K390 Versus S110V Mule

We will have to wait and see what the S110V Mules are really being run at hardness wise.

Spyderco is saying 60-61 so we will see once someone can get one tested to see what the range is.

The K390 Mules are in the 63-64 range so there will be a difference between the two steels/knives.

So we will have to wait and see how they perform.

S110V is a very aggressive cutter especially with a coarse edge like around factory finish.

I haven't found it to be chippy at all at various hardness ranges from 60 to 65 RC in my testing.

So I am thinking the S110V Mules should show very well performance wise.

It's not just the RC hardness that matters, it's the heat treating process and tempering process that can really make the difference and cyro quenching properly.
 
I got a ZT 560cbcf and was able to try out S110V, and all I can say is a whole lot of nope. My Worksharp barely left a mark on it. I didn't even get all of the permanent marker off the edge, it didn't get any of the grind marks out. I can honestly say that steel is way past what anybody has any conceivable need for. I feel like that steel was made out of pure spite for belts and stones.

I no longer have any desire to get the newest and best steel. I will stick with my boring old steels like Elmax or VG-10. Far more reasonable to work on.
 
dkb45 said:
I got a ZT 560cbcf and was able to try out S110V, and all I can say is a whole lot of nope. My Worksharp barely left a mark on it. I didn't even get all of the permanent marker off the edge, it didn't get any of the grind marks out. I can honestly say that steel is way past what anybody has any conceivable need for. I feel like that steel was made out of pure spite for belts and stones.

I no longer have any desire to get the newest and best steel. I will stick with my boring old steels like Elmax or VG-10. Far more reasonable to work on.
Click to expand...


I feel the same way, man.
 
dkb45 said:
I got a ZT 560cbcf and was able to try out S110V, and all I can say is a whole lot of nope. My Worksharp barely left a mark on it. I didn't even get all of the permanent marker off the edge, it didn't get any of the grind marks out. I can honestly say that steel is way past what anybody has any conceivable need for. I feel like that steel was made out of pure spite for belts and stones.

I no longer have any desire to get the newest and best steel. I will stick with my boring old steels like Elmax or VG-10. Far more reasonable to work on.
Click to expand...

You're quite correct as far as most knife users go. 154CM, BG42 and CPM D-2 are truly superb steels, and very easy to sharpen.

Otoh, the speed limit in most places is 75 MPH maximum, so there is no actual need for a car like a Lambhorgini that will run 200 MPH. Yet many of us would very much love to have one.:p:p

Applying that logic to steel, I dearly love the challenge of sharpening knives made from the top end (Lambhorgini) steels.

I love sitting at the workbench with a quality blade of 10V, CPM S110V, S90V, M390, CPM M-4, K390, Rex 121 etc.:)

You see, it isn't the practicality, (although these knives are very practical users,) no, it's the challenge.

I knew before I bought my first blade of so-called "super" steel, that I could dry shave my face with a hunting knife of 154CM. But it was quite the challenge to learn if I could refine my first S90V blade to that level. K390 was an even greater challenge. CPM Rex 121 was the greatest challenge of all. But, oh, what a learning experience it was!:thumbup:

CPM S110V should be quite tame after Rex121. We'll see!:D
 
FYI

Ankerson's latest #s for Spyderco mule s110v.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...based-on-Edge-Retention-cutting-5-8-quot-rope

K390 - 820 - Mule - 62-64 RC
S110V - 600 - Mule - ?? RC
S90V - 460 - Military - 60 RC

bluntcut said:
I have no experience with s110v, thus here is my wag comparison.

I agree K390 has better edge retention than s110v, says maybe by 25%. I think, S110V additional alloying of 3.5% Niobium help stabilize matrix and add extra wear resistance. So s110v is an improved s90v. In all, Chromium gives surface protection but take/degrade matrix strength & toughness.

It would be fun if I can buy a bar of s110v to tinker around with...
Click to expand...
 
bluntcut said:
FYI

Ankerson's latest #s for Spyderco mule s110v.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...based-on-Edge-Retention-cutting-5-8-quot-rope

K390 - 820 - Mule - 62-64 RC
S110V - 600 - Mule - ?? RC
S90V - 460 - Military - 60 RC
Click to expand...

According to a post Sal said they will be running the S110V Mule at 60-61

Last post on first page
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...P-–-Mule-Team-Fixed-Blade-featuring-CPM-S110V

Edited in:
oh it seems someone already mentioned what spyderco was trying to get it to earlier in the page which I missed, oh well.
 
One point of hardness can make a big difference, and we don't know how big a hardness difference we're seeing between the K390 mule and the S110V mule in Jim's tests. The K390 could be 64 HRc, and the S110V could be 60 HRc.

From looking at the Crucible data, S110V reaches peak hardness and wear resistance at what looks like 63-64 HRc.

The mule program is absolutely awesome, but we won't see a true comparison between steels on wear resistance unless each steel is heat treated to its optimal level. And even with that and with Ankerson's cutting tests, we still don't know about toughness. Still very interesting, though.
 
Spyderco known for their aggressive high rc ht. And also it would defeat the whole mule idea if too much performance left on the table because of sub-optimal hardness.

Speculating... Displacement hardness/HRC probably increase transverse hardness at exponential rate(frequency propagation), thus microchip may ensue from/near maximum hardness/hrc. Even if S110V is at 63-64RC, I don't think it can reach 90% performance of K390 at 62-64RC.
 
bluntcut said:
Spyderco known for their aggressive high rc ht. And also it would defeat the whole mule idea if too much performance left on the table because of sub-optimal hardness.

Speculating... Displacement hardness/HRC probably increase transverse hardness at exponential rate(frequency propagation), thus microchip may ensue from/near maximum hardness/hrc. Even if S110V is at 63-64RC, I don't think it can reach 90% performance of K390 at 62-64RC.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what would happen to toughness. I can't find direct comparisons between these two steels. However, I know that Phil Wilson has run his S110V knives at 64 HRc.

And if you look at Crucible's own data, S110V does a lot better on wear resistance when hardened to 63 HRc, compared to 60 HRc. One point of hardness makes a big difference. For example, S110V has better wear resistance than S90V, but if you give S90V an advantage of just one point of hardness over S110V (61 HRc vs. 60 HRc for S110V) the S90V will have significantly better wear resistance.

Jim's cutting test gives the K390 mule a 37 percent increase in number of cuts over the S110V mule. But if you look at the Crucible data, you will improve the wear resistance of S110V by 38 percent by raising the hardness from 60 HRc to 63 HRc.

I'm not knocking Syperco. They do a good job with their heat treats. But it's not fair to compare these two steels when the hardness is not controlled.

Here's the Crucible link where I found the wear resistance data. Look at the chart showing loss of metal at various hardness levels for S110V, S90V and other steels.

https://www.crucible.com/PDFs/\DataSheets2010\Datasheet CPM S110Vv12010.pdf
 
Twindog said:
I'm not sure what would happen to toughness. I can't find direct comparisons between these two steels. However, I know that Phil Wilson has run his S110V knives at 64 HRc.

And if you look at Crucible's own data, S110V does a lot better on wear resistance when hardened to 63 HRc, compared to 60 HRc. One point of hardness makes a big difference. For example, S110V has better wear resistance than S90V, but if you give S90V an advantage of just one point of hardness over S110V (61 HRc vs. 60 HRc for S110V) the S90V will have significantly better wear resistance.

Jim's cutting test gives the K390 mule a 37 percent increase in number of cuts over the S110V mule. But if you look at the Crucible data, you will improve the wear resistance of S110V by 38 percent by raising the hardness from 60 HRc to 63 HRc.

I'm not knocking Syperco. They do a good job with their heat treats. But it's not fair to compare these two steels when the hardness is not controlled.

Here's the Crucible link where I found the wear resistance data. Look at the chart showing loss of metal at various hardness levels for S110V, S90V and other steels.

https://www.crucible.com/PDFs/\DataSheets2010\Datasheet CPM S110Vv12010.pdf
Click to expand...

Actual knives would have to be tested in the steels to know for sure I think.
 
Ankerson said:
Actual knives would have to be tested in the steels to know for sure I think.
Click to expand...

Yes they would, the wear test data referenced gives rough general levels for comparison in general applications, but for something as highly specific as knife blade edges, the finished products need to be tested in their intended use.

As has many have pointed out the actual hardness makes a very large difference, as does the method of heat treat (ie cryo with low temper etc...) used to reach that hardness, because it changes the microstructure, which changes the toughness and affects the angles at which an edge can be run.

Many makers both custom and production run lower hardness than optimal for the steel for edge holding because of a fear that users will abuse the knife and break it. IN the case of many of the super steels I think this is misguided. Or maybe it isn't, but it disappoints me often...
 
Taking liberty to interpolate Crucible's S110V wear resistance chart, which at 61 HRC S110V = S90V. Then extrapolate S90V at 63RC = S110V 63RC:confused:

Quote Crucible
CPM S110V features the same high vanadium content
as CPM S90V, plus the added contribution of 3.5%
niobium, resulting in 25% greater volume of wear-
resistant carbides, including 50% more of the wear-
resistant MC type.​

Fishy marketing? But real-data from Ankerson's test, s110v at 60-61 is 50% better than s90v at 60rc. 50% is huge, so easy to accept that s110v is better than s90v at similar hardness.

IF we ignore toughness & map wear resistance 'weight loss' of s110v, linear projection that at 63rc Jim's test will yield = (1+(45-28)/45)*620 cuts = 855 cuts. Would be an awe-shock to see # for Phil Wilson s110v at 65rc. Somehow I've doubt but Jim can easily test & verify or bunk that.

Bring toughness back into the picture, even various cpm steels/rex at 20+% VC won't yield out of this world test #.

This is as deep/far as I wander into speculation - where I've very little experience with these exotic steels :p

Twindog said:
I'm not sure what would happen to toughness. I can't find direct comparisons between these two steels. However, I know that Phil Wilson has run his S110V knives at 64 HRc.

And if you look at Crucible's own data, S110V does a lot better on wear resistance when hardened to 63 HRc, compared to 60 HRc. One point of hardness makes a big difference. For example, S110V has better wear resistance than S90V, but if you give S90V an advantage of just one point of hardness over S110V (61 HRc vs. 60 HRc for S110V) the S90V will have significantly better wear resistance.

Jim's cutting test gives the K390 mule a 37 percent increase in number of cuts over the S110V mule. But if you look at the Crucible data, you will improve the wear resistance of S110V by 38 percent by raising the hardness from 60 HRc to 63 HRc.

I'm not knocking Syperco. They do a good job with their heat treats. But it's not fair to compare these two steels when the hardness is not controlled.

Here's the Crucible link where I found the wear resistance data. Look at the chart showing loss of metal at various hardness levels for S110V, S90V and other steels.

https://www.crucible.com/PDFs/\DataSheets2010\Datasheet CPM S110Vv12010.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Rapt_up said:
Yes they would, the wear test data referenced gives rough general levels for comparison in general applications, but for something as highly specific as knife blade edges, the finished products need to be tested in their intended use.

As has many have pointed out the actual hardness makes a very large difference, as does the method of heat treat (ie cryo with low temper etc...) used to reach that hardness, because it changes the microstructure, which changes the toughness and affects the angles at which an edge can be run.

Many makers both custom and production run lower hardness than optimal for the steel for edge holding because of a fear that users will abuse the knife and break it. IN the case of many of the super steels I think this is misguided. Or maybe it isn't, but it disappoints me often...
Click to expand...

HT and tempering is everything really.

Performance was right on were it should be for the hardness range.
 
bluntcut said:
Taking liberty to interpolate Crucible's S110V wear resistance chart, which at 61 HRC S110V = S90V. Then extrapolate S90V at 63RC = S110V 63RC:confused:

Quote Crucible
CPM S110V features the same high vanadium content
as CPM S90V, plus the added contribution of 3.5%
niobium, resulting in 25% greater volume of wear-
resistant carbides, including 50% more of the wear-
resistant MC type.​

Fishy marketing? But real-data from Ankerson's test, s110v at 60-61 is 50% better than s90v at 60rc. 50% is huge, so easy to accept that s110v is better than s90v at similar hardness.

IF we ignore toughness & map wear resistance 'weight loss' of s110v, linear projection that at 63rc Jim's test will yield = (1+(45-28)/45)*620 cuts = 855 cuts. Would be an awe-shock to see # for Phil Wilson s110v at 65rc. Somehow I've doubt but Jim can easily test & verify or bunk that.

Bring toughness back into the picture, even various cpm steels/rex at 20+% VC won't yield out of this world test #.

This is as deep/far as I wander into speculation - where I've very little experience with these exotic steels :p
Click to expand...

The MT-18 is .015" ave behind the edge vs the CF Military in S90V that is .025" ave behind the edge so that is a factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top