Comprehensive Steel Comparison Chart Attempt

[The Mastiff]

"SHARPENABILITY

This is not so much a working property of steel, but how ease the steel is to maintain. Ideally, you will get a steel that comes back to a razor edge with stropping after to moderate use. A full sharpening should correct any minor edge defects.

Well Below Average: ZDP-189, S30V

Below Average: 3V, VG-10

Average: 8Cr13MoV, 440C, S35VN

Above Average: M390/CTS-204p/20CV, CTS-XHP

Well Above Average: INFI, 1095 (as usually treated)"

This stuff and much of the above is all subjective and obviously open to disagreement . If this kind of post isn't confusing to people I don't know what would be. The above are pretty much not even close to the experiences I have had with them and I would try to get someone just beginning to not even read them. Incorrect information is more than unhelpful IMO and yes even though it is nice to see people trying is it really helpful to teach someone that 1 + 1 = 3?

Joe

 

[l1ranger]

I'm going to try to stop back in here when I have some more time, but a few notes.

there is a huge gap in this conversations where definitions (or the understandings of definitions) of things like strength and toughness get in the way.
when you start talking about moduli, unless you've had materials classes or done some serious study, they muddy the waters even more.

I like the 100 pts scale idea as well.

where I see the usefulness in a chart like this, is as a starting point reference - given all else being equal. if im looking at getting a "BRAND X Model 4999999A", and its available in 1095, VG-10, S30V, and CTS-XHP - i can take these numbers, my intended uses and other information and start my decision process from there.
What its not intended for is to say that knife X in Vanax is better than any knife in S30V, simply b/c it has a better "score"

i dont like availability as a factor in this chart - it has nothing to do with the properties of the steel - and any many cases, a given blade is only available in certain steels so availability becomes a completely different variable.

 

[Ten_Mile_Knives]

Good morning from Michigan!

"big-ass smashing hacker," or BASH

First off, this is hilarious! Well done sir

Well, there's a problem. We don't agree on the definitions of terms mentioned, and likely there's plenty others who will not agree with either of our definitions.
Strength to me, is a separate property. A tough steel with little strength makes a poor blade.
I try to keep it simple since I'm not a metallurgist, so to me, tough is resistance to fracture (chip/crack) but allows plastic deformation, strength is resistance to plastic deformation (rolling the edge) but allows fracture.
The combination of the two make up edge stability, imo.
Edge retention will be influenced by material being cut, how it's cut (chop,slice,push), edge stability, carbide type and amount.

I have a preferred balance of all the above, according to my use, and know which steels have performed best for me. Others will prefer a different balance to match their use.

To address this, all I can do is describe what "Toughness" meant when I was making the chart. Because I am reading and listening to peoples opinions, there is no rigorous definition for the numbers. I was looking at things primarily in the light of edge failure rather that total failure of they blade or "BASH". So something with a low toughness score is either chippy and brittle or soft and rolly..these properties are almost always associated with the overall toughness of the steel on a everyday use level. For example, something like ZDP-189 is chippy, and it is also more likely to fail as a pry bar than 1070.

The more data, the better. Include the following and Ankerson's test results too.


"Cedric & Ada Gear and Outdoors" on YouTube is from Australia (https://www.patreon.com/posts/worksharp-steel-16430576)
(https://www.youtube.com/user/CedricAda)


Standard worksharp edge test (20 degrees micro convex for most tests. 17 degree edges is typical for UNLEASHED tests) unless otherwise noted. The test counts the number of cuts to very abrasive 1 inch thick sisal rope. UNLEASHED TO THE MAXX, Tormek 12 degree edge is not for everyone. The steel edge will roll.


http://knifenews.com/just-how-bad-is-budget-blade-steel/

Pete chooses edge retention as the key criteria to measure folding knife steel. “I want the fine slicing to last as long as possible,” he says. His cut tests, performed using a standardized edge bevel, cutting medium, and method, measure this characteristic, end when the knife can no longer cut printer paper. The testing medium is abrasive sisal rope, and Pete readily admits that this is a harder cut than most. But he finds that steels which fail to make 60-70 cuts in his testing translate to poor EDC options. “Knives that land below the 60 mark generally frustrate me when I carry them extensively as a daily user,” he says.

This metric rules out the standard budget steels on the market today: heat treat plays an important role in the performance of any steel, but in testing, Pete has found that AUS-8, 8Cr13MoV, and 440C all fail to meet the 60 cut mark. To put that in perspective, a modern super steel like CTS-XHP gets all the way to 242 cuts on Pete’s test. “A lot of marketing materials still claim that AUS-8 and 8Cr13Mov are high carbon steels with superior edge retention. This just isn’t true, and hasn’t been for a long time,” Pete says. Knives with these steels are far from unusable, but Pete believes the time has come for makers to offer better options – even at lower price points. “I just want a steel in my lower cost knives which holds a little longer than what’s widely used.”

THE FOLLOWING NEED TO BE PLACED IN THE CHART BELOW:

More data=more better for sure, however if all I did was copy Pete verbatim, I wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table. I won't copy anyone's data because it's not my place, I would encourage people to take a look at Pete's findings because they are far more specific, and valid than my research. My chart does have the steels listed above and even a few more steels than Pete's, but the data behind them is spread out among multiple sources.

HARDNESS / EDGE RETENTION

Hardness and strength are related. Hardness is the resistance to indentation like from a hardness test. Strength is generally measured in a specific direction, such as tension, compression or shear. Higher strength generally reults in higher hardness, but not always.

Wear resistance is one component of edge holding. Edges either roll, wear, or break. High hardness prevents rolling, high wear resistance prevents wear, and high ductility and toughness prevent breaking. Its difficult to get very high ratings in all 3, so we have to decide which is more important for the application.

Adhesive wear occurs at the high local pressures involved in cutting, typically when cutting metal, often at high speed, and thus high temperature. The temperature and pressure are sufficient to weld a bit of the workpiece to the tool bit, and then break a piece out of the bit or edge. Adhesive wear is typically not a problem for hand held knives.

Wear is a form of damage, just as cracking and chipping. Increased hardness and strength also increase wear resistance, though steel alloy chemistry is more effective.

This is a measure of edge holding ability, which, is, in many ways a steel’s tendency to not roll and edge or go dull. Hardness usually comes at the cost of a tendency to chip, that is hard steels tend to chip instead of roll.

Well Below Average: 1095 (as usually treated), 420HC, 7Cr13MoV

Below Average: VG-10, AUS8, 440C, 8Cr13MoV

Average: S35VN, S30V

Above Average: M390/20CV/CTS-204p, 3V, CTS-XHP

Well Above Average: ZDP-189, Maxamet, REX 121



TOUGHNESS

This is a measure of a steel’s ability to resist chipping. Tough steels will dull or roll an edge before they chip.

Well Below Average: Ceramic

Below Average: S30V, VG-10

Average: S35VN, AUS 8

Above Average: 1095 (as usually treated), AEB-L, CTS-XHP

Well Above Average: INFI, 3V



CORROSION RESISTANCE

This is a steel’s ability to resist coloration and pitting due to exposure to elements such as water, salt water, sweat, acidic or basic foods, and the like.

Well Below Average: Maxamet

Below Average: ZDP-189, 3V, 8Cr13MoV

Average: VG-10

Above Average: 420HC, 440C, M390/CTS-204p/20CV

Well Above Average: LN 200C, H1



SHARPENABILITY

This is not so much a working property of steel, but how ease the steel is to maintain. Ideally, you will get a steel that comes back to a razor edge with stropping after to moderate use. A full sharpening should correct any minor edge defects.

Well Below Average: ZDP-189, S30V

Below Average: 3V, VG-10

Average: 8Cr13MoV, 440C, S35VN

Above Average: M390/CTS-204p/20CV, CTS-XHP

Well Above Average: INFI, 1095 (as usually treated)

I like your definitions, wouldn't you agree that my chart already reflects the lists you just made though (excluding sharpenability)?

I'd also track down the KNOWN chemical composition of each steel and incl that in the chart.

A good amount of my research into these steels came from ZKnives as well, if you are not familiar they are a HUGE database of steel compositions and they have a mobile app. I would say that including this might be less beneficial because the information already exists in a more user friendly form than I could provide.

"SHARPENABILITY

This is not so much a working property of steel, but how ease the steel is to maintain. Ideally, you will get a steel that comes back to a razor edge with stropping after to moderate use. A full sharpening should correct any minor edge defects.

Well Below Average: ZDP-189, S30V

Below Average: 3V, VG-10

Average: 8Cr13MoV, 440C, S35VN

Above Average: M390/CTS-204p/20CV, CTS-XHP

Well Above Average: INFI, 1095 (as usually treated)"

This stuff and much of the above is all subjective and obviously open to disagreement . If this kind of post isn't confusing to people I don't know what would be. The above are pretty much not even close to the experiences I have had with them and I would try to get someone just beginning to not even read them. Incorrect information is more than unhelpful IMO and yes even though it is nice to see people trying is it really helpful to teach someone that 1 + 1 = 3?

Joe

That's exactly why I have not included sharpenability, I have the means to sharpen most steels very well, so for me sharpeneability is not am important metric, and most steels are "easier" for me to sharpen then they might be for a beginner. Like you said as well, it's a more personal data point than things like edge holding.

 

[danbot]

To address this, all I can do is describe what "Toughness" meant when I was making the chart.

Yes, definitions are important. I believe we should stick to the standard metallurgical definitions to prevent confusion and disagreement.
What "I consider" toughness to be doesn't really mean anything, and is only useful in moving the goalposts to justify my conclusions.

 

[Ten_Mile_Knives]

What "I consider" toughness to be doesn't really mean anything, and is only useful in moving the goalposts to justify my conclusions.

I don't know that I can provide anything better than a moving goal post here. There isn't anyone doing stress-strain tests on all of these alloys to my knowledge.

With hat said, I think there is a lot of numbers that can be modified in the toughness category to be more accurate if anyone has input on some steel there?

 

[marcinek]

I would add that a ranking of any kind that is 0 to 10 is very hard. There are going to be a lot of "collisions" within the data set that do not make sense and start petty arguments. Rank from 0 to 100 to open the field up. Over 3 to 5 years a list like that which is maintained may reflect reality.

Just keep up to date with all of the tests and test methods that make sense to pay attention too and it will be "good enough" but never perfect.

That would hardly make a difference when the numbers are going to tenths and hundredths already.

Multiplying all the numbers by 10 or 100 makes no difference.

 

[marcinek]

Yes, definitions are important. I believe we should stick to the standard metallurgical definitions to prevent confusion and disagreement.
What "I consider" toughness to be doesn't really mean anything, and is only useful in moving the goalposts to justify my conclusions.

And so are assigning numbers to a characteristic that are definable, relevant, and reproduceable.

I mean I could say "From what I have seen an Opinel Mushroom knife is 76.45% cooler than a Vic Super Tinker."

But without some measureable scale of "coolness" with numbers assigned to it...it is meaningless.

 

[marcinek]

Second, the values are on a scale from 1-10, when I first started the list this wasn't a big problem because there were only a few, relatively similar steels. Once it expanded though I ran into problems where steels that were only one point away from each other were actually 200%+ different in actual test numbers. for example the early list had AUS-8 as relatively highly corrosion resistant, then I added H-1 and it made the two look like they were similar in that aspect..they are not..So it is important to look at it as a relative comparison, not an absolute one; meaning that a move from 5 to 6 is not an 11% improvement, it just means that steel with a score of 6 is some amount better than a steel with a 5.

But that hardly says anything.

Lets say I did my comprehensive list of animals I saw at the zoo. And, by weight, I rank

elephant 3
mouse 2
ant 1

It doesn't reeally inform much.

And you compounded it by including decimal values. Is the difference between 5 and 6 more than the difference between 5 and 5.5? What does that mean?

 

[marcinek]

I applaud your heroic efforts . I don't think anyone will be harmed or misled by your chart . It's just one more resource and stimulus for further research and conversation .

I certainly appreciate the effort involved.

Though I have seen dogs exhaust themselves chasing their tails, and it was neither heroic nor informative.

 

[danbot]

I too appreciate the effort. It's just difficult for me to get past the shifting goal posts and find the relevance.
It also seems kind of unnecessary to compare simple high carbon steels with stainless steels for corrosion resistance.

 

[marrenmiller]

"SHARPENABILITY

This is not so much a working property of steel, but how ease the steel is to maintain. Ideally, you will get a steel that comes back to a razor edge with stropping after to moderate use. A full sharpening should correct any minor edge defects.

Well Below Average: ZDP-189, S30V

Below Average: 3V, VG-10

Average: 8Cr13MoV, 440C, S35VN

Above Average: M390/CTS-204p/20CV, CTS-XHP

Well Above Average: INFI, 1095 (as usually treated)"

This stuff and much of the above is all subjective and obviously open to disagreement . If this kind of post isn't confusing to people I don't know what would be. The above are pretty much not even close to the experiences I have had with them and I would try to get someone just beginning to not even read them. Incorrect information is more than unhelpful IMO and yes even though it is nice to see people trying is it really helpful to teach someone that 1 + 1 = 3?

Joe

Yeah, that ranking makes no sense. S30V and S35VN being dramatically different in sharpening? VG10 being harder to sharpen than most steels? M390 and it's equivalents being easier to sharpen than most steels? Just based on common sense, let alone experience with the alloys, none of that sounds right.

 

[marcinek]

I too appreciate the effort. It's just difficult for me to get past the shifting goal posts and find the relevance.
It also seems kind of unnecessary to compare simple high carbon steels with stainless steels for corrosion resistance.

Same here. But all, in effect, that is being said is no more than "I like AUS-8 the most because its inexpensive and easy for me to sharpen."

And there is nothing at all with saying that. What is wrong is saying that and throwing numbers, spreadsheets, and graphs at it. It is deceptive at worst, and misleading at best.

And we have seen it many times before.

 

[GatorFlash1]

"Can't be done. Blade performance is more dependent on blade geometry than upon the blade alloy. And alloy performance is as much dependent on heat treat as on the composition."

Agree totally. There are so many other variables not shown on the Excel spreadsheet.

My Spyderco Gayle Bradley 1 with CPM-M4 steel is way down the list yet it is my EDC, best knife I have ever carried for general use.

 

[Ten_Mile_Knives]

But that hardly says anything.

Lets say I did my comprehensive list of animals I saw at the zoo. And, by weight, I rank

elephant 3
mouse 2
ant 1

It doesn't reeally inform much.

And you compounded it by including decimal values. Is the difference between 5 and 6 more than the difference between 5 and 5.5? What does that mean?

the decimals were a result of some steels performing just slightly better than others according to testemonial.

I too appreciate the effort. It's just difficult for me to get past the shifting goal posts and find the relevance.
It also seems kind of unnecessary to compare simple high carbon steels with stainless steels for corrosion resistance.

the point is not to say H1 is more corrosion resistant than O-1, it's to show that if you are a fisherman and you value corrosion resistance then O-1 is probably not the best choice for you.

"Can't be done. Blade performance is more dependent on blade geometry than upon the blade alloy. And alloy performance is as much dependent on heat treat as on the composition."

Agree totally. There are so many other variables not shown on the Excel spreadsheet.

My Spyderco Gayle Bradley 1 with CPM-M4 steel is way down the list yet it is my EDC, best knife I have ever carried for general use.

M4 is a great steel because of it combination of toughness and edge retention, but it scores lower because of its poor corrosion resistance. however steels that place higher like M390 have good edge holding, good toughness and good corrosion resistance.

It sounds like you love M4 because it excels in areas you value, it's "the best" for you. And the chart reflects this, it's really up to the user to figure out what they value and then choose a steel from the chart based on that.

Vanax is on top because it does well at a lot of things so the addition of the three categories puts it on top. it's not the best in any one category but it does well across the board just like M390 or Elmax or many of the other "favorite" steels out there.

people can argue that there is no best steel, but if I say I want edge retention and toughness for cutting up boxes then M4 will always be better than 1095.

 

[Ten_Mile_Knives]

The damage may have already been done but I put together as many of the sources as I could here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z6cFDPJiH4SBxydmWfZNUm88SQVuiK-b5tTK9Fnn9z0/edit?usp=drivesdk

 

[marcinek]

the decimals were a result of some steels performing just slightly better than others according to testemonial.

So, handwaving based on anecdotal impressions. Got it.

This is my whole point. Nothing wrong with handwaving based on anecdotal impressions when it comes to knives.

Just don't pretend there is some comprehensive quantifiable science behind it and try to sell it with a spreadsheet or graph.

There isn't. And people aren't buying.

Sincerely, I am sorry you had to find out the hard way that we all know that is the case. But you swung big.

 

[danbot]

the point is not to say H1 is more corrosion resistant than O-1, it's to show that if you are a fisherman and you value corrosion resistance then O-1 is probably not the best choice for you.

Thats pretty much a no-brainer anyway. But I do get what you are saying.

My issue is that the chart is based on a mixture of manufacturers testing, anecdotal test results, arbitrary values being assigned and whatever definitions you happened to be thinking of when the chart was put together.

 

[Ten_Mile_Knives]

So, handwaving based on anecdotal impressions. Got it.

This is my whole point. Nothing wrong with handwaving based on anecdotal impressions when it comes to knives.

Just don't pretend there is some comprehensive quantifiable science behind it and try to sell it with a spreadsheet or graph.

There isn't. And people aren't buying.

Sincerely, I am sorry you had to find out the hard way that we all know that is the case. But you swung big.

If you read my original post, it says clear as day how I got the numbers. Never said they were scientific or rigorous in any way. It's "comprehensive" because it lists more steels than I've seen in any other chart. I came here asking users to improve the chart if they thought there was an issue. All you've done if criticise the whole idea, If you don't like the chart or the way I present it then tell me something I can change about the formatting to be more palletable for you.

 

[Tommy-Chi]

That would hardly make a difference when the numbers are going to tenths and hundredths already.

Multiplying all the numbers by 10 or 100 makes no difference.

Sure it does if you start to factor in Ankerson and Pete's cut tests.

Be happy there bud....it will all work out.

 

[marcinek]

If you read my original post, it says clear as day how I got the numbers. Never said they were scientific or rigorous in any way. It's "comprehensive" because it lists more steels than I've seen in any other chart. I came here asking users to improve the chart if they thought there was an issue. All you've done if criticise the whole idea, If you don't like the chart or the way I present it then tell me something I can change about the formatting to be more palletable for you.

Like I have been saying...hard quantifiable numbers would be an improvement.

Calling handwaving handwaving would be an improvement.

Getting over the idea that you can compare two steels would be an improvement.

Its not a formatting problem. Its that you are doing something that cannot be done, thinking throwing a spreadsheet at it will make it doable.

Go back to knarfeng's post.