My first completed knife.

P

purequill

Active Member
Hey all. I finally finished up my first knife and thought I'd share a few pics with you and see what ya'll think. 52100 forged from a bearing. Triple quenched (Texaco Type A) Triple normalized, Differentially hardened (3x) and triple tempered. It passed edge flex on a 1/4 in. brass rod and made 400 cuts on 3/8 sisal rope between 3 of us. Handle is elk tine, spacer is Ipe wood and black phenolic. Brass guard and buttcap. Thanks for looking!
 
Looks far better than my first knife. Now! I have a question that you have to answer honestly!:les:

Is this your first attempt or as the caption reads, "My First Completed Knife" ??:biggrin:
 
It is.....both? It's the second blade I forged, I have two others I am doing handles on right now and the other blade was tested to destruction. I am however not alone in my endeavors. I have a couple of pretty great mentors walking me through the process.
 
It looks good, especially the handle and the fitting of the guard looks tight. I think that I might have taken the edge back to just a little ahead of the guard. The ricasso seems to be a little long.

I would also keep the triple normalization to refine the grain structure and triple temper to reduce the retained austinite as much as possible. I'm a little at a loss when you say that you triple quenched and triple differentially hardened the blade being that quenching and hardening are the same thing. Also when you triple quench you wipe out all the effects of the previous quench when the steel is austinized again so you just end up spinning your wheels. It's better to heat the blade to about 1450-1475° and soak for 10-15 minutes and quench once. I know that it steps on a lot of toes but it's supported by the science of metallurgy.

Doug
 
Hey doug glad to see your following this thread. A couple of clarifications... first, the longer ricasso is to to allow a forward grip. This enables control of the blade and overall usability/stability regardless of blade size or shape. A "traditional" handle can turn and twist under hard use or slippery conditions, the longer ricasso allows the user to maintain control under any circumstance. Second normalization does not refine grain structure, properly controlled thermal cycles do. We do the cycles in each stage of development for control and refinement. Quenching is done in reasonably rapid succession to stabilize the steel in its form, hardening is done later to cement and refine the grain structure. Your temps are spot on but multiple cycles yield increasingly greater refinement on a diminishing return scale.
 
CaKnives. You Are possibly missunderstanding who ever is helping you do your heat treat. Normalizing is thermal Cycling and it's purpose is to make a uniform grain structure and reduce grain size. Your heat treat process is pointless overkill. No harm in it, but it's not doing what you think it's doing. Im also not sure why you think quenching and hardening are 2 different things.

The ability to over reach the guard for different grip options is handy in some instances but it is hardly the best grip option for "hard use" a properly shaped handle with an appropriate material is better. Slippery use with the hand forward of the guard is a good way to get cut. Otherwise why have a guard?
 
Last edited:
You are correct that normalization is different from thermal cycling but thermal cycling also uses reduced heats for each cycle. I thought that when you said that you were normalizing three times it was because you didn't have a regulated heat source and you were trying to approximate the thermal cycling as closely as you could. Quenching and hardening are still the same thing. It traps the carbon in body centered tetrahedron crystals of iron, aka martensite, there is no grain refinement and each time you austinize the steel you wipe out most of what was done on the last cycle. With the multiple quenches with something high carbon like 52100 you also run the risk of increasing the microscopic cracks that form where the plate martensite abut.

Doug
 
I agree with the quenching/hardening definition, but I'm not interested in arguing semantics. If what u do works for u and u have a reason for it thats great. The explanation of our heat treat and forging process is much to long to type out here, for those who are interested it can b found on www.knifetalkonline.com . I learned it from Ed Fowler and have been using it and teaching it for 8 years. It works, we have the science to prove it, and the results speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
I had a feeling that it might have been from Ed. He is without a doubt a skilled knife maker but I have severe reservations about his metallurgical theory. I'm not a moderator but it would probably be a good idea to stop further discussion.

Doug
 
Thanks to everybody for the kind words! Doug, I'm fully aware of the controversy surrounding Mr. Fowlers methods. However I don't think that not talking about anything and going and playing in our separate corners all the time will get anyone anywhere. That's one reason I love working and conversing and trading ideas in the circles I am in. Nothing is dismissed at face value or because it doesn't align with whatever "bible" you abide by. Every one of them has and is still willing to experiment, test and trade knowledge about everything knife related. Instead of quoting passages from the Verhoeven book I'd much rather hear about your personal findings with 52100 (as that is the only steel in question). How you came about them, how you personally tested them and the parameters in which you worked. I'm open and willing to new ideas if you have something to substantiate your beliefs on. That's why I do choose to align myself with Ed and Chris and all of the talented men of the HEPK. Every question I ask gets answered in laymens terms, making it understandable, with physical evidence and tests that I have personally witnessed numerous times. I have not once "spun my wheels" while working under their tutelage. My blades have come out great and performed exceptionally well at the tasks they were designed to do.
 
Purequill, I'm making this one last comment on this and that's the end for me. What I base my comments on are things like Verhoeven's work which is based on decades of metallurgical science which I consider much more reliable than someone who doesn't have the facilities to do real testing. I also object to these methods being put forth as proven techniques to the disadvantage of those who don't know better. To paraphrase Kevin's signature oh hypefreeblades forum, you have the right to your own misinformation but you don't have to right to impose it on others.

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top