What stainless steel did Camillus use back in the day?

Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
309
Anyone has any information on what type of stainless they used? Specially interested for what they used with the old Buck 300 series and their stainless stockmans we see around form time to time (made way back not the new stuff).
 
440A, for most of it (includes the Cami-made Buck 300-series). In the '90s sometime (I think), they transitioned into 420HC, and I think that's where they left it before closing up shop in 2007.


David
 
440A, for most of it (includes the Cami-made Buck 300-series). In the '90s sometime (I think), they transitioned into 420HC, and I think that's where they left it before closing up shop in 2007.


David

Agree. Camillus and Schrade used 440A.
The Camillus-made Bucks were 440A.
 
How did their 440A compare to their 420HC? I have experience with the 420HC, but not the 440A.
 
The best I can say is that I have the Camillus-made 303, which I carried every day for a number of years.
I also have several modern Buck 301's and 303's. I've never done a side by side comparison, but my opinion based on usage is that the modern Bucks hold an edge somewhat better. However, the blade geometries are considerably different, so that may not be a fair assessment.
 
Thanks knarfeng. I figured the performance would be in the same ballpark, and that the 420HC would offer a slight performance upgrade.
 
Sometime in the mid-90s, Camillus transitioned the Western W49 Bowies from the 1095CV used by Western/Western-Coleman to 420HC. I'm not sure if Camillus used Western-Coleman's 1095CV or if Camillus' 1095CV equivalent from 1991 til transition.
 
Just in the last few days, I've been tweaking edges on a couple of knives; one is a Case '75-pattern large stockman ('Tru-Sharp' stainless, a.k.a. 420HC) and the other is an older Camillus-made Buck 311 slim trapper configuration in 440A. In sharpening these, I'm reminded once again how similar the two steels are, at least in terms of how they sharpen up, and the edges they can take. Both are pretty similar in carbon content (440A might be a tad higher), and the 440A also has more chromium than 420HC. In terms of sharpening, I used the same means for both knives (I was fiddling with a Norton Economy stone in SiC), thinning the edge grinds on the Case stockman's clip blade and on the Buck's spey. Followed by stropping on my denim-over-wood strop with some aluminum oxide compound (Sears #2), with some light finishing touches on a leather belt with green compound. Both sharpened up just as easily, and both took nice tree-topping edges in the process. I have an older Camillus-made Buck 307 stockman in 440A, and I'd seen similar behavior in that one when I sharpened it up quite a while back.

Hard to say which is more 'durable', as that depends on a lot of factors, such as heat treat (hardness) and blade geometry. In typical uses, I've never noticed any significant difference in any iteration of 420HC or 440A, in terms of how long an edge lasts before needing a little touching up. Anymore, I tend to favor steels that will take very, very fine edges (testament to fine grain, a result of quality-sourced steel and good heat treat), which makes them very nice slicers. Both of these steels handle that with ease. Even if they do need a little more frequent touching up, either of these steels makes that very, very simple. Very easy to live with.


David
 
440A was a better steel, knife manufacturers dropped the use of it because of cost.Of the common stainless steels used today they all avoid molybdenum(for wear resistance).Such as AUS-8 you'll get about 0.30% and 440A used 0.75%,the old 425M steel used 0.60-1.00%.The difference between those two steels is 420HC will dull noticeably quicker on coarse materials versus 440A.Although 440A is slower sharpening.
 
I have fooled with all the 300 series Bucks from the first contract Schrades, the Camillus, into Buck made 425m and then 420hc Bos treatments. I think all the early contracted knives hover about the same in metal quality, no matter what was used or 'snuck' in. Knarfeng really sets the true words for the Bucks as changes in both knife design, blade design and metal type occurred in about 5 years time in the late 80's to the early 90's for the models Buck decided to make themselves( 301,303,309,305 and eventually 312 and314). There were still 'lots' of contract Bucks being made with Camillus design and metal, even up to the 2000's. None of those ever received the Bos treatment.

I think, like Knarfeng, that with all that change, to try an compare modern Buck folders to contract Buck folders is just wasting your time. As is trying to determine which is the "sharper" models. They served there users and were affordable for their era for their designed utility use. As were the main line Camllus models. I have had these knives that seemed to have a special feeling and then have the same model that just didn't seem to fit in my hand. Some got sharp with a hit an a miss and some seemed to get dull just setting in your pocket. All the debate of difference is just for your own entertainment. Which is OK I guess, I get tired of hearing about the weather and world affairs........300Bucks
 
Last edited:
Back
Top