Would 1/4" thick 10" blade be stronger of forged vs stock removal?

[Jens Schuetz]

Hehe lol.

I also think it's a progression which gives the impression that forging is better.
Most people progress from stock removal to forging and not the other way around.

 

[Rhinoknives1]

"climax
[klahy-maks]
noun
1.
the highest or most intense point in the development or resolution of something; culmination" Simply saying the highest culmination of knifemaking generally involves forging or else they'd allow stock removal methods for the ABS master smith test.

I never said ALL knifemakers who practice stock removal are lousy. If you took it that way, well, nothing I said was intended that way. You have to admit, though, that anyone can get a belt grinder and some epoxy and other materials and make something close to what could be considered a knife whereas if you own a forge and the associated equipment necessary to forge something close to what could be considered a knife there's probably at least a little bit of knowledge. I'm not saying any kid who rides a bike can win the tour de france, but I am saying anyone in the tour de France can probably ride a bike. And I'm also not saying that if you're a great bike rider you HAVE to ride in the TdF, that'd be silly of I did say that because it's so obviously not the case.

If you don't like or want to use a forge, that's what you want and I wouldn't blame you, but now it seems like you're disparaging those who forge.

If you want to disagree with me and what I've said, that's cool, but don't go putting words into my mouth and making an argument where there wasn't before. Now instead of talking about the issue at hand we're discussing what will obviously lead to an argument and I don't want that.

In the end I don't really think there's been a lot of knife testing concerning the impact strength of a good forged knife vs a good knife that was ground down. It would take a ton of work and it would require that each knife made gets destroyed. That's the only reason there's anything close to decent tests about edge retention, it doesn't destroy the knife. It'd be nice to see definitive proof if a properly forged knife made by someone with tons of experience can withstand impact forces greater than one where the grain flow runs simply butt to tip, but I don't have the money to fund something like that. Maybe the ABS can find some knifemakers and bring about a competition. I'd watch it.

Again, if you felt slighted, it wasn't my intention. Maybe I worded it wrong or without enough of an explanation or maybe you're just too sensitive. Either way, there's no point in getting personal when no personal insult was conveyed.

Bodog,
I did meet and study for a time under the late Mr Bob Loveless and you would be getting read the riot act right. I asked him his opinion about this very question. His comment to me was first, The ALL steels come forged from the mill and not only do many end up beating problems into the steel.

If you don't heat treat it properly, it doesn't who beat on it along with the fact that modern stainless steels like ATS-34 are the perfect mix of edge holding, deductibility and most important, corrosion resistance. "Add in looks of colorful & loud words in there with paraphrased quote".

Mr Loveless starting, forging knives and then moved to those stock removal knives that anybody could make and sending them out to Buck for heat treatment. That was almost 20 years ago that I attended several of Mr Loveless's open door, lets talk knives sessions that he had on Saturdays at his Riverside shop in the mid to late 90's.

I've been making my livelihood doing stock removal knives ever since. So, get yourself a grinder!

 

[bodog]

I've been doing some Google fu and this argument has been around for a long time with the exact arguments coming from both sides. It seems that whoever is right on any given day is predicated on who has the largest numbers of practitioners of either method in the discussion. One thing I cannot find though, are true tests of one against the other. It's all opinion as to which one performs better. Stock removal guys keep skirting the issue and say that they think heat treat, steel, and geometry are the primary considerations. Well, yeah, most blacksmiths will tell you the same. Smiths then say essentially the same thing I did, forging will bring a slight increase in performance, especially where impact stresses are concerned, but with modern steels and a great heat treater the end result may or may not be apparent. Lateral stresses are good and fine, but they're different than impact tests, like abrasive wear is different than adhesive wear. There are people who test edge retention and can say that given similar geometry, this steel at the rockwell hardness can expect to make this many cuts on .25" sisal rope while this other steel can make this many cuts. It can generally be replicated with another similar knife on the same media and results can be compared. No one is trying to do the same with impact tests. This steel that came from the producer and ground down and heat treated with this protocol took x number of hits against whatever form of media before breaking and this same steel forged using this protocol and with a final heat treatment using the same protocol as the other blade took y number of hits. The test has been reproduced with blind tests and other steels have been used and across the board X method is better or Y method is just as good.

 

[bodog]

You'd think the ABS with their determination to keep the art and science of knife making alive would take on tests like this and if stock removal is truly as good then allow and form tests and pathways for stock removers to gain some titles outside of a forge. If forging does actually show to be better, at least them keeping the tests confined to forgers would be justified.

 

[B34NS]

You'd think the ABS with their determination to keep the art and science of knife making alive would take on tests like this and if stock removal is truly as good then allow and form tests and pathways for stock removers to gain some titles outside of a forge. If forging does actually show to be better, at least them keeping the tests confined to forgers would be justified.

The difference is a customer looking for a knife from an ABS master smith isn't usually concerned with stock removal. That's not what they do. Every maker will have a whole host of variables and not to mention how expensive testing is. Is the juice worth the squeeze? I think no

 

[bodog]

I wouldn't mind knowing if a person is an acknowledged expert/master of heat treating, etc, outside of just forging processes by other acknowledged masters. If I know for a fact I'm buying a knife from an acknowledged master of everything stock removal knives entail for a lower cost than a forged knife made by a different master, then I'd probably buy the knife made by the stock removal master.

 

[Rhinoknives1]

You'd think the ABS with their determination to keep the art and science of knife making alive would take on tests like this and if stock removal is truly as good then allow and form tests and pathways for stock removers to gain some titles outside of a forge. If forging does actually show to be better, at least them keeping the tests confined to forgers would be justified.

ALL groups do what they do and have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are for a multitude of reasons.

That spans the professions. Medicine, legal, engineering etc and the ABS which forges knives.

Another reason why you will never see this is that you would have a Carbon steel from the forger and stainless steel from the stock removal maker so the comparison is negated right there.

 

[bodog]

ALL groups do what they do and have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are for a multitude of reasons.

That spans the professions. Medicine, legal, engineering etc and the ABS which forges knives.

Another reason why you will never see this is that you would have a Carbon steel from the forger and stainless steel from the stock removal maker so the comparison is negated right there.

You're saying a stock removal guy couldn't use a carbon steel for the tests or a forging guy couldn't use some kind of tool or stainless steel?

 

[B34NS]

I get what Rhino's saying, freinds of mine in my area who are Master ABS, agree with the similar sentiment. As a chef, it's drilled into you. "Start with the best ingredients you can find and then don't f@#k them up." Knife making is no different whether you're forging your own patterned damascus or stock removal from a CPM steel. Same goes for the heat treat, grind, sharpening, sheaths etc. Little difference whether it's a hand or an air hammer to the knife itself. It's who's handling the ingredients that ultimately determines the final product. As Rhino said, all steels are forged is fun way to think about it. Here's a video of my favorite stock removal artists own process beginning from the mill.

[video=youtube;5989aB-kfJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5989aB-kfJ4[/video]

 

[Cobalt]

I wouldn't mind knowing if a person is an acknowledged expert/master of heat treating, etc, outside of just forging processes by other acknowledged masters. If I know for a fact I'm buying a knife from an acknowledged master of everything stock removal knives entail for a lower cost than a forged knife made by a different master, then I'd probably buy the knife made by the stock removal master.

Bodog, you have to get what you are comfortable with. But you can tell yourself that forged is better all you want and it will not make it true. Not being obstinate, just factual.

 

[bodog]

Bodog, you have to get what you are comfortable with. But you can tell yourself that forged is better all you want and it will not make it true. Not being obstinate, just factual.

I guess you didn't read anything where you might be wrong as well. At least I can say these are all opinions and without any tests there's no way to really tell. I can say that after reading what several experts on both sides of the aisle have written, I have no idea, and you really don't either. So until then, all we have are opinions, and you know what's said about opinions. At least I presented some form of proof that would lead an intelligent person to at least think it's possible for forging to make a knife better through the manipulation of the grain flow. If that's debunked through actual research, then great, we'll know forging is just an artistic endeavor for those who refuse to get with the times and for those who don't want to waste any steel whatsoever. Until then, you have to admit it's a possibility, and its a strong possibility at that.

Notice how there's not one person willing to say they think stock removal will produce a knife that will undeniably be better than a good forged piece? Everyone keeps saying stock removal is "just as good" or that there "will be no appreciable gain" by forging. There are people in the knife industry, among other industries, who say that it's at least possible for a piece of steel forged to shape will be better than one that wasn't, if the smith doesn't screw it up in the process.

It could just as easily be argued the opposite way, the only time knives should be ground to shape instead if forged to shape is if the steel is made via CPM or equivalent or is an extremely, super, high tech space age ultra clean steel that has absolutely no risk of inclusions and has no risk of chemical segregation, ie, only for those steels too hard to forge or too clean and homogeneous to waste time forging.

 

[B34NS]

I guess you didn't read anything where you might be wrong as well. At least I can say these are all opinions and without any tests there's no way to really tell. I can say that after reading what several experts on both sides of the aisle have written, I have no idea, and you really don't either. So until then, all we have are opinions, and you know what's said about opinions. At least I presented some form of proof that would lead an intelligent person to at least think it's possible for forging to make a knife better through the manipulation of the grain flow. If that's debunked through actual research, then great, we'll know forging is just an artistic endeavor for those who refuse to get with the times and for those who don't want to waste any steel whatsoever. Until then, you have to admit it's a possibility, and its a strong possibility at that.

Notice how there's not one person willing to say they think stock removal will produce a knife that will undeniably be better than a good forged piece? Everyone keeps saying stock removal is "just as good" or that there "will be no appreciable gain" by forging. There are people in the knife industry, among other industries, who say that it's at least possible for a piece of steel forged to shape will be better than one that wasn't, if the smith doesn't screw it up in the process.

It could just as easily be argued the opposite way, the only time knives should be ground to shape instead if forged to shape is if the steel is made via CPM or equivalent or is an extremely, super, high tech space age ultra clean steel.

I can appreciate what you're saying. I think the underlying technicality here is that even the bar stock used for stock removal is forged though. Just not by the same process one person does it for one knife.

 

[Cobalt]

You're saying a stock removal guy couldn't use a carbon steel for the tests or a forging guy couldn't use some kind of tool or stainless steel?

I think there are steels that are a pita to forge and that may be what he is talking about. Take an Esee Junglas out of 1095, plain ole stock removal knife. Compare it to a forged 1095 knife. See where they stack up.

 

[Cobalt]

I guess you didn't read anything where you might be wrong as well. At least I can say these are all opinions and without any tests there's no way to really tell. I can say that after reading what several experts on both sides of the aisle have written, I have no idea, and you really don't either. So until then, all we have are opinions, and you know what's said about opinions. At least I presented some form of proof that would lead an intelligent person to at least think it's possible for forging to make a knife better through the manipulation of the grain flow. If that's debunked through actual research, then great, we'll know forging is just an artistic endeavor for those who refuse to get with the times and for those who don't want to waste any steel whatsoever. Until then, you have to admit it's a possibility, and its a strong possibility at that.

Notice how there's not one person willing to say they think stock removal will produce a knife that will undeniably be better than a good forged piece? Everyone keeps saying stock removal is "just as good" or that there "will be no appreciable gain" by forging. There are people in the knife industry, among other industries, who say that it's at least possible for a piece of steel forged to shape will be better than one that wasn't, if the smith doesn't screw it up in the process.

It could just as easily be argued the opposite way, the only time knives should be ground to shape instead if forged to shape is if the steel is made via CPM or equivalent or is an extremely, super, high tech space age ultra clean steel that has absolutely no risk of inclusions and has no risk of chemical segregation, ie, only for those steels too hard to forge or too clean and homogeneous to waste time forging.

Well when everyone tells you one thing and you try to prove the planet wrong, then who is the wrong one?

 

[bodog]

Well when everyone tells you one thing and you try to prove the planet wrong, then who is the wrong one?

If you've done any kind of reading yourself there are these same discussions peppered all over the Internet where forgers are trying to tell stock removal guys the opposite. So there are more stock removal guys here right now and there are some forgers who are forging because they enjoy it rather than a belief that forging makes a better knife. That makes it ironclad proof? Do you always think that whatever is currently popular wherever you happen to be located at that specific time is what's undeniably right? Do you not look critically at an issue that interests you and try to find actual proof to lean against or do you just lean against the opinions of other without any proof to back up your beliefs?

I've presented actual evidence that lends credence to what I'm saying is a possibility. Sure, it's not ironclad proof but it's pretty strong and therefore I believe it's a strong possibility that it's true. Do you have any ironclad proof to the contrary? I'd love to read it, seriously. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Please present something other than opinion.

 

[Cobalt]

If you've done any kind of reading yourself there are these same discussions peppered all over the Internet where forgers are trying to tell stock removal guys the opposite. So there are more stock removal guys here right now and there are some forgers who are forging because they enjoy it rather than a belief that forging makes a better knife. That makes it ironclad proof? Do you always think that whatever is currently popular wherever you happen to be located at that specific time is what's undeniably right? Do you not look critically at an issue that interests you and try to find actual proof to lean against or do you just lean against the opinions of other without any proof to back up your beliefs?

I've presented actual evidence that lends credence to what I'm saying is a possibility. Sure, it's not ironclad proof but it's pretty strong and therefore I believe it's a strong possibility that it's true. Do you have any ironclad proof to the contrary? I'd love to read it, seriously. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Please present something other than opinion.

As I stated before your scientific evidence was based off of the wrong system. You obviously have not read other responses. Not sure what more can be said. You have had several authorities in here tell you the same. Believe what you want.

 

[stabman]

[video=youtube;Oh_WAY_4xqU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh_WAY_4xqU[/video]

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Bodog,
The reason I, a stock removal maker hasn't said that stock removal is better than forging is because of just what I told you.
Its ALL forged when it comes from the mill! Unless you dig and cook your own steel blooms.

Also I didn't get into knife making to put my brother & sister makers down by saying my technique is superior. Superior to what?
I prefer stock removal because I prefer stainless for most of my knives. There are other's that prefer carbon steels and use them by stock removal or forging.

I think you are in the arena of, Did the chicken or the egg come first? What does the most interesting man in the world say? Relax and have a favorite beverage!

 

[JParanee]

One advantage to a well made forged blade is that it is more likely to exhibit two traits that are very important to me

These are differentially heat treated and Distal taper

Stock removal blades can exhibit these qualities but it is more likely in a fine forged blade

 

[bodog]

Bodog,
The reason I, a stock removal maker hasn't said that stock removal is better than forging is because of just what I told you.
Its ALL forged when it comes from the mill! Unless you dig and cook your own steel blooms.

Also I didn't get into knife making to put my brother & sister makers down by saying my technique is superior. Superior to what?
I prefer stock removal because I prefer stainless for most of my knives. There are other's that prefer carbon steels and use them by stock removal or forging.

I think you are in the arena of, Did the chicken or the egg come first? What does the most interesting man in the world say? Relax and have a favorite beverage!

Considering I never put down any makers because they use one method or another, I don't see where you're coming from. Discussing if blacksmithing a blade leads to a higher performing knife is like discussing if G10 performs better than micarta in impact strength. I don't get how you've taken anything I've said as insulting anyone. It performs better or it doesn't, or it's not been tested enough either way. Personally I like wood handles on knives and we all know that G10 performs better. Should I take offense when someone states that G10 performs better and there's proof of it? Is that insulting a maker who uses wood to make handles? If someone says that G10 performs better than wood handles are they putting down the makers who use wood?

Discussing the pros and cons shouldn't be insulting to anyone and I have a hard time believing that you're actually offended by the topic. If you're saying this to defend how you make knives, ok, but don't go saying something that isn't true. Saying there's evidence that a great knife made by a great smith can perform better than another is saying all stock removal guys should be insulted? That's just beating a war drum and trying to get a gang together to defend the practice. Discuss the pros and cons, show evidence, and be civil. Is that hard? I raise a glass to those who make good knives no matter what method they use. I've said multiple times that for the price I'd probably buy a knife that wasn't smithed. I also said I wish there were titles that could be earned for stock removalists to separate the good from the great.

I don't get the backlash. This is obviously an interesting topic with merit because it's been talked about so much over the years by people with far more knowledge than I have. Why there havent been any tests over the years to prove one way or another intrigues me, especially for the guys who blacksmith the blades. You'd think they'd have a vested interest in proving a forged knife performs better to justify more work put into a knife and subsequent higher prices. Maybe that's a circumstantial evidence that smithing a blade doesn't create a higher performing knife?