orvet wrote:"People who have collected Schrades for more than a few years rarely use words like “always” and “never” when talking about Schrade. Schrade has this habit of doing the unexpected. I checked with LT, Richard Langston, who has collected Schrade for more than 50 years and has one of the largest Schrade collections in the world, (one of the top 3 or 4 largest collections). He said he remembers seeing some carbon steel LB7. They weren’t common, but they are out there."
What I said was "There were no early carbon versions (
unless a sample knife or two that never made it to production are out there)." I know "never say never".
I am well aware of who Rich Langston is but even Schrade collectors can have fuzzy memories in their 70s (80s?). One man remembers seeing carbon LB7s? This is proof early Schrade LB7s were carbon? He has collected rare Schrade for 50 years and he doesn't have one in his collection? Why not? I'm still not convinced. If they were out there it I believe it would have been discussed on bladeforums somewhere. Once again: show me one. Anyone at AAPK have one? Not "big fish" exception-to-the-rule sample stories, examples of carbon LB7 production knives. We all know Schrade made sample knives of all sorts so
maybe the odd one exists (as I already conceded in my previous post) but what I said was true:
Bear Paw Family were advertised as being Schrade+ stainless knives from the get-go. There were never any advertised carbon Lb7 knives. It was never an option to buy one as far as I know. I know to never-say-never but if I want to claim that Schrade made LB7s out of ATS34 then I better have more than 2nd hand memories to back that up.
orvet wrote:Well, I can say with authority you are 100% wrong. I have repaired a number of LB7s with the flat springs in them. I have a flat spring LB7 setting on my desk as I type this.
Obviously you took my statements very personally and stopped reading what I wrote because in my last post I already admitted I was wrong about this (after further research) and had found some examples. As I mentioned before my avoidance of late-model LB7 knives because of 420HC saved me from these bad springs too. I can admit when I'm wrong, some people can't.
orvet wrote:As regards Buck-
I managed a retail cutlery store for about 10 years in the 1980s and early 1990s. We actually had customers complain they had dropped their Buck knife on a rock and had the blade break. It is possible to have steel so hard that it is not good for the average knife user. We also had problems in that time frame with Buck knives chipping. As I recall Bucks then were around 60 or so in the Rockwell C scale then, but I don’t remember the exact number. These problems may have played into Buck’s decision to go with 420HC.
You seem to have a low opinion of the motives of Buck, (that they are only motivated by profit). I think if you ever had the chance to visit with Chuck Buck you would change your opinion. Chuck is one of the most principled and honorable men I have met in the cutlery business. I hold him in the same regard as I hold AL Mar and Les De Asis (owner of Benchmade Knives), both of whom I knew well.
Yes, I am aware of the Buck 110 data sheets, I posted them for Joe in the Buck forum several years ago-
http://www.allaboutpocketknives.com/kni ... 53&t=11569
I didn't post the sheet for you because I figured you had already seen it. I posted it for Ken. Every successful corporation's main motivator is profit. Buck is no different. If you think they are you are naive no matter what Chuck Buck is like as a man. Fine blanking and steel cost drove the change to 420HC not quality. They did indeed cater to "the average knife user" who can't sharpen and needs to pry all the time in salt-water environments. This isn't what I want in a knife. It was the change in blade-grind (Edge 2000) that makes a new 110 cut better than an old one. The "hollower" hollow grind and 15 degree sharpening angle makes them cut well not the steel. The CATRA tests were fixed because Buck used the old thicker grind on the 440C knife and the new "Edge 2000" on the 420HC.
Dale, I was very careful to back up everything I said with proof and promptly corrected the double-spring error I made. As far as I can tell you read none of what I posted and all you heard was "Dale is wrong."
knarfeng (moderator on bladeforums) seems to know his stuff and agrees with me about Buck. I could post 50 links to all the threads I have read comparing 440c to 420HC to back up my position but it seems you wouldn't read them. Does Buck sponser AAPK?
I have nothing against Buck, I just don't like the myth currently being sold to the knife buying public that 420HC is quality steel. It's better for the "average knife user"? Sure it is. It's softer so it's sharpens easier (and loses it's edge faster), it's more corrosion resistant (no down side) and it's tougher so idiots who use their knives as a pry-bar or screwdriver won't break or chip it as easy as 440C.
The "average knife user" doesn't read AAPK and I still suggest knife fans here learn how to sharpen knives made out of harder steels and then use them as cutting tools only. If you can't sharpen 440C then BG42, S30V, etc will be impossible as well. Buck sells "premium" (read "better") knives made out of these steels and they are indeed better knives than ones made out of 420HC. The "average knife user" can make do without custom knives or even knives made in the USA. They can buy a fine Chinese made Buck and be perfectly happy. They can buy some vintage Pakistan crap and be happy. They can buy all sorts of crap and be happy. This still doesn't make a lesser knife into a better one.
Buck's 420HC may well be the best out there but other steels are superior and there isn't a knife maker out there who would call 420HC the best steel money can buy because it's not. Period. Muddying these waters only serves to confuse people looking for high-performance blades.
Forget what came before my only points are these:
1. Properly hardened and tempered 440C that has been properly sharpened will out-perform 420HC if the blade geometry is the same. When I say out-perform I mean cut better for longer. Edge retention! Not pry or saw away at hard things your knife should never touch. Cut and keep cutting.
2. Schrade LB7 was advertised more heavily than any knife in history perhaps with all the TV spots etc. and it was always advertised as being made from Schrade+ stainless.
3. Stick with early serialized LB7 knives and you will be sure to avoid crappy springs and 420HC. The early 440A knives with the "squareish" spring stock were very good knives that I still see as superior to today's Buck 110.
I'm good with being wrong (when I am) but The Bear Paw Family were stainless knives. That's the rule. Rare exceptions may exist. I'd love to see one of these but if they are so very, very rare and unusual and unlikely that no one on AAPK or bladeforums has one (including Rich Langston) then they are hardly worth mentioning. "There were a few early ones made with 1095 carbon steel, they are rare, but make a dandy user knife!". Really? Based on what? Rich Langston remembers using his carbon LB7 before he got rid of it because it was too rare to bother keeping? Doesn't sound very convincing to me. I may be just arguing semantics but you should have said that you imagine these would make a good user knife. You are an authority here and I believe you should separate speculation from fact when posting.