whats the difference between a knife maker and a blade smith?

MEJ

MEJ

Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
1,283
Do some people just buy stock and grind it into the shape they want call it good (after the handle of course).

I always figured a knifemaker was someone how hammered every knife into the shape they wanted?

Do top end knife makers like jay fisher and derespina simple grind the steel away?

If so what is better, the hammering or just grinding away already stocked steel?

Im sorry if i offend you with my stupidity, but a want to clear this up?
 
They are all knifemakers.

Some hammer and forge to get what they want others cut and grind. A "Smith" comes from "Smite" which means to hit or strike. So a "Bladesmith" is associated with those who "Smite" the steel to form a blade.

BTW all metal is forged and when you get it from the mill it is as good as it will get. Forging it does not make it better. But forging allows a Bladesmith to do with the steel as he wills with the application of heat and force.
 
so they are about the same? Does the method change/affect the heat treat at all?
 
I only do cut and grind which means I'm a knifemaker and not a bladesmith. If you forge you're both a knifemaker and bladesmith. Even a forged blade requires cutting and grinding most of the time. Neither method is better than the other.
 
Raylaconico has it correct. Historically, a blacksmith would hammer and grind out a blade. Later factories would make the blades. These blades were then sent cutlers to have the guards and handles put on them. Cutlers were many times silversmiths or goldsmiths in the area. Sheaths or scabbards were made by the cutlers themselves, or in conjunction with local cobblers or saddle makers.
 
kdcknives said:
Raylaconico has it correct. Historically, a blacksmith would hammer and grind out a blade. Later factories would make the blades. These blades were then sent cutlers to have the guards and handles put on them. Cutlers were many times silversmiths or goldsmiths in the area. Sheaths or scabbards were made by the cutlers themselves, or in conjunction with local cobblers or saddle makers.
Click to expand...

Just a small correction. Blacksmiths did not make knives, at least not commercially, they worked on other forged metal products; knifesmiths and swordsmiths made knives and swords respectively and it was always a specialized trade. They shared similar tools with the blacksmith, but were focused on very different markets which required unique skills and techniques.

n2s
 
Keep in mind that many of the stainless steels out there resist being forged to shape in the typical way blade smiths forge blades. So for stainless, stock removal is the most logical course to make a knife. And as has been mentioned, with a few exceptions, blade smiths finish-grind their blade in the end anyway.

Is one better than the other? That has been hashed over and over again. Scientifically, if the stock removal maker and the blade smith have concurrent levels of skill and are able to appropriately heat treat a blade, then the two products would be, for all intents and purposes, equal. The method DOES change the way heat must be used. When forging, the steel is brought to temperatures much higher than heat treating temps. This creates significant grain growth, and a normalizing cycle should be done to refine grain prior to heat treating. This doesn't necessarily have to be done with stock removal blades if the sheet metal you started with is known stock from a modern foundry.

As for stock removal makers "simply grinding the steel away", it is a bit more skilled than that.

The thing I've heard time and again from blade smiths is that they forge blades more because they love the hammer, steel, and fire vs. forging having some kind of significant advantage over stock removal. I've done mostly stock removal and a little tiny bit of forging, and the forge is fun (if more taxing on this older-than-it-looks body).

--nathan
 
I am no expert, but I know that many knife makers who forge say that they have much better grain structure through forging that cannot be achieved by stock removal. I believe this is the popular view in the American Bladesmith Society and Knifemaker's Guild. But I am no knife maker.
 
The grain structure has nothing to do with whether or not it was hit with a hammer. It has everything to do with your heat treat and temperature control.
 
just my 2 cents, but most people do both. it depends on the steel also. For instance pattern welded damascus can only be made by forging, while high speed steels cannot be forged. niether is better in principle, judt different.
 
Yes, damascus steel is made with the forge, press, hammer, anvil, etc. but damascus blades are not always forged to shape. In fact everyone I know does it by stock removal. What I mean is people who make damascus make billets and the billet is usually cut and ground to the shape of the knife. Especially when you get into complicated damascus patterns and mosaic damascus. I know a lot of people who do this and they all take their billets and turn them into blades by stock removal. Forging them to shape would distort the pattern that they worked for. Ooops I think I'm gone off topic!!:o
 
Last edited:
There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. I think a bladesmith has more opportunity to screw up a blade... lol... but there is also advantage in thermal cycling. The stock removal maker can also utilize thermal cycling(and should). Barstock being "as good as it gets" from the mill is not something one should ever count on, unless the supplier specifically guarantees a certain level of quality(as in CPM steels, etc...). Kevin Cashen has a great article on his site that really puts things into perspective. "Forging, Once and for all! The lowdown on smithing."
 
There are also blade shapes that are better done via knifesmith/swordsmith; especially when you want to significantly vary the thickness. Yes, stock removal is an option, but you would have to start with a massive steel bar and do that much more machining to carve the shape that you want out of there.

n2s
 
I started out doing stock removal (IE Knifemaker) then I started forging (I evolved to being a bladesmith) then I started smelting iron and forgewelding my own damascus billets. I forge all of my damascus blades to shape and pretty close to final form, then grind for finish. I just started working with CPM154 stainless, for that I am doing exclusively stock removal so as to not mess up all of the wonderful microstructure of the PM steel. Every time you heat a piece of steel you risk messing up the steel in one way or another. 90 percent of the claims the ABS and other smiths have used to claim the superiority of the forged blade are poppycock and hype when equal blades made from modern steel are compared. Stock removal is easy predictable because it eliminates most process variables that effect metallurgy and easy to mass produce which is why at some level modern production knives are mostly stock removal. Forging always has variables, it has a steep learning curve, and runs the risk of doing all sorts of havoc to the steel, that said, it gives you the most creative control over shape and form and broadens the pool of starting material substantially as you are no longer limited to grinding away everything that is not a knife

-Page
 
Depending on where you are, the definition can vary greatly. Over here a knife maker may not be a bladesmith, but a bladesmith is generally a knife maker. In some Scandinavain countries, they can be two different things. The bladesmith is the guy who forges the blades like the "blank" ones that you see for sale from companies like Brisa. The knifemaker is the guy who takes that blade and puts a handle on it, maybe makes the sheath, etc. Yes, the smith can also be a knifemaker, but it is not always so. Many folks here in the US would consider a guy who exclusively puts handles, etc on finished blades made by someone else to be perhaps a knife kit assembler or perhaps a fitting/fixture maker, but not a knifemaker no matter how skilled he may be.
 
jdm61 said:
Depending on where you are, the definition can vary greatly. Over here a knife maker may not be a bladesmith, but a bladesmith is generally a knife maker. In some Scandinavain countries, they can be two different things. The bladesmith is the guy who forges the blades like the "blank" ones that you see for sale from companies like Brisa. The knifemaker is the guy who takes that blade and puts a handle on it, maybe makes the sheath, etc. Yes, the smith can also be a knifemaker, but it is not always so. Many folks here in the US would consider a guy who exclusively puts handles, etc on finished blades made by someone else to be perhaps a knife kit assembler or perhaps a fitting/fixture maker, but not a knifemaker no matter how skilled he may be.
Click to expand...

In England there were knifesmith guilds and cutler's guilds, the cutler was the equivalent to the modern kitbuilder, they took blades made by the smith (German term Messerschmidt) put handles on them and sold them. The sheathe was made by members of another guild

-Page
 
The other thing about forging is that you often get surprisingly beautiful curves and proportions that would look a little contrived in a stock removal blade.
It's an aesthetic thing, and doesn't make the blade any better or worse in daily use.
Andy G.
 
which one would be cheaper in respect to setting up a place to forge/make knives (counting most tools required) an average cost for each?
 
Magnaminous_G said:
I am no expert, but I know that many knife makers who forge say that they have much better grain structure through forging that cannot be achieved by stock removal. I believe this is the popular view in the American Bladesmith Society and Knifemaker's Guild. But I am no knife maker.
Click to expand...

Magnanimous, I'm not sure that's the prevailing opinion. Kevin Cashen states in multiple places that grain is a function of heat treatment and not forging itself. He is on the board of ABS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top