I'd think the 5160 is at least a little tougher, but I'm certain the latter is true.the kukri is simply tempered to take that kind of abuse while the Spyderco is tempered as hard as they can make it without worrying about edge chipping.
I'd think the 5160 is at least a little tougher, but I'm certain the latter is true.the kukri is simply tempered to take that kind of abuse while the Spyderco is tempered as hard as they can make it without worrying about edge chipping.
Things become old news and nobody wants it anymore. Rename it and don't tell anybody and people will love it for what it is. Like the 40CP was basically a 440C made by powdered metal technology. I got some on the I think one and only batch that was made of it and it was some great steel and made some really nice serviceable blades. I think the only reason it didn't go over is because people found out it was essentially 440C and wasn't some new great thing. As I said all of the new popular stainless knife steels are a close variation of 440C, ATS34, 154CM. The XHP which is probably the most popular of the steels custom makers are using now is essentially a cross between 440C and D2 made via powdered metal. It is great stuff and I love it but in all honesty the 40CP was easier to work with and made just as good of blade, even though the XHP probably will take more abuse it is harder to resharpen so there is always that trade off.
Now I'm reading about carbides, different types of carbides (chemical composition), different forms of carbides with the same chemical composition, carbide sizes and the effects of all those things on toughness.
I'm not sure I'm any closer to answering the original question.
Toughness seems to be the parameter most closely aligned with what most folks would call "strength". And it also seems to be the hard question.If you're interested in the toughness question mostly...
I didn't mention aesthetics, because I would think that for the most part (barring those who like patina on their blades) the aesthetic advantage, when it comes to knives, would probably go to stainless steel.
For whatever it's worth there is at least one knifemaker who claims to have made a stainless steel knife with a hamon line. Anyway, I suppose if we include differential hardening lines but exclude Damascus steels, then I would concede that the relatively small percentage of carbon steel knives with differential hardening have an aesthetic edge over both plain carbon steel and stainless steel as long as the hamon remains visible.
Word... Im following this one myself. I have experienced various knife steels over the years of my life. while I generally prefer high carbon steels, some of the modern stainless blades seem to have good reputations- including a not-cheap Chinese knife I own- one of my few stainless blades. Blade metallurgy has come a long way since my youth and Buck knives.
The brand name of the knife in question is a Hanwei "Rock Creek" with a HWS-1K forged blade, with a hardness of 58 HRc – 60 HRc and has a sambar stag grip. It takes a very nice edge and seems to hold up well. I paid something close to $100 for it as I recall.That a Reate? Several of the new Chinese brands are really knocking it out of the park. Some small businesses with owners who are really passionate about knives. Glad to see that emerging there. I won a Reate K-1 in a post-pass around giveaway on Bladeforums, and it's really a fantastic knife.
The brand name of the knife in question is a Hanwei "Rock Creek" with a HWS-1K forged blade, with a hardness of 58 HRc – 60 HRc and has a sambar stag grip. It takes a very nice edge and seems to hold up well. I paid something close to $100 for it as I recall.
Ok, let me start by saying I'm not a metallurgist--this is just the result of some research (poking around on the web, if you prefer) and my thoughts.
In my other thread about stainless steel knives, the discussion prompted me to start thinking about the topic and I've spent some time looking at various charts that show the composition of common knife steels. Naturally, some of that time was spent comparing the carbon content of "carbon" steels, "tool" steels and "stainless" steels.
I don't understand the details, but I believe that at one time, the carbon content of stainless steel was limited due to issues related to the high chromium content that defines stainless steel. If someone has a good explanation of that limitation, I would really like to hear it.
At any rate, I believe that some of the new techniques for making stainless steel alloys have bypassed this limitation resulting in stainless steels that have very high carbon content.
For example, CTS-XHP has a carbon content that exceeds that of 1095 carbon steel, and that actually matches the carbon content of D2 tool steel. Some stainless alloys, like ZDP-189 actually have carbon content that far exceeds the common "carbon steels" and is only matched by a few tool steels.
Looking at hardness numbers, it appears that a lot of the premium stainless steels actually outperform all the conventional carbon steels and even many tool steels.
So...
Does it really make sense to keep talking about carbon steel vs stainless steel like there's a practical difference between the carbon content that gives the carbon steels hardness advantage? Because it appears that both in terms of carbon content and hardness, there are many premium stainless steels that directly contradict that pretense.
It appears (to my admittedly amateur eye) that when the real differences between carbon steel and stainless steel are evaluated, the only real benefits of common carbon/tool steels, are ease of sharpening, cost, and perhaps ease of forging. In all of the other performance areas, as far as I can tell, the premium stainless steels have a decided advantage.
Thoughts?
Look for heat treat certifications. You may not find them under brand specific names.If you dig into it a little bit, this kind of statement just confuses the issue more.
D2, for example, is just a hair away from being a stainless steel in terms of chromium content, but nobody argues that it is lacking in toughness compared to simple carbon steel alloys. But add in another 3% of chrome and tweak the alloy a little bit to get CTS-XHP which is a stainless steel and now suddenly it's not as tough as carbon steel. How does that make any sense? It doesn't to me--but maybe that's just because I don't know enough about metallurgy.
What it looks like to me is that the only way it could be true that stainless alloys are not as tough as carbon steel is if adding chromium actually weakens steel and at least partially cancels out the effects of carbon and the other alloying components that generally add toughness. That's the only thing that I can see that would reconcile the composition information with the "almost universal" acceptance that simple carbon steels are tougher than stainless steel.
What is especially frustrating to me is that there are companies spending lots of money to develop these expensive "super steels" and there are other companies willing to pay the premium to buy them.
I seriously doubt that they are paying the extra money just based on reputation alone. In other words, somewhere there is solid comparative data that definitively informs a company who is buying a big batch of super steel that they are spending their money wisely. It just seems that data is not generally available. Which is surprising because it seems to me that it would be in the best interest of everyone involved to have an informed consumer. I'm just interested in basic specs. Like toughness at various hardness levels. Wear resistance at various hardness levels. Stuff like that. That information can be determined with standardized testing by the steel company on the steel itself without having to do any knife testing at all. And it HAS been determined--it's inconceivable that these steel companies are just randomly altering their alloy contents without having any idea how the resulting alloy performs. I just don't know why I can't seem to find it.
That's certainly part of it. But beyond the confusion between carbon steel and high-carbon stainless steel that is produced by pretending that the difference in the two general classes of steels has something to do with carbon content, I'm also interested to know why it seems common to assume that "stainless steels" are not as tough as "carbon steels".I read OP's question as relating to semantics to a great extent, i.e. why call carbon steel by that name when many modern stainless steels contain just as much if not more carbon.
Do you have an example to get me started? I'm probably displaying my ignorance, but the hint you've provided isn't specific enough to get me pointed in the right direction.Look for heat treat certifications. You may not find them under brand specific names.
Yes, you can. The results I've read from knife enthusiasts doing cutting tests are that some tool steels like CPM M4, CPM 3V, and Maxamet will hold their edges significanty longer than stainless super steels like M390 and S110V. These high speed tool steels also tend to be pretty chip resistant because they lack the high amounts of chromium which makes stainless steels corrosion resistant, but also brittle at high hardness.Can you make carbon steel as hard as stainless? Not that I'm aware, and honestly I wouldn't see the point.
Personally, I'm a fan of CPM 3V and I want to try a 4V but have not (yet). Most of my EDC knives are a variety of stainless (D.H. Russell) because of the moisture exposure. While looking into this post I found these two links very interesting.:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/cpm3v-vs-cpm4v.1225549/
In this post, they are equating 5160 with 1060 which surprised me but it seems logical in retrospect.
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/carbon-steel-question-5160-vs-1060.529179/
My large knives are mostly 1095 or 5160. My 5160 knives are Buck Hoodlums designed by the late Ron Hood. In this case, the design of the knife was the important factor. My other large knives ESEE in 1095. My medium knives run mostly D2 (Knives of Alaska). I also have a modified A2 Bowie that runs well.
I need to branch out into some tool steels. Right now I have 2, an Esee 6 and Izula, in 1095. A Benchmade in 154 CM and another in M390 and a Himalayan Imports Khukuri in (probably) 5160. Not a very diverse mix.