#1

Member
Seattle, WA (USA)
(This post was last modified: 12-24-2023, 07:47 PM by draebeard.)
I have noticed that most of the boutique razors made in the USA and Europe use 303 or 304 stainless steel rather than 316L.  There are certainly exceptions, but Blackland, Timeless, Above the Tie, Karve, Tatara, and others use the softer and less durable 303 or 304 SS rather than marine grade 316L.  Yaqi, Feather, Paradigm, RazoRock, Wolfman, and others are the exceptions who use 316L.  My question is why, or rather why not?  There must be a reason besides cost.  After all if RazoRock can produce good quality razors out of 316L for $70 and Yaqi for even less, then why not Blackland Razors, Timeless, tatararazors, and Karve?  There must be a reason, and I'd like to know why.

CarbonShavingCo. and Captainjonny like this post
#2

Merchant
St. Louis, MO
Most likely machining costs. I know when we investigated razor manufacturing several years ago, we were told 316 wears cutting tools way faster. More tools, more money.

Cutty Sharp, dtownvino and jesseix like this post
Shave Sharp, Look Sharp
#3

Member
Indiana
I believe it depends on the grade of steel used by the machine shop for other applications. Using 316 instead of 303 will not significantly increase the cost. I think manufacturing costs are significantly lower than retail prices. The most important question is whether you need higher corrosion-resistant steel for your razors. Have you experienced any corrosion issues with razors made of 303?
#4

novacula regem
Greece
(This post was last modified: 12-24-2023, 09:01 PM by Stephanos1920.)
Machining of 316L can cost two to three times more than machining of 303 .

316L has low heat conductance and high heat resistance thus the cutting tools get easily very hot .316L also work hardens which make
things even worse.

Machining of 316L needs expensive 
cutters ,"for super alloys",while 
303 needs ordinary HSS cutters.

Most CNC shops always stock 303 ,
rather than 316L billets.Because they 
mostly use 303 when it comes to
"machined stainless steel parts" .

My personal thought :
 303 is not a good steel for making razors .Sure,better than ZAMAK or 
aluminum ,as a material but certainly not a "high-end" choice of steel ,and should never be considered as such.



Try to avoid rinsing your 303 razor(s) with
really hot tap water ( hot chlorinated water ) .

(...)Corrosion Resistance

Sulphur additions to the composition act as initiation sites for pitting corrosion. This decreases the corrosion resistance of 303 stainless steel to less than that for 304. However, corrosion resistance remains good in mild environments. In chloride containing environments over 60°C, 303 stainless steel is subject to pitting and crevice corrosion. Grade 303 stainless is not suitable for use in marine environments.(...)

https://www.thyssenkrupp-materials.co.uk...14305.html

Laborking, dominicr, Calm_Shaver and 7 others like this post
I Need New Conspiracy Theories 
Because All Old Ones Came True
#5
(This post was last modified: 12-24-2023, 09:23 PM by Oregon.)
Good to know information. I checked, and my two stainless razors include a Carbon which is 316L, and a Timeless 0.68 which I use for travel. My Wolfman and other Timeless (0.95) razors are titanium, and my Charcoal is brass. Sold the others.

AlanH81 likes this post
#6

Member
Gatineau, QC, Canada
Maybe it’s their preferential steel of choice to use to my best guess??
"Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value."

  - Albert Einstein
#7

Member
Chicago Suburbs
(This post was last modified: 12-25-2023, 03:55 AM by RayClem.)
Yes 316L has higher corrosion resistance than some of the other steels, but that really is not significant for the end use. If you plan to place your razor in a pirate's chest at the water's edge and want it to remain pristine for a few decades, then 316L is your steel of choice. If you want your razor to resist corrosion when exposed to a ruptured chlorine tank car, the 316L will last longer. If you anticipate using your razor for the next 50 years in your bathroom, any of the 300 series steels will work.

In industrial environments where corrosion resistance is important, but price is also a consideration, 304 stainless is often the steel of choice. While 316L has higher corrosion resistance, it uses molybdenum in the composition. Since Moly is a lot more expensive than iron, the 316 steel is more costly. The 304 steel is more malleable than 316, making fabrication easier.

canpo1907, MaineYooper, CK89 and 5 others like this post
#8

Merchant
San Diego CA
Materials are chosen for one of two reasons: application parameters or marketing. 303 and 304 far exceed the application requirements of a safety razor. There is no added functional benefit of 316L in a razor unless you plan to spend much time shaving while scuba diving.

Lipripper660, jesseix, Nero and 15 others like this post
#9

Member
Seattle, WA (USA)
(12-25-2023, 05:21 AM)Blackland Razors Wrote: Materials are chosen for one of two reasons: application parameters or marketing. 303 and 304 far exceed the application requirements of a safety razor. There is no added functional benefit of 316L in a razor unless you plan to spend much time shaving while scuba diving.

I can think of one functional benefit of 316L in a razor:
A polished finish is more durable / less easily scratched in 316L, and even more so in 17-4.

canpo1907 and Cutty Sharp like this post
#10

Merchant
San Diego CA
(12-25-2023, 05:57 AM)draebeard Wrote:
(12-25-2023, 05:21 AM)Blackland Razors Wrote: Materials are chosen for one of two reasons: application parameters or marketing. 303 and 304 far exceed the application requirements of a safety razor. There is no added functional benefit of 316L in a razor unless you plan to spend much time shaving while scuba diving.

I can think of one functional benefit of 316L in a razor:
A polished finish is more durable / less easily scratched in 316L, and even more so in 17-4.

Unless it’s been hardened, 316 has about the same hardness rating as 303/304 so I don’t believe there is any increase in polish durability. It’s true that 17-4 should be more scratch-resistant.

Captainjonny, canpo1907, MaineYooper and 2 others like this post


Users browsing this thread: