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

[Petunia D. Feeble]

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.

I kind of agree.

Case's trusharp is about as hard as the butter knives in my kitchen, but they'll still get sharp and cut stuff. Sharpening it, while more frequent, takes about 30 seconds.

It annoys me that the market seems to be moving away from edge retention for some reason. We keep seeing new steels, but we rarely see a real performance increase.

I know I can trust Spyderco's numbers because Sal's a steel nerd and would likely throw out an entire batch of blades rather than selling them with a poor HT. I know I can trust Rockstead because their ridiculous HRC is half of their sales model. I figure I can probably trust customs that were treated by Peters...

Sounds like plenty of options to me. I'll just buy those.

 

[coinbuysell]

A dot and sticker on every knife!

This is exactly where I was going, shows the relevance of relying too much on HRC without at least as much regard to steel type, geometry, etc. I get there is a "sweet" spot for most steels but imho this HRC issue has gotten WAY out of hand.

I guess that this does show that it is possible to check every knife without much added cost (unless this guy would have been free w/o the testing)

 

[stabman]

For the knife in this thread, the hardness actually is whatever the Rune reading was.

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/behold-stormbreaker-with-wip-pics.868146/

It hardened most of the areas I wanted...tested with a file.
It's hard getting an optimal heat treat with a hole in the ground filled with charcoal, and a hairdryer to blow air in.

My other knives were heat treated professionally at an industrial heat-treater with decades of experience.
It's nice knowing they are at 57 Rockwell like I wanted.

Of course, when I made this and had it heat-treated...

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/behold-the-mega-smatchet.1537764/

...they couldn't get a good hardness reading because no place on the blade is flat, and the handle has some weird coating from the annealing material that melted on. So is it 57 Rockwell? Maybe...time for more Runes perhaps?

Funny thing is, the original knife I heat-treated myself (differentially hardened at that) has seen more insane abuse than any other knife I own for many years. It has been a trusted camping companion many times (and demolition tool around the house at times).

Hardness is an important attribute (although I don't want it too hard at the expense of strength), and if the manufacturer provides a range it should fall in that range (ranges allow for variation within limits). However, the entire knife is more than just the steel used, hardness achieved, or handle material.

But hey, I say go for it on hardness testing for those with the cash for knives and testing equipment.
I mean, why not?

 

[PirateSeulb]

Besides M390 I haven't seen or heard many major issues with the majority of blades and their HT coming from some of the companies blasted here ie LionSteel. I am not trying to poke holes in the ship but M390 isn't all that new why has this crying foul come so late. Most all the content I am seeing regarding this is all from 2019 yet the LionSteel Roundhead came out it in 2017 iirc and LionSteel and many other names listed have been using it since before that knife came out. We need to see to the problem but we must examine where the problem is stemming from. Do we know who is doing the HT for these particularly those that fail to meet expectations? I expect any outsourced work particularly if it is part of a long standing working relationship to mostly be accepted as meeting specifications just as we currently expect a knife sold as 59-60 HRC to be as state and most don't send theirs out for testing.

For the idea OP put forth it is interesting but I am skeptical of implementation mostly due to working in politics and knowing that even when rules and regulations are put forth those who wish to deceive and skirt those rules and regulations will find a way around them. The old saying where there is a will there is a way so a company lacking the morals and wishing to deceive for a boost to profits will find a way to do just that.

I am slightly biased as I find myself partial to many of the Italian knives which seem to be the ones taking a lot of heat and understandably as they have typically been very well respected up till now. I don't doubt that they have some M390 issues and I want them fixed. I do hesitate when I look at some of their models I seek that are in M390 but I am still trusting them with the steels they have been using for longer.

 

[danbot]

I work in a highly specialized, extreme tolerance metallurgical field.

From a metrology point of view, Rockwell Hardness Testing is child's play. It's simple and relatively robust. This is not complicated testing and the instruments hold up well with not a lot of drift.

Asking for third-party testing of hardness is, with all due respect, absurd. Your life is placed in the hands of companies like mine all day every day and we do very little third-party testing. That is something only done for development, problem solving, and some kind of special case that our own labs can't handle. Now, we do get independent auditing and accreditation through programs like ISO, IATF and others.

But if you can't trust a pocket knife company to tell you the actual hardness of a blade steel? Well, that's one, a pretty small problem, two, perhaps all you should need to know about that company, and three, maybe a signal to reflect on what you really need out of your knife.

Now, I don't get the animosity and vitriol this topic seems to have cultivated. There's nothing at all wrong with consumers wanting to know that the steel they are buying, likely because they are specifically buying it for that specific steel, has been heat treated to optimize that specific steel for the specific knife design. Education and understanding is a good thing. No one is forcing anyone to make any kind of choice. Digest the info and do with it what you will and that's cool for everyone.

This is all just information. You are free to do with that information what you wish but I scratch my head at attacking the folks providing the information. But then, I also scratch my head at the folks who blindly buy a certain knife just based off the steel's nomenclature.

As I've said before, it should be perfectly reasonable, that if a company is supplying a blade in a very specific steel, to the point of asserting that steel as a selling point, to expect them to deliver it at the optimal condition for that specific steel.

Whether or not the average user will ever notice the difference in the heat treat is only relevant to the extent that it likely points out the folly of these steels in pocket knives for the average user. But, that isn't the point. The point is promoting a steel as a premium product but not offering it in the condition that would justify the promotion.

Then comes the question of how much are the manufacturers really upping the prices based on a certain steel? Since Lionsteel seems to be getting so much attention right now I'll just use them as an example. Yes, they promote the M390 steel, but even if they didn't, how much would the price change? Would I pay ~$120 for a Shuffler in optimally treated M390 over one in optimally treated 420HC? Would I still pay that premium if I knew the steel wasn't at it's optimal hardness? Can the knife's design and other quality considerations carry my decision? Do I need M390, even with spot-on HT? Is that what I really want on a small drop-in-pocket slip joint? Is that really why I'm buying it? The steel? Especially if it isn't at it's best performance? If it was 420HC how much less could I get it for?

All of these things should be questions we ask ourselves when purchasing. None of them are right or wrong. It's just an individual preference and decision. But it's always good to have more information to make that decision.

As for sharpening...Sharpening is about more than time. It's about the erosion of your blade steel and thus the cutting performance and ultimately it's life, at least from performance base. If you sharpen your knife on the bottom of a coffee cup in thirty seconds, I'm not even sure why you're in this discussion. Go you. It can also be about knowing your knife can plow through a day's work without needing any attention. Hardness can be a role in that performance.

Personally, I wish the knife community would just become better educated about steel properties, performance, blade grinds, etc.

Reckon next to no one will read all that but anyway...

I'm glad I didn't TL;DR this post. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[HappyDaddy]

I am unashamedly nothing more than a collector of knives that I like because of how they look, feel, and sound. I doubt that I have a single knife that I have used to cut something more than 50 times. For me, this debate is akin to demanding that fountain pen makers test and report the gold content of their nibs. If I like the way it looks, feels, and writes, I don’t GAF what the gold content of the nib might be. YMwill clearlyV.

 

[marrenmiller]

The testing that showed various knives having ridiculously low HRC numbers was a bit of surprise, I admit. I mean, I like some LionSteel knives but it seems likely they're doing an utter trash job at heat treating their blade steel. That said, IMO for the vast majority of users and the vast majority of use cases, hardness of blade steel is all but meaningless.

I am unwilling to believe that many are sharpening their knives all that frequently, and the only thing high hardness buys you is wear resistance. Unless you're a cook and we're talking about kitchen knives, or a wood carver and we're talking about carving knives, or some similarly specialized heavy wear use case that falls into the exception, not the rule, I just don't see folks sharpening all that frequently. If you're sharpening once every month, doubling performance only means sharpening every other month instead--big deal. With a little practice a moron could sharpen a dull knife with the bottom of a coffee cup in about thirty seconds (I know from experience, I'm a moron and I've been sharpening everything on coffee cups for a while now) so you're talking about saving a whole thirty seconds every two months in that scenario--not exactly life-changing.

Taking myself as an example, I carry a variety of pocket knives in a loose rotation, and it's rare that any of them needs sharpening. They've mostly got fancy blade steels and because I'm rotating them they don't take that much wear. Even the knives I do use heavily like my overused/abused 150mm Fujiwara Nashiji Petty in the kitchen, or my favorite whittling knives, really don't consume any noticeable time in their slightly more-frequent sharpening requirements.

I mean, do I think a company like LionSteel should do a better job at HT if those numbers are true? Yes. Does it really matter in most practical use? Hell no.

Higher hardness doesn't just buy higher wear resistance. It also allows for greater edge stability, so you can run lower angles without failure.

 

[Converge]

I can do HRC testing at work for free. Though the blade would be destroyed as I would need to section it to get a sample to mount it for our tester. Though it would be possible to simply cut a small section off the end of the blade leaving the rest to be reprofiled to a different shape. I guess if anyone's interested let me know.....

 

[knarfeng]

It is no longer impressive that a company claims to use S35VN, M390, etc - the heat treatment is so vital in bringing out the advantageous qualities of modern steels that it seems ludicrous that this information isn’t already widely available.

With so many companies showing lower-than-advertised HRC values, it would be in the best interests of the consumers and the companies to establish a sense of trustworthiness by having independent testing, perhaps even batch-to-batch sampling.

Please document the "lower than advertised" Rockwell test results. Do you have data or do you just "think it is low".

For a number of years, I had access to the Rockwell tester in the lab at work. The chief metallurgist was a friend and let me test knives. I never found a hardness that was out of spec.

 

[Banter 247]

Please document the "lower than advertised" Rockwell test results. Do you have data or do you just "think it is low".

For a number of years, I had access to the Rockwell tester in the lab at work. The chief metallurgist was a friend and let me test knives. I never found a hardness that was out of spec.

They’re documented here:

https://docs.googl1OepNr_D4lqbdTFqdqWl1rmAd4bOzPzJee.com/spreadsheets/d/6J0iEWrdJGU/htmlview

Most of the testing done has yielded in-range hits, like yours.

 

[Comeuppance]

They’re documented here:

https://docs.googl1OepNr_D4lqbdTFqdqWl1rmAd4bOzPzJee.com/spreadsheets/d/6J0iEWrdJGU/htmlview

Most of the testing done has yielded in-range hits, like yours.

Aye, a few companies - Kizer and Lionsteel - have a poor track record on that spreadsheet, albeit with an abysmal sample size that makes it hard to really draw conclusions. That said, the few data points they do have are alarming. M390 seems to be the steel that the most companies miss the target range with.

I think Spyderco has the most data points and a very high in-spec rate.

 

[John_0917]

I bet Spyderco would do this if not for the cost and also the incessant requests they would get for “special runs” at different hardness...

As to softness, I was not surprised when the S35VN LA police gear folder came in extremely soft, I knew they had to have cut corners somewhere, obviously HT was it!

 

[Banter 247]

I bet Spyderco would do this if not for the cost and also the incessant requests they would get for “special runs” at different hardness...

As to softness, I was surprised when the S35VN LA police gear folder came in extremely soft, I knew they had to have cut corners somewhere, obviously HT was it!

Per Sal’s comments on related matters elsewhere, they’re not planning on publishing advertised ranges. They have done occasional in house testing, and shared that. They’re doing a stand up job at Spyderco, though. Their commitment is evident.

 

[Quiet]

I am unashamedly nothing more than a collector of knives that I like because of how they look, feel, and sound. I doubt that I have a single knife that I have used to cut something more than 50 times. For me, this debate is akin to demanding that fountain pen makers test and report the gold content of their nibs. If I like the way it looks, feels, and writes, I don’t GAF what the gold content of the nib might be. YMwill clearlyV.

As someone who uses their knives similarly as well as a collector and user of fountain pens, I agree with this 1,000%.

 

[Mo2]

I think some of the problems with the low ht is that the hrc testers they are using aren't calibrated correctly or they are and there is something wrong as it's not tested VS another machine that is properly working and calibrated. Hence why some companies have now upgraded hrc testing equipment based off the results from the spreadsheet here. There machine may show 60hrc but in actuality they are 58hrc. And with the performance testing we're seeing, it's showing its probably the case in some of these instances.

Other issue is the knife companies don't know 58hrc is low for the steel. They just know it's m390. And they are providing a steel that's popular. Or they were recommended that hrc because it's basic ht for a different market. And they do no research into heat treatment for that steel in cutlery.

 

[HappyDaddy]

As someone who uses their knives similarly as well as a collector and user of fountain pens, I agree with this 1,000%.

I went down the fountain pen road for a while too. It got too expensive, so I switched to knives. Funny how similar the experience has been. Won’t belabor it here, but I’d bet we could commiserate on the similarities.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Other issue is the knife companies don't know 58hrc is low for the steel. They just know it's m390. And they are providing a steel that's popular. Or they were recommended that hrc because it's basic ht for a different market. And they do no research into heat treatment for that steel in cutlery.

Now that's a claim that absolutely requires evidence. Which companies aren't researching the steel? What evidence do you have to support that?

 

[Mo2]

Now that's a claim that absolutely requires evidence. Which companies aren't researching the steel? What evidence do you have to support that?

Everything lionsteel has commented thus far has provided me with that suggestion, they go off of what bohler told them to do. Which is a ht based on stamps and tool and die industry. So they seem to think there is zero other ways to make this steel.

But I'm fairly certain they don't do alot of testing in general in China. I mean I've seen no proof of it. They mostly have someone else do there ht. They have to trust its done right.

I know spyderco test alot. It's a general statement of the wide base of knife cutlery companies not just one in particular.

If you want to belive that every company has tried Hardness ranges between 58 and 62 and did performance testing and user testing on the steels, you'll be sadly mistaken.

 

[craytab]

Everything lionsteel has commented thus far has provided me with that suggestion, they go off of what bohler told them to do. Which is a ht based on stamps and tool and die industry. So they seem to think there is zero other ways to make this steel.

But I'm fairly certain they don't do alot of testing in general in China. I mean I've seen no proof of it. They mostly have someone else do there ht. They have to trust its done right.

I know spyderco test alot. It's a general statement of the wide base of knife cutlery companies not just one in particular.

If you want to belive that every company has tried Hardness ranges between 58 and 62 and did performance testing and user testing on the steels, you'll be sadly mistaken.

A suggestion isn't evidence.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Everything lionsteel has commented thus far has provided me with that suggestion, they go off of what bohler told them to do. Which is a ht based on stamps and tool and die industry. So they seem to think there is zero other ways to make this steel.

But I'm fairly certain they don't do alot of testing in general in China. I mean I've seen no proof of it. They mostly have someone else do there ht. They have to trust its done right.

I know spyderco test alot. It's a general statement of the wide base of knife cutlery companies not just one in particular.

If you want to belive that every company has tried Hardness ranges between 58 and 62 and did performance testing and user testing on the steels, you'll be sadly mistaken.

Wait. You've decided that LionSteel saying they heat treat it per the steel manufacturer's recommended protocol means they know nothing about heat treatment? Do you understand how ridiculous that is? The knife industry isn't a huge market segment for steel manufacturers, but if you think that Bohler doesn't know how to treat their own steel for blades I honestly don't know what to say.