Question on steel qualities for knives

[Snowdog]

I'm looking to buy a "clone" for my aging-yet-lively Benchmade Stryker that I have carried for years. Over the years, I have grown incredibly comfortable with this knife, almost as if it’s an appendage of my own hand. Ever since I got my first Buck knife as a little kid, I’ve always carried a knife on me to fulfill any cutting tasks that might arise.
The Stryker was my 2nd Benchmade and unlike any knife I’ve ever owned (and that would be many), this was the only knife to surprise me into feeling like it were tailored just for me as soon as removing it from the box.

As improbable as it is, I have a fear that in the future, after year upon year of new and flashier knife designs with “automatic” this and “tactical” that having been fielded, I would lose my Stryker and find myself unable to replace it with another… instead having to “upgrade” to a newer design that I wouldn’t feel as comfortable with.

Therefore, I would like to have two, if only just to make me feel more comfortable.

So enough of all that, here’s the question: The Benchmade I currently have was advertised during the time of purchase as having a blade made from ATS-34, which I understand is somewhat respectable steel and that I find holds an edge well, even if it does take a while to take that razor's edge.
However, the newer Benchmade Stryker models I recently looked at were advertised as having a blade made from either M2 tool steel or 154CM steel. I am not fluent in steel-speak, so can anyone briefly point out some of the pros and cons of these two metals and how they might stack up to ATS-34 (which a fewer number are still advertised as having). If the “tool steel” is indeed better, does it justify the slight price increase of $10-$15 ? Opinions between the three are welcome.

Thanks in advance!

 

[ruger357]

ATS-34 is the Japanese version of the 154CM stainless steel, so I was told at a gun show last year. M2 is a little more tougher than the stainless steels but the drawback is that it rusts easily.

 

[Snowdog]

Ah ha, that does help quite a bit, Ruger357. So essentially replacing my Stryker with one of the newer 154CM bladed models wouldn't be deviating from the original at all I guess. I clean and oil my Stryker well at least monthly, or immediately after if used in the rain, so that tool steel option sounds nice as well.

Thanks.

 

[ecos]

yup ats34 and 154cm are pretty close to identical. m2 is a steel used to make milling machine bits and various other industrial cutting tools out of, its a very good steel but its not stainless. the m2 will hold an edge longer if heat treated properly

 

[JShirley]

A great place to look for steel info is Spyderco. If there's a particular steel you're interested in, try going to the BladeForums.com Spyderco forum, and doing a search for that steel type. You'll likely get some good info, and the Spyderco people are salt of the earth.

John

 

[Fumbler]

ATS-34 and 154CM are chemically the same. When 154 first came out Crucible didn't have the process as refined as it should be. It was a decent steel but the grain structure was supposedly not the best. Something about being cold rolled I think. Hitachi then turned out ATS-34. It differs only in the manufacturing process (I forgot how).
Basically the 154CM turned out in the past decade is just as good as ATS-34. As to which is better, it simply depends on the knifemaker/heat-treater (Paul Bos gave Strider its reputation with his heat treat).

Like it was said before, M2 ("high speed steel") is used in tools. It is tougher than ATS-34/154CM and will hold an edge a little longer. The downfall is it can be a pain in the butt to sharpen.

If you like the steel in your current Stryker then get the 154CM. If I were you I'd get the M2 just to try something different.

 

[hso]

http://www.agrussell.com/knife_information/steel_guide/

http://www.bladegallery.com/information/info_steel.asp

http://www.bladesbybrown.com/aug04review.htm