping. If I'm wrong, please edumucate me, because Lord knows I've got lots to learn. :) I'd think if you considered your austenizing temp with regards to retained austenite (i.e., higher critical temp and more retained austenite needs a cryo to reduce retained austenite vs. lower hardening temp to reduce RA without cryo, etc), you would be able to achieve a similar hardness without being brittle.

BTW, I watched your CCIV Basic Damascus video last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. It really makes me itch to get a forging press! Of course, it may be better if I just get an anvil and learn to forge first! ;)

--nathan
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with other posters above... too many consumers think of "stainless" being a generic term, like cheap butter knives. 420 is an entirely different animal from CPM154, for instance. I used to be 100% biased against stainless steels, but as I learn more about the subject I'm seriously revising that position. For instance, my Buck knives are kind of a pain to sharpen, break easily, and don't hold their edges very long IMO, but that doesn't mean all stainless is junk. Conversely, my CarbonV knives are fairly easy to sharpen and tough as a $2 steak, but that doesn't mean all carbon steel is the best.

Ed Caffrey raised an excellent point about many knives being HT'd based on the mill's specs... which may have nothing to do with knife applications. Nathan the Machinst recently gave me some very interesting info on that concept, based on his experience with D2 (I know, D2 isn't a true stainless, but I think the basic comparison applies.)

If all SS's disappeared from the face of the earth, I'd be perfectly happy with my carbon steel knives. But I think it's worthwhile to keep an open mind and realize there are some grey areas. There's always a trade-off, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Forging vs. stock removal... carbon vs. stainless... .45 vs. 9mm... blondes vs. brunettes... In the end, there are many ways to skin a cat. We're blessed to have so many choices, and so much data available to us from the guys who've blazed the trails.
 
Good topic Jack.

Well, after what Caffery had to say, I have little to add. But I'll try.

*slipping on CS tin foil hat*

Cutting performance is a separate issue from edge retention. The Crucible CPM steel abrasive wear tests would have you think that S30V (or S90V, or A11 or M4 or whatever) is the ultimate blade steel. But most of us here know they're good for certain things, but are a pill to sharpen, and in a lot of use don't hold an edge as well as plain old, cheep 1095. So, they hold a dull edge well.

To put it simply, the percentage of the steel that is free chromium is a compromise to performance to achieve corrosion resistance. Even in my beloved D2. Even in the best stainless steel. If that 15% of that steel were martensite instead of free chromium - it would be stronger and tougher. Tougher steel can be used at higher hardness. Harder steel is stronger. Stronger steel can be sharpened to a more acute angle and not blunt, chip or roll. More acute edge angle cuts better. So - Carbon steel cuts better than stainless steel - if the maker takes advantage of it. Which is pretty much what the Mastersmith had to say. So I'll sit down now

*taking off tin foil hat, ducking and running away*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top