Cut Test: Cold Steels new S35VN vs their CTS-XHP.....and a little M390 for fun

So the other cut testers do this a bit differently than you did. Leaving a bit to be desired. But nice test regardless. The other guys try and take each one to its limits while testing sharpness every so often and using only a portion of the blade not the whole blade. You just took all three to 280 cuts and tested sharpness. Not sure if that's as conclusive as I'd like but it's not terrible and gives a result and you have explained your testing process.
 
Mo2 said:
So the other cut testers do this a bit differently than you did. Leaving a bit to be desired. But nice test regardless. The other guys try and take each one to its limits while testing sharpness every so often and using only a portion of the blade not the whole blade. You just took all three to 280 cuts and tested sharpness. Not sure if that's as conclusive as I'd like but it's not terrible and gives a result and you have explained your testing process.
Click to expand...
Yes, like i stated at the very beginning, this is not meant to be a controlled or scientific test giving conclusive results, it's merely an observation test. Regardless of taping edges and testing sharpness every 20 cuts, there are too many variables in even those cut tests, the most prominent being - the human factor. Cutting force that we as onlookers cannot validate during the cut test, slight angle and lateral torquing changes in the cuts, and basically taking the testers word on the angles used and microbevels etc. was the edge previously dull and did the cut tester simply hone the weakened edge back into place to make it seem sharp on initial paper cut test? or was it freshly sharpened with no previously weakened apex? etc. You can narrow down the inconsistencies but never eliminate them. Take it all with a grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top