420HC - Thoughts?

Theres nothing wrong with 420HC its great in a certain price range, ill take it over aus8 or 8cr13 any day. However, in a knife like a S&M I would expect a traditional steel, if not a traditional steel then I would prefer a higher end steel, like D2 for example. To me its kind of silly that S&M make premium quality (and priced accordingly) traditionals with a very basic stainless steel, 1095 although basic too would be much better because it keeps the traditionals traditional and thats more important to me than fancy steel, besides you usually have multiple blades anyways. From a functional standpoint 420HC is completely fine, but I expect better steels at higher prices.
 
So, at a given premium price point with equivalent fit and finish:
carbon steel is ok, because it corrodes.
But, a stainless steel which performs about the same is not, because it does not corrode.

OK. Your logic escapes me, but cutlery is all about personal preference.
 
So, at a given premium price point with equivalent fit and finish:
carbon steel is ok, because it corrodes.
But, a stainless steel which performs about the same is not, because it does not corrode.

OK. Your logic escapes me, but cutlery is all about personal preference.

Very nicely said, Frank. I think this same thing over and over when reading some of these threads, the attending logic behind the statements made about why certain steels are preferred totally escaping me.

Then the last part of you post is something that I always remember even when all logic is defied... "cutlery is all about personal preference."

Absolutely.

Robert
 
So, at a given premium price point with equivalent fit and finish:
carbon steel is ok, because it corrodes.
But, a stainless steel which performs about the same is not, because it does not corrode.

OK. Your logic escapes me, but cutlery is all about personal preference.

Don't forget liners and bolsters.......


I'd rather have liners and bolsters that corrode and take a patina too! I really like GEC's steel construction they use on some knives. It makes no sense, but there it is!


If I'm going to use a steel other than 1095, I'd prefer it to be a step up in edge retention and performance.

That's one reason I like Queens D2 so much. It is a noticeable step up in edge performance.
 
So, at a given premium price point with equivalent fit and finish:
carbon steel is ok, because it corrodes.
But, a stainless steel which performs about the same is not, because it does not corrode.

OK. Your logic escapes me, but cutlery is all about personal preference.

That's not what Thechunk91 said at all. He said he "would prefer 1095 because it keeps the Traditionals Traditional". He never even mentioned corrosion one way or the other. And I know that certain Stainless Steels are also Traditional, but those are HIS words.
 
That stag baby sunfish is stunning! I like and have no problem with 420HC even with all my so called super steels! My Buck 112s and 500s are cutting bastards and keep their edges very well!

The coffee wasn't even working this morning!
 
Last edited:
I was always pretty happy with the steel used on any of the Buck, Schrade, Camillus, Gerber, Spyderco, Kershaw, etc., knives that I had purchased going all the way back to the mid 1980's. Then about five or six years ago, I started reading knife forums on the internet and realized that all of those knives had used substandard blade steel...
 
I was always pretty happy with the steel used on any of the Buck, Schrade, Camillus, Gerber, Spyderco, Kershaw, etc., knives that I had purchased going all the way back to the mid 1980's. Then about five or six years ago, I started reading knife forums on the internet and realized that all of those knives had used substandard blade steel...

:thumbup: :D :D :D
 
I like the 420HC that Buck uses, especially in my old 110, 703, and my new 301. IMO, it serves very well as a basic pocketknife stainless steel, since it's heat-treated very well. Simply put, it works. Blade design, heat treat, edge geometry, etc., determine how good it is. There are people in various places who successfully make their living, working hard every day with blades made of steel that knife nuts would consider substandard. People who might consider 420HC, 440A, etc., as excellent.

The point is, best steel for what application, and for whom? Is 420 HC my favorite steel? No. But I like some of the 420HC knives I have better than some others I have in 'wonder steels'.

Jim
 
Many steels require a slightly different sharpening technique, angle or grit. I have found that when I learn to properly sharpen a steel, I no longer have a problem using and liking it.
 
Many steels require a slightly different sharpening technique, angle or grit. I have found that when I learn to properly sharpen a steel, I no longer have a problem using and liking it.

Bingo. My thoughts exactly. I keep finding that steels I previously disliked, or viewed with skepticism, took on a completely different complexion once I found what 'works' in sharpening them, and also what geometry and edge finish make them really sing. Even the same steel type from 2 different makers will have uniquely different personalities, sometimes radically different. Even then, that doesn't necessarily imply one is worse than the other; just 'different' (though some examples are definitely 'worse'; just treated badly by the maker).

I'm starting to view a steel type, by itself, as just an assembly of ingredients, as in a kitchen recipe. What the 'chef' does with the ingrediets is what makes all the difference in the world.


David
 
So, at a given premium price point with equivalent fit and finish:
carbon steel is ok, because it corrodes.
But, a stainless steel which performs about the same is not, because it does not corrode.

OK. Your logic escapes me, but cutlery is all about personal preference.


That's not what Thechunk91 said at all. He said he "would prefer 1095 because it keeps the Traditionals Traditional". He never even mentioned corrosion one way or the other. And I know that certain Stainless Steels are also Traditional, but those are HIS words.

Actually, unless he can identify some other property which makes carbon steel more traditional than stainless steel, that is exactly what he said.
 
The Schatt and Morgan thread got me thinking about this...

DSC_4206-5__64596.1408748177.1280.1280.jpg


I think of 420HC as a substandard steel. I know companies use it because it is cheap and pretty, but it does, actually work.

Buck uses it very successfully and Schatt and Morgan blades hold good edges. I wonder why it is that I am so biased against it?

Probably that there are much nicer steels out there. What do you guys think?

Are you biased against it?
Do you have good/bad experience with it?
Does it radically change your buying preferences?

Derrick
Biased against it, but I am a steel snob.:)

I see 420HC as a cheaper alternative to a better steel, belonging in the mass produced knife realm.
There must be a reason custom makers don't use it but still use 440C after all.

My only experience with 420HC though is in a Buck Smidgen that I can't get a decent edge on worth a dang.
I never had a problem sharpening the S30V Hartsook or numerous older Buck 440C blades I've had.
Strange since I read that Buck started using the softer 420HC because of customer complaints about having a hard time getting their 440C blades sharp due to the hardness of the steel. Go figure.:rolleyes:


And I'm sorry to say Derrick, but I've sadly left your site a few times after seeing a Northwoods I liked the looks of, but then read in the description it was made in 420HC.


PS: Your saw needs sharpening.;)
 
Last edited:
Actually, unless he can identify some other property which makes carbon steel more traditional than stainless steel, that is exactly what he said.
Simple enough, carbon steel predates stainless steel by quite a few centuries giving it the edge in traditionalism. No pun intended.
 
I am afan of Buck knives ,have one in s30v one in 154cm and many in 420hc.I have no problem with 420 it does the job well.However I agree with those who wonder why they pay 70 or 80 dollars for a knife when they can buy knives for 30 bucks or less with the same steel from the same company ?
 
I am afan of Buck knives ,have one in s30v one in 154cm and many in 420hc.I have no problem with 420 it does the job well.However I agree with those who wonder why they pay 70 or 80 dollars for a knife when they can buy knives for 30 bucks or less with the same steel from the same company ?

They are paying for upscale handle materials and fit and finish that are just so.

Buck mass produces their knives. Each knife is designed to require a minimum of hands-on individual work. That's why the 301 and 303 are three spring. So the blades do not have to be bent by hand. So the Buck gives you optimum performance at minimum price.

But, if you want a Buck with fancy covers and noticeably better fit and finish, you have to get one from the custom shop and you pay what Queen charges for a Schatt and Morgan with the same alloy, fancy covers, and the same degree of fit and finish.
 
I am afan of Buck knives ,have one in s30v one in 154cm and many in 420hc.I have no problem with 420 it does the job well.However I agree with those who wonder why they pay 70 or 80 dollars for a knife when they can buy knives for 30 bucks or less with the same steel from the same company ?

They are paying for upscale handle materials and fit and finish that are just so.

Buck mass produces their knives. Each knife is designed to require a minimum of hands-on individual work. That's why the 301 and 303 are three spring. So the blades do not have to be bent by hand. So the Buck gives you optimum performance at minimum price.

But, if you want a Buck with fancy covers and noticeably better fit and finish, you have to get one from the custom shop and you pay what Queen charges for a Schatt and Morgan with the same alloy, fancy covers, and the same degree of fit and finish.
 
I think it depends on how a steel is used in application frankly but I had to decide if my knife was 420HC or Sandvik...it'd definitely be 420HC.I used to have a Leatherman tool and of course the 420HC blade is only a tool implement and I don't consider their heat treatment to be that of a professional knife manufacturer.But I wasn't disappointed with the edge retention using it out in the field.I think having a Leatherman blade in 420HC is better than a SAK blade but that's just my take.
 
And I'm sorry to say Derrick, but I've sadly left your site a few times after seeing a Northwoods I liked the looks of, but then read in the description it was made in 420HC.


PS: Your saw needs sharpening.;)

I don't blame you. I actually have never had one made in 420 for that exact reason.

The saw...well, you are right. It is now just a dull photo prop.
 
I have a Buck Packlite Skinner that is made of 420hc. It is simple, it doesn't rust, it sharpens easily, it is made in the USA, and i paid $20 for it at walmart. I think that it is an excellent addition to a large camp knife, and although it didn't hold an edge long skinning a frozen deer out, my 1095 knife didn't either. Thats why they are easy to sharpen ;-)
I like it in a cheap knife. If it saves buck money, and saves me money, and performs up to par, we all win!
 
Back
Top