Talk:List of blade materials

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page cleanup[edit]

will anyone help me with the common blade elements segment? It will not list like I need it. if you look at the edit page you will see the element, than under it you will see a dot and a description. But in the published article they are both on the same line. I need help! Abc123456person (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Who was editing while I was editing!Abc123456person (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait never mind.Abc123456person (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo!!! It has listed correctly! It turns out that this character • makes it impossible to list in the right manner. But these characters :* do make it possible plus I have added links so if you feel the need for science click a link. Abc123456person (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can someone help me with the description for a lot of the steels IE the MOV steels that say things like "no description available" or "we currently know nothing about this steel"? thank you! 166.147.64.249 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daido DSRxx steels exist in knife steel composition chart(http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php), with either direct description or descriptions of their equivalents in other standards. DSR1K6 and DSR1K6M are two difference alloys, and their respective compositions are also in the steel chart. ZviJ —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]


This so called article is an absolute joke. Was this written by children or mentally disabled adults? Some combination? I'd like to nominate this disgrace for deletion once I review the processes and procedures for that. Just thought I'd give a fair warning or maybe encourage someone to severely clean this thing up. This article contains vastly more literal nonsense than it does it does actual information. I'd guess probably 90% of the citations are totally invalid, if not more. Edc.bros.are.idiots (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation on the bulleted list[edit]

Some bulleted items end in punctuation while others do not. Generally, list items should be parallel in structure. Another structural issue is most steels are followed by a comma and a single dependent clause, but some have two. Is there a reason these have two and aren't separated into another sentence, as the other bulleted items do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The missing punctuation confused me too, I'll remove it.Halofanatic333 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is getting really confusing, but any ideas?Halofanatic333 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Various Steels[edit]

These all need to either be cited, or, more likely, removed. The whole page should probably be redone to emphasize composition, as right now it is riddled with generalizations of how widespread each steel is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The constant reciting of the same source is unneeded and it over complicates it. Right now, most "generalizations" are properly cited at the end of the sentences. The current state is fine. Also please do not make incorrect grammar "corrections" (like Its and It's).Halofanatic333 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you're wrong. The line in question is, "Known for it's durability". "It's", the contraction, means "it is." Substitute it: "Known for it is durability". See the problem?

Also, a complete reversion is wrong. I'll take out the citations and leave the rest, since it makes no sense how it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the citation at the end is not sufficient, as the preceding sentences, wherever I put the citation needed tag, are unfounded and, in fact, mostly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you reread them and then check the source, you will in fact find that they ARE stated. Now, if you actually bother to read them will find them stated there. Also, with ORIGINAL RESEARCH (not used here in any shape or form) will show that they ARE infact true. Also a complete reversion was called for. I would like to avoid an edit war, but please use a registered account before making accusations. Halofanatic333 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

I still don't understand the order listed of the steels, though. Is there some structure I am missing? If not, wouldn't alphabetical order help the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.43.241 (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for under standing, but Sorry for the accusation of the grammar, I was looking at the wrong side. Also I redid the order as you suggested, so it's now "alphabetical" order. Halofanatic333 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stainless vs Carbon[edit]

I was under the impression that stainless steel was the most commonly used steel in knives. But I believe your (Mike) edit, as you are more knowledgeable on the subject. I was debating on whether or not I should add other steels that are less commonly used then the majority of the list? Also should we remove the non-proprietary metals from the Spyderco article?Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon steel is much more commonly used, although this may change over the course of a few decades. Add what you can find (and can source, you've done a pretty good job so far. I'd leave the steels in the Spyderco article, as long as it is something they use currently or have used in the past. That's information about the knives, themselves.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the references, I couldn't figure out how to get them to show titles and stuff. That ZKnives site has a lot of steels listed. Think I should work to add all/most of them?Halofanatic333 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Once you name a reference, you only need to refer to the name. On my main page I have some common templates if you want to use them, just copy and paste. Go for it, it's a good place to start.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Blade steel → List of blade materials — Good work, everyone. I'd sugest rewriting more of this in paragraph style, with the possibility of forming a separate "List of Blade steels". If you have print sources to back up some refs that will help too:Blade, Knives Illustrated, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this article already a list of blade steels? Why not just continue expounding upon this article. Wizard191 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the point was to write an article, not merely a list?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion, it looks like both. There's a list of steels with comments about each. It's somewhat similar to SAE steel grades. Wizard191 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on possibly making this a list rather than an article? Such as renaming it List of blade steels or something similar? If I'm not making myself clear, see how the Featured lists are structured for comparison. That format might work better with a piece like this. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. I think it would make sense to move this article to List of blade steels. Wizard191 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it should be moved to List of blade materials because more than just steel is discussed. Wizard191 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that, too. Let's hear what the others have to say, first.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless you want to add bones, rocks, ceramics and plastics to this page. A blade is prehistorically constructed from rocks and bone; modern cutlery can be made from plastics and ceramics. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment which we already have on this page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Ceramic and obsidian are only mentioned in passing, nothing else. There is no coverage about the ceramics used. There is no coverage of all the rocks used in blades since the beginning of the stone age. There is no coverage of bone, shark's teeth, or other materials. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply if you're so concerned and knowledgeable, go ahead and write it up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I almost forgot about this page. I think before anything else takes place, the content box should be moved to the left. Also the top, in my opinion, is a lot to swallow, and Steel Terms should be its own article rather than a part of was meant to be a quasi-list of various steels and materials used in blades. I just realized, it should be renamed blade materials if we continue to list non-steels (like obsidian or ceramic).Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There are two sections of info on crucible industries CPM series. These should be consolidated into one. The Japanese VG steel section has "san mai" listed. This is a construction style, not a steel type. San mai of VG1 is listed, but vg10 san mai isn't, and it is probably the most common san mai in high end kitchen knives. VGMax is proprietary to shun. VG13 is used by high end kitchen knife makers including chroma cnives and is not listed 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.132.245 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steel term section split[edit]

Split "Steel Terms" → Steel terminology — As this is a list of materials, the steel terms section should be its own article. It is a lot to swallow, and has little to do with the actual list. There should be a basic section, but it should be trimmed down, with a link to an article solely about steel terms. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the move request, because that's for moving the whole article. What you want is to split a section, so I added the appropriate temp to the article. I also changed the destination to "steel terminology" to avoid the abbreviation. Wizard191 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not split, because a lot of these definitions already have their own articles, such as: carbides, grain size, solution, strength of materials, toughness, and wear resistance. Instead the currently large explanations should be pared down to short summaries and a link to the main article supplied. As for edge stability, this definition should move to Blade#Dulling and the red link changed into a redirect to this section. Wizard191 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we don't split it, then they need to be majorly shortened or removed, as they have nothing to do with the page's title. --Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the verdict?Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is one right now; you want to split, I don't (but it does definitely need to be pared down), and no one else has weighed in. Wizard191 (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I hope someone will notice this request, even if it doesn't go through.Halofanatic333 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am wondering if "Steel terminology" might be beyond our scope. Like I stated earlier, somewhere else on here related to this project, There are many more steel types than what is used to make knives. Maybe we should check in with a metallurgy or engineering project? If we were to move/split the aforementioned section, perhaps we need to just split it to Blade steel terminology?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, actually all of those terms are standard metallurgy and steel terms used in the industry. Wizard191 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.Well, if you're ok with it, then I am. I suppose the metallurgy experts could expand on it some more. I just know it from the POV of a knifemaker/gunsmith.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm saying that it ought not be split, and that the current text be parred down. But it the consensus is to split, please split it to steel terminology. Wizard191 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so maybe we should rename the article?--Abc123456person (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not split, I agree with the summarize, and I'd suggest keeping any blade-specific info in the summaries, if sources are available. So far on a quick glance I only saw one mention related to blades ("knives" was used). re: Scope, As a semi-newbie to specialized steel making (aerospace steel -- not just blades and weapons), I appreciate the extra depth this section provides, but it's big, and details of (e.g. carbide) shouldn't be duplicated here if an adequate article exists. --Vorik111 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It's ridiculous to have the "terminology" section. It's totally against the style of Wikipedia. No other (good) article has such a section - you don't need to split it out like that. Instead, on the first natural use of the term, you should link to the article containing the information. There are plenty of examples of pages dealing with complex subjects which don't have a section for terminology. 87.75.141.237 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stain-proof steels[edit]

I'm not sure who wanted to discuss the subject. Anyway, I've added reference to H1 steel data hosted in the steel database. Notes attached to the composition include Sal Glesser's information regarding Spyderco Q-Fog testing of the H1 steel and it is clear the steel is rust-proof, not just resistant. Also, high chromium alone doesn't define steel stain resistance properties. E.g. ZDP-189 having 20% Chromium is a lot more prone to corrosion than many other steels with considerably lower Chromium in it.ZviJ

Standard and Proprietary alloys[edit]

When adding external links, please make distinction between standard specifications from various countries and proprietary versions for a given alloy. They are not the same. E.g. A2 currently is linked to Bohler-Uddeholm's product sheet for their A2 conforming steel, but there is a big difference between standard spec and specific maker's implementation of it. Maker can add/remove a few elements, not specify others, and still list the alloy as confirming or roughly equivalent of the said standard spec.

All external links for standard names linked to Bohler's site should be revised and replaced with references to ASTM(AISI, SAE) standard specs. There is no reason to have one foreign maker's specific alloy listed as a replacement for an official US alloy standard spec, or have US maker's proprietary alloy replace DIN or GB standard alloy spec. Knife steel composition chart(http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php) has standard specifications and cross reference information to corresponding standards from other countries. Efunda also has the same information, but crossference data isn't as complete, plus you can only view few pages a day in a free mode. Matweb is completely free, but crossreference info is scarce. ZviJ —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

i am here. you wanted to speak with me zvij? Abc123456person (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zvij? Abc123456person (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZVIJ? hello? Abc123456person (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The external links scattered throughout the list, such as PDF links, have to go. Wikipedia only permits external links in the references and external links sections. There may be no external links in the list proper. Yworo (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I did a couple sections as an example, but it's pretty tedious and I'd prefer someone with an interest in the article do it. You may want to create Wikilinks and redirects to articles such as Tool steel and High speed steel as I did in the alphanumeric section. Yworo (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is, that "rule:" —"Wikipedia only permits external links in the references and external links sections," and so forth—was discussed, but never became a rule nor an official recommendation. Can you provide a link to it? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3471:8113:4E45:E68 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Enthusiasts, help yourselves[edit]

This is the worst example I've seen yet of enthusiasts writing wikipedia. Its barely more than a list of materials, many of which dont even have the attempt of some sort of blade making note added, even an unsubstantiated one. Who is the "We" being referred to frequently? Let me guess, blade making forum members? If this were to be a useful article, the materials would be presented in a table with quantitative values describing toughness, hardness, and so on, with only blade or knife making relevant notes and sources listed. Materials with no blade or knife making sources would not be listed at all, unless you think literally every material known to man belongs in here, because Im sure someone has tried to make a blade out of everything. The way its written now it does little to enlighten anyone on the facts about materials and their usage in blade making, its just doing more to further the "art" of it, which is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.41.198 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; arcane, lack of focus; way too much clutter. Does anybody object if entries like these:
DSR1K8, a steel known to exist. No further information is available.
DSR1K9, a steel known to exist. No further information is available.
DSR10UA, used for small scissors.
DSR1K11, a steel known to exist. No further information is available.
...are removed? Where's the value? (Who says they exist?) Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3471:8113:4E45:E68 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

So-called "High Carbon Stainless?"[edit]

It seems like every $5+ knife at walmart and harbor freight etc, is now called "High Carbon Stainless." While I suspect in the real world, claimed specifications are not checked and it's meaningless undefined hype, we need to attempt an explanation. (Spyderco famously discovered that their knife supplier/maker was marking 8Cr13MoV steel as 440C.) My limited observations are; at least these "High Carbon Stainless" knives take an edge. If true this means cheap knives have greatly improved since say, 2000. Any thoughts?

Technically, I believe "high carbon stainless steel" can be any steel with about .50% carbon and up so 420hc, 440a, aus8,8/9, and cr1Xmov can be described as so. While that does eliminate a number of (once very common) garbage stainless and soft surgicals, it's not saying much.
--71.133.255.249 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Don't worry about Spyderco 8Cr13MoV steel: this steel actually has a high grade of Carbon (minimum of 0.80% or so). It's a good steel. Francisco Roig.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of blade materials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of blade materials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D2 tool steel "not as tough as premium carbon steels???"[edit]

I just edited D2, and found several old fashioned claims, some counter to more modern claims, but I removed none. For example; Article says about D2 tool steel: 

"While not as tough as premium carbon steels, it is much tougher than premium stainless steels.[1]"

The whole D2 section used only Ref 1, which is: 

"Knife Steel Composition And Name Conversion Chart". zknives.com. Retrieved 2010-05-03. http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelchart.php

That (extremely often used) ref (name: SteelChart) makes no such claims AFAICT, it is just a Steels Composition chart, period.

Also questionable: D2 "With a chrome content of 12.00%, some call it a (is) "semi-stainless", because of the lack of free Chromium in solution," ...same ref 1. But my ref 8 explains that by definition it's stainless, it only "has 12% chromium so it doesn't resist corrosion as well as high chromium tool steels (like 440C and ATS-34)..."

1) Any reasons why I shouldn't remove/clarify those?
2) I wonder how often ref 1 is used to "justify" old myths and such?
Cheers! --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3471:8113:4E45:E68 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Can someone please coordinate info here with info at the "Stainless Steel" page?[edit]

I came to this page curious about the various forms of stainless steel used for blades, scissors & cutting devices and I found the information here very interesting.

Then, hoping to find even more detailed information, I went to the separate page titled "Stainless Steel". There, I was surprised to not find any reference to "Super stainless steels" (a topic included on this page). That left me a bit confused: I don't know whether one page is more up to date than the other or if perhaps the term "Super stainless steels" is not widely accepted as a uniform description (in which case, perhaps it should not be a topic title here?), but I do hope someone who really knows about "Stainless Steels" will please edit one or both of these pages to harmonize the information.

I have one additional suggestion for editors knowledgeable about blade steels in particular: For those of us trying to learn about this topic, it would be very useful if someone will add to this article a chart listing (in ascending or descending order) the relative hardnesses of all of the individual blade steels identified in this article. I noticed several references to relative hardness as between steels within the same steel "family", but not so much as between steels in different "families".

Pdalton (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super stainless steel magnetism[edit]

Hi, I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, so please forgive any breaches in process or convention. The "Super stainless steels" section of this article states that the steels described are "non-magnetic". I am not sure about most of the steels on the list, but Vanax is magnetic. I just checked a Vanax blade to make sure I am not crazy (magnet sticks). I am not comfortable actually changing the article itself, but I think this statement either needs to be defended or removed if inaccurate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.118.211 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move details to subarticles[edit]

This article has the oldest Needing Cleanup tag (Category:Articles needing cleanup from May 2010). I think the details about each specific kind of steel should be moved to the sub-articles (like Alloy steel, Chrome steel, Crucible Industries, and so forth) and removed from this article. The difficulty here is that, currently, the details in this article differ from the details in those articles. It's probably going to take someone familiar with blade materials to help sort all this out. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful sources (running list)[edit]

Working on finding sources by going through citations of the related articles. Here's one: https://web.archive.org/web/20230307013505/https://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/1849770/06940G_Chapter_1.pdf/53f29213-5dd6-4499-9959-841477b385b9

Will be responding to this for more (either for myself or for anyone else interested in cleaning up this article). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On carbon steels: "Classification of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels". Total Materia. Key to Metals. November 2001. Retrieved 29 April 2023. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_blade_materials&oldid=1208213511"