Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 13:15:54 GMT
I am thinking about buying another Schrade Old Timer stockman knife. These are no longer made by Schrade, and when they were they were like 1090-1095 carbon. Great old blades, and you need something durable when you are trying to castrate (yes, I know, makes you grab yourself just thinking about it). The cattle kick and knock the knife out of your hand, and then step on it, etc.... Okay, I am rambling. Anyway, the new manufacturers of Schrade, Taylor Cutlery, have really no good specs on thier site. They are advertising these knives as "High-Carbon Stainless" blades now. They also say that they are as quality as the American made Schrades.
What is your definition/explaination of high carbon stainless, and can it be comparable to 1095 steel? I know that the process will play a big part, but I can assure you, I will never get to talk to someone who knows the process.
|
|
|
Post by Matt993f.o.d on Jan 4, 2008 13:35:34 GMT
Common or garden stainless.
Stainless is good for knives. Stainless is not great for swords, but this doesnt mean that it is bad for all blades.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 4, 2008 13:59:20 GMT
Steel is defined as an alloy of iron, carbon and ANY OTHER ELEMENTS that is magnetic in nature. High, low or medium carbon simply speaks to the carbon content of the blade. - 0.01% to 0.29% is considered low carbon
- 0.30% to 0.59% is considered medium carbon
- 0.60% to 2.70% is considered high carbon
- >2.71% is cast iron
Stainless Alloys are defined as iron alloys doped with A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE (13% or greater) of A SPECIFIC ELEMENT (chromium) in order to significantly reduce the rate of corrosion of the alloy. By definition, a high-carbon stainless steel must have carbon content in the range of 0.60% to 2.70% and must contain chromium equal to or in excess of 13%. The infamous 440C stainless steel is roughly equivalent to 1095 in carbon content with a nominal 1.1% carbon; no stainless alloy can be comparable to simple carbon steels because of the chromium content. Chromium as an additive replaces some or all of the carbon in the formation of martensite. Since chromium is a very large atom when compared to carbon it is very hard to get the chromium-based martensitic steel crystals to decay when below critical (i.e., during tempering) and as a result most stainless steel blades remain more brittle than comparable blades of non-stainless alloys. Chromium in steels is also subject to chromium migration, which leads to chromium depletion regions which leads to chromium depletion stress cracking. this means that stainless alloys are subject to sudden, catastrophic failure without any warning (insert relatively famous youtube video from HSN here)(no, you've all seen it. replay it in your head). Based on my experience and my understanding of metallurgy and the properties of steels it is my opinion that stainless steels are less durable over time and less resistant to stress than similar high carbon steels or tool steels. Based on my experience and my understanding of chromium depletion stress cracking and the stress mechanisms that occur in blades as they bend and flex, it is also my opinion that no stainless alloy exists that is suitable for any blade longer than 13 inches under any circumstance.
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jan 4, 2008 15:19:48 GMT
As of late, many common manufacturers have been switching many of their quality blades to lesser stainless steels, as well as outsourcing their manufature to [you guessed it] Asia. When they use such generic descriptions as "high-carbon stainless" or "surgical-grade stainless" in place of an actual figure, this is usually a sure sign that they have downgraded steel choice in order to cut costs. Almost all common manufacturers are guilty of doing this with some (or all) of their models. For example: blades formerly made of high-carbon tool steels, or good quality stainless such as ATS34, AUS 8, and 154CM; if not still specified to be made of these, have probably been downgraded to 420HC, AUS 4, or even 440. That's not to say that they still won't cut. Most users will probably not notice the difference. The difference may really only show itself when using your knife for very heavy-duty cutting and somewhat abusive tasks. Edge-holding ability, and flexibility are the major factors. For me, steel quality is kindof a pride thing too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 15:52:32 GMT
They are crap compared to the old 1095 ones, search antique store high and low for an old one over the new ones, though they are not too bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2008 16:41:15 GMT
thanks guys. Kinda what I figured.
Those older jobs are going for 60 bucks on ebay now. but like it has been indicated before, you get what you pay for.
I will look and find an old one. the newer jobs are fine for "carrying to the office" but I had an old Schrade, and like I said, it stood up to years of abuse. Had 800 lb cattle step on it open, with no sets or damage. Then reached into the old pocket one day and it was lost. I think the pain of loosing a good knife is far worse than breaking it.
|
|