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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Banter 247 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I looked at the data. A lot of those are showing yellow, even though the reading is only off by 0.3. Two freshly calibrated Rockwell testers that have been calibrated to two different standard bars, both of which standard bars traceable to the national standard, are only guaranteed to agree with one another by ±1.0 point. So a difference of "0.3" or even "0.5" is actually not a difference.

I would be interested in the pedigree of the tester being used for that. The one I used was maintained in calibration using standards traceable to the national standard. Those standards are expensive.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Say what you want. I'm looking for a manufacturer that knows how to do there own R&D and testing. Not a show knife company who is content with a basic standard.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
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.
Click to expand...

To provide context, Mo2 saw an IG reply from Lionsteel, which they later deleted, in which the person running their feed specifically stated that “you can’t take M390 over 60hrc”, based on what he/she saw on the data sheet, indicating that this person was unfamiliar with the subject. It’s highly unlikely that their social media person/team is involved with ht, of course.

They’ve had a few fumbles in social media activity and through direct communication.

My personal view is this:

I try to only go off best available data. I can’t comment on what they do or do not know, or about their specific process.

What I know is: 3/3 samples hit low.

Different models, made at different times. Very small sample size.

Is it enough to draw a hard or large scale conclusion? Not at all.

It certainly indicates that a deeper look might be a good thing.
 
Mo2 said:
Say what you want. I'm looking for a manufacturer that knows how to do there own R&D and testing. Not a show knife company who is content with a basic standard.
Click to expand...
If you think that the vast majority of companies are using some super secret heat treat that they developed in hidden laboratories I have some bad news.
 
knarfeng said:
I looked at the data. A lot of those are showing yellow, even though the reading is only off by 0.3. Two freshly calibrated Rockwell testers that have been calibrated to two different standard bars, both of which standard bars traceable to the national standard, are only guaranteed to agree with one another by ±1.0 point. So a difference of "0.3" or even "0.5" is actually not a difference.

I would be interested in the pedigree of the tester being used for that. The one I used was maintained in calibration using standards traceable to the national standard. Those standards are expensive.
Click to expand...

The person who was doing the testing isn’t the person maintaining the sheet, and those yellows are kind of an asterisk, for exactly the reason you suggest. I think you would get along well with the tester. He’d call out a +/- of .5 as a reasonable variance for reporting purposes, and the machine is well maintained, and calibrated every 90 days.
 
A lot of folks are not going to realize that. They won't take time to read the sheet. I would argue that unless the difference is 1 or greater, it should have been marked green.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
If you think that the vast majority of companies are using some super secret heat treat that they developed in hidden laboratories I have some bad news.
Click to expand...
I think the vast majority of companies from the results are at 58hrc give or take. And I believe it would be idea to ht them to a level above that of the performance of s30v being its said to be the premium steel in the lineup of most manufacturers. Hence 60-62 would be more idea.
 
I could always provide an alternate service; verified 3rd party Rune castings of the heat treatment.
As an advantage, I don't even have to have the knife in my possession, lowering costs. ;)

Plus, it would introduce a whole new level of argument potential, as people try to figure out what combinations of Runes equal what HRC reading. :D
 
My personal methodology of knife steel hardness and it’s value is fairly simple and it hasn’t cost me an arm or a fortune. I have found that the easier it is to sharpen the easier it is to get dull and the harder to sharpen the harder it is to dull it, plus or minus my technical skill and alertness while sharpening. Lol. I know you get what you pay for but Just because a knife is priced at $500+ doesn’t mean it will always perform as advertised or even worth half the price and maybe less.

I think the hardness is only a factor in the formula not the sum and relative at best. There are too many variables that can have an effect upon the performance including individual usage.

I also believe that a company that would purposely mislead or falsify their product specs will weed themselves out because of poor performance of an inferior product no matter the price even if it’s cheap, if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to you payed to much. Marketing can be like a double edge sword without mercy in customer satisfaction and lack of return customers, if they don’t correct it, eventually they will die.
 
stabman said:
I could always provide an alternate service; verified 3rd party Rune castings of the heat treatment.
As an advantage, I don't even have to have the knife in my possession, lowering costs. ;)

Plus, it would introduce a whole new level of argument potential, as people try to figure out what combinations of Runes equal what HRC reading. :D
Click to expand...
I've got 65,000 knives to test. What's the cost? :D
 
Banter 247 said:
The suggestion has merit. I’ll pass it along to David.
Click to expand...

You might suggest that he add another color level.
Blue = greater than
Green= meets spec
Yellow= below spec, but within limits of measurement technique
Red= Clearly out of spec.
 
Companies could batch test HCR more frequently, and instead of throwing away the tested blades with the divet, they could sell them at a premium. For Spyderco, imagine a limited line in every model called 'Spyderco Rockwells' where they sell their HRC tested blades and include an HRC card with serial number at a $25 premium. I would buy it over the regular model.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mo2
craytab said:
I've got 65,000 knives to test. What's the cost? :D
Click to expand...

...and not a single one of them a bigass titanium sword at HRc 51.8...

vV1UUyH.gif
 
My boys were each gifted a Steel Warrior slipjoint for Xmas one year. They each had the little HRC sticker on a blade.

Great teaching moment that was, to explain that "Tested to Rockwell 58" was fine, as long as the steel they were using was effective at that hardness. When the oldest asked "What kind of steel is it?", I answered with a wink and a "Aha!"

But they used the knives as boys do. They whittled marshmallow sticks, cut rats nests of fishing line off their reels, probably carved their initials in something they shouldn't have.

And herein was the lesson I hoped they both got. As long as your tool works for you, there's no use in nerding out over spec numbers.

If your tool doesn't work for you, then toss it and get one that does.
 
Velitrius said:
My boys were each gifted a Steel Warrior slipjoint for Xmas one year. They each had the little HRC sticker on a blade.

Great teaching moment that was, to explain that "Tested to Rockwell 58" was fine, as long as the steel they were using was effective at that hardness. When the oldest asked "What kind of steel is it?", I answered with a wink and a "Aha!"

But they used the knives as boys do. They whittled marshmallow sticks, cut rats nests of fishing line off their reels, probably carved their initials in something they shouldn't have.

And herein was the lesson I hoped they both got. As long as your tool works for you, there's no use in nerding out over spec numbers.

If your tool doesn't work for you, then toss it and get one that does.
Click to expand...

Yes, most people would be fine with just about any knife, but most people aren't being directly marketed to through the use of powder metallurgy.

Nobody here is saying that softly-treated knives are unusable, but I would suspect most of us would be annoyed to find we had spent $200+ on an M390 knife only to discover that the heat treatment was so bad that a $100 VG-10 knife would have better edge retention. I don't think it's "nerding out over spec numbers" to be interested in getting a product that matches what you are looking for; people spend more money on knives to get proportional (up to a point) improvements in material and build quality.

The bottom line is this: Many companies choose to advertise Rockwell hardness, thus they are making a claim about their product that adds value. If characteristics and materials are advertised and included into the cost of the product, the manufacturer is obligated to provide a product that matches their description.
 
I get you, Comeuppance, I sincerely do.

I get that what is advertised should be what is delivered. I get that what has potential is what should be realized.

What I mean by "no use in nerding out over specs" is that we're probably getting what we paid for 98% of the time.

I'm not trying to be contrarian to your OP. I'm tossing out a perspective from a regular ol' consumer.

And I'm not your run of the mill regular ol' consumer.
 
Comeuppance said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has been often shown that "Trust, but Verify" would be one wonderful way to go, prior to purchase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top