420HC - Thoughts?

You usually get what you pay for,...

My experience as an engineer is that this is often not at all true.

There are surprising number of ideal technical solutions for things that are not meaningfully improved on by more expensive materials or construction techniques.

If you want a steel that will take a keen edge, is easily field sharpened with crude stones with a reasonable amount of edge retention, I don't think steels like 420HC and 12C27 (and 1095) have been significantly improved on by more expensive powdered steels. Mostly you're trading harder sharpening for longer edge retention, which isn't better or worse from a technical standpoint, only different. The cost doesn't matter.

... and I would be very disappointed to buy an expensive knife and find that it was 420 HC. And won't expect 30V or the like in a cheapo.

My experience as a marketer is that I jump up and down when I hear customers say such things. It means that the market will endure a fair bit of premium pricing strategy, so I can work hard to maintain reasonably high mark up and retail price as a pricing strategy.

Let me put it this way... It's not rational to consider high priced custom or quasi-custom traditionals that use 1095 and then consider a similar knife with 420HC to be in anyway inferior. That it is, is entirely a matter of market perception.
 
Last edited:
I don't like the 1095 either, it's popular here in this traditional board amongst knife enthusiasts, but not exactly what I'd call "high performance". People tout "easy sharpening", easy sharpening also means quicker dulling. I'm not sharpening knives on a rock in the field and I'd prefer that they stay sharp much longer than typical 1095, AUS 8A, 420HC, etc. Again, depends somewhat upon the price of the knife. I don't expect a $20 knife to do as well as a $120 knife. If the $120 knife dulls as quickly as the $20 knife, I would be extremely disappointed and would not buy another knife from that manufacturer at any price. For inexpensive knives, steels such as 420HC are adequate for everyday typical light duty usages. A Rough Rider will cut a piece of string and open a letter just as well as $5,000 Loveless custom. It depends on what the knife is used for and the users expectations. Consumer products run the range from garbage to near perfection, and you do usually get quality in line with the pricing. Not always, as some products are rip offs.

Other examples, who would buy a Corvette with a set of no-brand name tires that cost $35 each on it? For $50,000 plus, it had better have some high performance tires on it. Who would buy a high end firearm such as a $4,000 Cooper or $75,000 dollar Purdy shotgun with a piece of birch for a stock? For that sort of money, the quality, appearance and function must be superior, or there's no point spending that much. Got to the local gun shop and buy a used gun with a painted birch stock and fogetaboutit.
 
[- Does it radically change your buying preferences?
Not particularly. However, knowing that it is readily available on $30-$40 knives makes me less likely to see the value proposition in a $100 knife made using that same steel.

^^^^^^This.

I am a recovering steel snob, who's favorite steel is A2. It takes a beating and I can sharpen it, reasonably well.

420HC is the low end of the working steels, a useful steel but not the best out there. I would much rather see 440C used, but if Buck/Queen/Case doesn't use it, so be it. I just believe that a brand like Schatt and Morgan, supposedly higher end knives, should not be using 420HC if they are billing themselves as a high end line. The multitude of actual knife users out there are using Buck knives and Case knives, from what I have seen, and are getting by just fine with 420HC. Now, we are saying that Case's SS is 420HC, and that Queen's 420HC is just as good as Bucks 420HC. Are they? I don't know, that is why I am asking. Do we need a super stainless steel on these types of knives? Not particularly. But I think that the Buck 3xx series, the Buck 5xx series, the Buck 1XX series, the Case delrin series, the Queen delrin series etc, basically working knives, should remain 420HC. If you're going to slap some pretty scales on a knife, then put some good steel on there too, and increase the price a few dollars, if not keeping it the same.

We don't need super steels on these knives, and while my favorite slipjoints are my Case Bose annuals, they make a big deal out of 154CM. 154CM has been around for at least 40 years, I believe. It is a great steel, not the be all end all they make it when selling their annuals however. Now, BG42 is a great steel but not user friendly for maintenance, at least not in general.

I personally think that the Schatt line should stick with ATS34 and 154CM. The Daniels Family has their Tuna Valley line, for higher end collaboration pieces, but even then 154CM is not top of the line. But, it's become one of my favorite carry pieces. SM has some really pretty knives, the prettiest pieces out there right now IMHO, but they have a ways to go in the fit and finish department, and using 420HC steel does not help.

Based off my carry pieces, using 80's Case damascus, A2, 154CM, CPM154, S35VN and 1095 (not all at once mind you), I have come to use the A2 and now the damascus the most.
 
I don't like the 1095 either, it's popular here in this traditional board amongst knife enthusiasts, but not exactly what I'd call "high performance". People tout "easy sharpening", easy sharpening also means quicker dulling. I'm not sharpening knives on a rock in the field and I'd prefer that they stay sharp much longer than typical 1095, AUS 8A, 420HC, etc. Again, depends somewhat upon the price of the knife. I don't expect a $20 knife to do as well as a $120 knife. If the $120 knife dulls as quickly as the $20 knife, I would be extremely disappointed and would not buy another knife from that manufacturer at any price. For inexpensive knives, steels such as 420HC are adequate for everyday typical light duty usages. A Rough Rider will cut a piece of string and open a letter just as well as $5,000 Loveless custom. It depends on what the knife is used for and the users expectations. Consumer products run the range from garbage to near perfection, and you do usually get quality in line with the pricing. Not always, as some products are rip offs.


There are plenty of $120 knives out there with 1095 blades, both traditional (GEC, others) and modern (ESEE, Becker, others). Many buyers still prefer the combination of toughness, ease of sharpening and ability to take a fine edge. These may not be the things you want in a steel, but many people do. I'm not justifying the cost of these knives. Just noting it.

Technically, with good heat treat, there is little performance difference between 1095 and stainless steels like 420HC and 12C27. There's little difference in production costs too. So you can jump up and down all day demanding that 420HC is a "cheap" steel but the technical facts are what they are. They provide the same combination of performance characteristics that many people prefer over more expensive materials. Really depends on the application.

I disagree strongly with your claim that steels like 420HC are suitable only for "everyday typical light duty usages". Steels of this type are useful when you need a tough blade (it will dent or roll before it chips), that can take a fine edge and be sharpened easily. Wood working, whittling, and bushcraft/survival uses are all places where this combination of performance characteristics are not only adequate but preferred.


Other examples, who would buy a Corvette with a set of no-brand name tires that cost $35 each on it? For $50,000 plus, it had better have some high performance tires on it. Who would buy a high end firearm such as a $4,000 Cooper or $75,000 dollar Purdy shotgun with a piece of birch for a stock? For that sort of money, the quality, appearance and function must be superior, or there's no point spending that much. Got to the local gun shop and buy a used gun with a painted birch stock and fogetaboutit.

Your examples are either backwards are make my point.

Regarding cars, take the use case of a high performance sports sedan to be used on the highway. What is a better tire for that car? A Bridgestone Touranza or a race stock Goodyear GT type track tire that sells for several times the cost of the rather blase and pedestrian Touranza? The answer, obviously, is the Touranza and the fact that the full blown race tire is more expensive doesn't make it better. It's both more expensive and worse relative to the needs for that car.

Regarding gun stocks, is a gun any more or less accurate with birch compared to any other wood? Really? Different exotic woods are more rare and because of that, more expensive. And people often buy expensive things that are lovely just to have them. It's the basis for fine arts and jewelry type purchases - the Rolex that keeps time just like a Timex.

"You get what you pay for" is a marketing trope. A lot of the time, all you're buying is bling, prestige and bragging rights.

Still, at the end of the day, perception trumps performance. That's why the OP was correct in not using 420HC and why engineers work for marketers and not the other way around.
 
Everyone has different needs and expectations, differing budgets, and variety is the spice of life. It's good to have a huge variety to choose from, junk to extravagant.
 
I love these steel debates. To address the original question “Do you have good/bad experience with it?”
I tried Case's 420HC and was not impressed at all, on the other hand I like Buck's 420HC. For light cutting chores I found it held an edge much better.

“Does it radically change your buying preferences?” The answer is yes. There is a price point where I won't consider 420HC. Price being the same given the choice of 420HC with Sambar Stag or D2 and some cheap synthetic handle material. I'll take the better edge retention every time.
I like traditionals but have grown to like the different steels they are coming out with now. Like CPM154, ATS34, D2, and S30V.
 
I always wonder just how many blue collar, work knife carrying folks we have here that rely on their blades as part of their daily work routine. Lots of words written about "hard use", "normal use", "light use", etc., but I would like to know how many of these thoughtful scribes are writing from their cubicle, office, or from the aspect of someone that gives their knife a weekend workout by cutting up fruit, vegetables, their steak and "breaking down a shipping box" or cutting up a pesky twig off a bush. Nothing wrong with that to be sure, but someday I personally would like to see "hard use" etc., qualified when opinions are written.

I think the 420HC argument can easily be summed up by noting that millions of satisfied job site carriers of the venerable Buck 110 as a field and work knife can't be wrong. It has stood the test of time quite well, serving the purpose for which it was designed.

No qualification needed.

Robert
 
Dean,

Do you have a difference price cut-off point for knives made with 420HC and knives made with 1095?

That's the odd thing here. Many people do despite there being no strong case for that technically speaking.

Maybe the OP (and we) should be asking, why are people willing to pay so much for 1095?
 
I always wonder just how many blue collar, work knife carrying folks we have here that rely on their blades as part of their daily work routine. Lots of words written about "hard use", "normal use", "light use", etc., but I would like to know how many of these thoughtful scribes are writing from their cubicle, office, or from the aspect of someone that gives their knife a weekend workout by cutting up fruit, vegetables, their steak and "breaking down a shipping box" or cutting up a pesky twig off a bush. Nothing wrong with that to be sure, but someday I personally would like to see "hard use" etc., qualified when opinions are written.

I think the 420HC argument can easily be summed up by noting that millions of satisfied job site carriers of the venerable Buck 110 as a field and work knife can't be wrong. It has stood the test of time quite well, serving the purpose for which it was designed.

No qualification needed.

Robert
I used to use a knife for work in a rubber factory every day.

We produced rubber rollers for industrial applications. I had to cut excess rubber of varying recipes and hardness off the ends of each custom made batch of rollers as part of my many duties.

I stopped using the shop provided knives in the first week.

I definitely found a difference in performance in steels from about as close to hard use as a knife should even be the proper tool for.

It wasn't long before I got management to give me a stipend for a true hardworking knife. It was a cool, family owned company who could see my argument and didn't have any corporate excuses.

Soon enough, the other 5 "rubber rats" as we called ourselves got high end fixed steels for the work.

S90v had an actual, palpable performance edge that made the difference for us.
 
Why don't you ask me a question I can answer...:eek:
I'd give more for 420HC than 1095 but that's only because I use a knife around water quite a bit. In that environment 1095 requires more care than I like these days. That and the fact patina drives me nutty as a fruit cake.
I understand why people like 1095 in traditional knives and it is easy to re-profile. I can profile and sharpen all 3 blades on a Case stockman in the time it takes to do a single D2 blade. On my KME the D2 will touch up just as quickly and not need touching up as often. Buy what you like it's all good.
A few months ago I bought a Case #58172 (6375 CV) Large Stockman for $31.00 and kicking myself now.
 
I always wonder just how many blue collar, work knife carrying folks we have here that rely on their blades as part of their daily work routine. Lots of words written about "hard use", "normal use", "light use", etc., but I would like to know how many of these thoughtful scribes are writing from their cubicle, office, or from the aspect of someone that gives their knife a weekend workout by cutting up fruit, vegetables, their steak and "breaking down a shipping box" or cutting up a pesky twig off a bush. Nothing wrong with that to be sure, but someday I personally would like to see "hard use" etc., qualified when opinions are written.

I think the 420HC argument can easily be summed up by noting that millions of satisfied job site carriers of the venerable Buck 110 as a field and work knife can't be wrong. It has stood the test of time quite well, serving the purpose for which it was designed.

No qualification needed.

Robert


Robert, agree on every word.

Only thing to add is that I can certainly justification for guys working the trades who need a very sharp blade that will last a day or several days without being sharpened on the assumption they will have access to good (read: diamond or similar) sharpening systems at home to keep the blade sharp. All this say, I can see how modern steels with their better edge retention have a real value to some guys in the trades.

That's a bit different from the standard backcountry or wood working use case that more favors easy sharpening and fine edge.

Point being, match the steel to the use based on teh properties of the steel, not the price point.
 
Dean,

Do you have a difference price cut-off point for knives made with 420HC and knives made with 1095?

That's the odd thing here. Many people do despite there being no strong case for that technically speaking.

Maybe the OP (and we) should be asking, why are people willing to pay so much for 1095?

That's a question I ask myself. But then again I'm not a fan of carbon steel on folding knives.

I prefer stainless based on my 50+ years of carrying and using both carbon and stainless. I'm not going to pay top dollar for a knife with a 420HC blade. 420HC is a fine steel for a lower priced manufactured knife and may be all I'd ever need. But if I'm paying anywhere north of 80.00 or so (that number might be different for everyone) I want better materials and better finish, and better blade steel. Maybe better means nothing more then more expensive. None of this makes me right. Nor does it make me wrong.

I'm glad we have so many choices, keeps things interesting and give us something to debate. From my perspective not one post in this thread is wrong. Different strokes for different folks.
 
I have little or no interest in a traditional with 420HC steel. I prefer 1095, 01 or D2 in traditionals but have enjoyed some in ATS-34 and CPM154. I would really like a traditional in M4.
 
That's a question I ask myself. But then again I'm not a fan of carbon steel on folding knives.

I prefer stainless based on my 50+ years of carrying and using both carbon and stainless. I'm not going to pay top dollar for a knife with a 420HC blade. 420HC is a fine steel for a lower priced manufactured knife and may be all I'd ever need. But if I'm paying anywhere north of 80.00 or so (that number might be different for everyone) I want better materials and better finish, and better blade steel. Maybe better means nothing more then more expensive. None of this makes me right. Nor does it make me wrong.

I'm glad we have so many choices, keeps things interesting and give us something to debate. From my perspective not one post in this thread is wrong. Different strokes for different folks.

Great post, Gary. I have to agree 100 %. I like carbon steel so much, due to see limited on stainless steels mainly / mostly.

420HC tends to be a great steel, liked by many but avioded by many as well.
 
Slightly off topic....:D

But for those who are fans of this stainless, don't forget to enter my STAG GAW contest and maybe win a CASE knife:thumbup:

Thanks, Will
 
To me Pinnah's point takes the cake. Most of the "steel snobbery" is based upon knife lover's conjecture and marketing ploys.

By the way, technically nobody knows what "Tru-Sharp" or "Chrome Vanadium" steel is but Case. It is proprietary. One analysis done a few years ago, or even last month, of a steel does not mean they use that steel in the knife they produce today.

I too think it's weird that anyone would rate 1095 as better than 420HC. I personally think of them as similar. What is also kind of neat, if a knifmaker folds 1095 and L6 together 100x using a industrial hammer, it becomes hand made damascus, worth a lot more than a "high end" stainless from Crucible. :)
 
Case has already confirmed their Tru-Sharp is 420HC, when they've actually been asked; at least a couple or three members have recently asked, and posted about it on the forum. Their 'CV' steel might be a little more of a mystery (to us), though it seems very comparable to decent 1085/95-grade steels in how it sharpens up and holds it's edges.

My take on 1095 being 'better than' 420HC (or not) is less about the steel type, and almost entirely about the maker's skill at getting the most out of it. 1095 has more built-in potential to be better, by virtue of it's higher carbon content, which is sometimes nearly double that of some examples of 420HC (1095 @ 0.9-1.0% carbon, 420HC @ 0.5-0.6% carbon). Carbon is what makes steel hardenable by heat treat, and the upper limit of it's RC hardness will be determined first by the carbon content, and secondarily by what the maker does with that in heat treat, IF they take advantage of it. The most obvious example to me, of how this is important, is with Schrade USA's older 1095 blades, which were hardened to near-60 RC levels, and those edges will definitely hold up longer than any 420HC edge. This level of RC hardness isn't possible with any version of 420HC I've ever seen. This isn't to say 420HC isn't perfectly adequate for 99% of the tasks expected of traditional knives; but if one is looking for something a little better, then 1095 from a quality maker could definitely be worth paying a little more for. As with any steel, there are some horrid examples of 1095 out there too, from different manufacturers. I have at least a few like this, which won't take nearly as fine an edge, and won't hold it either; these are examples of higher-carbon 1095 blades that don't do as well as many lower-carbon 420HC blades, simply because the maker did a lousy job in heat-treating it, or the raw steel was sourced from a low-quality manufacturer, or both.

1095 is also minimally complicated with any other alloying elements (chromium, etc), which should make it easier to keep grain size as fine and uniform as possible, assuming the manufacturing is relatively clean and free of impurities. Again, this depends on who actually makes the raw steel in the first place; the same is true for 420HC and other non-proprietary steel formulas.


David
 
Last edited:
Cases carbon steel blades are supposed to be something like 0176C, with some chromium and vanadium in the alloy. Heat treated properly it could be even better than the 1095. Their heat treatment is done in large batches though, so whether their blades are at the ideal maximum achievable level is questionable. I've read on here several times that the chrome vanadium blades were a couple of points harder than the stainless ones, but I don't know about any definitive testing done to back that up. Case has made a few knives with ATS34, but they were pretty expensive. I wanted one of the Red Barnboard Tested XX series from a few years back, they were very nice.
 
Only thing to add is that I can certainly justification for guys working the trades who need a very sharp blade that will last a day or several days without being sharpened on the assumption they will have access to good (read: diamond or similar) sharpening systems at home to keep the blade sharp. All this say, I can see how modern steels with their better edge retention have a real value to some guys in the trades.

That's a bit different from the standard backcountry or wood working use case that more favors easy sharpening and fine edge.

Really, finding the exactly the right steel isn't as hard as one might think to carry on a construction site. One would think that a "super steel" or some tremendously hard steel would be great. It isn't.

I am basing this on 40 years in the trades, most of it as a hands on carpenter/woodworking/finisher, so your mileage may vary.

My personal experience it that I prize the utility value of a knife first, and ease of maintenance second. Like almost all of my tools they are in my hands quite a bit, so they have to be comfortable to use and the right knife for the job. That's why I carry two all day. Second, I accept maintenance of any cutting edge (chisels, router bits, saw blades, etc.) as part of the package when using a tool. So I plan for sharpening.

I have found that opening bags of concrete with your work knife is equally hard on my S110V as it is on my 8CrMoV. When you nick an unseen nail, staple or wire with your 154cm, the edge rolls over just like it does with 1095. When you have to strip a large wire, large enough that your strippers don't go around it, cut a shingle, cut insulation, and on an on... there really is only marginal performance between a "super steel" and some oldies but goodies, 420HC being one of them.

The difference is that if you damage the edge by accident (which will happen a couple of three times a week) or need to refresh the edge after a good bit of cutting, you don't travel with your diamond sharpening gear, your strops, your edge setting jig etc. If you need to do some fine cutting after opening a few equipment boxes or fiberglass boom (load) straps, you can get a nice work edge with a piece of 800gr wet and dry sandpaper. You don't need anything else. This is really handy if you did nick a nail first thing in the morning, or you just want a tune up before installing moldings.

Again, anticipating maintenance, I tune up the edges on my knives in seconds. I cook almost every dinner we eat, and I always give my chef's knife a lick on my 1200gr diamond rod to refresh the edge, every meal. Usually, my small work knife is right behind the chef's knife, and a keen edge back in literally three or four swipes a side. For my larger, regular carry work knives which are all 420HC, AUS8, AUS10, and 8CrMoV, I mostly use a 600gr diamond rod. Accepting maintenance as part of tool use, I like to tune the edges up with just a few swipes on a rod any of my knives, not having to get out a setup to do so.

At one time I thought S110V at 61 Rockwell would be the answer for me. Spent $100 on a Shallot. Nope. Then at the suggestion of another BF denizen I tried a Benchmade with 154cm. Nope.

Really hard steels are too hard to maintain in the field, and are too time consuming to maintain to make them a worthwhile effort to be used as their primary work knife for any of my fellow tradesmen. The first time I cut through some really thick insulation and hit a couple of hidden runs of conduit with my Kershaw super steel and saw what it did to the blade was the last time it went to the job. I was really disappointed at the damage to the edge, but more importantly knew I couldn't fix it in the field. And so it sits in a box, while knives bladed in the steels mentioned above go to work every day and get it done.

Robert
 
Back
Top