Knife steel

[znapschatz]

This is a good reality check, and I agree with it fully. However, I fuss over my collection of more knives/multi-tools than I'll ever need, and take great pleasure in getting and keeping my knives as sharp as possible. But I do understand that it's a hobby, not the "correct" way to deal with the day to day activity of cutting stuff. I assume Jackknife is also a hobbyist, or he wouldn't be a presence on these forums. There is no need to think of the time he spent has been a waste. Hobbies (most of them) are good for body and mind, if not always finances.
My wife, a non-knifeknut, knows what works for her and leaves the obsessing to me. Every once in a while she asks me to sharpen one or another of our kitchen knives, knowing I have some skills in the matter, but otherwise spends none of her precious time thinking about sharp stuff. She likes television shows about real estate or tennis matches, neither of which I care one thing. It's a fair division of labor .

 

[leghog]

Yet how many knife guys carry a SAK and another knife to do their cutting with? I never cut with my SAK, preferring instead to use my Spyderco or Benchmade. And I see others do the same thing. I lean toward my next multitool being a Charge TTI simply because Leatherman has addressed my nich need.

I carry a SAK and another knife, but not for the reason you articulate. The spearpoint on my Farmer is my primary cutting blade, but for me that's a big blade. I also carry a small peanut with a clip point and a pen blade, and that peanut is a small Ulster 180 with carbon 1095 steel made nearly 60 years ago. SAKS just make great EDC knives. Really no reason to change the steel.

The perfection of the current setup is noted.

I just hope they don't feel the same way.

They don't, which is why Victorinox is known as one of the most innovative companies in the world. That said, they've seen no reason to move to "super steels". Fine by me. I don't need nor will I buy "super" steel beyond ATS34 (yes, I remember when ATS34 was considered a "super" steel).

+1

While we are trying to discuss the winning strategy that allows a knife manufacturer to sustain its business for the past 125+ years, making 20+ millions knives a year(IIRC), I would think that they probably have good talented people to know what's work best for the business and what do the market wants.

Believe its 32 million knives annually. In a single month that is more than several makers combined make in a year.

Kodak was rumored to have rejected going to digital photos because they already had a winning recipe.

Improve or die.

I keep reading that Vic's marketing team has hit the sweet spot, but my point is that there is a group of consumers (represented by me) that they are not attracting with their current lineup. They moved to a locking main blade, which was a great move.

Now, I'd just like to see a steel upgrade option. Shoot, just make the blade available and some of us would put it on ourselves.

Traditional purists will of course disagree.

When Victorinox goes under come back and tell us, "I told you so". I ain't holdin' my breath.

 

[leghog]

.....

 

[jackknife]

I carry a SAK and another knife, but not for the reason you articulate. The spearpoint on my Farmer is my primary cutting blade, but for me that's a big blade. I also carry a small peanut with a clip point and a pen blade, and that peanut is a small Ulster 180 with carbon 1095 steel made nearly 60 years ago. SAKS just make great EDC knives. Really no reason to change the steel.

They don't, which is why Victorinox is known as one of the most innovative companies in the world. That said, they've seen no reason to move to "super steels". Fine by me. I don't need nor will I buy "super" steel beyond ATS34 (yes, I remember when ATS34 was considered a "super" steel).

Believe its 32 million knives annually. In a single month that is more than several makers combined make in a year.

When Victorinox goes under come back and tell us, "I told you so". I ain't holdin' my breath.

I got this off the internet about Victorinox. I ain't gonna hold my breath either, as it doesn't sound like Victorinox is missing any boat when it comes to marketing for the masses, not knife nuts.


[In 2006 the company had a workforce of 900 employees and produced about 34,000 Swiss Army knives, 38,000 multi-tools, and 30,000 household, kitchen, and knives per workday. Approximately 90 percent of its production is exported to more than 100 countries.]

 

[Chewy1]

Who said they were going under? I said that markets change and the smart companies change with them. Now may not be that time for Vic, but I hope it happens.

 

[leghog]

Who said they were going under?

"Improve or die" with Kodak as an example. How else should I have taken that?

 

[Chewy1]

Sigh. This thread is a waste of my time. Obviously, you like the SAK the way they are. I do not.

Have a swell day.

 

[leghog]

Sigh. This thread is a waste of my time. Obviously, you like the SAK the way they are. I do not.

Have a swell day.

Yes, I do like the Victorinox the way they are. So do millions and millions of others they sell to every year. It's a big world with lots of knives. You can easily find something else you do like.

 

[pinnah]

For what it's worth, I've used very inexpensive knives (<$7) to cut over half a mile of cardboard (3100') and still slice notebook paper. I'm certain a Victorinox could manage the same thing. For those who use the blade for slicing and cutting (it's quite thin after all) vs. scraping and such, try thinning the blade angle and be absolutely sure there is no burr remaining. Also, try finishing with a medium grit (Norton Fine India or similar). These 2 things allowed for a LOT of cardboard cutting.

Can anybody defend why Victorinox (or any similar steel) is better when run soft in the 56Rc, as opposed to being run harder in the 58Rc range?

My EDC bowl currently has 3 knives in it: a Case Sodbuster (420HC at 56Rc), an Opinel #9 Inox (12C27 at 58Rc) and a Buck 110 (420HC at 58Rc).

My knife drawer has the following fixed blade: Case 316-5 (420HC at 56Rc), Mora Companion (12C27 at 57Rc) and Schrade H-15 (1095 at >58Rc).

I find these steels to be superior in every way at the harder 58Rc range.

In particular, they can be taken to a thinner edge without rolling.

And, perhaps more importantly, it is easier (for me) to hone off the burr at the higher hardness. Note, I'm good enough with a stone at this point to deburr Victorinox and Case stainless but I'm also good enough to be able to tell the difference too. It's definitely there.

These benefits come at no penalty, it seems to me. Increasing the hardness does nothing to decrease the ease of sharpening. Ease of sharpening depends primarily on carbides, or lack of thereof, and these steels are the same in that regard.

Is there a hidden benefit of running these steels soft? I don't see it. When run soft, the edges are more prone to roll and they're harder to hone. I'm not getting it.

 

[comis]

Can anybody defend why Victorinox (or any similar steel) is better when run soft in the 56Rc, as opposed to being run harder in the 58Rc range?

My EDC bowl currently has 3 knives in it: a Case Sodbuster (420HC at 56Rc), an Opinel #9 Inox (12C27 at 58Rc) and a Buck 110 (420HC at 58Rc).

My knife drawer has the following fixed blade: Case 316-5 (420HC at 56Rc), Mora Companion (12C27 at 57Rc) and Schrade H-15 (1095 at >58Rc).

I find these steels to be superior in every way at the harder 58Rc range.

In particular, they can be taken to a thinner edge without rolling.

And, perhaps more importantly, it is easier (for me) to hone off the burr at the higher hardness. Note, I'm good enough with a stone at this point to deburr Victorinox and Case stainless but I'm also good enough to be able to tell the difference too. It's definitely there.

These benefits come at no penalty, it seems to me. Increasing the hardness does nothing to decrease the ease of sharpening. Ease of sharpening depends primarily on carbides, or lack of thereof, and these steels are the same in that regard.

Is there a hidden benefit of running these steels soft? I don't see it. When run soft, the edges are more prone to roll and they're harder to hone. I'm not getting it.

I don't think anyone here can really speak in Victorinox shoe and to defend why their steel can be better at a softer HRC. But what I think many Victorinox users/fans here could agree is that as a leading multitool company for the past century, they have proven to know their craft and what the market wanted--and I do believe producing at such high volume(my research show 25+ millions knives a year, some quoted more), every tiny changes will inevitably affect their income and long term existence.

If they were to change to harder steel, how much will it affect their cost? Can they increase the sale price to cover that cost? Doing so, will they actually loss business, instead of making more business, to other MT companies or Chinese competitors? How many customers really can tell the difference and willing to pay that difference?

I really am in no position to even fathom how Victorinox do their business, but am grateful they are producing quality mass-available products for so many years and being consistent with it.

 

[pinnah]

If they were to change to harder steel, how much will it affect their cost? Can they increase the sale price to cover that cost? Doing so, will they actually loss business, instead of making more business, to other MT companies or Chinese competitors? How many customers really can tell the difference and willing to pay that difference?

I don't buy this for a second.

The steel is or should be the same. The issue (in all likelihood) is a change in their heat treatment process.

Buck, Opinel and Mora all produce knives with this style of steel (420HC and 12C27 are very similar to what Victorinox uses), all produce knives in massively high volume and all get their steel (of this kind) to 57(Mora) or 58 (Buck, Opinel) Rc.

Perhaps the issue is that Victorinox simply hasn't invested in modern heat treatment processes and is falling behind Buck, Mora and Opinel in this regard?

 

[comis]

I do own Buck, Opinel and Mora products and really do like them for what they are. Honestly, I don't know whether Victorinox does or doesn't have the technology or not, and I have no affliction with any MT/knife company whatsoever to defend anyone.

My guess is that decision is likely to be a business decision rather than whether they can or cannot do it. And I just think it may just be a little absurd to judge Victorinox not making the right business decision, or not know what the market wants, when they seems to do well in the industry(turnover 412mil CHF in 2011) , by other companies products(Opinel 2014 turnover 18.8mil euro, Mora 2014 turnover 12mil euro, and Buck 80mil USD).

If you think not upgrading or producing higher HRC blades will post imminent threat to their business existence, please do always feel free to write and educate them. I hate to see them go.

 

[SAK Guy]

i don't buy this for a second.

The steel is or should be the same. The issue (in all likelihood) is a change in their heat treatment process.

Buck, opinel and mora all produce knives with this style of steel (420hc and 12c27 are very similar to what victorinox uses), all produce knives in massively high volume and all get their steel (of this kind) to 57(mora) or 58 (buck, opinel) rc.

perhaps the issue is that victorinox simply hasn't invested in modern heat treatment processes and is falling behind buck, mora and opinel in this regard?

ROFL!!! :thumbup::thumbup: Hardest I've laughed all month. Nice one buddy. :thumbup::thumbup:

 

[jackknife]

Now that is funny!

All joking aside, I read a while back that as a result of sales loss from 9-11 and competition from Leatherman, that Victorinox had invested a record amount of money into newer high speed production machines with spindle speeds up to 20,000RPM, and new computer run equipment. If there is a factory anywhere with higher tech equipment, please tell us. As it is, I don't think Victorinox could make more SAK's than any other three or four knife companies combined without the latest stuff. The idea that they don't have the same or better equipment than Buck, mora, Opinel, is actually funny.

 

[Hacked]

I don't buy this for a second.

The steel is or should be the same. The issue (in all likelihood) is a change in their heat treatment process.

Buck, Opinel and Mora all produce knives with this style of steel (420HC and 12C27 are very similar to what Victorinox uses), all produce knives in massively high volume and all get their steel (of this kind) to 57(Mora) or 58 (Buck, Opinel) Rc.

Perhaps the issue is that Victorinox simply hasn't invested in modern heat treatment processes and is falling behind Buck, Mora and Opinel in this regard?

Heat Treatment does not determine the hardness of the blade rather the consistency of the hardness. It's more complex than that but at a very high level. The tempering process which occurs after heat treatment determines the hardness of the blade. You actually soften the blade up post heat treatment as otherwise it would be too brittle. It would take more effort to temper the RC down to 54-56 than to 58 RC. The difference probably wouldn't been massive, but given the vast number of knives Victorinox produces you can bet that they selected the hardness they did for a good reason.

I've also heard that they temper different tools to different hardness levels. If that is true it demonstrates some serious thought being put into the hardness of all materials coming out of their factory. It's a simple fact that the back springs used on all Victorinox folding knives / tools have to be made softer than the blades so I wouldn't doubt the claim.

Personally I use a Victorinox for most of my cuting needs, a Pioneer is my lone EDC blade. It has served me well and I've never noticed an issue with edge retention. When it has gone slightly dull a few swipes on a number of items is all that is needed. My coffee mug at work has been used for this task on a number of occasions.

 

[comis]

Heat Treatment does not determine the hardness of the blade rather the consistently of the hardness. It's more complex than that but at a very high level. The tempering process which occurs after heat treatment determines the hardness of the blade. You actually soften the blade up post heat treatment as otherwise it would be too brittle. It would take more effort to temper the RC down to 54-56 than to 58 RC. The difference probably wouldn't been massive, but given the vast number of knives Victorinox produces you can bet that they selected the hardness they did for a good reason.

I've also heard that they temper different tools to different hardness levels. If that is true it demonstrates some serious thought being put into the hardness of all materials coming out of their factory. It's a simple fact that the back springs used on all Victorinox folding knives / tools have to be made softer than the blades so I wouldn't doubt the claim.

Personally I use a Victorinox for most of my cuting needs, a Pioneer is my lone EDC blade. It has served me well and I've never noticed an issue with edge retention. When it has gone slightly dull a few swipes on a number of items is all that is needed. My coffee mug at work has been used for this task on a number of occasions.

I stumble across this info form another website, in case you are interested:

This is credited as Info by Victorinox -
For both blades we use chrome molydenum stainless steel with 0.52% carbon, 15% chromium, 0.5% molydenum, 0.45% manganese and 0.6% silicium. After a sophisticated hardening process at 1040°C and an annealing temperature of 160°C the blades achieve a hardness of RC 56. * The woodsaw, scissors and nail files have a hardness of RC 53, the screwdriver, tin opener and awl a hardness of RC 52, and the corkscrew and springs RC 49. * The metal saw and file, in addition to the special case hardening, are also subjected to a hard chromium plating process so that iron and steel can also be filed und cut. * The separators have been made from aluminium alloy since 1951. This makes the knife lighter and easier to carry in one\'s pocket. Formerly these separating layers were made of nickel-silver.

 

[gadgetgeek]

This is just my assumption. Since Victorinox is very much focused on having a consistent product, it could be that the hardness numbers they picked were because they could hit that much more consistently with fewer losses due to warps and cracks. Or for what ever reason, pushing farther for them causes some other problem, such as having a higher rc range than they want. Or it has something to do with the finishing process. I don't think anyone would argue that Vic has a much better basic level of fininshing over nearly any other company, especially given their production numbers. I'm sure they have a reason. I'm also sure that if they found a way to use a better steel to improve their product, they would do that. They don't seem to see the need at this point, but there are a lot of things that go on in their R&D labs, so who knows?

 

[Vinifera]

Unfortunately I'm not a metallurgist nor do I own stock in or sit on the board of directors of a company which sells worldwide and has been in existence for over 130 years, so I'll just let folks with those skills determine the best way to run their company, what knives to sell and how to market them. Yeah I may have some ideas but I lack the qualifications and expertise to advise Victorinox on how to operate its business or develop its products.

 

[James Y]

I own no Moras or Opinels, so I know little about them; but as much as I like Buck knives, there is no way that Victorinox is falling behind Buck in terms of technology or manufacturing. Victorinox is the standard against which all other high-volume knife companies are measured. Vic's combination of extremely high numbers and consistent high quality are unheard of in any other knife manufacturer. This should be obvious even if you don't favor or even like Victorinox's products.

Jim

 

[pinnah]

Heat Treatment does not determine the hardness of the blade rather the consistency of the hardness. It's more complex than that but at a very high level. The tempering process which occurs after heat treatment determines the hardness of the blade. You actually soften the blade up post heat treatment as otherwise it would be too brittle. It would take more effort to temper the RC down to 54-56 than to 58 RC. The difference probably wouldn't been massive, but given the vast number of knives Victorinox produces you can bet that they selected the hardness they did for a good reason.

Hacked,

I assume you meant to say the opposite, that it takes more effort to temper a blade at 58Rc, than to 56Rc, correct?

Does this extra effort translate to real cost differences?

Could you speculate how or why Buck, Opinel and Mora all achieve 58Rc (or 57 for Mora) on competitively priced knives?