I have a knife in 80crV2 (Winkler blueridge) and I like it quite a bit, it behaves like a solid carbon steel and sharpens easily, no problems with chipping. What could I expect from AEB-L? Are they comparable at the same HRC or what would be the benefit of one over another?
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
80crV2 vs AEB-L on characteristics
- Thread starter Skidoosh
- Start date
Currawong
Gold Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,257
The obvious difference is that AEB-L is stainless.
Other than that 80CrV2 would be a fair bit tougher, and think has a bit better edge retention. I have both steels but haven't used them enough on comparable tasks to really know from practice. AEB-L is very tough though.
As far as I know one of the key benefits of AEB-L is that it will take a very thin edge that is still quite stable.
Other than that 80CrV2 would be a fair bit tougher, and think has a bit better edge retention. I have both steels but haven't used them enough on comparable tasks to really know from practice. AEB-L is very tough though.
As far as I know one of the key benefits of AEB-L is that it will take a very thin edge that is still quite stable.
AEB-L at 60-61HRC doesn't have that great edge holding from my experience.
80crv2 should have a fair bit better edge holding and also higher or similar in toughness (AEBL is already king of the hill for high alloy when it come to toughness). Its my top steel choice for chopper.
80crv2 should have a fair bit better edge holding and also higher or similar in toughness (AEBL is already king of the hill for high alloy when it come to toughness). Its my top steel choice for chopper.
Larrin
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 5,000
It's interesting that low alloy steels don't seem to have a reputation problem when it comes to edge retention, but AEB-L is considered poor with comparisons to PM stainless steels. 80CrV2 has almost no carbide to speak of and very low wear resistance.
May be because people sometime bias toward carbon steel?
I still remember a conversation with Daniel Winkler via Email about 4 years ago, I asked him how 80crv2 (his primary steel) stack up to CPM-154 (which he also use in some line of his production) Note that all of his CPM-154 are heat treated by Peters to 58-60HRC which pretty much similar hardness range to his 80CRV2 knife.
He said 80crv2 is superior in both edge retention and toughness which quite strange since CPM-154 has far higher amount of harder carbide.
But I also have experienced something like that numerous time, like SK-5 at 60HRC(Japanese 1085) out cut N695(440C) at 59HRC by a fair margin.... or W2 tool steel sprang VG10 in robe cut test etc. May be this due to the geometry or others variability since we don't have scientific numbers for those bevel angle, edge angle, sharpened grit etc. ?
Larrin
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 5,000
Could be our own biases when performing subjective tests. Certainly if the edge geometry differs it is almost pointless to call it a "steel comparison." A steel with half the wear resistance but also half the edge angle would win.May be because people sometime bias toward carbon steel?
I still remember a conversation with Daniel Winkler via Email about 4 years ago, I asked him how 80crv2 (his primary steel) stack up to CPM-154 (which he also use in some line of his production) Note that all of his CPM-154 are heat treated by Peters to 58-60HRC which pretty much similar hardness range to his 80CRV2 knife.
He said 80crv2 is superior in both edge retention and toughness which quite strange since CPM-154 has far higher amount of harder carbide.
But I also have experienced something like that numerous time, like SK-5 at 60HRC(Japanese 1085) out cut N695(440C) at 59HRC by a fair margin.... or W2 tool steel sprang VG10 in robe cut test etc. May be this due to the geometry or others variability since we don't have scientific numbers for those bevel angle, edge angle, sharpened grit etc. ?
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
If the edge-geometry does not match, it is only a comparison of mechanical advantage (which can be approximated through mathematical calculations easily enough), it is not even a comparison of wear resistance. Only after the geometry of the thinner edge degrades sufficiently to match that of the thicker edge is "wear resistance" really being compared, i.e. which edge is wearing away faster, unless you are actually performing microscopic examination of the edges to quantify loss of edge material during the process...
I suppose "edge retention" can be used loosely to comprise both mechanical advantage and actual wear resistance, but, as you indicate, the former is so much predominant that it will mask all other factors. You really would have to make a full examination of the apices of each blade in order to draw a conclusion about which actually retained its edge longer (since they started with different edges to begin with). For example, if both blades are sharpened to the same grit and apex diameter, but the geometry of one edge is twice the thickness as the other at the same distance back from the apex, then the thinner blade will be able to cut with far less effort (per principles of mechanical advantage) which applies less stress on the edge, which induces less wear. As such, even though there is less material in the thinner to wear away during use, it will wear at a slower rate, and the thinner geometry behind the apex means that the advantage will continue until factors balance out, e.g. the thinner blade wears to a larger apex diameter that eliminates its advantage against a thicker blade retaining a thinner apex diameter.
I seem to recall that you actually ran CATRA tests demonstrating this very thing, showing that a 20' edge can cut ~10X more material than a 50' edge and end with a thicker apex diameter yet the same performance (i.e. material cut per stroke using fixed amount of force): https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/06/18/maximizing-edge-retention/
Steve Elliot did amazing work on this way-back-when using planer blades on cherry and mahogany and testing edge-sharpness every hundred feet: http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/bevel_angles.html
He also made micrographs (at much lower mag than TEM) to show the wear-profile over time, noting that the blade-position was adjusted every 100 feet to produce similar shavings from the wood being planed, a key factor in why the wear occurs as it does in those profiles: http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/wear_profiles.html
Last edited:
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
420HC and 12C27 and 440A should be tougher than AEB-L (13C26) and are also far more common and also "take a very thin edge that is quite stable". 420HC, 12C27, 440A are "king of the hill" there and have been used routinely in stainless choppers.
AEB-L/13C26 was developed to have higher carbon content to allow for higher hardness after tempering and better wear-resistance than the tougher stainless steels but not as much as is found in less-tough (and hard to cheaply blank) 440C, AEB, and 19C27.
I would have expected AEB-L to have a slight edge in wear-resistance over 80CrV2 under the presumption that the stainless steel has more carbide in the matrix, but that would probably be almost negligible in normal use? *shrug*
Slightly higher toughness for 80CrV2 and much worse corrosion-resistance would be my prediction, but I don't have any experience with it.
Larrin
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 5,000
440A has some large carbides in it so I don't think it would make it in the same category as 420HC and 12C27. The higher chromium matters.
1084 had good but not amazing toughness. I have some 80CrV2 specimens for toughness testing but they have not yet been machined. Predicting low alloy steel toughness is very challenging.
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
Both for 440 and 80CrV2 (1080+), we won't know the answers until someone with sufficient integrity and skill and determination and resources publishes the information in an easily accessible format...
For everyone, if you enjoy talking about this stuff and have some coin to spare ('tis the season of giving, afterall): https://www.patreon.com/Knifesteelnerds
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2014
- Messages
- 5,364
I wouldn't put 440a as simliar to AEBL.
The carbide are much bigger and blocky because of the extra chromium. This also caps the hardness because we put too much Chromium in solution making more retained austinite, keeping us from making a harder matrix.
What makes AEBL so special is the ratio of Chromium and Carbon for a good balance of hardness, fine carbide, decent corrosion resistance.
The 440a is stuck because it has too much Chromium.
The carbide are much bigger and blocky because of the extra chromium. This also caps the hardness because we put too much Chromium in solution making more retained austinite, keeping us from making a harder matrix.
What makes AEBL so special is the ratio of Chromium and Carbon for a good balance of hardness, fine carbide, decent corrosion resistance.
The 440a is stuck because it has too much Chromium.
If the edge-geometry does not match, it is only a comparison of mechanical advantage (which can be approximated through mathematical calculations easily enough), it is not even a comparison of wear resistance. Only after the geometry of the thinner edge degrades sufficiently to match that of the thicker edge is "wear resistance" is really being compared, i.e. which edge is wearing away faster, unless you are actually performing microscopic examination of the edges to quantify loss of edge material during the process...
I suppose "edge retention" can be used loosely to comprise both mechanical advantage and actual wear resistance, but, as you indicate, the former is so much predominant that it will mask all other factors. You really would have to make a full examination of the apices of each blade in order to draw a conclusion about which actually retained its edge longer (since they started with different edges to begin with). For example, if both blades are sharpened to the same grit and apex diameter, but the geometry of one edge is twice the thickness as the other at the same distance back from the apex, then the thinner blade will be able to cut with far less effort (per principles of mechanical advantage) which applies less stress on the edge, which induces less wear. As such, even though there is less material in the thinner to wear away during use, it will wear at a slower rate, and the thinner geometry behind the apex means that the advantage will continue until factors balance out, e.g. the thinner blade wears to a larger apex diameter that eliminates its advantage against a thicker blade retaining a thinner apex diameter.
I seem to recall that you actually ran CATRA tests demonstrating this very thing, showing that a 20' edge can cut ~10X more material than a 50' edge and end with a thicker apex diameter yet the same performance (i.e. material cut per stroke using fixed amount of force): https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/06/18/maximizing-edge-retention/
Steve Elliot did amazing work on this way-back-when using planer blades on cherry and mahogany and testing edge-sharpness every hundred feet: http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/bevel_angles.html
He also made micrographs (at much lower mag than TEM) to show the wear-profile over time, noting that the blade-position was adjusted every 100 feet to produce similar shavings from the wood being planed, a key factor in why the wear occurs as it does in those profiles: http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/wear_profiles.html
Both for 440 and 80CrV2 (1080+), we won't know the answers until someone with sufficient integrity and skill and determination and resources publishes the information in an easily accessible format...
For everyone, if you enjoy talking about this stuff and have some coin to spare ('tis the season of giving, afterall): https://www.patreon.com/Knifesteelnerds
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
Fair enough on the hardness, though again the "too much" chromium impact there has much more to do with the amount of carbon present. 420HC has the same Chromium content as 13C26 but lacks the carbon content to attain as high of hardness. Lots of steels have more or less chromium than 13C26 and higher hardness. Aus 6A is another comparison - can have a tad more chromium and also some vanadium so likely to have more carbide but still attains 60Rc from what I've read... I'd like to see the micrographs and charpy comparison on all these mid-carbon stainless steels after HT for a knife.
But the information is mere hear-say ("read-type"?) without PICS!!!
Show me the 440A micrographs and charpy data, I have the former for a Taiwanese "440A mod / 440M" which is basically 13C26. Back in 2007, Larrin indicated he had seen 440A micrographs, I am hoping someone can find some to post up. https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/aus-6-vs-440a-vs-12c27-vs-1-4116.499094/page-2#post-4906862Here is an image of the 440M micrographs with caption - not super useful since it isn't actual AEB-L or 13C26, nor is it 420HC, 440A, or Aus6A: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 0.63C-12.7Cr Martensitic Stainless Steel during Various Tempering Treatments.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy....N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==#AN=50218434&db=bth
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2014
- Messages
- 5,364
Right on,
440a is a clumpy mess.
There are better, more available, affordable materials that require more of the spot light.
I focus on the steels that I can get more performance out of with my knives.
I have to put this information into practice at the end of the day.
Aus6, 440a, 1.4116 etc aka "clumpy soft bois"
are nothing like
AEB-L,14C28N, 440M, Nitro V, 13C26.
These steels have 62-65rc capability and are crazy fine structured.
Cheers
440a is a clumpy mess.
There are better, more available, affordable materials that require more of the spot light.
I focus on the steels that I can get more performance out of with my knives.
I have to put this information into practice at the end of the day.
Aus6, 440a, 1.4116 etc aka "clumpy soft bois"
are nothing like
AEB-L,14C28N, 440M, Nitro V, 13C26.
These steels have 62-65rc capability and are crazy fine structured.
Cheers
Fair enough on the hardness, though again the "too much" chromium impact there has much more to do with the amount of carbon present. 420HC has the same Chromium content as 13C26 but lacks the carbon content to attain as high of hardness. Lots of steels have more or less chromium than 13C26 and higher hardness. Aus 6A is another comparison - can have a tad more chromium and also some vanadium so likely to have more carbide but still attains 60Rc from what I've read... I'd like to see the micrographs and charpy comparison on all these mid-carbon stainless steels after HT for a knife.
But the information is mere hear-say ("read-type"?) without PICS!!!
Here is an image of the 440M micrographs with caption - not super useful since it isn't actual AEB-L or 13C26, nor is it 420HC, 440A, or Aus6A: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 0.63C-12.7Cr Martensitic Stainless Steel during Various Tempering Treatments.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=446883be-378e-4be5-a902-5932a1a02629@sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==#AN=50218434&db=bth
Fair enough on the hardness, though again the "too much" chromium impact there has much more to do with the amount of carbon present. 420HC has the same Chromium content as 13C26 but lacks the carbon content to attain as high of hardness. Lots of steels have more or less chromium than 13C26 and higher hardness. Aus 6A is another comparison - can have a tad more chromium and also some vanadium so likely to have more carbide but still attains 60Rc from what I've read... I'd like to see the micrographs and charpy comparison on all these mid-carbon stainless steels after HT for a knife.
But the information is mere hear-say ("read-type"?) without PICS!!!
Here is an image of the 440M micrographs with caption - not super useful since it isn't actual AEB-L or 13C26, nor is it 420HC, 440A, or Aus6A: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 0.63C-12.7Cr Martensitic Stainless Steel during Various Tempering Treatments.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=446883be-378e-4be5-a902-5932a1a02629@sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==#AN=50218434&db=bth