carbon steel versus cheap stainless

W

W.T. Beck

Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
1,411
This question was addressed in a thread I submitted recently in the Practical Tactical Forum, but I thought I would bring it up here before a wider audience.

I started a thread asking opinions on the SOG Bowies, and had assumed that the SK5 carbon version would be superior in overall performance to the AUS8 version. I had this opinion due to the many negative comments regarding the cheaper stainless steels (those below 440C). I also had a belief which I have seen others state, which is that most any carbon steel is generally superior to the cheaper stainless steels in all areas except stain resistance.

The responses I got were suprising, and contested my view that the SK5 version of the SOG Bowie should be the better one. One member stated that the AUS8 version might even have better edge holding.

So I am wondering what other members think about the relative performance of the cheaper stainless steels - 420, 440A, AUS6, AUS8, and Sandvik, versus low cost carbon steels such as the 10XX series? There are certainly other members out there who think the carbon steels are better, as I have read this opinion in various threads. Is there a common misconception out there that needs correcting?
 
Carbon--easier to get super sharp, much tougher, similar edge-holding (depends on both steels, and carbon often wins) and makes a more durable edge.
 
I think first you have to take 420 out of that list. Unless you are talking about the 420 HC (high-carbon) used by Buck, 420 is just junk.
 
I am not sure how many versions of 420 there are. I know there is 420J2, which has a bad reputation, and there is 420HC. Is there a steel which is just called "420"?

I did read a post on the SOG Forum in which Cliff Stamp stated that at 58 RC, 420HC had better edge holding than 1095.
 
I have found that AUS 8 in my CS Voyagers does NOT hold an edge very well. They do get extremely sharp, though. Could be the heat treat. My high carbon steel knives probably hold their edge 3 - 5 times longer when whittling wood. Those would be Carbon V and 1095.

Now my Queen D2 Stockman, that baby really holds an edge, better than any of the above.

In general, comparing the cheap stainless to high carbon, my money would go to high carbon. The expensive "wonder steels" stainless, though, might be a different story.
 
Originally posted by etp777
Don't forget thatn S90V is a 420 series steel
Click to expand...

No it's not. It just had the misfortune of having a similar number. That is probably why they changed the name to CPM-S90V. These steels have absolutely nothing in common.

Edited to add:

Ok, that last part was stupid. Since they are both steels and both stainless, they of course have things in common. My point was that CPM-420V is in no way a 400 series steel, it is a CPM series steel.
 
I've always liked the looks of the SOG Bowie and the Trident ... great grind lines. Classic blade shape, just looks cool, looks mean.

I don't know what SK5 is for carbon steel. Not sure it matters, since it's probably just a simple carbon steel like 1095 or 0170-6.

SOG indicates they run SK5 at Rc57-58. They also run AUS-8 about that hard. I'd guess you'd have a hard time telling them apart when it comes to slicing or push cutting performance.

(postscript: I'm assuming you are speaking of the SOG Bowie S1 that looks like the Trident S2 in following paragraph)

My own personal opinion is that a 6" knife is right in the middle of the pack... any bigger and I definitely want a tough blade for heavy duty work. Any smaller, say 5" and below, and I definitely want a blade that has steel selected and treated for slicing performance.

I'll assume you wouldn't be asking this question if you have big qualms about taking care of a carbon steel blade, rust-wise.

So I'd say you can make your choice based on intended use... heavy duty use (chopping, whacking around, hard use), do SK5. If you are just going to fondle it, or use it for light camp duty or belt knife use, and you'd just as soon have a relatively low maintenance, stain resistant blade, go that way.

(hint hint... blued blades and leather stacked handles with great grind lines make for a pretty nice looking, distinctive looking piece... until you mar that pretty blue ... )
 
Ok, first of all I am NOT a steel expert at all. I have used a LOT of knives though, and know what works best for me.

I will pick a carbon steel blade over a stainless one nearly EVERY time. I can't think of any advantage stainless steels have over carbon steels other than corrosion resistance. In my experience, carbon steel knives get sharper and stay that way longer. If I was choosing between 1095 and 420, 440A, AUS6, AUS8, Sandvik, etc., I'd definitely pick 1095. It takes a wicked edge, holds it a good long time and is a tough, time tested blade steel that has been used in knives forever - for GOOD reason. I'd only go with a stainless knife if it was going to get wet all the time, like a diving knife or something.
 
There is only one real test and that is to take 2 knives, one carbon and one SS, with the same shape and grind and heat treat them to the same hardness. It would be an interesting exercise. It really does come down to heat treatment and hardness. The advantage of carbon is that in normal circumstances it can be tempered to a higher hardness than SS and therefore it will take and keep a better edge. The problem with SS is that with the normal run of the mill steels they will not operate efficiently at anything above 58rc as they become too brittle. Your top of the range SS will of course take a harder edge eg 154 and its clones. I would back 1095 over any of the SS up to and maybe including 440c after that give me D2 anyday.
 
I think that the major advantage of the carbon steels is their ability to be differentially heat treated. This provides a lot of versitility to the steel, wether or not that is ever taken advantage of. I'm not sure if TOPS differentialy treats thier knives, not it would make sense for hard use knives in 1095.
The lesser stainless steels, being softer, have the potential for being stronger. Yet they would not hold an edge through a hard enough job that would break carbon steel, such as heavy chopping.
 
Originally posted by W.T. Beck
So I am wondering what other members think about the relative performance of the cheaper stainless steels - 420, 440A, AUS6, AUS8, and Sandvik, versus low cost carbon steels such as the 10XX series? There are certainly other members out there who think the carbon steels are better, as I have read this opinion in various threads. Is there a common misconception out there that needs correcting?
Click to expand...
First of all, I don't know the Sandvik, so I won't mention it.
I suppose steel like 1095 (found in the Camillus Kabar) would even be a better edge holder than AUS8. AUS8, however, can be very sharp, and holds a decent edge. My Spyderco Salsa is a good example.
For something of a survival knife (like most SOG fixed blade), 1095 might not be the best idea even with a coating because it will rust quite easily. I can't remember who had done a test including 1095, but it was one of the fastest rusting blade (which the blade was parkerized I think) in the whole lot.
I would not have a problem if SOG's fixed blade comes in AUS8; it's a good steel. If it's carbon steel, then I would want something like 0170-6C. I don't know how well SK5 is.
I wouldn't want to see any survival fixed blade be made in 420, not even 420HC.
 
I personally prefer 1095 to most cheap stainless steels. But I will have to admit that Buck's 420 HC is a great performer for the price point, probably about the same as 1095 in edge holding, as long as there are no real impacts.
 
For most purposes I prefer a carbon tool steel over stainless, but the reasons are undoubtedly subjective.

Outside of corrosion/rust resistance (which I've never found to be a problem in this climate) a simple carbon steel such as 1095 just seems more "predictable" and user friendly. Every such blade I own sharpens readily on any kind of stone or abrasive media -- diamond, silicon carbide and aluminum oxide stones, wet/dry paper, ceramic -- they all strop cleanly on leather, and it never requires much finesse to produce whatever optimum edge I'm after, be it coarse or polished.

Not so with most stainless, especially the less expensive ones ... in fact, every stainless knife I own seems to have its own little quirks when it comes to sharpening. Some of them load up ceramic or fine india stones terribly, some produce soft wire edges that can be stubborn to remove, and stropping or steeling is usually a hit-or-miss proposition until you figure out how a particular blade is going to respond.

Which isn't to say that it's all bad news when it comes to inexpensive stainless steels. I have an old Camillus-contracted Buck Cadet that, while a bitch to sharpen, holds an edge amazingly well. I have a small Parker-Edwards skinner, 440A I believe, which for some reason will take just an amazing edge with fine ceramic rods. I've got 420HC knives from the same company, one of which is a joy to use, the others with the kind of gummy-soft blades I'm sure you've all experienced, and aren't worth bothering with.

I do carry and use some inexpensive stainless knives, and I think for a pocket folder it's sometimes a better overall choice than carbon steel. At the grocery store, I can trim some wet broccoli crowns, cut the outer leaves off a couple heads of cabbage, and then just stick the wet knife back in my pocket and not worry about it. With AUS8 or similar, it's never a problem.

And yet over time, I like the look of character that carbon steel blades take on. For some reason, the dark patina, and even the tiny abrasions and scratches, look good to me, and remind me in a friendly way of all the good use I've gotten out of that particular knife. With stainless, the marks and scratches just look ugly.

In an ideal world, I'd probably carry a 4"-6" carbon steel fixed blade in a sheath all the time. When stuck in an urban hell-hole like Denver, however, an inexpensive 3"-3.5" stainless folder has its place -- though only so long as you're also carrying a .45 auto with a minimum of 2 spare magazines.
 
First, I'm no steel expert! I have used knives a lot over the past thirty five years. I will take a carbon blade over a stainless almost every time. The rust/corrosion issue is no issue with me. I just wipe my blade after use and wax it if it's going to be stored for a few months.

Recently, I purchased a 1095 hunter from J. Neilson and this is the maybe the best performing carbon hunter I've used. Stainless steels are either too soft and don't hold a good edge or too hard and then too hard to sharpen. Give me a carbon blade! Just my two cents!
 
A steel that they still call 420V on their website last I saw(about 30 seconds ago). Unless the CPM 420V they sell now and the one they relabled S90V are a different steel, and I rather doubt that.
 
I've made quite a few knives using 1095 and L-6 and I don't find it easy to rust if just a slight bit of care is used daily, you can't slice tomatoes with it and let it lay there forever however.
Most carbon steels are easier to work with and less forgiving of poor sharpening habits, mine develope a nice patina after use.
Having said that, I don't feel the 420 series is worth a damn period!
The exception would be maybe Buck knives use of the 420HC which some swear by, but I expect this is more to the credit of Paul Bos heat treat instead of the make up of the actual steel.
Cheapo Gerber EZ-OUTS ruined me for this steel which I can take 1 of my 1095 or L-6 blades and cut off the entire edge with.

Stainless steels such as ATS-34-55, 154CM now get a bad rap with all the newer "super steels" being used by everyone.
And IMHO Semi stainless D-2 M-2 are at the pinacle of the art.
CPM steels can't be beat for edge holding ability altho I can't tell much difference between S30V and the original CPM440V.
It's all a trade off in the end, if you care for your blade 1095 wil serve you well and you can sharpen it W/O a diamond hone.
Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top