Companies need to start issuing verified third-party HRC tests.

There are those of us skeptical that the less than steller companies will cherry pick or have a dedicated batch to send off to be tested on their some. Thus gaming the system to look more trust worthy.

Closest thing I can think of which is highly unlikely is someone with or willing to purchase a machine to test the knives buys them on the open market and post the results. And we as a community donate to the cause to continue this effort. That's the closest thing to a trustworthy 3rd party we could probably get.

My personal preference though is to continue what I'm doing and only buy from companies who make quality knives which includes doing a proper heat treat. If I suspect a shoddy heat treat or can't confirm it's good either by testing someone has done or trust the company by reputation than I won't touch it.

 

There was a guy here at Bladeforums doing that. His thread was called, "HRc revealed" or something like that. I can't seem to find it in a search. People were sending him knives to test, I think.

 

I see what you mean but they have to take into account a bunch of yo yos are going to be abusing their knives so they can't make anything that might snap in half even though that's what can happen with the heat treats that you and I enjoy.

I suppose if they go out of house for testing there will be bucks under the table and more BS than you want to think about.

Personally I can tell by use and a few sharpenings if I am getting what is advertised (or not advertised and implied which I think is part of what you are saying). So I'm good what ever they want to do (or say). I just won't buy the soft stuff again if I get lemons . . . he said having carried a Case today at HRC = Play Dough. (however the Para2 M4 was also in my back pack).

The other point I wanted to make is : This

And that is why we have CUSTOM makers . . . who have the skill AND are willing to really hang it out there (in thinness and hardness). . . for the few, the proud, the brave customers that can appreciate the real deal and are willing to pay for it.

 

I feel like if the big boys (Spyderco, Benchmade, etc.) would just publish their own in-house HRC it would be a major step forward. If they are putting the info. out there, then they are at least accountable to the number. Smaller makers would likely follow suit.

 

Just a novice question to the test.
I understand the measurement procedure.
From the HRc equation (HRc = 100 - 500 x indentation depth), 60 HRc steel would exhibit 80 micron indentation.
I can imagine that if a blade is warped or not flat, then the reading is gonna be inaccurate, as the depth reading is going to be affected.

I have read that the measurement is very accurate to the first decimal point when using a standard block.
But how accurate could it be with relatively thin knife blades, which may not be very flat?

 

The HCR per se , is not necessarily a indicator of superior performance .

E.g. : I've read of Ganzo D2 being measured at impressive hardiness ~62.5 but not being so great in actual edge retention etc testing .

I dream of some industry standard ,actual "proof testing " based on standardized performance based testing .

This would need to be done and certified by some independent testing authority from samples bought at random on the open market . Something like Consumers Reports , at their best .

I'm NOT holding my breath !

 

Heat treat is good to know, but if it would be better to include micrographs of the grain size and carbide size and distribution. That's not terribly expensive.

But would take an independent, third party to pull it off, buying random knives on the market and testing them. To make that work possible, you'd need funding, which most likely means a subscriber base.

Consumer Labs might be a good model. You have to pay to join, but you get a ton of good information about supplements, how they work or don't work, what they contain, what they don't contain and what toxins are present -- all information brand by brand. Lots of people take supplements, so the subscriber base is there. I don't know if the afi knife community is large enough.

 

Don't think we need it.
It ain't like pharmaceuticals...I'm not gonna die if I have to sharpen my knife an extra time every 3 weeks.

Besides, for people that care enough to be bugged by it, the info seems to get out there.
Companies that are good at it are recognized, and chronically low hardness offenders get put on blast.

 

It could be done. Funding could be from the crowd, or via manufactures, but items would come from the normal retail stream. As for accuracy, if the knife is treated as consumable, it wouldn't be hard to lap a flat section for testing. (well, it would be effort, but not technically challenging)
I think end user education is more the solution. The steels are getting so specialized that just the branding isn't enough, and they are not as good of a representation of real world performance as all the other factors. Those other factors all falling under the banner of manufacturer. Some knives will be winners, some won't. That said companies knowing that people are checking up on them is a good thing, just like every car maker knows that their machines can end up on a dyno or milage test.

 

One micron (0.001 mm) difference in the "measured" indentation depth results in 0.5 difference in HRc.
I think the measurement error would be too big using different machines under different environments with potentially warped samples.
I wonder how manufacturers test the hardness of their heat-treated blades at what confidence.

 

Considering that most of this information is part of the standard QC process, I don't see what there is to lose in not publicizing the information. If a company is using a high end steel but treating it poorly, I'd rather see them use a "worse" steel but treat it properly, and if you use ideal HT protocols and have strict results because of that, you can use that as a strong marketing point to counteract using a "worse" steel. I'd rather buy D2 that uses something like Dozier HT protocols than S35VN or M390 ran under soft or hard but brittle like Ganzo.

This is a situation where transparency can only improve things unless your company knowingly releases substandard product. We've already seen Tuya and Manly get in front of this, and their handling and transparency makes me significantly more inclined to purchase their products.

 

Test every knife!

Not through use of course.

 

I demand a 3rd party test and embossed certificate for all my consumer durables.

I won't pay more; them companies should do it so I trust them.

 

You said it yourself. It costs just as much to do it wrong as it does to do it right.
Why would a reputable company (Chinese or not ) cut corners and then lie about the hardness of their blades?
Sure, mistakes can happen, but only companies that really don't care would say "Oops, this batch is no good *shrug*...ship 'em anyway. hopefully the next batch is okay".

The bottom line is that any knife maker/ manufacturer worth their salt is not going to engage in HT "foul play" at the expense of their reputation.

 

Use? Pssshhhh, let's just have a table with a bunch of charts scattered across it to argue over instead!