I knife gains the most benifit from.......

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Diamond G Knives

Well-Known Member
Let me say up front that this is NOT an attempt to start an argument or pick a fight, but to ask an honest questions.

I have recently been doing some stock removal blades due to the fact that I do not have my forge and hot shop set up while rebuilding my shop.

My question is this. With all things being equal, what does a knife blade benifit the most from? Are there certin things done while forging a blade that cannot be replicated with a stock removal blade during the heat treatment? I am a fan of the forged blade, and will get back to it as soon as I can, but other than being able to shape a piece of steel either from larger stock, or from odd shapes, what does forging give to the blade?

Again folks, Im trying to ask an honest question, not start a tussel! Would love to hear your opinions!

God Bless
Mike
 
There is no increase or decrease in the strength or fortitude of a knife made by forging or stock removal.
If anything? There are so many more ways make a inferior knife by forging problems that I feel stock removal is a more consistent and better method and stainless steels add quite a lot as well.

I also learned a lot about how to design a knife by forging so I don't want any to think that I am discrediting forging in any way.

Laurence

www.rhinoknives.com
 
Forging (hammering) actually condenses the molecules of the steel and makes them tighter and more dense, and hence, stronger.

I'm just kidding. It doesn't do that at all.
 
The multiple heats done in forging may benefit some steels to some degree, but any benefits are from the heat alone and not directly related to the hammer and anvil which can do no more than serve as tools to shape the steel.
 
Boy....
This one keeps popping up like a bad penny. Some day, a future generation of makers will put this one to bed.

I forge and stock remove, and if anything, I feel that by forging I'm unecessarily introducing more variables to a product IF I don't have control over the the extreme high or low heat ranges. Aside from heat and versatility, paraphrasing LRB ....steel is steel regardless of your procedure, assuming it's correct. One benefit to stock removal for me is less time and less pain.

Rudy
 
Are there certain things done while forging a blade that cannot be replicated with a stock removal blade during the heat treatment?
Click to expand...

Yes. I say that based on several experiences with specific steels. Personally, I have found that steels such as 5160 and 52100, when PROPERLY forged, will almost always out perform stock removal counterparts.

That being said, it's my opinion, based on head to head testing, and experimenting....so take it for what it's worth to you.

**The two most important factors in just about any blade is heat treatment, and geometry. Those two factors are so intertwined in how a blade performs, I can't even begin to explain it in print.
 
Gee Ed, no offense intended, but did you discover a way of getting around the laws of physics? Would you care to give the details of just exactly what you believe the forging did to the steel different than a well executed heat treat on a stock removal blade could not reproduce? I am open to hear you, but you are saying you have witnessed something no one else in history ever has. All other things being equal.
 
but did you discover a way of getting around the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
you know, I often hear that, and it still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't wanna sound rude, but when I read/hear that, I think of "book smarts" versus "practical experience".

I wish I could pin it down to specifics......which is something that myself and the individual who does spectrographing for me have thrown back and forth for several years. Between use, we THINK that it has to to with the fact that all the samples of forged blades (where I forged them with "reducing heats" throughout the forging process) always show a significantly smaller grain size then the stock removed samples of the same steel (5160 and/or 52100). To muddy the waters a little more, my spectrographer's theory is that the forging versus stock removal grain size in those two steels has to do with the chromium content, and it's reaction to the repetitive heating/cooling cycles that occur during forging. I tend to believe his theory because those are the only two steel types that he has found any significant grain size difference between forged and stock removal. (I've also had him run tests on a number of other steel types)

what you believe the forging did to the steel different than a well executed heat treat on a stock removal blade
Click to expand...
To me that's a bit ambiguous.....it means different things to different makers. Generally a "well executed" heat treat on a stock removal blade means, bringing it to austinizing temp, with a possible soak, then quenching, followed by tempering.....from one to three cycles of varying time dependent on the maker.

Concerning the stock removal blades I did for testing, they were ground from bar stock, then givien the exact same steps as I do with my forged blades.....thermal cycle 3x, austinized in the salt tank with no soaking, quenched in the same media, and tempered in the same oven, at the same time for 3, 2-hour cycles.

So, in the end, I have no written/physical evidence beyond what my own testing has show....both spectrographing, and practical/physical testing......which is why I put in the statement " it's my opinion, based on head to head testing, and experimenting....so take it for what it's worth to you."
 
I'll add my own experience here too.

I don't have any metalurgical expertise or testing, or even an explanation of why but...........................................

I made a few blades from 52100 and 1080plus (which is very similar to, including chromium content, but more carbon than 5160) that I used the stock removal method on. I have very good and very careful heat control in my process and the finished blades were considerably sub standard in edge holding and in all around performance.

I have used 1080, 1084 and 1095 in both forged and ground blades and have noticed no measurable real world difference. I do, like Ed mentioned, give even stock removal blades the same thermal cycling before the austenitizing heat and quench that I would give to my forged blades.

Also my experience.................take it for what it's worth. :)
 
You guys are free to believe anything you wish, but any differences you believe you have experienced have nothing to do with the hammer and anvil, and a spectrograph does not tell you what the internal condition really is. I believe that you believe what you say, but I also believe there a missing or overlooked factor somewhere, or that you have truly proven that metallurgical science and the laws of physics are wrong.
 
As someone who asked this same basic question not too long ago I look forward to any positive answers I can read. So far as best i can reason from everything I have read the best solution for me is to hopefully someday try both options and see which works best for me and see if I can test and find a appreciable difference.

I'm glad to hear both sides of the opinion and thank you Ed for your past help with me an your opinion is always appreciated.

If people can keep the rude comments to themselves this could stay a good discussion
 
I've seen this one go round and round since I started this trip into insanity in the 80's.
Fact is, without empiracle proof no one here can hold the high ground in this contraversy. It's never been a 'good discussion'. I personally am not a scientist, I only work with the information available for a particular steel. It's difficult to have any meaningful conversation through a screen, the reader imparts his own personal feelings on the written word. I personally don't believe any rude comments were made, just differing opinions.

Back to the sideline for me.

Rudy
 
As I've said many times...Knifemaking/Bladesmithing isn't about the "finish line"....it's about the journey. I could spend several lifetimes doing it, and still not figure it all out. What I can do, is answer questions based on my experiences/testing. I'm not trying to ruffle anybody's feathers, nor trying to say I know more than anybody else.....just offering what I can, based on experience. If others' findings are different, that's great. There are many paths to the same destination.
 
http://articles.pubarticles.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-forging-process-1307095229,201061.html

http://www.ehow.com/info_7827211_advantages-metal-forging-process.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Forging:-The-Advantages-and-Disadvantages&id=6713569

Quote from first link, advantages of hot forging:

"Advantages

* Increase in ductile strength

* High temperature helps in removal of homogeneous substances due to increased diffusion

* Reduction in the pore size"

Quote from second link:

"One advantage of forged metal over cast or machined metal is the increased strength of the part. The forging process allows the metal to retain its directional strength by altering the grain of the metal, rather than cutting it off during machining or removing it completely through casting. Forged parts have no internal gas pockets as can occur during casting. Because forging alters the grain of the metal, it is easy to forge a part that meets certain impact strength requirements. A machined part that cuts off the grain of the metal is weaker at the point where the grain meets the edge of the part."

What I don't understand is why these well established facts are played down by the knifemaking community and especially by some of those who claim to be the most scientific.
 
Last edited:
Here's a quickie illustration,... not the best, but you should get the idea.

DSCN6035.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top