- Joined
- Mar 2, 2014
- Messages
- 2,585
I will get an old 110 with 440c.Does it perform similarly to Bucks s30v (edge aggression) Thanx
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
How does Buck s30v compare to Buck440c
- Thread starter lonestar1979
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,247
I use both of them a lot,mostly hunting and commercial lobster fishing,I can get beautifull sharp edges on both and both seem to stay sharp about the same,slight advantage to 440c because it's easier to sharpen on regular stones.
David Martin
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 19,520
In my sisal rope cutting tests Buck's 440C blade will run 200 cuts less than S30V. One tested closer. Still, your comparing apples to oranges, their properties are different. S30V is of powder metallurgy, with V. Both of these items help a lot over a double remelt steel. 440C compares very close to 154cm and yes, it is easier to sharpen than S30V. In edge aggression they are close. DM
I haven noticed a grea deal of difference between my 440c and s30v blades. I would give the advantage to the S30v but not by a bunch. But, I'm cutting open boxes and some cardboard tear down. It seems that Mr. Martin's test is a little more scientific and controled than mine. 
David Martin
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 19,520
Haze, They are fairly close. 200 more cuts on 1/2" sisal rope really it's that much. It just sounds like it. Cardboard being different-- maybe 8-10 more feet. The carbides are larger in 440C. So, you might can tell something during sharpening... DM
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,247
I should have been a bit more clear,I also ground convex edges onto both of my blades,I like the codex edge much better than the hollow ground factory edges,I find them to be durable in every cutting task and easier to touch up .
David Martin
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 19,520
So, you think this makes a difference in how long the edge last? DM
RAZORBLADES, picking nits I terms to clarify, I think you mean to say you like a convex edge better the factory V edge, correct? The standard set up on the 110 is a hollow blade grind with a traditional V edge.
David Martin, like RAZORBLADES, I generally put a convex edge on my blades and I notice two things. First, they seem to resist edge rolling better. Second, the throw curls better when working wood and offer less binding.
Regarding edge rolling, obviously that won't be picked up by rope cutting or CARTA tests (unless the apex is way too thin).
David Martin, like RAZORBLADES, I generally put a convex edge on my blades and I notice two things. First, they seem to resist edge rolling better. Second, the throw curls better when working wood and offer less binding.
Regarding edge rolling, obviously that won't be picked up by rope cutting or CARTA tests (unless the apex is way too thin).
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,247
My factory edges look hollow ground to me ,not v edged.convex edges seem to really last for me on the 440c110
RAZORBLADES,
I just found this 2009 video with CJ Buck (it's a pro-Idaho business promo). At 48 - 52 seconds, you see a woman putting a knife against a belt on a round wheel. Assuming she's putting on the final edge (and not the larger blade grind, which I assume is done by machine, not by hand) then yes, this would give a slight hollow factory edge and not a V edge. Sorry about that (and I concur about convex edges, btw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_NlbEbbzCo
I just found this 2009 video with CJ Buck (it's a pro-Idaho business promo). At 48 - 52 seconds, you see a woman putting a knife against a belt on a round wheel. Assuming she's putting on the final edge (and not the larger blade grind, which I assume is done by machine, not by hand) then yes, this would give a slight hollow factory edge and not a V edge. Sorry about that (and I concur about convex edges, btw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_NlbEbbzCo
Edge retention modeling
Background
Knifemaker Wayne Goddard has collected much data comparing the edge retention of steels, and makers such as Ed Fowler and Phil Wilson credit Goddard for the methods they use in evaluation of the edge retention. The method used by Goddard origionated as follows1 :
Twelve years ago I started using a standard test to test the cutting abilities of different knife steels. All the blades I prepare for this test are the same size, shape and thickness, being .125 in. thick and flat ground. The included angle is 12 degrees to 15 degrees, with a primary sharpening angle of 15 degrees per side; final sharpening is on a Norton Fine India stone. Cuts are made on the single strands out of a 1 1/4 in. hemp rope. The single strands are easier to handle. Three tests were conducted on each blade and the results averaged. Using a slicing cut, the strand is parted and cutting continues until the cutting edge loses its bite into the rope. This is about the same point that the edge loses its ability to shave hair.
In short, simply cut until a specific amount of blunting is reached. The measure of edge retention is the ratio of how much more one steel can cut than the other. Goddard later increased the precision by cutting the rope on a bathroom scale covered with newspaper which allows the stopping point to be set at a specific force and Wilson also adapted the same technique. Mike Swaim, who as a hobby studied various aspects of knife performance, also ran a number of edge holding tests on knives using a similar independently developed rope cutting test2
... for a sheer edge retention test, I simply cut through pieces of 3/8" hard-lay black polypropylene rope sucessively until the blades were so dull that they couldn't reliably make the cut in one pass over a cutting board without leaving ragged edges. A good sharp thin knife will leave a glassy looking smooth cut that almost looks fused. The duller the knife the more ragged the cut.
Mike extended the method by noting the performance at multiple intervals and therefore examined the nature of blunting. From the same post which refers to a 66 HRC 1095 paring knife from Alvin Johnston:
... still shaving arm hair at 10, 20 and a whopping 50 cuts. At 75 cuts knife started to just barely scrape, rather than shave. Still making glassy smooth cuts in the rope at 100 cuts, but by then edge was noticeably producing rolled burr.
Phil Wilson also measured the sharpness in intervals and noted the blunting was not a linear process. He developed a two stage model, noting that initial blunting was very rapid and then it decreased and eventually plateaued. Wilson attributed this early blunting being mainly deformation and late blunting being mainly wear3.
Early modeling attempts
Edge retention comparisons by the author noted just as Wilson described. An early example of such work was performed during reviews of two custom knives, a MEUK and Running Dog Traditional Tanto. The knives were compared for edge retention during slicing wood 4 with the sharpness measured by cutting 1/4" poly rope under 700 grams of tension 5. It was clear that blunting was not linear and followed Wilsons description, however there is to much noise in the data to quantify the exact nature of the curve.
Subsequent knife comparisons supported the hypothesis of two distinct blunting mechanisms. This was especially clear in a trial which compared low and high carbide steels shown by the graph on the right6. The two high carbide steel blades with a very high wear resistance, S30V (South Fork) and 10V (Coyote Meadow) show a large decrease in the rate of blunting in the late stage while the two low carbide steels, 52100 (MEUK) and 420J2 (Point Guard) continue to blunt at a more rapid rate. Further direct support for this nonlinear responce was given by Dr. Roman Landes whose book Messerklingen und Stahl7 showed edge retention graphs which had the exact same shape and also noted the different responce of high and low carbide steels.
Early attempts to model these measurements of edge retention used various power laws or just splines as a direct application of Wilson's two stage model for blunting. These however were not satisfactory because they did not allow ease of comparisons and have no physical significance to the coefficients. A model was subsequently developed from first principles to match the behavior in both regions and address all those issues.
Current model
Starting with the hypothesis that blunting is mainly edge deformation and wear; consider as an edge wears it thickens and thus it would take more wear to thicken (blunt) it the same amount as more material would need to be removed. Bending steel is much the same, it is easy to bend it a little, but as it bends it gets harder and harder to keep bending. Thus as an edge blunts by deformation it takes much more of the same work to keep the deformation increasing. Combining these two effects the rate of blunting should be inversely proportional to the amount of existing blunting. Thus the blunting B at a given amount of material cut x can be written as follows:
B(x)=a xb+c
If blunting followed the exact physical behavior noted then b would equal exactly 0.5 but consider effects such as of chipping which will weaken the edge and make it easier to deform and as well increase wear. Thus the model will allow b to take other values to account for chipping and other influences. The parameter a is determined by the strength and wear resistance of the steel and c just represents the initial sharpness, it is zero for a perfectly sharpened blade. Note how the blunting is determined does not matter, any representative measure of sharpness will do 5.
Since there are two paramaters which influence the rate of blunting, a and b, one steel can have superior edge retention at high sharpness but another steel can have superior long term edge retention. This is shown in the graph on the right. This subject was explored in detail by Dr. Roman Landes7 who classified steels in three types, I, II, II, according to their ability to hold a very push cutting sharpness at low angles. AEB-L is an example of a type I steel and ATS-34 is an example of a type III steel.
Note to model sharpness S(x) the function just has to be inverted producing :
S(x)=c/(1+a xb)
Application
These forumlas have been used extensively by the author to fit the edge retention data personally recorded such as an exhaustive comparisons performed on multiple S30V and ZDP-189 knives8. The model represented the data perfectly both in the early and late stage blunting. The b coefficents were all the same as would be expected as the steels are all similar in being very hard high carbide stainless. The difference in behavior was just the a coeffient was systematically larger for all S30V blades. The model also well represents similar hand data collected from other individuals9. It can also be readily applied to model the extended cutting ability of knives by realizing that the coefficient c can also include any constant wedging force on the blade so the sharpness equation can be extended directly to measured extended cutting ability.
As an example of such analysis, the graph on the right represents data digitized from graphs published by BUCK 10 and fitted to the above model. It compares the performance of a two blades steels and two edge configurations. It was used to promote the "Edge 2000" process, an enhancement by Buck in their sharpening methods to increase the intitial cutting ability and cutting lifetime of their knives. The angle was reduced to 14.5 degrees per side and a hard cardboard wheel replaced a cloth wheel to reduce the convexing of the final edge bevel which further makes the edge more acute11. In short, the 420HC blade with the "Edge 2000" profile radically outperforms the BG-42 blade with the more obtuse edge profile. When both have the "Edge 2000" process the BG-42 blade pulls ahead strongly after significant cutting. The data was modeled by the S(x) equation and as shown in the graph the fitted curves well represent the experimental data. The results of the fit are given in the following table.
Steel Edge Configuration a b c
420HC Edge 2000 0.37 (4) 1.34 (5) 10.4 (3)
BG-42 Pre-Edge 2000 2.4 (3) 0.64 (3) 12.5 (8)
BG-42 Edge 2000 0.44 (4) 0.97 (3) 10.9 (3)
Note when both blades have the "Edge 2000" configuration the a parameters are not significantly different but the b value is much lower for the BG-42 blade indicating its higher wear resistance. It is clear that the more acute edge does significantly better on the CATRA machine. It would have been interesting to see other angles tested to example if that was the optimal configuration.
Recap
A simple power equation has been proposed to model the loss of sharpness of knives in use. The equation has been successfully applied to data collected by hand by the author and others and as well CATRA results.
References
1 : Wayne Goddard, http://users.ameritech.net/knives/edge.html, 1997.
2 : Mike Swaim, rec.knives,1998.
3 : Phil Wilson, private communication, 1999.
4 : Cliff Stamp,Knife Review: Traditional Tanto by Running Dog Knives, 2001.
5 : Cliff Stamp, Measures of Cutlery Sharpness, 2007.
6 : Cliff Stamp,Review: South Fork, 2006.
7 : Dr. R. Landes, Messerklingen und Stahl, 2. Auflage, Wieland Verlag, Bruckmühl, Germany. Copyright 2006
8 : Cliff Stamp, Blade Comparisons, Copyright 2007
9 : Mike Cheshareck, Slicing edge retention: CPM-D2 (Spyderco Military) vs. D2 (Mel Sorg), Copyright 2007
10 : Catra Edge Testing Results, C. J. Buck, 2001
11 : Buck Knives, Technical Info, 2003
Contact: Email Articles Reviews Evaluations Forum Home
Written: Jan. 2006 Updated: Aug. 2007 Copyright (c) 2006-2007 : Cliff Stamp
Background
Knifemaker Wayne Goddard has collected much data comparing the edge retention of steels, and makers such as Ed Fowler and Phil Wilson credit Goddard for the methods they use in evaluation of the edge retention. The method used by Goddard origionated as follows1 :
Twelve years ago I started using a standard test to test the cutting abilities of different knife steels. All the blades I prepare for this test are the same size, shape and thickness, being .125 in. thick and flat ground. The included angle is 12 degrees to 15 degrees, with a primary sharpening angle of 15 degrees per side; final sharpening is on a Norton Fine India stone. Cuts are made on the single strands out of a 1 1/4 in. hemp rope. The single strands are easier to handle. Three tests were conducted on each blade and the results averaged. Using a slicing cut, the strand is parted and cutting continues until the cutting edge loses its bite into the rope. This is about the same point that the edge loses its ability to shave hair.
In short, simply cut until a specific amount of blunting is reached. The measure of edge retention is the ratio of how much more one steel can cut than the other. Goddard later increased the precision by cutting the rope on a bathroom scale covered with newspaper which allows the stopping point to be set at a specific force and Wilson also adapted the same technique. Mike Swaim, who as a hobby studied various aspects of knife performance, also ran a number of edge holding tests on knives using a similar independently developed rope cutting test2
... for a sheer edge retention test, I simply cut through pieces of 3/8" hard-lay black polypropylene rope sucessively until the blades were so dull that they couldn't reliably make the cut in one pass over a cutting board without leaving ragged edges. A good sharp thin knife will leave a glassy looking smooth cut that almost looks fused. The duller the knife the more ragged the cut.
Mike extended the method by noting the performance at multiple intervals and therefore examined the nature of blunting. From the same post which refers to a 66 HRC 1095 paring knife from Alvin Johnston:
... still shaving arm hair at 10, 20 and a whopping 50 cuts. At 75 cuts knife started to just barely scrape, rather than shave. Still making glassy smooth cuts in the rope at 100 cuts, but by then edge was noticeably producing rolled burr.
Phil Wilson also measured the sharpness in intervals and noted the blunting was not a linear process. He developed a two stage model, noting that initial blunting was very rapid and then it decreased and eventually plateaued. Wilson attributed this early blunting being mainly deformation and late blunting being mainly wear3.
Early modeling attempts
Edge retention comparisons by the author noted just as Wilson described. An early example of such work was performed during reviews of two custom knives, a MEUK and Running Dog Traditional Tanto. The knives were compared for edge retention during slicing wood 4 with the sharpness measured by cutting 1/4" poly rope under 700 grams of tension 5. It was clear that blunting was not linear and followed Wilsons description, however there is to much noise in the data to quantify the exact nature of the curve.
Subsequent knife comparisons supported the hypothesis of two distinct blunting mechanisms. This was especially clear in a trial which compared low and high carbide steels shown by the graph on the right6. The two high carbide steel blades with a very high wear resistance, S30V (South Fork) and 10V (Coyote Meadow) show a large decrease in the rate of blunting in the late stage while the two low carbide steels, 52100 (MEUK) and 420J2 (Point Guard) continue to blunt at a more rapid rate. Further direct support for this nonlinear responce was given by Dr. Roman Landes whose book Messerklingen und Stahl7 showed edge retention graphs which had the exact same shape and also noted the different responce of high and low carbide steels.
Early attempts to model these measurements of edge retention used various power laws or just splines as a direct application of Wilson's two stage model for blunting. These however were not satisfactory because they did not allow ease of comparisons and have no physical significance to the coefficients. A model was subsequently developed from first principles to match the behavior in both regions and address all those issues.
Current model
Starting with the hypothesis that blunting is mainly edge deformation and wear; consider as an edge wears it thickens and thus it would take more wear to thicken (blunt) it the same amount as more material would need to be removed. Bending steel is much the same, it is easy to bend it a little, but as it bends it gets harder and harder to keep bending. Thus as an edge blunts by deformation it takes much more of the same work to keep the deformation increasing. Combining these two effects the rate of blunting should be inversely proportional to the amount of existing blunting. Thus the blunting B at a given amount of material cut x can be written as follows:
B(x)=a xb+c
If blunting followed the exact physical behavior noted then b would equal exactly 0.5 but consider effects such as of chipping which will weaken the edge and make it easier to deform and as well increase wear. Thus the model will allow b to take other values to account for chipping and other influences. The parameter a is determined by the strength and wear resistance of the steel and c just represents the initial sharpness, it is zero for a perfectly sharpened blade. Note how the blunting is determined does not matter, any representative measure of sharpness will do 5.
Since there are two paramaters which influence the rate of blunting, a and b, one steel can have superior edge retention at high sharpness but another steel can have superior long term edge retention. This is shown in the graph on the right. This subject was explored in detail by Dr. Roman Landes7 who classified steels in three types, I, II, II, according to their ability to hold a very push cutting sharpness at low angles. AEB-L is an example of a type I steel and ATS-34 is an example of a type III steel.
Note to model sharpness S(x) the function just has to be inverted producing :
S(x)=c/(1+a xb)
Application
These forumlas have been used extensively by the author to fit the edge retention data personally recorded such as an exhaustive comparisons performed on multiple S30V and ZDP-189 knives8. The model represented the data perfectly both in the early and late stage blunting. The b coefficents were all the same as would be expected as the steels are all similar in being very hard high carbide stainless. The difference in behavior was just the a coeffient was systematically larger for all S30V blades. The model also well represents similar hand data collected from other individuals9. It can also be readily applied to model the extended cutting ability of knives by realizing that the coefficient c can also include any constant wedging force on the blade so the sharpness equation can be extended directly to measured extended cutting ability.
As an example of such analysis, the graph on the right represents data digitized from graphs published by BUCK 10 and fitted to the above model. It compares the performance of a two blades steels and two edge configurations. It was used to promote the "Edge 2000" process, an enhancement by Buck in their sharpening methods to increase the intitial cutting ability and cutting lifetime of their knives. The angle was reduced to 14.5 degrees per side and a hard cardboard wheel replaced a cloth wheel to reduce the convexing of the final edge bevel which further makes the edge more acute11. In short, the 420HC blade with the "Edge 2000" profile radically outperforms the BG-42 blade with the more obtuse edge profile. When both have the "Edge 2000" process the BG-42 blade pulls ahead strongly after significant cutting. The data was modeled by the S(x) equation and as shown in the graph the fitted curves well represent the experimental data. The results of the fit are given in the following table.
Steel Edge Configuration a b c
420HC Edge 2000 0.37 (4) 1.34 (5) 10.4 (3)
BG-42 Pre-Edge 2000 2.4 (3) 0.64 (3) 12.5 (8)
BG-42 Edge 2000 0.44 (4) 0.97 (3) 10.9 (3)
Note when both blades have the "Edge 2000" configuration the a parameters are not significantly different but the b value is much lower for the BG-42 blade indicating its higher wear resistance. It is clear that the more acute edge does significantly better on the CATRA machine. It would have been interesting to see other angles tested to example if that was the optimal configuration.
Recap
A simple power equation has been proposed to model the loss of sharpness of knives in use. The equation has been successfully applied to data collected by hand by the author and others and as well CATRA results.
References
1 : Wayne Goddard, http://users.ameritech.net/knives/edge.html, 1997.
2 : Mike Swaim, rec.knives,1998.
3 : Phil Wilson, private communication, 1999.
4 : Cliff Stamp,Knife Review: Traditional Tanto by Running Dog Knives, 2001.
5 : Cliff Stamp, Measures of Cutlery Sharpness, 2007.
6 : Cliff Stamp,Review: South Fork, 2006.
7 : Dr. R. Landes, Messerklingen und Stahl, 2. Auflage, Wieland Verlag, Bruckmühl, Germany. Copyright 2006
8 : Cliff Stamp, Blade Comparisons, Copyright 2007
9 : Mike Cheshareck, Slicing edge retention: CPM-D2 (Spyderco Military) vs. D2 (Mel Sorg), Copyright 2007
10 : Catra Edge Testing Results, C. J. Buck, 2001
11 : Buck Knives, Technical Info, 2003
Contact: Email Articles Reviews Evaluations Forum Home
Written: Jan. 2006 Updated: Aug. 2007 Copyright (c) 2006-2007 : Cliff Stamp
David Martin
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 19,520
Thanks Junom. I have read most of that by Cliff, Mike Swaim, Phil Wilson (who is a engineer ret.). I don't recall Waynes materials. Even though Cliff was banned from this Forum he was quite knowledgeable. I would include Jim Ankerson's tests on this subject from this Forum. A very knowledgeable man of the knife edge. With a hands on approach. We are Way off subject from the original post. DM
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 386
Going back to the original post... I have not compared the actual Buck knives and the CPM S30V and 440C grades in those knives but can say in general that in my testing if you have the same blade geometry and sharpening that CPM S30v will do better if you are comparing pure edge holding. CPM S30V can be heat treated a couple of points harder and still have adequate bending toughness due to the CPM process. In actual use in the field most users will not see much difference. Best performance in both grades depends on heat treating and a sub zero quench is very important to eliminate the retained austenite.
Interesting discussion on testing history here. To really explore it would need another post on that subject and I will think about doing that for the record. Phil
Interesting discussion on testing history here. To really explore it would need another post on that subject and I will think about doing that for the record. Phil
David Martin
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 19,520
Mr. Wilson, we are honored to have you come post your knowledge on this topic for us here in the Buck Forum. Sir, please if you would start the follow-up topic you desire and I'll go with you there. As I think the gents here would enjoy reading about your experiences. DM
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 32,479
In my experience the edge you start with will make all the difference in how long and well the edge will cut with any steel. A slight convex with hold a edge longer due to the sectional density of the edge.
In plain speak that means there is more steel supporting the cutting edge. Now if you want a edge to shave with like on a razor or do a lot of meat only cutting a Vee and hollow will cut a little better but won't last as long.
You want to match that edge to your application of the knife.
Stay safe and have fun!
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 2,247
R
That's a nice video,one of the best methods I havefpund is using a mousepad and emery cloth sandpaper to make my convex edges,followed up by a nice stripping on a leather strop loaded with compound.440c and s 30v both seem to hold this convex edge really well through all kinds of different cutting tasks...
That's a nice video,one of the best methods I havefpund is using a mousepad and emery cloth sandpaper to make my convex edges,followed up by a nice stripping on a leather strop loaded with compound.440c and s 30v both seem to hold this convex edge really well through all kinds of different cutting tasks...