The "Ask Nathan a question" thread

OK after the recent derailment of this thread, I found something on the GKD which piqued my curiosity to which I would like to hear Nathan's opinion because I have come to believe that Nathan would know the answer to this better than anyone else that I know of. Also if these numbers are even (remotely) correct, is that the reason as to why you tweaked the HT with cryo? I seem to have read something in the past written by you, but if I did so, I must have forgotten where!

Thanks Nathan:

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/cpm-3v-real-use-advantages.1640943/#post-18763648
 
OK, here's a real question for Nathan. The original field knife was ground to .015 and then sharpened at 15 DPS, while the new one is listed as being ground to .020 and sharpened at 18 DPS. I think that most of us aren't interested in using one of these to chop through cinder blocks, and are more interested in slicing ability. So why the change to make the edge less acute?
 
Also if these numbers are even (remotely) correct, is that the reason as to why you tweaked the HT with cryo?

Toughness in 3V certainly declines as the hardness increases. The Crucible datasheet graph shows this pretty clearly.

Deep cryo treatment in high carbide steels such as 3V minimizes retained austentite, which improves both toughness and wear resistance.

So you can lose a little toughness by going to a higher hardness in the heat treat, but gain it back with the cryo. And the resulting higher hardness will take a keener edge. So cryo is a win-win.

#JustMyGuess
#NotNathanEither
 
OK after the recent derailment of this thread, I found something on the GKD which piqued my curiosity to which I would like to hear Nathan's opinion because I have come to believe that Nathan would know the answer to this better than anyone else that I know of. Also if these numbers are even (remotely) correct, is that the reason as to why you tweaked the HT with cryo? I seem to have read something in the past written by you, but if I did so, I must have forgotten where!

Thanks Nathan:

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/cpm-3v-real-use-advantages.1640943/#post-18763648

Edit: on further reflection I think a short and sweet answer would be better. I didn't "tweak" the HT with cryo. Cryo is a step in an optimized HT for cutlery.
 
Last edited:
OK, here's a real question for Nathan. The original field knife was ground to .015 and then sharpened at 15 DPS, while the new one is listed as being ground to .020 and sharpened at 18 DPS. I think that most of us aren't interested in using one of these to chop through cinder blocks, and are more interested in slicing ability. So why the change to make the edge less acute?

I went from 15 DPS to 18 DPS back on the original FK because the average user needed a bit more. Advanced (and light duty) users were able to lean the edge as they saw fit. I carried this over to the new FK2

I narrowed the primary grind angles on the FK2 compared to the original and added .005" thickness to compensate. These are minor tweaks. Slightly less wedging (overall), better cutting, more durable. The average person won't notice any difference but in my opinion it offered a better combination of cutting characteristics and durability for the average end user. These are tiny tweaks.

In something like cardboard or vegetables the new FK2 will feel more slicy because of the geometry of the bevels behind the edge. But it would have been more fragile for bushcraft and tradesmen had I not compensated. Trust me, we thought about this. We also put a little less carbon into solution which ended up in a slightly lower hardness (HRC 61, about half a point). We didn't temper this back, we intentionally put less carbon into solution. I did this because I found, in the kinds of general purpose cuts this knife is made for, we get the best edge retention with this specific heat treat. Again, it's a minor tweak, but we did our homework and I felt it was a good tweak for this application. This is our best Field Knife ever.
 
^ I must confess to not even understanding half of it, but these are still among my favorite posts :thumbsup::thumbsup: :D

(The post re narrowing the primary bevel and changing DPS is clear - even to me. I meant the one before that - the one discussing where the real magic happens)
 
Last edited:
^ I must confess to understanding not even half of it, but these are still among my favorite posts :thumbsup::thumbsup: :D

(The post re narrowing the primary bevel and changing DPS is clear - even to me. I meant the one before that - the one discussing where the real magic happens)

Me too. I understand the individual words, but when they are put together, it may as well be Chinese.

I wonder what Cliff Stump would have to say about it? :D
 
I went from 15 DPS to 18 DPS back on the original FK because the average user needed a bit more. Advanced (and light duty) users were able to lean the edge as they saw fit. I carried this over to the new FK2

I narrowed the primary grind angles on the FK2 compared to the original and added .005" thickness to compensate. These are minor tweaks. Slightly less wedging (overall), better cutting, more durable. The average person won't notice any difference but in my opinion it offered a better combination of cutting characteristics and durability for the average end user. These are tiny tweaks.

In something like cardboard or vegetables the new FK2 will feel more slicy because of the geometry of the bevels behind the edge. But it would have been more fragile for bushcraft and tradesmen had I not compensated. Trust me, we thought about this. We also put a little less carbon into solution which ended up in a slightly lower hardness (HRC 61, about half a point). We didn't temper this back, we intentionally put less carbon into solution. I did this because I found, in the kinds of general purpose cuts this knife is made for, we get the best edge retention with this specific heat treat. Again, it's a minor tweak, but we did our homework and I felt it was a good tweak for this application. This is our best Field Knife ever.

Nathan, thanks very much for the detailed explanation. Everything you said makes complete sense, and I figured that you had good reasons for the change.

So, any chance that you might make a few "racing versions" of the UFK for those of us that prefer a very thin edge?
 
Nathan,

Can I ask what process is involved in buffing micarta scales? Is there a specific buffing compound used or recommended buffing wheel?

Could one hypothetically purchase unbuffed scales and buff it themselves later and receive similar results to your buffed option?

When reading about the potential absorbency of blood and other liquids I am curious if buffing the scales acts like sealing them vs unbuffed or if they would scrub clean regardless?

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

Thanks,
Justin
 
Nathan, thanks very much for the detailed explanation. Everything you said makes complete sense, and I figured that you had good reasons for the change.

So, any chance that you might make a few "racing versions" of the UFK for those of us that prefer a very thin edge?

Forgive me in advance if I'm wrong but I do remember reading some where the possibility of offering a standard vs thin variant of the field knife?? I'm not sure if it was the Master Carothers that had said this... Or a wishful forumite?

Care to put the kibosh on this Nathan before I mistakenly spread a false rumor ? Or was this an actual consideration on your part?
 
Forgive me in advance if I'm wrong but I do remember reading some where the possibility of offering a standard vs thin variant of the field knife?? I'm not sure if it was the Master Carothers that had said this... Or a wishful forumite?

Care to put the kibosh on this Nathan before I mistakenly spread a false rumor ? Or was this an actual consideration on your part?
I read that too...yeah, it was the thin D2 slicey variant...I'm sure Nathan posted that;)

(If I keep saying it, it'll become true, right?)
 
Back
Top