The 4034 knives are starting to roll out. First real world testing shows promising results

D

DayofReckoning

Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
177
I am as bummed out as many others are seeing Cold Steel has chosen 4034 steel as their choice for some of the new models for 2021. Would much rather have seen 1095, SK5, 01, A2, etc used.

Despite this, a video released by Youtuber Mathew Culbertson, who has tested many Cold Steel products for many years, has some pretty decent results with the Kukri Plus 4034. He does some chopping testing, and it appears the 4034 held up pretty darn well.

Hopefully, more of these 4034 blades will end up in users hands, and we can get more reports on their performance.

 
Demko did say they were impressed with the performance ages ago. Maybe we are so used to total junk heat treat in this steel that we have all dismissed it out of hand?

I don't think Demko would put his name to saying this if he knew it was untrue? it will be interesting to see what happens over time...

l still think the price is too high but maybe they could make a "cheap" beater blade? least you could leave them outside in the rain ;)
 
My attitude towards the 4034 has basically been "mirror polish a turd all you want, and it's still a turd". Basically meaning, "give junk steel the best heat treat in the world, and it's still junk steel".

I will happy to be proven wrong in this case, time will tell. Things are looking ok so far, but far more time and testing will be required to know for sure.
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
I hear nothing but praise when it comes to AUS-8 or AUS-10. They say they're cheaper steels, but quite good nonetheless: fair retention, easy to sharp, tough enough for most tasks. Both were extensively used by Cold Steel.

How they compare with the 4034?
Click to expand...

AUS-8 and AUS-10 are superior. Which is why there has been quite the uproar over the choice of 4034. Perhaps Cold Steel has a magical heat treat for it?
 
1.4034 has been invented more than a hundred years ago in Germany. It was one of the first stainless steels. Do you really think it would still be around nowadays if it is "junk"??? True, 4034 does not excel in any special field as some of the modern pm steels do - but it is very versatile. It has been used in blades, cutlery, scissors, ice scates, zippers and even musical instruments. It has been tried, tested and proven for decades in the most different applications and it is still around. If Cold Steel uses it today I would give it a try ... :-)
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
I hear nothing but praise when it comes to AUS-8 or AUS-10. They say they're cheaper steels, but quite good nonetheless: fair retention, easy to sharp, tough enough for most tasks. Both were extensively used by Cold Steel.

How they compare with the 4034?
Click to expand...
Who is this they? I don't know anyone who considers Aus8 and Aus10 to be "cheaper" steels....lol
 
KenHash said:
Who is this they? I don't know anyone who considers Aus8 and Aus10 to be "cheaper" steels....lol
Click to expand...
While I don’t exactly run my knives hard, Aus8 and 10 have served me really well. I kinda prefer the 10. Edge retention of course won’t be on par with higher end stainless steels, but they’re more than sufficient for house work.

Back on topic, this is interesting news. I was one of “those guys” back then who were really underwhelmed by this choice of steel. I am prejudiced on the fact that 4034 is best limited to budget utility blades that aren’t meant for hard use. I’d be open to read more user reviews about the new knives.

Still though, paying over $150 (last I checked on KnifeCenter) for a budget tier steel? That’s kinda nuts. For around those prices, you can get a Junglas or BK9 and some spare bucks for a sheath or something.
 
KenHash said:
Who is this they? I don't know anyone who considers Aus8 and Aus10 to be "cheaper" steels....lol
Click to expand...

"Cheaper" is the comparative form of the adjective "cheap", and I use the comparative form when I want to compare two things.

For instance, in the sentence: "The AUS8 steel is cheaper than the S35VN steel", I'm comparing the price of two steels.

I thought my writing was clear enough, but I'll make an effort to make it even more clear. Thanks.
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
"Cheaper" is the comparative form of the adjective "cheap", and I use the comparative form when I want to compare two things.

For instance, in the sentence: "The AUS8 steel is cheaper than the S35VN steel", I'm comparing the price of two steels.

I thought my writing was clear enough, but I'll make an effort to make it even more clear. Thanks.
Click to expand...
That's correct. But no, it wasn't clear at all because your sentence was:
"AUS-8 or AUS-10. They say they're cheaper steels" without any specific comparison reference.
That's why I use the term "inexpensive" when I mean it costs less. Because "Cheaper" can also mean of lower quality or standard, which what I thought you meant.
 
Last edited:
tess_lawrie_fan said:
I hear nothing but praise when it comes to AUS-8 or AUS-10. They say they're cheaper steels, but quite good nonetheless: fair retention, easy to sharp, tough enough for most tasks. Both were extensively used by Cold Steel.

How they compare with the 4034?
Click to expand...

KenHash said:
That's correct. But no, it wasn't clear at all because your sentence was:
"AUS-8 or AUS-10. They say they're cheaper steels" without any specific comparison reference.
That's why I use the term "inexpensive" when I mean it costs less. Because "Cheaper" can also mean of lower quality or standard, which what I thought you meant.
Click to expand...

Cutting my sentence in half doesn't help.

I said "They say they're cheaper steels, but quite good nonetheless", it seems clear, at least for me, that I wasn't talking about something "bad, but good". I was talking about something "inexpensive, but good".

Also, the comparative form not always need a "specific comparison reference". This thread is already specific enough. It's about one specific steel among various steels, which are used in blades, and used in blades produced by Cold Steel.

In the context of a discussion about the steels used in Cold Steel production knives, it seems clear, at least for me, that I was comparing AUS-8 and AUS-10 with better steels used by Cold Steel.

You're entitled to use the word "inexpensive", but I think I'm also entitled to use the word "cheap" without having to give language lessons. No hard feelings.

cheap, a. and adv.

A.A adj.

1. a.A.1.a That may be bought at small cost; bearing a relatively low price; inexpensive. Opposed to dear. Phr. cheap and nasty: of low price and bad quality; inexpensive but with the disadvantage of being unsuitable to one's purposes; hence cheap-and-nastiness.
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
Cutting my sentence in half doesn't help.

I said "They say they're cheaper steels, but quite good nonetheless", it seems clear, at least for me, that I wasn't talking about something "bad, but good". I was talking about something "inexpensive, but good".

Also, the comparative form not always need a "specific comparison reference". This thread is already specific enough. It's about one specific steel among various steels, which are used in blades, and used in blades produced by Cold Steel.

In the context of a discussion about the steels used in Cold Steel production knives, it seems clear, at least for me, that I was comparing AUS-8 and AUS-10 with better steels used by Cold Steel.

You're entitled to use the word "inexpensive", but I think I'm also entitled to use the word "cheap" without having to give language lessons. No hard feelings.

cheap, a. and adv.

A.A adj.

1. a.A.1.a That may be bought at small cost; bearing a relatively low price; inexpensive. Opposed to dear. Phr. cheap and nasty: of low price and bad quality; inexpensive but with the disadvantage of being unsuitable to one's purposes; hence cheap-and-nastiness.
Click to expand...

I see you are the kind who simply has to argue. Your use of the ternm "cheap" did not indicate "inexpensive" in your whole sentence,
Sorry don't have time to waste like this, Welcome to my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
4034, aus8 and aus10 are cheaper steels. The alloy content, production method, machinability, and heat treat protocols are all cheaper than higher cost steels. They are cheaper to acquire and cheaper to turn into knives. The knives made from these steels are cheaper than knives made from higher priced steels, holding general design features, function, dimensions, and brand positions relative.

Mild steel is going to be the oldest steel, iron with a little carbon added. It makes for a terrible knife. We can go back to raw iron or bronze if we want even more historical credibility and less performance.
 
KenHash said:
I see you are the kind who simply has to argue. Your use of the ternm "cheap" did not indicate "inexpensive" in your whole sentence,
Sorry don't hsave time to waste like this, Welcome to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

You have started this, not me; and you have started this out of the blue. If you can't stand to admit you're wrong, even in a trivial matter like this, it's not my problem. Enjoy the wax in your ears.
 
Last edited:
So now that we have the semantics out of the way...back to 4034 steel performance! Can't say i have a lot of knowledge about this steel. Maybe i have knives in them (rostfrei, surgical, Solingen) but i really don't know. Just think it's funny you make a chopper like a khukri out of stainless steel instead of Carbon Steel. Always had the impression (apart from specialised steel like say 3V) that stainless steel is more brittle then carbon steel due to carbides. But i'm not a "steel man" so i can be wrong. Iirc the old Nepalese smiths used carbon spring steel from old trucks to forge their chopping tools and they seem to work ok.
 
Jim malone said:
So now that we have the semantics out of the way...back to 4034 steel performance! Can't say i have a lot of knowledge about this steel. Maybe i have knives in them (rostfrei, surgical, Solingen) but i really don't know. Just think it's funny you make a chopper like a khukri out of stainless steel instead of Carbon Steel. Always had the impression (apart from specialised steel like say 3V) that stainless steel is more brittle then carbon steel due to carbides. But i'm not a "steel man" so i can be wrong. Iirc the old Nepalese smiths used carbon spring steel from old trucks to forge their chopping tools and they seem to work ok.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a lot of the concern with the 4034. A huge 22oz chunk of 4034 being smashed hard against objects? We will have to see how it holds up in the long run.
 
Total speculation on my part and I’m not a metallurgist. I’m guessing that the steel is treated to lean on the softer side. For comparison, the Gerber Strongarm is 420HC (would that be comparable to 4034?) and that knife has a reputation for being tough at the cost of edge retention. Maybe a similar process was done to these 4034 knives?
 
Last edited:
DangerZone98 said:
Total speculation on my part and I’m not a steel metallurgist. I’m guessing that the steel is treated to lean on the softer side. For comparison, the Gerber Strongarm is 420HC (would that be comparable to 4034?) and that knife has a reputation for being tough at the cost of edge retention. Maybe a similar process was done to these 4034 knives?
Click to expand...
That's what I'm thinking too.
Condor was making quite a few of their machete models in 420HC. They too gained a decent reputation for decent toughness.
Buck Knives is known to make folders with 420HC too, and their blades are known to have a decent edge retention for the blade steel that it is.
The difference is likely what you are saying it is, the heat treating.
Buck likely runs their 420HC blade hardness higher for their folders to achieve a decent edge retention, while Condor was likely running their 420HC machete blade hardness lower to achieve a tougher product.
 
PocketKnifeJimmy said:
That's what I'm thinking too.
Condor was making quite a few of their machete models in 420HC. They too gained a decent reputation for decent toughness.
Buck Knives is known to make folders with 420HC too, and their blades are known to have a decent edge retention for the blade steel that it is.
The difference is likely what you are saying it is, the heat treating.
Buck likely runs their 420HC blade hardness higher for their folders to achieve a decent edge retention, while Condor was likely running their 420HC machete blade hardness lower to achieve a tougher product.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Edited my post since “steel metallurgist” is redundant hehe.

I’m interested in knowing the HRC of these new knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top