HSC /// Handforged Utility Hunter review (white steel!)

Well 460 cuts on 5/8" manila rope and still sliced phone book paper is excellent. :thumbup:
 
Appreciate the kind words and it's very satisfying as a new Bladesmith maker to know that I can put out a nice quality edge. In the back of my mind I'm thinking how would the knife have performed if I had thinned out the edge to less than .020....? :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HSC /// said:
Appreciate the kind words and it's very satisfying as a new Bladesmith maker to know that I can put out a nice quality edge. In the back of my mind I'm thinking how would the knife have performed if I had thinned out the edge to less than .020....? :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hard to say really. :confused:
 
HSC /// said:
Appreciate the kind words and it's very satisfying as a new Bladesmith maker to know that I can put out a nice quality edge. In the back of my mind I'm thinking how would the knife have performed if I had thinned out the edge to less than .020....? :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do not worry , this is more test of the knives and geometry ...not the steel . If you thinned out edge to less then 0.20 probably will double cuts , more thiner , more cuts ...he measure needed force to cut ...................simple :thumbup:
 
Natlek said:
Do not worry , this is more test of the knives and geometry ...not the steel . If you thinned out edge to less then 0.20 probably will double cuts , more thiner , more cuts ...he measure needed force to cut ...................simple :thumbup:
Click to expand...


Ah, that's not exactly how it works.....
 
I realize it would be a huge amount of work, but it would be interesting to test a few knives at multiple edge thicknesses. Maybe four or five different edge profiles on the same blade would show either a curve or a linear relationship to how edge geometry affects cutting force over the number of cuts.

It would be interesting to see if the curves would be the same for all steels, or whether they'd be quite a bit different.
 
Twindog said:
I realize it would be a huge amount of work, but it would be interesting to test a few knives at multiple edge thicknesses. Maybe four or five different edge profiles on the same blade would show either a curve or a linear relationship to how edge geometry affects cutting force over the number of cuts.

It would be interesting to see if the curves would be the same for all steels, or whether they'd be quite a bit different.
Click to expand...

I am taking donations..... Money wise....

$10,000 per person until I have enough to get started... Then have to have the knives made..... All customs obviously with optimized HT for each steel and geometry and a number of each one, 5 blades per variation ..... ;)

Would be extremely expensive, and the R&D involved.... Would take years....

Then I would have to publish the findings..... (Would never happen until the donations came in)

Figure around $100,000 would be enough to get stared and cover some of it.

Around $500,000 and like 5 years min to cover it all taking into count all of the expenses etc, would have to use both CATRA and rope testing. ;)



Nothing is cheap or easy......


Not holding my breath waiting on the checks to start coming in. LOL
 
Last edited:
Just in case $1M show up... please conduct ballistic & high energy particles tests as well :p
 
Ankerson said:
I am taking donations..... Money wise....

$10,000 per person until I have enough to get started... Then have to have the knives made..... All customs obviously with optimized HT for each steel and geometry and a number of each one, 5 blades per variation ..... ;)

Would be extremely expensive, and the R&D involved.... Would take years....

Then I would have to publish the findings..... (Would never happen until the donations came in)

Figure around $100,000 would be enough to get stared and cover some of it.

Around $500,000 and like 5 years min to cover it all taking into count all of the expenses etc, would have to use both CATRA and rope testing. ;)



Nothing is cheap or easy......


Not holding my breath waiting on the checks to start coming in. LOL
Click to expand...



What if you started with a zero-edge, full flat grind knife. Maybe Josh or Chris could do one. Then do a light sharpening, maybe like a micro-bevel to get to a 0.01 wide edge. Test it at that geometry. Then resharpen to draw the edge back up into the slightly thicker part of the blade, maybe to 0.015 inches. Repeat at 0.020, 0.025 and 0.030.

That would be five tests of the same blade, same heat treat, just at different edge widths.

I could donate a FFG knife to be ground down to a zero edge. The regrind would cost maybe $100.

We pay you $500 for the five tests. So we're into it for $600. I'd guess we could take up a collection and reach that number. Auction off the knife at the end to reduce costs even further.
 
Twindog said:
What if you started with a zero-edge, full flat grind knife. Maybe Josh or Chris could do one. Then do a light sharpening, maybe like a micro-bevel to get to a 0.01 wide edge. Test it at that geometry. Then resharpen to draw the edge back up into the slightly thicker part of the blade, maybe to 0.015 inches. Repeat at 0.020, 0.025 and 0.030.

That would be five tests of the same blade, same heat treat, just at different edge widths.

I could donate a FFG knife to be ground down to a zero edge. The regrind would cost maybe $100.

We pay you $500 for the five tests. So we're into it for $600. I'd guess we could take up a collection and reach that number. Auction off the knife at the end to reduce costs even further.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't work, not valid..... ;)

Not for this type of thing anyway... Would be too involved to take any sort of shortcuts.

That's if any sort of real accuracy would be wanted.

Would have to be something like Spyderco's Mule Team project with the knives ground to different thickness behind the edge, 5 of each thickness per steel and then tested.



That would be 30 blades min at say $150 each depending on the steel and maker just to get started, that's over $4,000 just for the blades alone in one steel.

Would have to buy a sheet of steel and have the pattern water jetted and delivered to the maker for HT, grinding etc.

All the blades would have to be the same hardness + or - 1/2 Point and tolerances would have to be held to + or - .001".

Things can get expensive very fast up into the $100,000's.

That's the reason why manufactures are the ones doing this sort of testing, this stuff costs real money.
 
Last edited:
Ankerson said:
Wouldn't work, not valid..... ;)

Not for this type of thing anyway... Would be too involved to take any sort of shortcuts.

That's if any sort of real accuracy would be wanted.

Would have to be something like Spyderco's Mule Team project with the knives ground to different thickness behind the edge, 5 of each thickness per steel and then tested.



That would be 30 blades min at say $150 each depending on the steel and maker just to get started, that's over $4,000 just for the blades alone in one steel.

Would have to buy a sheet of steel and have the pattern water jetted and delivered to the maker for HT, grinding etc.

All the blades would have to be the same hardness + or - 1/2 Point and tolerances would have to be held to + or - .001".

Things can get expensive very fast up into the $100,000's.

That's the reason why manufactures are the ones doing this sort of testing, this stuff costs real money.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that would be a shortcut and not valid? The heat treat would be the same. The blade geometry would be the same, except for the shoulder width of the edge. Sharpening would naturally widen the edge shoulders without changing the heat treat. It should be better than trying to use different blades where there is a natural variation in hardness, say 60-62 Rc.
 
Twindog said:
Why do you think that would be a shortcut and not valid? The heat treat would be the same. The blade geometry would be the same, except for the shoulder width of the edge. Sharpening would naturally widen the edge shoulders without changing the heat treat. It should be better than trying to use different blades where there is a natural variation in hardness, say 60-62 Rc.
Click to expand...



Can't keep grinding the same blade over and over, it would be seriously damaged, compromised.

Sharpening doesn't change the behind the edge geometry accurate enough for testing, the blades have to be ground, flat ground to the various thickness.

Micro bevels are not valid, will change the results of the testing so that would be an added variable that would have to be added.

The edges have to be true and consistent as does the beginning sharpness level.

That's unless you want to factor in different geometries and 5 more per geometry etc.....

Over 50 blades per steel now.

There are no shortcuts if the results need to be conclusive and or valid to stand any sort of peer review.

The more variables you enter the more money and or blades would be needed along with other expenses.
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't work just because by the time a handful of steels got figured out another 20 would be on the market listed as the greatest ever known.
 
Ankerson said:
Ah, that's not exactly how it works.....
Click to expand...

Ok , you stop on 460 cuts and until 20 LBS was reached , but ................

Ankerson said:
Well 460 cuts on 5/8" manila rope and still sliced phone book paper is excellent. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

What if this knive can make another 3000 cuts on 22 lbs or 25lbs ??? And another knive say first one on list / CPM 10V - 2400 - Phil Wilson Coyote Meadow - 64.5 RC - .004" behind the edge can not continue to cut next 100 cuts on 22 lbs or 25 lbs ?

This is just thinking out loud , usually data from manufacturers of steel are accurate so that is predictable with great certainty what and how much can be expected from various steel .................

PS . The thickness of the blade on spine on this CPM 10V - 2400 - Phil Wilson Coyote Meadow is ? 004" behind the edge don't show full story /although it is a very important data / because you cut 5/8" manila rope what is almost 16mm deep cut ...
 
Last edited:
Ankerson said:
Can't keep grinding the same blade over and over, it would be seriously damaged, compromised.

You don't keep regrinding the blade. Just one blade regrind to zero-edge.


Sharpening doesn't change the behind the edge geometry accurate enough for testing, the blades have to be ground, flat ground to the various thickness.

Sharpening does change the width of the edge shoulders. It makes them wider. Just resharpen and measure the new width of the edge shoulders.



Micro bevels are not valid, will change the results of the testing so that would be an added variable that would have to be added.

It's not really a micro-bevel, but it would be a very thin edge bevel on the first sharpening, just like any other knife edge.


The edges have to be true and consistent as does the beginning sharpness level.

Just sharpen the edge as you normally do to the same sharpness level.



That's unless you want to factor in different geometries and 5 more per geometry etc.....

Over 50 blades per steel now.

There are no shortcuts if the results need to be conclusive and or valid to stand any sort of peer review.

No one is looking for a published, peer-reviewed paper, just a good way to see how the width of the edge shoulders changes the cutting performance.



The more variables you enter the more money and or blades would be needed along with other expenses.
Click to expand...


At present, we know that narrower edge shoulders improve cutting performance, but we don't have a good sense of how that relationship plays out. We don't have to do every steel, just one to see if we can at least loosely define how cutting performance changes with edge width.
 
Assuming that all other variables are accounted for & precisely controlled. And consistence 15dps sharpened.

Up to 6/8" bevel face length involves. Beside cutting bevel shoulder thickness, slope from this shoulder up to 6/8" from apex need to be consistence & same thickness + length for diff BET. using a blade only 0.04-0.05" thick with 4dps sabre grind, we possibly can ignore the 2nd criteria IFF 0.005" is 50+% better than 0.018"BET. Do this for 62rc M390 & 1084.

So even this can be done cheaply (~$6K: $1K knives/grinds + $5K worth of Jim pain & rope), my hunch - ROI will be quite low!

edit: More interesting -> Hitachi white#2 is a high carbon (~1.15%C) low alloy steel, sure cementites are plentiful but these are wimp when compare to not too hard CrC (forget about harder carbides). Jim - your thoughts?

Twindog said:
At present, we know that narrower edge shoulders improve cutting performance, but we don't have a good sense of how that relationship plays out. We don't have to do every steel, just one to see if we can at least loosely define how cutting performance changes with edge width.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bluntcut said:
Assuming that all other variables are accounted for & precisely controlled. And consistence 15dps sharpened.

Up to 6/8" bevel face length involves. Beside cutting bevel shoulder thickness, slope from this shoulder up to 6/8" from apex need to be consistence & same thickness + length for diff BET. using a blade only 0.04-0.05" thick with 4dps sabre grind, we possibly can ignore the 2nd criteria IFF 0.005" is 50+% better than 0.018"BET. Do this for 62rc M390 & 1084.

So even this can be done cheaply (~$6K: $1K knives/grinds + $5K worth of Jim pain & rope), my hunch - ROI will be quite low!

edit: More interesting -> Hitachi white#2 is a high carbon (~1.15%C) low alloy steel, sure cementites are plentiful but these are wimp when compare to not too hard CrC (forget about harder carbides). Jim - your thoughts?
Click to expand...

On which of this three blade you will bet , all three 15dps sharpened :) Red line is depth of cut .

n1p82p.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top