- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 42,532
Short Version (NO dreaded WALL OF TEXT):
I tested the Spyderco Manix2 with CTS-BD30P blade steel against a Buck Vantage Pro with an S30V blade. The CTS-BD30P had a hardness of 60.6, The S30V had a hardness of 59.7. The CTS-BD30P held an edge better than the S30V. IMO, it was not due to the hardness difference. IMO you would see the difference in everyday use, if you had two blades with exactly the same shape.
Long version (gory details):
Background and The Contestants:
Carpenter CTS-BD30P. Spyderco says it performs the same as S30V. It has darn near the same composition as S30V, except it is supposed to have a couple of ruffles and flourishes in its elemental makeup. I have been unable to find a data sheet for CTS-BD30P on the Carpenter web site, but I did find this compositional comparison on the Spyderco Forums (to which I will not provide a link, but you should be able to Google it up easily enough):
__________CTS-BD30P______S30V
CARBON _____1.50_________ 1.45
CHROMIUM __14.00________ 14.00
COBALT ______0.90________ -
MOLYBDENUM _2.00_________ 2.00
NICKEL_______0.25________ -
TUNGSTEN____0.20________ -
VANADIUM____4.00 _________ 4.00
Hardness of blades tested:
_____________60.6_________59.7
Now, being an old formulation chemist (among other things), I read this and was fascinated by the tweaking of the S30V formulation. I like S30V. (Not really surprising, I like all steels, but I maunder. Where was I? Ah yes...) S30V performs well. My question was, would the modification of the composition give visibly different results? Certainly Bohler's modification to 440C to produce N690 seemed similar, and the performance difference between 440C and N690 is really striking. I decided this was something I really wanted to know about.
I screwed up my courage (and worked a bunch of OT) and bought one of the sprint run Manix2s. I'm going to digress for a moment and say that I love this knife. It is a very well built and robust design, and IMO the blade shape is superb. I like the lock mechanism. The finish on the G10 is makes for a good grip, but is not overly abrasive to the pocket. The ergos are great. Even when not using the choil for fine work, there is still a feeling of complete control. Whether using the choil or not, the lip of the handle makes your grip secure and there is absolutely no way for the hand to slip forward onto the blade. I like that in my knives.
So... back on track, to what was I going to compare this beast? My method of testing edge retention is comparative rather than quantitative. Spyderco said the performance was similar to S30V. Obviously I needed a knife with an S30V blade. I've tested a couple in the past.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-S30V-vs.-VG10-vs.-Buck-S30V-vs.-Benchmade-D2
The one which performed best was my Buck Vantage Pro. IMO, the Paul Bos heat treat used by Buck is likely as good as it gets for S30V, and if the CTS-BD30P blade could outperform that, I'd say we got something.
The Test Method:
This is a simple, low-budget, test. My funds are limited, and I would rather buy knives than test equipment.
So my equipment list for my comparisons is:
I cut 3/8 manila rope. I got the idea from Phil Wilson. He likens the abrasion of cutting manila rope to that of skinning game. I like it, because it is a very uniform substrate, which does not cost much. In my testing, the rope is supported by the boards and stretches across the gap in the boards. The gap is narrow enough that the rope does not get pulled into the gap. It cannot bind the blade. I cut so that the blade passes through the gap in the boards, which hang out over the edge of my work bench. The blade only cuts rope and does not come in contact with the boards or anything else. The only thing that can damage the blade edge is the rope cutting itself. I make slicing cuts, endeavoring to use the amount of pressure necessary for the cut to be made with about 2 of blade surface.
After a given number of cuts, in this test 30 for each run, I examine the blades using a 3X lens and a high intensity light. Before the cutting, I check to make sure that I cannot see either edge. After the cutting, I look for the edge and gauge the amount of damage by how much of the edge I can see and how much light it reflects. In other words, I look for degradation of the edge.
The advantage to this method is that it negates differences in performance due to blade shape. All I am looking at is the steel. IMO, it's been proven that blade shape is more important than blade steel in cutting performance. So, I want to look at how the steel itself performs, and not how easily the knife cuts.
Results and discussion:
I made about a dozen runs. The CTS-BD30P consistently showed less damage than the S30V. How much better was it? It was not a night-and-day difference. It certainly did not perform at the M390 level. However, I think that if you had two blades with the same shape in the two different alloys, you might see the difference in every day use.
I don't think that the difference in performance was entirely due to the 1-point difference in hardness. I suppose it could have been, but it seemed like more than that to me. I noticed that, the damage to the CTS-BD30P blade seemed more uniform, than the damage to the S30V. The S30V blade often had bright spots, whereas the CTS-BD30P blade edge mostly only showed a thin line. I've tested two S30V blades with a 1-point difference in the hardnesses in one of my previous outings. This didn't look the same. It's a judgment call, and I could be wrong.
Conclusion:
To answer my original question, Yes, I think the properties were improved by tweaking the S30V composition. The difference isn't as large as the difference between 440C and N690, but IMO, it is there.
If I had a choice between a knife with a CTS-BD30P blade, and the same knife in S30V, I'd take the CTS-BD30P. If it were two different knives, I would choose the knife based on other factors. (This is normally true. If you aren't a steel junky, there are any number of good alloys that can be chosen interchangeably, their differences overridden by other differences in the knives.)
Anyway, Sal, more CTS-BD30P please. This time on purpose.
I tested the Spyderco Manix2 with CTS-BD30P blade steel against a Buck Vantage Pro with an S30V blade. The CTS-BD30P had a hardness of 60.6, The S30V had a hardness of 59.7. The CTS-BD30P held an edge better than the S30V. IMO, it was not due to the hardness difference. IMO you would see the difference in everyday use, if you had two blades with exactly the same shape.
Long version (gory details):
Background and The Contestants:
Carpenter CTS-BD30P. Spyderco says it performs the same as S30V. It has darn near the same composition as S30V, except it is supposed to have a couple of ruffles and flourishes in its elemental makeup. I have been unable to find a data sheet for CTS-BD30P on the Carpenter web site, but I did find this compositional comparison on the Spyderco Forums (to which I will not provide a link, but you should be able to Google it up easily enough):
__________CTS-BD30P______S30V
CARBON _____1.50_________ 1.45
CHROMIUM __14.00________ 14.00
COBALT ______0.90________ -
MOLYBDENUM _2.00_________ 2.00
NICKEL_______0.25________ -
TUNGSTEN____0.20________ -
VANADIUM____4.00 _________ 4.00
Hardness of blades tested:
_____________60.6_________59.7
Now, being an old formulation chemist (among other things), I read this and was fascinated by the tweaking of the S30V formulation. I like S30V. (Not really surprising, I like all steels, but I maunder. Where was I? Ah yes...) S30V performs well. My question was, would the modification of the composition give visibly different results? Certainly Bohler's modification to 440C to produce N690 seemed similar, and the performance difference between 440C and N690 is really striking. I decided this was something I really wanted to know about.
I screwed up my courage (and worked a bunch of OT) and bought one of the sprint run Manix2s. I'm going to digress for a moment and say that I love this knife. It is a very well built and robust design, and IMO the blade shape is superb. I like the lock mechanism. The finish on the G10 is makes for a good grip, but is not overly abrasive to the pocket. The ergos are great. Even when not using the choil for fine work, there is still a feeling of complete control. Whether using the choil or not, the lip of the handle makes your grip secure and there is absolutely no way for the hand to slip forward onto the blade. I like that in my knives.
So... back on track, to what was I going to compare this beast? My method of testing edge retention is comparative rather than quantitative. Spyderco said the performance was similar to S30V. Obviously I needed a knife with an S30V blade. I've tested a couple in the past.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-S30V-vs.-VG10-vs.-Buck-S30V-vs.-Benchmade-D2
The one which performed best was my Buck Vantage Pro. IMO, the Paul Bos heat treat used by Buck is likely as good as it gets for S30V, and if the CTS-BD30P blade could outperform that, I'd say we got something.
The Test Method:
This is a simple, low-budget, test. My funds are limited, and I would rather buy knives than test equipment.
So my equipment list for my comparisons is:
- two pine boards with ~1/4 gap between them, attached to my work table so that they are cantilevered out over the edge of the table.
- A 3x hand lens
- A high intensity light
- 3/8 manila rope
- Sharpening device. In this case, a Spyderco Sharpmaker.
I cut 3/8 manila rope. I got the idea from Phil Wilson. He likens the abrasion of cutting manila rope to that of skinning game. I like it, because it is a very uniform substrate, which does not cost much. In my testing, the rope is supported by the boards and stretches across the gap in the boards. The gap is narrow enough that the rope does not get pulled into the gap. It cannot bind the blade. I cut so that the blade passes through the gap in the boards, which hang out over the edge of my work bench. The blade only cuts rope and does not come in contact with the boards or anything else. The only thing that can damage the blade edge is the rope cutting itself. I make slicing cuts, endeavoring to use the amount of pressure necessary for the cut to be made with about 2 of blade surface.
After a given number of cuts, in this test 30 for each run, I examine the blades using a 3X lens and a high intensity light. Before the cutting, I check to make sure that I cannot see either edge. After the cutting, I look for the edge and gauge the amount of damage by how much of the edge I can see and how much light it reflects. In other words, I look for degradation of the edge.
The advantage to this method is that it negates differences in performance due to blade shape. All I am looking at is the steel. IMO, it's been proven that blade shape is more important than blade steel in cutting performance. So, I want to look at how the steel itself performs, and not how easily the knife cuts.
Results and discussion:
I made about a dozen runs. The CTS-BD30P consistently showed less damage than the S30V. How much better was it? It was not a night-and-day difference. It certainly did not perform at the M390 level. However, I think that if you had two blades with the same shape in the two different alloys, you might see the difference in every day use.
I don't think that the difference in performance was entirely due to the 1-point difference in hardness. I suppose it could have been, but it seemed like more than that to me. I noticed that, the damage to the CTS-BD30P blade seemed more uniform, than the damage to the S30V. The S30V blade often had bright spots, whereas the CTS-BD30P blade edge mostly only showed a thin line. I've tested two S30V blades with a 1-point difference in the hardnesses in one of my previous outings. This didn't look the same. It's a judgment call, and I could be wrong.
Conclusion:
To answer my original question, Yes, I think the properties were improved by tweaking the S30V composition. The difference isn't as large as the difference between 440C and N690, but IMO, it is there.
If I had a choice between a knife with a CTS-BD30P blade, and the same knife in S30V, I'd take the CTS-BD30P. If it were two different knives, I would choose the knife based on other factors. (This is normally true. If you aren't a steel junky, there are any number of good alloys that can be chosen interchangeably, their differences overridden by other differences in the knives.)
Anyway, Sal, more CTS-BD30P please. This time on purpose.
Last edited:
