Blade steels - what's wrong with improvement?

Ankerson said:
CPM 154 is a favorite of custom knife makers, it was developed for them so that is no surprise. :)

Very, very good dependable steel with a large variety of uses.
Click to expand...

One of my favorites as well. The fact that Phil Wilson still uses it says a lot in my opinion.
 
JB in SC said:
One of my favorites as well. The fact that Phil Wilson still uses it says a lot in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I know he does. :D

My Phil Wilson fillet knife. :)

DSC_3658.JPG


DSC_36562.JPG
 
I have a Bow River 3.5" drop point due in a couple of weeks...

I failed to go through with ordering a B&T quite a few years ago, a huge mistake :)
 
sodak said:
I got spanked! Ouch! :D If you want it for a coarse edge reference, I'll send it, but no worries either way. Get well first!
Click to expand...

Yeah well.... :D

It's hard to beat the higher alloy steels cutting abrasive material like manila rope.

The scoring follows the Carbide Content percentages for the most part right down the line, especially the Vanadium Content.

And that's really no surprise and in line with how it is supposed to be based on testing and research.
 
I agree with the OP. Sure there are great "old" steels like s30v or d2 that are proven and popular but I will be at the front of the line to try any new high performance supersteel. Edge retention is the most important factor to me when it comes to steels, of course there are many other very important factors too but edge retention is my #1 and thankfully the market keeps improving that.
 
In my opinion, what a maker does with the steel is more important than the steel itself. I'd rather a knife made with steel that the maker knows inside and out, than have the same maker produce a knife out of the latest steel that he is just learning about.

I have three knives in CPM-154. Two production knives, and a custom. The production knives perform about the same as other steels used by that manufacturer, while the blade on the custom seems almost magical.
 
The question I ask the super steel users. If you have a dmt sharpening set. How hard is it really to get a dull supersteel edge razor sharp again the way you could with an old carbon blade. My frame of reference is vg10, 154cm,440c, s30...all of which will re sharpen from dull in under 5 minutes for a typical pocket folder.

I have stayed away from supersteel bc folks say its hard to sharpen. But is it? Can you quantify how long it takes to sharpen a dull edge vs just a touch up?
 
GatorFlash1 said:
A question: what percent of the total production cost of the average EDC is the cost of a particular steel including it's fabrication into a blade? Has anyone done any research on this for say a 3.25" folder with a standardized blade shape of some sort. Just curious.
Click to expand...

You would have to ask someone like Sal Glesser about specific numbers on that. It's important to keep in mind that raw steel cost alone isn't the only factor to consider... sometimes it may even be the smallest factor.

When you get to making a couple thousand blades, even small differences in machineability and tool wear add up to big dollars. There's also HT to consider... a steel that needs to soak for an hour at temp before quenching instead of just being passed thru a kiln on a conveyor belt adds a boatload of energy costs.

cujobob said:
Elmax has 18% chromium. Must fall apart in your hand.
Click to expand...

I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post ;) I and my clients have been very pleased with the durability of Elmax as a general-purpose steel. Please keep in mind, I had that blade HT'ed at only 58Rc to make the most of its toughness while getting much of the edge-holding benefits of its carbide content.

KennyB said:
Couldn't you make a machete just as tough as one made in 1075 carbon steel out of 3V?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I've been trying for years to get another maker to accept a challenge of their large 10XX blade against my large 3V blade in hard-use tests like chopping and slashing, to compare toughness, edge-holding, etc. No takers so far.
 
My feelings about steels used in knives are quite simple, if it isn't broken, then I see no need to fix it, meaning that for me, I am quite content with a nice semi-custom production traditional folder knife from a reputable US company made using 1095, 440, D2, etc, with a street cost of less than $100.00 more than adequate for my needs. I would not buy that same knife if the use of an exotic steel made that knife a $200.00+ knife.
 
GatorFlash1 said:
I never said super steels are a monstrosity, just that some of the knives they are used in seem heavy and cumbersome.

I use super steel blade knives if the rest of the knife is easy and comfortable to use. Cru-wear and M290 are ones I own, S90V also. Great knives made by a great knife maker, Spyderco. Great handles, weight, and blade shape.
Click to expand...

I got you the first time and that's why I said, why is it always an assumption that super steels knives are monstrosities? As knife users, we always pick the knife better designed for the task whatever steel they be made of.
 
Quick again:

Any reason to still be using 440C or D2 or even S30V other than costs of manufacture (and price of final product)? These do not have the "edge stability" of the finer steels like AEB-L and 52100 for razor blades, nor the toughness of spring steels nor even that of newer PM steels with much higher wear-resistance. The only advantage i see is price. Anything?
 
cchu518 said:
The question I ask the super steel users. If you have a dmt sharpening set. How hard is it really to get a dull supersteel edge razor sharp again the way you could with an old carbon blade. My frame of reference is vg10, 154cm,440c, s30...all of which will re sharpen from dull in under 5 minutes for a typical pocket folder.

I have stayed away from supersteel bc folks say its hard to sharpen. But is it? Can you quantify how long it takes to sharpen a dull edge vs just a touch up?
Click to expand...
If the knife is properly designed, it's no big deal. Let me give you a specific example. I have a Phil Wilson in CPM 10V, hardened to 64.5 HRC. It's very thin behind the edge. It is one of the best edge holders I've ever seen (hint - go look at Ankerson's post in response to my M2 post).

I can get this knife dull as a butter knife, it takes less than 3 min to get it all the way back to atom-splitting sharp with DMT stones. If it's just somewhat dull, 3 to 5 strokes on a DMT is plenty. That's because, in spite of the carbide volume, it's extremely thin. There's not much steel to remove. But there's enough steel there for me to use it as a hunting knife, no problem. Just no prying or anything stupid like that. I find that it's much easier to sharpen than soft 1095 because it doesn't form a big floppy burr that you have to deal with.

So yeah, if you get something with high wear resistance and a scandi grind, it will take you a very long time to grind that large bevel down to sharpen it. Get the proper geometry, and it's no problem at all.

Thin geometry cuts. Get the steel that can be hardened as hard as possible, because hardness = strength. Then, you can go much thinner with the stronger steel to support the thin geometry. Carbides don't hurt either.

I'm a firm believer in the saying that one of the founders of Hewlett Packard used to use. If it ain't broke, break it. That's how we learn and progress.
 
Just so we're clear here:

Take any person who can grind well, no matter the steel, put a nice thin edge on a blade, and if you give them a piece of "super steel" already cut to shape, and let Peter's Heat Treat it, they will produce a blade superior in performance to any ABS Smith using "non super steels".

This is the logical conclusion from what is being stated regarding the superiority of "super steels"


Similarly, if you're comfortable simply stating "super steels" are superior to what came before, are you as comfortable stating synthetic ropes are simply superior to man made ropes?

Without taking sides either I don't understand the confidence of such statements like "HCV steels will stay sharper longer / high edge stability steels will dull WAY sooner / they cut longer".
Those statements mean nothing without context and qualification.

What is dull to you? You can simply say when it won't cut, but that's like saying when a horse won't run...what is running? A slow trot? Full out gallop?

And while people will maintain a "cutting edge", by which they mean an edge that's not shaving sharp or phonebook paper cutting sharp is fine, how many of you are willing to accept such an edge from a custom maker on a blade?

I fail to see the difference between these statements and "German cars are more precision built / Japanese cars last longer / Italian cars are faster" Again they mean nothing without context and specifics.



Finally a specific comment to you Ankerson:


This is a graph from Catra itself having used their Catra machine (http://catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm). It shows the edge retention trials of 6 utility blades randomly selected from the SAME box of blades, so assumably sharpened the exact same way.
The y axis is a measure of sharpness.
The x axis is a sum of the cumulative cuts.

You'll notice that after cutting from initial sharpness (the high starting point at the left) to roughly 13% of initial sharpness (5 on the y axis) produces a range of ~455-500. This is a range of about 10%.

Using a scale, your body, and different knives, with different edge thicknesses and geometries and heat treatments how can your results be so definitive? If such variation can be seen in 6 blades with the exact same geometries and heat treatments on a mechanized testing apparatus, how can your tests be that much more accurate and reliable to the point it can so clearly differentiate between steels?

If you could explain this I would really appreciate it. Maybe it's possible, but I still am curious how an arm can be more accurate than the Catra testing to the point you feel using your own data is such a concrete explanation of HCV superiority.

Likewise, with all the talk of biased used of science, what separates your own data collection from the same sort of bias, especially when you so often praise Phil Wilson and own lots of his products. I'm not saying the bias has to exist or that you are biased, but I feel the reasoning you are using to claim it in others data seems a bit sketchy based on your own circumstances and promotion. This is on top of knowing that some of the people who promote high edge stability steels as being superior at lower edge angles (again not at higher edge angles in abrasive media) can produce corroborating published research while I have yet to see you ever reference such material.

And by the way, it was Chuck Bybee of Alpha Knife Supply who commented on a flex test with Elmax. I do not remember if they reached 90 degrees, but he noted it was quite far.

As a final note, in the end, I'm just concerned with the absolutes people are throwing around with respect to steel superiority without being careful of context (in particular level of sharpness, blade geometry, expected materials, cut, etc). They seem dangerous to me with respect to the conclusions they imply.
 
Last edited:
Cashmore,

You bring up some good points, and context is very important. We are only talking about steels, not bladesmiths, knifemakers, etc. For sure, nobody is bashing them. While I referenced Wilson, I've had great blades from Krein, Dozier, and many others. No question about it.

For me, I'm talking about edge retention when cutting relatively soft and abrasive materials. If you are talking about chopping, then other steels work much better. 5160, CPM 3V, and others. So yes, it all depends on the context. There's no such thing as a "best" steel.

Everything is a tradeoff.
 
Cashmore said:
Just so we're clear here:

Take any person who can grind well, no matter the steel, put a nice thin edge on a blade, and if you give them a piece of "super steel" already cut to shape, and let Peter's Heat Treat it, they will produce a blade superior in performance to any ABS Smith using "non super steels".

This is the logical conclusion from what is being stated regarding the superiority of "super steels"


Similarly, if you're comfortable simply stating "super steels" are superior to what came before, are you as comfortable stating synthetic ropes are simply superior to man made ropes?

Without taking sides either I don't understand the confidence of such statements like "HCV steels will stay sharper longer / high edge stability steels will dull WAY sooner / they cut longer".
Those statements mean nothing without context and qualification.

What is dull to you? You can simply say when it won't cut, but that's like saying when a horse won't run...what is running? A slow trot? Full out gallop?

And while people will maintain a "cutting edge", by which they mean an edge that's not shaving sharp or phonebook paper cutting sharp is fine, how many of you are willing to accept such an edge from a custom maker on a blade?

I fail to see the difference between these statements and "German cars are more precision built / Japanese cars last longer / Italian cars are faster" Again they mean nothing without context and specifics.



Finally a specific comment to you Ankerson:


This is a graph from Catra itself having used their Catra machine (http://catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm). It shows the edge retention trials of 6 utility blades randomly selected from the SAME box of blades, so assumably sharpened the exact same way.
The y axis is a measure of sharpness.
The x axis is a sum of the cumulative cuts.

You'll notice that after cutting from initial sharpness (the high starting point at the left) to roughly 13% of initial sharpness (5 on the y axis) produces a range of ~455-500. This is a range of about 10%.

Using a scale, your body, and different knives, with different edge thicknesses and geometries and heat treatments how can your results be so definitive? If such variation can be seen in 6 blades with the exact same geometries and heat treatments on a mechanized testing apparatus, how can your tests be that much more accurate and reliable to the point it can so clearly differentiate between steels?

If you could explain this I would really appreciate it. Maybe it's possible, but I still am curious how an arm can be more accurate than the Catra testing to the point you feel using your own data is such a concrete explanation of HCV superiority.

Likewise, with all the talk of biased used of science, what separates your own data collection from the same sort of bias, especially when you so often praise Phil Wilson and own lots of his products. I'm not saying the bias has to exist or that you are biased, but I feel the reasoning you are using to claim it in others data seems a bit sketchy based on your own circumstances and promotion. This is on top of knowing that some of the people who promote high edge stability steels as being superior at lower edge angles (again not at higher edge angles in abrasive media) can produce corroborating published research while I have yet to see you ever reference such material.

And by the way, it was Chuck Bybee of Alpha Knife Supply who commented on a flex test with Elmax. I do not remember if they reached 90 degrees, but he noted it was quite far.

As a final note, in the end, I'm just concerned with the absolutes people are throwing around with respect to steel superiority without being careful of context (in particular level of sharpness, blade geometry, expected materials, cut, etc). They seem dangerous to me with respect to the conclusions they imply.
Click to expand...

Nice post:thumbup:
 
I'm a stock removal maker and I have worked with 1084,0-1,A2,1095,Aeb-L, and 52100. They are all heat treated and cryo tempered by Paul Bos heat treat. I live 15 minutes away :p And to tell you the truth I have never had one customer ask me to use a super steel or after the buying a knife tell me they wished it was in m4 or 110v. I think the reason why is because the heat treat is done so well by Bos. That is truly the soul of the knife and who cares if you have m390 or 1084 if the heat treat sucks the knife will suck.

Two of the higher prices steels I'm planning on using are 3v (per James Terrio and Chuck @ Alpha) and CPM154 (per Bob Terzoula only uses this steel, so it has to be good). Also I really want to try W2 and Hitachi Super Blue.
 
Cashmore said:
Just so we're clear here:

Take any person who can grind well, no matter the steel, put a nice thin edge on a blade, and if you give them a piece of "super steel" already cut to shape, and let Peter's Heat Treat it, they will produce a blade superior in performance to any ABS Smith using "non super steels".

This is the logical conclusion from what is being stated regarding the superiority of "super steels"


Similarly, if you're comfortable simply stating "super steels" are superior to what came before, are you as comfortable stating synthetic ropes are simply superior to man made ropes?

Without taking sides either I don't understand the confidence of such statements like "HCV steels will stay sharper longer / high edge stability steels will dull WAY sooner / they cut longer".
Those statements mean nothing without context and qualification.

What is dull to you? You can simply say when it won't cut, but that's like saying when a horse won't run...what is running? A slow trot? Full out gallop?

And while people will maintain a "cutting edge", by which they mean an edge that's not shaving sharp or phonebook paper cutting sharp is fine, how many of you are willing to accept such an edge from a custom maker on a blade?

I fail to see the difference between these statements and "German cars are more precision built / Japanese cars last longer / Italian cars are faster" Again they mean nothing without context and specifics.



Finally a specific comment to you Ankerson:


This is a graph from Catra itself having used their Catra machine (http://catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm). It shows the edge retention trials of 6 utility blades randomly selected from the SAME box of blades, so assumably sharpened the exact same way.
The y axis is a measure of sharpness.
The x axis is a sum of the cumulative cuts.

You'll notice that after cutting from initial sharpness (the high starting point at the left) to roughly 13% of initial sharpness (5 on the y axis) produces a range of ~455-500. This is a range of about 10%.

Using a scale, your body, and different knives, with different edge thicknesses and geometries and heat treatments how can your results be so definitive? If such variation can be seen in 6 blades with the exact same geometries and heat treatments on a mechanized testing apparatus, how can your tests be that much more accurate and reliable to the point it can so clearly differentiate between steels?

If you could explain this I would really appreciate it. Maybe it's possible, but I still am curious how an arm can be more accurate than the Catra testing to the point you feel using your own data is such a concrete explanation of HCV superiority.

Likewise, with all the talk of biased used of science, what separates your own data collection from the same sort of bias, especially when you so often praise Phil Wilson and own lots of his products. I'm not saying the bias has to exist or that you are biased, but I feel the reasoning you are using to claim it in others data seems a bit sketchy based on your own circumstances and promotion. This is on top of knowing that some of the people who promote high edge stability steels as being superior at lower edge angles (again not at higher edge angles in abrasive media) can produce corroborating published research while I have yet to see you ever reference such material.

And by the way, it was Chuck Bybee of Alpha Knife Supply who commented on a flex test with Elmax. I do not remember if they reached 90 degrees, but he noted it was quite far.

As a final note, in the end, I'm just concerned with the absolutes people are throwing around with respect to steel superiority without being careful of context (in particular level of sharpness, blade geometry, expected materials, cut, etc). They seem dangerous to me with respect to the conclusions they imply.
Click to expand...

Hey, you have a PM. :)

I wouldn't say lots of Phil Wilson products, I have 5. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top