I found this in the Knife Test Forum ...

It's been a while since I've looked at newer steels, but a quick glance at that list and I see almost entirely cpm steels, stainless and high abrasion steels. No shock steels, no simple carbons, nothing with a core design function (meaning what it was developed to do, what it's metallurgy and heat treat were engineered to excel at) of hard use. That a knife with a steel that's designed to hold it's own against shock steels like S7 during abuse is performing up there with 154cm at 61rc (2-3rc points higher than INFI) should be held up as a significant accomplishment of metallurgical science.
 
Last edited:
Jerry has said that INFI doesn't go above 62rc pre-new developments that were initiated within the past few years. He posted about the potential for 64rc INFI but that is very much a new thing.

Given the thickness of some of the edges on the busse's I've had the hardness was probably lowered to provide for a 'all occasions abuse' set up. The original SHBM's weren't just harder, they had comparably thin edges to the newer might-as-well-be-cold-chisel renditions like the FFBM. If it were just the rockwell I might say that there were some chipping issues or it's easier to manufacture, or it's easier to get a consistent product, but when you combine it with beefed up edges it seems more compelling that it's done in order to ward off excessively hard abuse damage.

INFI didn't come into existence to be the best slicer, it was for hard use knives. While it seems to hold up just fine at 62rc, if Busse Combat has made choices between slicing ability (abrasion resistance) and ability to avoid damage (shock resistance) it makes sense that they would go the damage avoidance route.
 
Those people who want to call Ankerson's test results into question...... I wouldn't. He actually goes quite far to level the playing field between steels by comparing knives of relatively similar geometry and edge bevels. I was actually surprised when reading that test that INFI placed as high as it did. I mean lets face it, the steel was designed for toughness and that test ranks knives almost solely by wear resistance. For that reason the high carbide volume steels clearly come out on top. Whats surprising to me is that INFI still landed above the likes of (relatively soft) S30v, VG10, etc. Who'd have guessed that we can beat those steels for wear resistance and blow them out of the water for toughness?

I wouldn't say there are no plain steels on there, there is extremely soft 5160. Actually, talk about surprises, I was quite surprised that CTS-BD1 placed so low.
 
Actually S30V is a perfect example of what I was talking about. At 58.5 rc it was Cat 7, and at Rc of 60 it was a Cat 5. Moved up two categories. Current INFI is 59Rc, old INFI is 61 ish. So if the same holds true, it would move up two categories to category 4.

Rc of 64 is not a new thing. One of the two Ron Hood Survival school SHBM's was Rc'd at 65, the other was 61 ish Rc that became std for all the straight handles and ehandles. INFI's toughness reputation was created with the higher Rc of 61-62. The original SHBM was flexed to near 90 degrees at that Rc.
 
I guess I would argue simply that, in my experience, it won't work quite that way. Hardness will improve wear resistance, and we don't actually have an Rc rating for the knife Ankerson used, but I have a hypothesis to offer.

Steels like S30v are dependent on carbides held in the steel matrix, this isn't news to anyone. My guess though is that such a low Rc on it wasn't simply the result of intentional lower hardness but perhaps also a smidge of inept heat treating and even if it wasn't, thats simply too soft and the carbides will just blow out of the edge rather than being held. The blades which sit in the top category aren't any harder than your average INFI, but they are holding a LOT more carbide. Look at ZDP-189. There is a steel with a ton of carbide, at 65Rc, and you expect INFI to jump up to that wear resistance at equal hardness but a fraction of the carbide? I quite frankly just don't see it. I don't mean to make this a pissing match, the whole discussion really is mental masturbation until someone repeats this test with the 65Rc infi, but I stand by my own experience and testing (I've played with all the important steels on that list, and a few others which aren't) which dictates for wear resistance hardness is good but refined high carbide content is king.
 
i am always thinking of retention was a conception that over Emphasized,

retention is not an important factor should be considered , i think , especially almost all steels are good enough for cutting when HT were right.


slicing woods and cutting meat , all my knife are cool except 1055 from coldsteel.


so , why are you guys sooooo fussy at the retention factor ?


i think , the Toughness and strength both are mostly Ignored Virtues in the knife-making society , s30v 、vg10 、vg1、154cmp etc. those things are same category just suited for making chef 、edc knives ， not for making swords 、chopper ,or even military knives.


that my two cents on the steel.
 
Last edited:
hunterseeker5 said:
I guess I would argue simply that, in my experience, it won't work quite that way. Hardness will improve wear resistance, and we don't actually have an Rc rating for the knife Ankerson used, but I have a hypothesis to offer.

Steels like S30v are dependent on carbides held in the steel matrix, this isn't news to anyone. My guess though is that such a low Rc on it wasn't simply the result of intentional lower hardness but perhaps also a smidge of inept heat treating and even if it wasn't, thats simply too soft and the carbides will just blow out of the edge rather than being held. The blades which sit in the top category aren't any harder than your average INFI, but they are holding a LOT more carbide. Look at ZDP-189. There is a steel with a ton of carbide, at 65Rc, and you expect INFI to jump up to that wear resistance at equal hardness but a fraction of the carbide? I quite frankly just don't see it. I don't mean to make this a pissing match, the whole discussion really is mental masturbation until someone repeats this test with the 65Rc infi, but I stand by my own experience and testing (I've played with all the important steels on that list, and a few others which aren't) which dictates for wear resistance hardness is good but refined high carbide content is king.
Click to expand...

Well, it is almost impossible to predict infi since it does have very unusual allowing elements like cobalt and nitrogen. So it could conceivably improve more than s30v in edge retention. I can tell you that the old INFI was able to do 3000 cuts on hemp rope with little edge degradation. How this compares to these new steels who knows, since edge geometry is a factor as well. It would be interesting to test the higher Rc old INFI to see where it ends up.
 
Cobalt said:
Rc of 64 is not a new thing. One of the two Ron Hood Survival school SHBM's was Rc'd at 65, the other was 61 ish Rc that became std for all the straight handles and ehandles. INFI's toughness reputation was created with the higher Rc of 61-62. The original SHBM was flexed to near 90 degrees at that Rc.
Click to expand...

I can't claim to have run a rockwell test on the WASP knives myself having never owned one, but Jerry has explicitly said that they are not 65rc.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-hold-up-up-above-60-rc?p=7892013#post7892013

Jerry Busse said:
There was never a 65 RC mistress. INFI just won't go that high. 60-62 is about max. :thumbup:

Hope that helps,

Jerry :D


.
Click to expand...
 
Cobalt isn't an unusual alloy, nitrogen is a bit more screwy though. It could be forming nitrides, but it could be doing something else entirely.

INFI and low alloy steels hold their edge very differently though than the high carbide volume knives. The things like S30v will burn off their sharp edge very rapidly, but hold a duller "working edge" much longer. These more "conventional" steels and INFI will have a somewhat more linear edge degradation curve as they don't suffer as much from carbides immediately blowing out of the edge.
 
I don't think his tests account for geometry at all which skews the results. It would be a better test if each of the knives used had been of the exact same geometry. Notice how he had to leave out custom knives because they perform to well. That is the influence of geometry, and different hrc.
 
Allcaps321 said:
I don't think his tests account for geometry at all which skews the results. It would be a better test if each of the knives used had been of the exact same geometry. Notice how he had to leave out custom knives because they perform to well. That is the influence of geometry, and different hrc.
Click to expand...


I think there are two Variables here when talking about rating : geometry and initial sharpness , both are important and all the knives issued should be Unified as the same。
 
L V C !

Thank you so much for finding and posting that qoute! That is what I remembered.

Kevin
 
Bigfattyt said:
Snap! Are you gonna take that Dave?


I was gonna say it, but was too slow on the uptake!
Click to expand...

Spiders get squashed :)

But it is Christmas so Ho Ho Hog
 
hunterseeker5 said:
Cobalt isn't an unusual alloy, nitrogen is a bit more screwy though. It could be forming nitrides, but it could be doing something else entirely.

INFI and low alloy steels hold their edge very differently though than the high carbide volume knives. The things like S30v will burn off their sharp edge very rapidly, but hold a duller "working edge" much longer. These more "conventional" steels and INFI will have a somewhat more linear edge degradation curve as they don't suffer as much from carbides immediately blowing out of the edge.
Click to expand...


OH, COBALT is very unusual!!!!!!:D
 
As well, I don't buy Infi cause it holds an edge for ever. I buy it cause it can go through hell and back and still function as a a solid knife. I'll leave my shun in the kitchen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top