Chemistry vs. MagnaCut

shinyedges said:
I think the question here is if cpm3v as an example, as we know it, was made with specific processes unique to Crucible, how does difference processes from let's say Carpenter, impact 3v? No difference? Slight difference? Doesn't changing the process have some form of impact? Does each company's proprietary process have no impact in the end bar of steel?

I'm in complete agreement that the end shaping and heat treat matter. We're talking about what gets shaped and heat treated.
Click to expand...
Good questions. Hopefully some experts will enlighten us.

As decidedly non-expert, I would think that there has to be some difference in the end product.
 
shinyedges said:
I think the question here is if cpm3v as an example, as we know it, was made with specific processes unique to Crucible, how does difference processes from let's say Carpenter, impact 3v? No difference? Slight difference? Doesn't changing the process have some form of impact? Does each company's proprietary process have no impact in the end bar of steel?
Click to expand...

Once either goes through Nathan's hands they will be good enough for me :)
 
Difference between M390, 204p,20CV?

Well, without some control of the variables in the testing the differences people feel they are seeing between the different steel brands of the same chemistry will be misleading.

It's also important to quantify differences in testing otherwise we are at the mercy of our emotions rather than reality.


Probably the simplest variables that usually gets left out in knife testing are:

Do the edge angles measure the same to rule out edge geometry?

Are the edges at a similar level of starting sharpness?

Are we able to quantify the sharpness? Have the edges been deburred properly?

Were the edges ground properly without heating up?

And lastly, are we even performing the same test on all of them?

This list of variables is.not even comprehensive, it doesn't even factor heat treatment, blade geometry or processing practices etc.


If we don't rule things out we are at the mercy of conjecture.

Here's a fictional example


Knife bro: "204p cuts the longest between M390 and 20CV"

Source: "Trust me bro"


Meanwhile, checks the blades...

*Measures hardness
204p was 2.0 HRC higher
*Measures edge angle
and 2° per side lower in edge angle.
*Significant burr left on M390 blade that folded over.

Well 204p cut longer in this example but not because it said 204p on the blade. 🤣
 
SharpBits said:
Good questions. Hopefully some experts will enlighten us.

As decidedly non-expert, I would think that there has to be some difference in the end product.
Click to expand...
Same. If proprietary processes have no impact under inspection a bar of 3v made from all 3 big foundrys should be indiscernable. Are they? I'd love to know. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that question, I'm not attacking anyone.
 
If the question is about different proprietary processes still making the same steel then I would hope the answer is still yes they still all make the same steel. One foundry may find a simplified method but it would still have to meet the same standard to be called said alloy, would it not?

Such as there's the bit about Magnacut having less chrome than you would think needed to have its level of rust resistance. But the secret sauce is having to do with the process where less of the chrome is used with carbides. So another foundry could come up with a different way of doing this but I'm thinking they couldn't still call it Magnacut if it's straight up no longer the same chemical build.
 
Maximumbob54 said:
If the question is about different proprietary processes still making the same steel then I would hope the answer is still yes they still all make the same steel. One foundry may find a simplified method but it would still have to meet the same standard to be called said alloy, would it not?

Such as there's the bit about Magnacut having less chrome than you would think needed to have its level of rust resistance. But the secret sauce is having to do with the process where less of the chrome is used with carbides. So another foundry could come up with a different way of doing this but I'm thinking they couldn't still call it Magnacut if it's straight up no longer the same chemical build.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's some misunderstanding here but the idea is to use the same chemistry but made in a different place using the same industry PM process.

I think there's some complexity bias at work here.

Getting something made to the same chemistry range is not the limiting factor.
 
I am a bit out of the loop on the business part of what is happening. I would imagine all of their proprietary processes and patents will be sold off to other companies, if not the factories themselves and just rebranded.
That said I would be very happy to see more fixed blades in Z-Tuff and K340 steels. Someone will buy the rights to Magnacut tech, and at the very least a company will fill the niche of all steels used by Crucible.
 
Even if there was a small difference between 20CV and M390 it would be unlikely that you or anyone cutting with a knife and sharpening it would be able to detect such a difference. It is much, much more likely that any perceived difference would come down to the knives and not the steel.

Since no amount of reassurance has been sufficient so far I will add a couple more things. I have been involved in talks with one of the other facilities that Niagara is ordering from and there has been open discussion about differences between plants and how to compensate for them. Some of them brought up by me but many of them by the other mill. Obviously I can't talk much in terms of specifics. Most of the improvements that can have an effect on material properties are openly advertised and those that aren't are typically on the side of improving production logistically, and many are specific to their exact equipment.

For powder metallurgy steel production the main factors are composition, impurity content, powder size, and HIP processing (to turn the powder into an ingot). Those factors are easy enough for the individual mills to measure. Once the steel is delivered to Niagara of course the hot rolling, annealing, flattening, remains the same. In many ways those final factors can have more of an effect on how the steel heat treats than small differences in the initial powder.

Another important factor to mention is that these powder metallurgy companies have already been competing for decades. There are quite a few steels that are produced by competitors of Crucible. For example, Crucible has CPM M4, Carpenter has Micro-Melt M4, and Erasteel has ASP 2004 (which all have the same composition). Crucible has CPM Rex 45, Carpenter has Micro-Melt 30, and Erasteel has ASP 2030. These high speed steels are very popular in industry and if the different versions were performing substantially differently they would have figured that out by now.
 
Last edited:
Maximumbob54 said:
Found this but still trying to figure what ASTM would cover steel used in cutlery:

Steel Standards - Standards Products - Standards & Publications - Products & Services

www.astm.org www.astm.org
Click to expand...
Depends on which "cutlery steels" you are referencing.
ASTM specs are normally intended for mass production of a material by multiple companies (commodity alloys). There is no expectation that SAE would write a spec for a proprietary steel.

For instance, D2 is a commonly used tool steel used for many applications outside of cutlery. 440C is also used for multiple commercial applications. So there are ASTM specs for those alloys, and they are produced by multiple manufacturers.
D2 is ASTM A681.
440C is ASTM A276.

But 154CM is a steel which is proprietary to Crucible. There is no ASTM specification for it. Hitachi makes a steel with an equivalent composition, ATS-34. But both are proprietary. There is no industry specification for either one.
 
Larrin said:
Even if there was a small difference between 20CV and M390 it would be unlikely that you or anyone cutting with a knife and sharpening it would be able to detect such a difference. It is much, much more likely that any perceived difference would come down to the knives and not the steel.

Since no amount of reassurance has been sufficient so far I will add a couple more things. I have been involved in talks with one of the other facilities that Niagara is ordering from and there has been open discussion about differences between plants and how to compensate for them. Some of them brought up by me but many of them by the other mill. Obviously I can't talk much in terms of specifics. Most of the improvements that can have an effect on material properties are openly advertised and those that aren't are typically on the side of improving production logistically, and many are specific to their exact equipment.

For powder metallurgy steel production the main factors are composition, impurity content, powder size, and HIP processing (to turn the powder into an ingot). Those factors are easy enough for the individual mills to measure. Once the steel is delivered to Niagara of course the hot rolling, annealing, flattening, remains the same. In many ways those final factors can have more of an effect on how the steel heat treats than small differences in the initial powder.

Another important factor to mention is that these powder metallurgy companies have already been competing for decades. There are quite a few steels that are produced by competitors of Crucible. For example, Crucible has CPM M4, Carpenter has Micro-Melt M4, and Erasteel has ASP 2004 (which all have the same composition). Crucible has CPM Rex 45, Carpenter has Micro-Melt 30, and Erasteel has ASP 2030. These high speed steels are very popular in industry and if the different versions were performing substantially differently they would have figured that out by now.
Click to expand...



…but how do all of these variations impact the soul of the knife?




DeadboxHero said:
Difference between M390, 204p,20CV?

Well, without some control of the variables in the testing the differences people feel they are seeing between the different steel brands of the same chemistry will be misleading.

It's also important to quantify differences in testing otherwise we are at the mercy of our emotions rather than reality.


Probably the simplest variables that usually gets left out in knife testing are:

Do the edge angles measure the same to rule out edge geometry?

Are the edges at a similar level of starting sharpness?

Are we able to quantify the sharpness? Have the edges been deburred properly?

Were the edges ground properly without heating up?

And lastly, are we even performing the same test on all of them?

This list of variables is.not even comprehensive, it doesn't even factor heat treatment, blade geometry or processing practices etc.


If we don't rule things out we are at the mercy of conjecture.

Here's a fictional example


Knife bro: "204p cuts the longest between M390 and 20CV"

Source: "Trust me bro"


Meanwhile, checks the blades...

*Measures hardness
204p was 2.0 HRC higher
*Measures edge angle
and 2° per side lower in edge angle.
*Significant burr left on M390 blade that folded over.

Well 204p cut longer in this example but not because it said 204p on the blade. 🤣
Click to expand...

…and no matter how many times this is explained, it seems to fall on deaf ears.

It utterly boggles my mind that there are still people that buy a knife based on alloy, disregarding all other things. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
DeadboxHero said:
Difference between M390, 204p,20CV?

Well, without some control of the variables in the testing the differences people feel they are seeing between the different steel brands of the same chemistry will be misleading.

It's also important to quantify differences in testing otherwise we are at the mercy of our emotions rather than reality.


Probably the simplest variables that usually gets left out in knife testing are:

Do the edge angles measure the same to rule out edge geometry?

Are the edges at a similar level of starting sharpness?

Are we able to quantify the sharpness? Have the edges been deburred properly?

Were the edges ground properly without heating up?

And lastly, are we even performing the same test on all of them?

This list of variables is.not even comprehensive, it doesn't even factor heat treatment, blade geometry or processing practices etc.


If we don't rule things out we are at the mercy of conjecture.

Here's a fictional example


Knife bro: "204p cuts the longest between M390 and 20CV"

Source: "Trust me bro"


Meanwhile, checks the blades...

*Measures hardness
204p was 2.0 HRC higher
*Measures edge angle
and 2° per side lower in edge angle.
*Significant burr left on M390 blade that folded over.

Well 204p cut longer in this example but not because it said 204p on the blade. 🤣
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
Under BCMW's hardening process with m390, 204p, 20cv at the same time/heat (entire process aust to cryo/LN2 to tempered), result within +- 0.5rc, where hrc hardness m390 62.5(RA++%); 204p 63(RA+%); 20cv 65. This has been predictable and repeatable. Nevertheless using different/conventional ht protocol, m390 got 63.5rc, 204p 64rc, 20cv 65.5rc. Under same(at least I try to) variables & tests - 20cv 64-65rc performed better(endurance and toughness) than m390 & 204p at lower hrc. Without CPM 20cv, well I'll take m398 if somehow it is not ridiculously expensive. While why ht result differences for these 3 steels - probably need complex answer for complex crystal kinetic 🙃
 
DeadboxHero said:
Difference between M390, 204p,20CV?

Well, without some control of the variables in the testing the differences people feel they are seeing between the different steel brands of the same chemistry will be misleading.

It's also important to quantify differences in testing otherwise we are at the mercy of our emotions rather than reality.


Probably the simplest variables that usually gets left out in knife testing are:

Do the edge angles measure the same to rule out edge geometry?

Are the edges at a similar level of starting sharpness?

Are we able to quantify the sharpness? Have the edges been deburred properly?

Were the edges ground properly without heating up?

And lastly, are we even performing the same test on all of them?

This list of variables is.not even comprehensive, it doesn't even factor heat treatment, blade geometry or processing practices etc.


If we don't rule things out we are at the mercy of conjecture.

Here's a fictional example


Knife bro: "204p cuts the longest between M390 and 20CV"

Source: "Trust me bro"


Meanwhile, checks the blades...

*Measures hardness
204p was 2.0 HRC higher
*Measures edge angle
and 2° per side lower in edge angle.
*Significant burr left on M390 blade that folded over.

Well 204p cut longer in this example but not because it said 204p on the blade. 🤣
Click to expand...
You get outta here with your facts and logic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top