Moran vs Loveless – Knife Steel Edition

Bill Moran and Bob Loveless are the most influential knifemakers in the modern era. They were two key figures in the rise of custom knifemaking, which began in 1970 with the formation of the Knifemakers Guild. Both predated the Guild and had fully formed philosophies on knifemaking before its formation. There are an impressive number of dichotomies between Loveless and Moran. For two men who were influential in a similar time period for making the same product – knives – they had surprisingly different philosophies. Both men served as president of the Knifemakers Guild in the early years: Moran from 1972-1973, and Loveless from 1971-1972 and again from 1973-1974. B.R. Hughes wrote about the two knifemakers in 1986 [1]:

Future knife historians should be aware that Loveless and Moran had little in common. Loveless was an advocate of the stock removal method of making knives using stain-resistant steels, while Moran was a champion of the traditional forged blade. There were other, deeper differences. Loveless felt that quality should not be a condition of membership and that requirements should be as loose as possible to encourage new members. Moran was of the opinion that the Guild should have moderately strict guidelines and that members should be responsible to the Guild for unethical behavior… Be that as it may, the two, not friends by any means, ‘buried the hatchet,’ at least publicly, for the welfare of the Guild.

But looking at Moran and Loveless and how they viewed knifemaking is not only of historical interest. The arguments they were making decades ago are similar to those you can still find between some forging bladesmiths and stock removal knifemakers. And while they weren’t the only knifemakers making those arguments back then, they were two of the most influential voices. So it is valuable to examine the origins of these arguments to understand why some knifemakers still can’t agree.

Moran and Studying the Ancients

Moran was splitting time between a dairy farm and knifemaking from the 1940s. Moran found the book Bowie Knife, published by Raymond Thorp in 1948. Moran recalled [2]: “I must have read that book at least fifty times, and it certainly had a tremendous impact on me. It was during this same period that I began to attend gun shows in the Baltimore area. I was the only knifemaker who exhibited at these shows… People would stop at my table at a gun show back in the 50s and they would like my work, but when they discovered that I wanted $15 or so for a knife, they’d almost run away!” He sold the farm in 1960 and built a new shop, going full time as a knifemaker. Moran emphasized in his 1960 catalog how the study of ancient blades was key to his methods [2]:

I am the only maker of classical ancient blades… I do not make any wild claims that these knives can be used for cutting bolts or metal as a test of the knife’s quality. Moran Knives have long been acclaimed by many leading authorities as being the finest made today. They are probably the most expensive knives made because of the painstaking craftsmanship that goes into them. However, this results in a superior quality that one is unable to obtain in any other way. These knives will be collector items of future years… To my knowledge these knives are the only ones made today that are completely hand forged, hand tempered, and handmade in every respect… An immense amount of research and study of blades and forging techniques from ancient times until today has been required… The tempering process alone can only be learned by many years’ experience. This technique is the same as that used by the blade smiths of the seventeenth century. It was this tempering that enabled those blades to withstand such severe strain in combat.

Moran believed that ancient blades were better than modern knives, which is why he attempted to learn from them, as he said in his 1975 catalog [2]:

We must remember that the finest blades which have ever been made were developed at a time when one’s life depended on his blade. Anyone who does not believe this is true should make a study of ancient blades. It soon would be apparent to them that these were the finest ever made. I have tried to follow the methods and techniques used by the ancient smiths. These methods have worked out quite well for me. In all the years I have been making knives I have never had one returned with a broken blade.

Early Moran Knives. Weyer photo.

Moran Steel Choices

When it came to steel choices, Moran also believed that simpler was better, as he said in 1975 [2]:

Today, we hear a great deal about new and super steels. In over 30 years that I have been engaged in knife making, I have of course tried most all of the steels available in search of a superior steel. It is true that the corrosion resistant steels of today are far superior to the old stainless steels, but, what most people do not realize is that these steels were designed to hold their hardness at a high degree of heat. This of course, is unnecessary in a knife. Most of the high alloy steels have 12 to 18 percent chrome. This is a very definite drawback to good edge-holding qualities. It is true that this steel does have some advantages, such as being corrosion resistant, and this can be important to some people who do not have the time to wipe and oil their blade… Any steel manufacturer will tell you not to use the complex high alloy steels unless you need tools that allow you to cut under high heat, etc. For most tools and especially knife blades, one should stick to the high grade carbon steels. I myself, have found after 30 years of experimentation that the steel with the best all around qualities for a blade is in the straight carbon range. The high alloy steels have far more drawbacks than they have advantages.

Moran’s Differential Heat Treatments

Moran would heat treat his blades to have a hard edge but a “spring” tempered spine and soft tang. In 1960 he said [2] that this gave the blades “a combination of strength and edge holding quality that is unattainable from production made blades.” Again he made an appeal to ancient techniques [3]: “Of course this was a method used hundreds of years ago – especially in Europe – to make a better blade.”

Moran and Forging

Of course Bill Moran was famous for promoting forged blades. He believed that this was an important part of the ancient process, and claimed that it led to improved performance. In 1950 he said [2]: “The bar of steel is heated in a specially designed field stone forge … and forged by hand on the anvil. Every blade is heated and reheated, then forged dozens of times before the forging operation is finished. This hand forging greatly improves the quality of the blade.”

Moran believed that the performance improvement was due in part to the (now discredited) technique of “packing” as he said in 1975 [2]: “I use a technique known as hammer hardening or packing. This is an important step that unfortunately is understood by only a few smith’s. After the blade is forged almost to the finished shape, the blade is then hammered at a rather low heat with rapid, light blows. This causes the grain to be better aligned and the steel to be far more compact. This should only be attempted by a smith with a great deal of experience.” While “packing of molecules” is rarely claimed by bladesmiths anymore (iron atoms cannot be forced closer together), there are some that still perform cold or warm forging techniques for other purposes, so this could just be a case where Moran did not understand the metallurgy though there can be small benefits to the technique anyway.

Moran bowie. Weyer photo.

Moran and the Reintroduction of Pattern-Welded Damascus

Moran popularized pattern-welded Damascus in the early 1970s. This was due to his studies of ancient blades [4]: “Ever since I can remember, I, like all who love fine blades, have been fascinated with the beautiful Damascus blade. Many legends abound throughout history pertaining to the wonderful quality of these remarkable blades. After years of study and research, I felt I would like to try making them.” Moran would claim that Damascus blades had better properties [5]:

No one was more surprised than I, when I found this steel did have most unusual qualities. I found these blades could be left as-quenched and still have good flexibility, they also would hold a very good edge. Indeed I am now convinced that many of the old legends concerning these blades are true. These blades were far superior to any other blade because of the hundreds of alternating layers of iron and steel. The principle is the same as plywood or the laminated bow. I am now convinced that Damascus blades stopped being made so long ago for the same reason the wonderful composite bows of the Turks died out; that reason being they were so terribly difficult to make and after the fall of the Saracen empire, man went back to the self-bow which was made from a single piece of wood. The same being true for the Damascus blade; it was so much easier to make a blade from a single piece of steel.

Moran presented his first Damascus blades at the 1973 Knifemakers’ Guild Show in Kansas City. Knifemakers and collectors alike were very impressed. Butch Winter wrote [6]: “In those days the Guild Show crowds weren’t that big. There were a few people looking at Moran’s knives but they more or less were agog and didn’t understand what he’d done. The other makers were saying, ‘I wish I could do that,’ or ‘How’d he do that?'” Moran said that pattern-welded Damascus was key to bringing back forging and making his business sustainable [7]:

[T]he first year I showed my Damascus blades in Kansas City, I took in the most money I had ever made at any one show. For the first time, it occurred to me that it just might be possible to earn a decent living making knives. However, making Damascus cut my production by about two-thirds, and as I get older, it seems that I can’t make knives as quickly as I once did, and I was never a very fast bladesmith.”

Early 1970s Moran Damascus dagger. Weyer photo.

Loveless and Knife Design

Bob Loveless first attempted making knives after reading an article about Randall knives in 1953. He tried to buy one from Abercrombie & Fitch (then a sporting goods store) but the salesperson was rude and said it would be many months to be able to purchase one. Loveless made his own knife and returned to Abercrombie to show the rude sales clerk. He found instead that the clerk had been fired, but the floor manager was impressed with his knife and began ordering dozens of them.

Loveless is perhaps best known for his unique design sense. However, early on his knives looked a lot like Randall’s [8]:

[My first knives] looked a lot like knives that Bo Randall produced. The knives all had narrow tangs, single guards, leather washer handles with finger grooves and an aluminum pommel. Looking back, there is really no comparison between what we produce now and those early knives. They might have been good, solid edged tools, but they were lacking in aesthetics. Thankfully, over the years I’ve been able to break out of that early mold and create knives that not only are functional, but also look good.

Early Loveless knives. Weyer photos.

Loveless felt that first the knife must look good, and then when the customer picks it up it has to feel good [9]:

Eye appeal is the very first thing – it has a bearing on whether or not the knife will be accepted… If it is not appealing to the eye, then the prospect won‘t pick it up. If he doesn’t pick it up – you’re lost. But for the intelligent outdoorsman, you have got to get him to pick up the knife.

A knife must feel good in a man’s hand. Whether we realize it or not, our sense of touch is very critical to us. We get a lot of our input from our fingertips … it has to feel good … since we are directing our effort to the user’s hand primarily … it’s important to the knifemaker to understand the function of the hand… The knife designer, if he’s good, realizes that the human hand defines everything from the guard on back, in his work.

Loveless believed that having real experience was important to designing his knives [10]:

Unless you’ve had field experience, you can’t make hunting knives. I see knives with cutting edges that are too thick. With blades that are too long… With awkward and ill-shaped handles. Too many knife makers don’t understand their own hand. Their knives are not user friendly. You can’t teach a guy to make a good hunting knife if he’s never been in the woods, shot a deer, and been up to his elbows in deer guts. It’s like giving a typewriter to a man who is illiterate.

Loveless’s more developed style. Weyer photo.

Loveless and Steel

Loveless saw his process as iterating and improving to develop a knife that was better than any before it [10]:

Knife making can be thought of as an endless chase after perfection in design and execution – an ongoing pursuit of better steels and materials, and, of course, of working hard enough and being lucky enough to realize the measure of success that will give us a decent living. Some of us keep at it, often working long hours into the night after the demands of a regular day job. Sometimes, it becomes too much and we drop out. Yet it keeps calling us back – perhaps later when we can afford a better shop – to try again.

Loveless did not believe in forging of blades, and performed stock removal instead [8]:

I had no idea that flat stock in the steel of my choice (Jessop 139B) was available. When I ran out of steel, I contacted the manufacturer. The woman who answered the telephone suggested that I try their flat stock. I realized right then and there that I’d forged my last knife. Her suggestion was what you might call “a light bulb moment.” When that light came on in my head, I realized that there was no point in beating a piece of round steel stock flat, when you can buy it flat already. No matter what the forging community believes, you can’t improve a piece of steel by heating and beating on it.

While Moran used very simple steels, Loveless was looking for a modern alloy that would enhance performance. Loveless had started with a high nickel steel, Jessop 139B, relatively similar to 15N20 with 2.5% nickel. He liked the steel for its high toughness and found the nickel to improve the corrosion resistance. Next he tried the high silicon shock resisting steel S5 because it had a very high toughness rating according to the steel information he managed to find. The S5 made good knives with excellent toughness and good edge holding but he had issues with sudden fractures in the knives because of the fast brine quenching specified by the datasheet [11]:

S5 has almost 2% Si and 1% Mn, and when everything went just right, we got some very fine working knives out of it. Very high toughness of course, but also very good edge holding. But it was a Brine-quenching steel, and with S5 two problems were never licked: sudden, brittle fracture during testing, and rusting that seemed to pop out of the blade before my eyes. The brittle fracture just shouldn’t have happened, and two out of three times it didn’t. But the third time, I would put knife after knife in the vise for a simple bending test, and watch the damned things bust with very small bends. I hollered at metallurgists, kicked the dog, my kids wouldn’t bring me their report cards, my internist was pulling his hair, and my Old Lady was making me eat out in the shop.

Loveless even managed to request a “special modified melt of slightly different Silico-Manganese Shock steel” [11]. But he still had issues with the knives fracturing because of the severe brine quenching [6]:

I’d end up mumbling to myself, watching the moon go down and the sun come up trying to figure out what was going wrong. Never did, either. So I have a bad taste in my mouth over this kind of steel, which has been recognized for years as the best stuff to make chisels out of…the properties of the Shock steels intrigued me, and still do. But there was the rusting, and I got tired of having to hone my knife everytime I started out hunting, so I began wondering about things like that.

Loveless made a wish list of his ideal steel and eventually found it in 154CM stainless steel, as he wrote in his 1972 catalog:

So all during those years I was building in my mind a picture of what the perfect Loveless Knife steel would be, and what it would offer: working hardness exceeding Rc 62, working ductility and toughness at that hardness, and finally rust-resistance equal to the usual Knifemaker’s 440C, which I had tried but rejected due to poor edge-holding. During the summer of 1971, I learned of a steel made by a leading Tool Steel producer in the East (Crucible). They had developed it for service in the high-temperature regions of the fan-jet engines on the 747 aircraft, and it was alloyed to hold strength at 700 deg. F. My examination of the alloying, and a study of the heat-treating procedures suggested by the maker, led me to think it might be a candidate for fine hunting knives.

I ordered a quantity of 500-lbs, which was delivered in August. Test knives were made immediately, and placed in the hands of friends here in the West and in Canada, and I began hearing from these men, all critical knife users, within two weeks, with their comments. Previously knife buyers had to make a choice when they ordered a knife. The knifemakers, this one included, could offer edge-holding, or rust-resistance, but not both qualities, in the same knife. Typically, those of us who valued field performance preferred to make our knives from one of the better medium or high-carbon Tool Steels, in the judgment that edge-holding was the main reason for the existence of the benchmade knife. But two things were immediately apparent, in the letters commenting on the new knives. First, they did hold their edge, better than did my previous alloy. And second, they didn’t rust, in normal service, even if not cleaned up right away. We had to unlearn some things, and learn some new things, in the way of Shop practice, in making these new knives. But it was soon quite apparent that we had found a new kind of steel, and that this new steel was yielding the results I had been looking for. Knives made from Grade 154CM are indeed fine working knives… Exposure to blood acids in big game stains the blade slightly, if anything, but badly-pitted blades just don’t happen, and even the staining is rare. And the cutting edge holds up better than did the older Silico-Manganese Alloy knives. Blades are put in service at a working hardness of Rc 62-64, and are quite ductile and tough at that hardness… All Loveless Knives made since September of 1971 are of this fine new steel. We have almost 300 knives in the field now, and the results have exceeded my early hopes. The 154CM Alloy has brought new and better quality to Loveless Knives, and it’s the kind of steel I had hoped to find for years.

Weyer photo.

154CM and the Japanese version ATS-34 would become a standard for stock removal makers for decades (and is still used by companies like Emerson). Knifemakers also continue to use CPM-154 and RWL-34 (The RWL stands for Robert W. Loveless). Loveless enjoyed learning about steel and metallurgy. He wrote [11] that his copy of Tool Steels by Roberts, Hamaker, and Johnson was “well-thumbed and beloved.” Loveless wrote an article about metallurgy in 1975 which wasn’t too bad (according to this PhD metallurgist) [11]:

Eight thousand words or so ago, I set out to tell you something about steel, and knifemaking. Whether I succeeded or not is up to you, and how hard you want to work at knowing the world of fine knives. You won’t learn it all from an article, and may never learn it all in one lifetime for all I can see. But that’s what makes it interesting, even challenging, and yes … fun. There’s a little more to it than you thought there was. Right?

Loveless did not believe in “secret” heat treatments, in his article about heat treating he described his process and said sarcastically [11]: “[I]f you’ve ever wondered what goes on behind closed doors at the dark of the moon get ready!” He used modern heat treating methods rather than a forge or torch. He laid out his heat treatment steps for 154CM including a furnace, a cold treatment, and multiple tempers. He summarized the process afterward [11]: “If there’s any ‘secret’ to making knives like this, I’ve given it above, and I encourage you to try for the same results.”

Tradition vs Modernism Continues to This Day

Loveless and Moran seemed to disagree in almost every possible way. However, their fundamental philosophical differences seem to come down to tradition vs modernism. Moran found inspiration in ancient blades and thought that the secrets to superior blades was in the study of those blades. Loveless felt that through iterative design improvements and the use of new steels developed by modern science that superior performance could be obtained. Of course, this is somewhat simplistic. Moran developed new techniques and designs himself, and Loveless said that his tapered tangs could be found on blades from the 1800s.

Moran would take his love for the forged blade and found the American Bladesmith Society in 1976 along with Don Hastings, Bill Bagwell, and B.R. Hughes. This organization continues to this day and has continued to have a strong influence on those that forge blades. It remains relatively uncommon for bladesmiths to forge stainless and high alloy tool steels. While it is true that those steels are more difficult to forge, this is not the only reason why they remain uncommon. After all, it is also more difficult to use these steels with stock removal techniques but they are used much more frequently by those makers. The ABS founders did not believe that new steels were better, as Bill Bagwell said [12]:

Frequently, I note in some bit of literature that so-and-so is using a fantastic jet-age steel for his blades. Frankly, just because a given steel is great when used for the turbines of jet aircraft engines doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the ultimate cutlery steel. A blade that is forged, however, is made from steel that the smith has in effect manufactured expressly for a knife, and this makes possible the toughest, strongest, most effective cutting edge possible, but at the same time this blade will be relatively easy to sharpen once it gets dull.

The ABS bylaws specified (and continue to specify) that a JS or MS stamp cannot be used on a stainless blade, even if forged [13]. They justified this rule by claiming that stainless steels are inferior [13]:

[T]he Society discourages the continuous use of stainless steel for forging blades unless and until forged stainless steel blades have been proven, to the satisfaction of the Board, capable of being forged into quality blades that will consistently pass the standard ABS cutting and bending tests.

The ABS cutting and bending tests are much easier to pass with simple carbon steels since they require a differential heat treatment, which is difficult to perform with a stainless steel because of its high “hardenability” (air cooling leads to full hardness). It isn’t even possible to pass the Journeyman Smith cutting tests with a stainless steel, as the JS cutting test says that “Only forged blades of homogenous carbon steel are allowed.” I think that san-mai and other laminated type construction are ideal for the ABS bending tests, which would work very well with stainless steels. This would also demonstrate forging skill rather than only heat treating skill. The differential heat treatment can be performed with low alloy steels that have not been forged, so they are not an indicator of forged blade performance but only heat treatment. Stainless san-mai has become much more common over the past 10-15 years (though more commonly it is stainless “sides” with a carbon steel core).

The ABS board also claimed that stainless steels do not benefit from forging like carbon steels do. I have continued to hear this claim from many bladesmiths. B.R. Hughes wrote in 1977 [14]:

440C, D2, and 154CM are all … stain resistant steels, and all three will take and retain an edge for long periods of time even under heavy usage. It was not, incidentally, feasible to attempt to forge such sophisticated steels as those mentioned in the last two paragraphs, and the [common] view that many modern cutlers take of forging may in large measure be due to the fact that a few misguided souls even tried to forge 440C and even D2 by guess and by gosh, and the results were mostly awful.

Of course there have been a few brave bladesmiths who have used stainless steel despite the heavy social pressure of the ABS to avoid it, but they have remained a small number. For those who are brave, I have an article on how to effectively heat treat stainless steels that have been forged.

Nick Rossi knives in forged AEB-L

Another big difference between now and then is that the most common stock removal steels were 440C, D2, and 154CM, as Hughes mentioned. Those steels were very different than simple carbon steels. They have much higher carbide volume and thus higher wear resistance, but toughness is limited from those carbide structures. The chromium carbides were also relatively large which also limited toughness. So these steel choices led to very different properties, on the one end were low wear resistance simple steels with good toughness and ease in sharpening, used primarily by forging bladesmiths. On the other end were steels with high wear resistance and relatively low toughness (and some complained about sharpenability), used primarily by stock removal makers. Things have changed since then, such as the rise in popularity of AEB-L. Ironically, that steel dates back to the late 1960s, before the formation of the Knifemakers Guild, but did not become common in USA custom knives until the 2010s. AEB-L was designed for razors, and it has a much finer microstructure and much higher toughness than grades like 440C, D2, and 154CM. It has a much more similar performance profile to a low alloy steel favored by forging bladesmiths. And of course there are now a wide array of powder metallurgy high alloy and stainless steels available with a wide range of properties at different levels of wear resistance, toughness, and corrosion resistance.

I do think that claims from bladesmiths about the superiority of forged blades have slowed down. It was still relatively common in the 1990s and early 2000s but I don’t see it as much anymore. From my perspective the divide between forging bladesmiths and stock removal makers is smaller than ever. I do not see as much arguing about superiority as happened decades ago. It is most common for knifemakers to choose the method that is most appealing to them without making judgments about superiority (or inferiority) of the other method. So I think that improvement should be celebrated.

More History of Knives and Steel

Did you enjoy learning some history of knifemakers and the steels that they used? Then you will love my book The Story of Knife Steel. It is full of stories direct from the mouths of knifemakers, knife company owners, and metallurgists. Learn the development of steels, how they were introduced to knives, and the development of Damascus patterns and techniques. It is available in PDF, paperback, or hardcover. It is also available as a PDF bundle along with Knife Engineering 2nd edition.

---

[1] Hughes, B.R. “The Knifemakers Guild: Beginnings.” Blade Magazine. August 1986.

[2] Hughes, B.R. and C. Houston Price. Master of the Forge, William F. Moran, Jr. and His Classic Blades. 1996.

[3] McEvoy, Harry K. “A living legend in modern cutlery William F. Moran, Jr.” Knife World. February 1979.

[4] Material handed out at the 1973 Knifemakers Guild Show written by Bill Moran.

[5] Moran Knives brochure 1973.

[6] Hughes, B.R. “Happy 25th, Damascus!” Blade Magazine. November 1998.

[7] Hughes, B.R. “William F. Moran Knifemaker Profile.” American Blade Magazine. April 1979.

[8] Hollis, Durwood. Knifemaking with Bob Loveless. 2010.

[9] Spangenberger, Phil. “R.W. Loveless: Leader in the Field.” Guns & Ammo Guidebook to Knives & Edged Weapons. 1974.

[10] Williams, Al and Jim Weyer. Living on the Edge: Logos of the Loveless Legend. 1992.

[11] Loveless, R.W. “Steel and Knives: A Bladesmith’s Bible.” Knife Digest. 1975.

[12] Hughes, B.R. “Interview: Bill Bagwell.” Knife World. February 1978.

[13] https://www.americanbladesmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ABS-ByLaws-2-7-2013-Signed.pdf

[14] Hughes, B.R. “Steel.” Knife World. December 1977.