Thread: Stainless Steel vs Carbon Steel

Originally Posted by jgkeegan

I apologize for the mini-diversion. I am struggling with the "magnetic" issue. Why would a blade imprinted with the word "magnetic" be harder or easier to hone?

--james

I don't have a full answer to this, just as I was curious as to where to draw the line of distinction between stainless and carbon steel. In the two examples I gave, they are vintage razors that are fairly resistant to patina or rusting. So maybe that's the difference.

The magnetic razor in question is an old Boeker that has "magnetic" etched on the blade. And the blade literally is magnetic, capable of attracting other steel. Basic honing of it took much longer than it typically would with softer carbon steel.

Originally Posted by BobH

Seems to have worked for the most part except for a Stainless steel 45 ACP 1911 clone I bought 40 or so years ago. It had a jamming issue due to galling between the slide and barrel locking lugs. The solution was to use lithium grease in the affected area. Something I had never had to do with a carbon steel pistol.

Bob

I remember reading about that when Colt first produced the stainless 1911. They overcame the problem, so I read, by using a different alloy stainless for the slide and grip frame. Originally they had used the same alloy for both.

Very interesting results on the poll so far. Nobody thinks carbon steel is more difficult, but twice as many people say that there is no difference to those that say stainless is more difficult.

I wonder could the honing medium play a part in the results here? In other words are some stones better for stainless than others?

Perhaps that is a different topic, if so I am sorry and please feel free to ignore this question.

Originally Posted by Porl

Very interesting results on the poll so far. Nobody thinks carbon steel is more difficult, but twice as many people say that there is no difference to those that say stainless is more difficult.

I wonder could the honing medium play a part in the results here? In other words are some stones better for stainless than others?

Perhaps that is a different topic, if so I am sorry and please feel free to ignore this question.

I think it is a good question. As I mentioned in a previous post, that ATS-34, and the S30-V I honed needed a diamond plate to set the bevel, and synthetics to finish the job. I would say, IME, some high carbon also benefit from synthetics, depending the hardness. Sometimes it is too much of a good thing.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I remember reading about that when Colt first produced the stainless 1911. They overcame the problem, so I read, by using a different alloy stainless for the slide and grip frame. Originally they had used the same alloy for both.

My 1911 was not a Colt's made 1911 but from AMT called the Hardballer . Yup, I was given to understand that was the same problem as with the Colt version. The solution was to use two dissimilar stainless alloy to prevent galling or load the crap out of it with lithium grease. Even with dissimilar stainless steels there still may be problems with a pistol built to tight specs as in target pistols. Then again tight carbon steel target pistols can be temperamental in operation too. Nature of the beast I suppose.

Bob

Speaking of magnetic stainless, just ran into this All-Clad cookware advert, note the 'magnetic stainless' on the exterior for the newer induction cooktops :



(The illustration displays a cross section of one All-Clad Copper Core pan)

Very difficult to hone though ......... impossible to set a bevel ..........

One of the first stainless pistols was the Ruger Security Six series which came out around 1974 and the cylinders would jam up because of expansion of the metal. I know because I had one and they finally replaced the pistol because the original one kept having issues the more I used it. They had a big contract with the Border Patrol and didn't want the issues to become widely known.

I've said this before but I find some carbon steel razors to be way more demanding to hone than any stainless ones. But in general a stainless razor might take a few more strokes but that's about it.

While I don't have Thousands of razors under my belt I do have several hundred and I also have 4 Friodur's that I use regularly.

I thought that it was 'just me' in that when honing my Friodurs they seemed to take quite a lot more time. I found this true when I honed other Friodurs that were sent to me by others.

Then one day I was reading a thread about whether or not SS was harder to hone than plain carbon steel and a member stated that 'they don't take any longer than carbon steel blades' and a cantankerous old fart who lives in the boonies of Northern Idaho replied: "Oh yes they are".

I didn't feel so bad after that!

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Do you find Stainless Steel harder /more difficult /or to take longer to hone, than a "Like" razor made of Carbon Steel

In general, yeah , I find stainless takes a bit longer to get as smooth as most CS razors. Mainly because it tends to a coarser grain & burrs more easily but I'm talking minutes not hours of honing.

Originally Posted by BobH

Yes, I think that is what the article basically says. It is technically impossible to produce a stainless steel to meet the scientific definition of nonmagnetic but it is so close that in practical use it does not matter. I doubt very much that there is a overwhelming need to produce a straight razor blade that has next to no magnetic response.

Bob

I deal with lots of Friodurs and can count the number of spot rusted ones on the fingers of my one hand. They can be magnetized but they do not rust easy at all.