CPM S30V vs M390

Status
Not open for further replies.
when we study the comps of these alloys sometimes our best projections are'nt what falls out of the egg. the real proof will be the using in knives made from the alloy. bear in mind some companies may bring out the newest alphabet steel in lower rockwells & the alloy may only be ho-hum.
dennis
 
DennisStrickland said:
when we study the comps of these alloys sometimes our best projections are'nt what falls out of the egg. the real proof will be the using in knives made from the alloy. bear in mind some companies may bring out the newest alphabet steel in lower rockwells & the alloy may only be ho-hum.
dennis
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. There is a lot on the table performance wise with the ht.
 
DennisStrickland said:
when we study the comps of these alloys sometimes our best projections are'nt what falls out of the egg. the real proof will be the using in knives made from the alloy. bear in mind some companies may bring out the newest alphabet steel in lower rockwells & the alloy may only be ho-hum.
dennis
Click to expand...

Very true, some steels work best around 62 RC, cut that back to 58 or 59 RC and it's like a completely different steel.

Or say a steel really should be at 60 RC, but they put it out at 57 or 58 RC, it just isn't the same.
 
agoutihead said:
Where does D2 fall in here compared to S30V?
Click to expand...

Benchmade Ares LE with D2 keep last place - 43. However heat treated by Bob Dozier D2 keep 1st place for quite a while. Now it is 2nd after Spyderco Lum Chinese ZDP-189.

So if properly heat treated - D2 is among the best. But it is only Dozier made blades demonstrate exceptional performance. KaBar Japanese D2 Dozier is on 11th place and Kershaw CPM D2 is on 12th. But Friction forged D2 is on 37th place.

So it is hard to say as you see. Performance depends not on steel but on heat treatment and brand. I would rate brands based on my tests:
heat treatment - Buck, Spyderco, Kershaw, Benchmade
performance - Spyderco, Kershaw, Buck, Benchmade (becasue Buck limit itself in steel and do not use super performers)

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
richw said:
Outside of nozh2002 (not disagreeing with him), is everyone in agreement that m390 is better than s30v in all the aspects that the original poster is asking or just edge retention?

Color me confused.

Rich
Click to expand...

Well there is no other test results than what I have. Ankerson test are informal by his own words and IMHO to extent it compromises results. I raise question about his method and have no answers from him - who am I after all?

I am doing testing for a while - several years, not just few times - I tested 41 different blades, developed statistical sharpness measurement etc, etc, etc.

So it is not matter of my personal opinion, but formal test results. And unfortunately everybody may disagree and say that M390 better, but no one have test results which may support this. I may be wrong, but there is no solid evidence of that.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I guess nobody likes a know-it-all vasososilly, or a tatle-tale for that matter. Also purple people. To hell with purple people I say.
 
Sal Glesser said:
Hi Vassili,

CTS-XHP has not been available in production quantities. I assure you that when it is, we will be using it.

I don't think that Spyderco is hard to understand. I also don't agree that it's all marketing hype.

sal
Click to expand...

Well, you guys downgrade you warranty policy - no I can not clean and oil my knives - it will void warranty. You revoke Mule ZDP-189 Mule because of bad heat treatment - after it was sold for a while and after some people, like me already add handles. Can not center grind line on Walker...

For me it is hard to understand. It is not like it was before.

Now I am not sure what are you refers to disagreeing about marketing hype, I am talking about steel with average performance presented as a super steel, my tests (and there ane no other available) show for certain steel average performance but they are presented as something special.

Like 7 years ago CPM S30V was like better then CPM S60V and replaced it on all top models (Military), then whan CATRA test became available it turns out:
CPM S60V - 1030
CPM S30V - 541
This is not mine but CATRA results (see "Knife Illustrated" Oct 2010)

Sorry, Vassili.
 
MiG Angel said:
I guess nobody likes a know-it-all vasososilly, or a tatle-tale for that matter. Also purple people. To hell with purple people I say.
Click to expand...

Well this is good demonstration of what other side may only offer.

I was hoping for some testing. Some rope being cut in controlled environment, some tables, math, statistic... Something to think about.

Well, we have what we have.

Sorry, Vassili.
 
As opposed to your contributions, "x alloy is marginally more wear
resistant than y alloy...sometimes...depends. And I don't like Spyderco."

There wil be more tests and reports in the coming months and years; you sir, are not the authoriy.
 
How many times must you be told?

S30V WAS NOT THE REPLACEMENT OF S60V¡

Kershaw put CPMD2 on the spine and elmax on the edge for LOOKS..... Elmax also performs better than S30V and is a little like CPM D2 except the edge is more resistant to chipping and deformation, something the other two struggle with. Cutting rope is a good test of edge retention but that's about it, you need to cut a variety of things to get a true understanding of a steels performance.
 
knifenut1013 said:
How many times must you be told?

S30V WAS NOT THE REPLACEMENT OF S60V¡

Kershaw put CPMD2 on the spine and elmax on the edge for LOOKS..... Elmax also performs better than S30V and is a little like CPM D2 except the edge is more resistant to chipping and deformation, something the other two struggle with. Cutting rope is a good test of edge retention but that's about it, you need to cut a variety of things to get a true understanding of a steels performance.
Click to expand...


I have always liked cardboard to test how the edges react and not just sharpness either, it will tear up an edge pretty quick depending on the steel.

I have cut a lot of cardboard over the past 25 years and found some steels just plain work better than others over time.
 
You should try drywall and carpet ;)

I had some recycled cardboard about a year ago that could destroy the best of steels in inches of a cut..... yes, inches.

On average steels like 1095 and VG-10 would only make it about 6-8 inches before crushing the cardboard. S30V and like steels would make it through a few feet but the edges were always TORE UP! I usually had to go back to at least a coarse diamond to fix it.

I wish I could get it again, it worked great for pushing the limits of a steel and doing it quick.
 
knifenut1013 said:
You should try drywall and carpet ;)

I had some recycled cardboard about a year ago that could destroy the best of steels in inches of a cut..... yes, inches.

On average steels like 1095 and VG-10 would only make it about 6-8 inches before crushing the cardboard. S30V and like steels would make it through a few feet but the edges were always TORE UP! I usually had to go back to at least a coarse diamond to fix it.

I wish I could get it again, it worked great for pushing the limits of a steel and doing it quick.
Click to expand...


Oh I have cut Carpet (Used Carpet will kill an edge) and thick used carpet padding is just..... well like cutting sandpaper.

Drywall, well that's a given. :D

I like cardboard because as you say it will tear up edges, a lot steels will get microchips in the edge and it doesn't take very long either depending on the cardboard.

I cut some up today for recycling and it just tore the heck out of ZDP.

I find the tougher steels tend to work better on cardboard because they don't microchip as easy.

M390 is excellent for cutting cardboard.
 
Last edited:
Ankerson said:
Oh I have cut Carpet (Used Carpet will kill an edge) and thick used carpet padding is just..... well like cutting sandpaper.

Drywall, well that's a given. :D

I like cardboard because as you say it will tear up edges, a lot steels will get microchips in the edge and it doesn't take very long either depending on the cardboard.

I cut some up today for recycling and it just tore the heck out of ZDP.

I find the tougher steels tend to work better on cardboard because they don't microchip as easy.

M390 is excellent for cutting cardboard.
Click to expand...

Heh, if you want something that's like cutting sandpaper, why not just cut sandpaper? I guess it might get a little expensive...

If I was going to be doing this kind of testing, I would just use some kind of abrasive rod and slide it over the edge with the edge standing straight up under the rods own weight. Then I'd just take a measurement of the force it took to cut after ever 25th pass until the edge would not cut under a pre-determined force. At least in this way, things like cutting force, material, etc. would be consistent and the real variable would be in the test cuts and the actual geometry of the blade itself.

Just how I would do it anyway.

Oh, and as far as the issue of hitting the scale/board when cutting rope, I think instead of an electric scale measuring downward force, one of those force scales that measures how strong a pull is would be more adequate, especially since they generally have a "marker" which indicates the peak force that was reached. In this way, you could just cut through a loop of rope and not worry about hitting anything
 
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, I just didn't want to bring another thread from the ground.

nozh2002 said:
Well this is good demonstration of what other side may only offer.

I was hoping for some testing. Some rope being cut in controlled environment, some tables, math, statistic... Something to think about.

Well, we have what we have.

Sorry, Vassili.
Click to expand...

I like you tests, and I think that eliminating the wooden board is an easy and effective way of clarifying some test data. But still looking at the numbers, they confuse me quite a bit. How can you rate one Steel over another, when there is a big difference in results within the same knife.

Take Yuna for example, after 200 cuts the difference between 1st run (80) and 2nd run (50) is 38%. Or ELMAX after 100 cuts doing on a 1st run (45) and on 2nd run (65). That's 31% difference. After how many cuts do you establish the winner?

There are also cases when blade is doing better after more cuts. That is weird. I'm sorry I haven't read the whole 500 post in those 3 threads you have links to, but I have read some opinions about some weird thing like carbides alignment and blade doing better after several sharpening... I think the problem is that you're doing the sharpness test in one spot on the blade. Why not to put 5 dots and do 4 cuts on each spot, instead of 21 cuts on one spot. The CATRA machine for example doesn't have such flaw, because it does the cut/test with couple of inches on the edge.

Then on top of different results from the same knife, there is a big variance within the same steel from different manufacturers. The good thing is that you're listing the exact knife in your rating. But still, how can you rate one steel better than the other when there is so much weird stuff is going on? Even rating one knife technically might be incorrect, because the same knife on a 3rd run might show different result (but that will improve statistics). Also, is there a guarantee that if I buy the same model as you have tested, it will behave exactly the same way as yours?

At least the numbers from CATRA machine come from the same manufacturer (if I understand this correctly)? They can easily test 10 knives with the same steel and come up with average number that they can compare to the average number of the other steel (I have no clue how they actually do it).
But also that data from manufacturer's CATRA will be valid only to that particular manufacturer and their heat treatment. As everybody knows (and very nicely shown by you) same steel can be heat treated by different manufacturer very differently. More than that, even if data shows that edge is more wear resistant, it doesn't mean that steel is "better", because there is no toughness in the equation. All that it would mean that Steel A @ X HRC is more wear resistant than Steel B @ Y HRC. Without toughness it is difficult to proclaim one "better overall", than another. Better for whom and for what purpose? ZDP @ 67 HRC holds edge very long, but isn't very durable (at least from one manufacturer). That actually might be why manufacturers don't want to disclose CATRA test results. They have to find a spot where wear resistance, toughness, ease of sharpening would appeal to the public. The CATRA data alone might not speak in their favor.
I wish Spyderco post CATRA numbers for their Mules. That would be pretty awesome.

I think your tests are generally good, but they are missing more statistics to be really accepted. I understand that you cannot test the same knife 10 times, or better yet 10 different knives of the same model, or 100 knives with the same steel from different 10 different manufacturers, but without it I just don't know how anybody can say that D2 (replace the name) is better than S30V (replace the name) or vice versa. In some way you might even say that very subjective opinion of 100 owners from some use and subjective comparison, might be a better indicator than a result of one of your(or somebody else) tests. Another problem of course is that those 100 subjective users might not have the same reference point :). I wish there be more people trying to do something like you, but I sure am way too lazy to do it and prefer to spend my time on something else :). Sorry :(. I appreciate your efforts though.
 
Last edited:
Ok back to the post, because this has been clouded up again...what is better M390 or CPM S30V. Sounds like from Vassili experience he likes the performance of CPM S30V and from Ankerson experience M390 does best in his test. So now as we approach the final round which Steel will score the KO?
 
KennyB said:
If I was going to be doing this kind of testing, I would just use some kind of abrasive rod and slide it over the edge with the edge standing straight up under the rods own weight. Then I'd just take a measurement of the force it took to cut after ever 25th pass until the edge would not cut under a pre-determined force. At least in this way, things like cutting force, material, etc. would be consistent and the real variable would be in the test cuts and the actual geometry of the blade itself.
Click to expand...
Does too much immediate damage to the edge. I tried this with a polished cutting edge when trying out someone's idea for using rubber bands for test media. Instead of measuring force cutting thread on a scale, the idea was to measure how far the band stretched before being cut. I cut the rubber band, made one pass against an UF sharpmaker rod as you described, and then cut another rubber band. The edge could not shave arm hair and the rubber band stretched many times further than the first cut. The edge was dull after one pass, no good for comparing steels that perform to near equal levels.

This is why freehand sharpening can take a while if you lose focus, one really bad pass and you wreck your edge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top