Low alloy vs High alloy question

Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
47
Hi,

Sorry for the long post.

There is a argument i have been hearing a couple of times and i wanted to know what you guys think about it. I do not agree with this argument but i would like to hear what people who know more than me think.

The idea is that supersteels are not useful. The reason behind this though i think it comes from roman book.

And is that low alloy steel can have better edge stability though they could potentially have lower edge angles. Though having better wear resistance and cutting ability.
And the conclusion is that why buy a expensive super steel when a cheap low alloy steel can outperform 10v

Now risking to answering myself before anyone can comment. For a low alloy steel to surpass something like 10v in 15dps following the formula provided by larrin it need to go under 10dps.
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/07/15/carbide-types-in-knife-steels/


Also since all i have read the most important thing for edge stability is hardness. And at high hardness the toughness differences between steels tend to become thinner so is actually the better toughness of low alloy something considerable enough to be able to do such a big difference?
 
It’s not that the supersteels are not useful, but for high edge holding they are not the only path. I stopped chasing super steels when I couldn’t tell a difference in use between S110V and BD1.

If a 10 degree per side angle in a low alloy steel holds an edge as long as a 15 dps edge angle in something like 10V AND the 10 dps angle is sufficient for the use and doesn’t get damaged AND the low alloy steel knife is cheaper, then it seems a no brainer. Those are pretty low angles for most people. I would bet the differences would be more if the low alloy were something like 15 and the 10V were a more conventional 20 or 22 dps. There are advantages to the supersteels but they are not worth the price to me and I use lower alloy steels at relatively low angles of 12-15 degrees for most knives. They cut as long as higher alloy steels at 20-22 degrees.
 
And then there is the matter of ease of sharpening...

Many variables to consider...and why, unsurprisingly, there are still myriad steels available for use in building knives, both custom and production.

Personally, I find something like CPM Cru-Wear a nearly ideal steel for overall balance and symmetry...and now Larrin Larrin has apparently improved upon it by developing a more stainless / corrosion resistant steel while maintaining roughly equivalent toughness and edge holding with his MagnaCut.

Perhaps not perfect for every application, but an excellent solution for most situations (in the knife realm), imho.

Pick the steel that most closely matches your needs and wants.
 
The benefit of low alloy steels is ease in forging, and heat treating without atmosphere control. High alloy steels can have similar properties, such as AEB-L with the small easy to grind/sharpen chromium carbides. And there are some low alloy steels with high wear resistance that may behave somewhat more like a high alloy steel in some ways. There are no inherent advantages to a low alloy steels when it comes to toughness or edge stability. A high alloy steel with mid to low carbide volume can match those properties.
 
I've also noticed there seems to be a somewhat modern myth around sharpening modern high wear steels. People say sharpening these steels is a lot more time consuming and difficult. I've found that to be false, if we are talking regular honing and touching up edges there's no difference. When it comes to completely reprofiling and actually putting a fresh bevel on a knife then yes. It is a lot more work to put a complete bevel on a knife in K390 than it is on a 1095 blade. If you have to remove a great deal of metal and put a complete bevel then it will take longer and requie a lot more cutting on a stone etc.
For honing and keeping an edge sharp on your knife though? not at all, I have no issue using ceramic rods to keep K390 honed, stropping it up is also fast. If you completely run your edge into the ground and get it to the point where it is blunt as a butter knife then yes that will take effort to reprofile, way more effort than a simple steel, but I rarely let my knives get that dull unless they are extreme beaters.
So keeping your high wear steels sharp is actually not difficult at all, they hone on ceramic rods, and fine stones just fine, they also respond perfectly fine to stropping. Keeping them above shaving sharp is no issue, I can run a blade over a ceramic rod 4-5 times and notice it has honed it perfectly.
 
Speaking of which, Larrin Larrin , where do you stand on the "carbide tear out" controversy of sharpening / honing high carbide steel with ceramic vs. diamond?

It goes hand in hand with this discussion.
 
Just to be clear, the comparison is low alloy/low carbide vs super steels. As noted, even AEBL and 3CrMoV are high alloy just due to the amount of Cr in the mix.
 
Just to be clear, the comparison is low alloy/low carbide vs super steels. As noted, even AEBL and 3CrMoV are high alloy just due to the amount of Cr in the mix.

I've found HRC matters more to me than most other equations, when it comes to edge stability anyway, wear resistance and working edges is another matter but when it comes to holding a razor sharp edge HRC tends to be the biggest factor, in my basic testing anyway. I found steels above 64 HRC (even simple 1095) hold a fine razor edge longer than some modern high alloy steels with much lower HRC.
But then you have the best of both worlds hiigh alloy steels in high HRC then you get a real edge holding beast on your hands. I have some M2 steel at 65 HRC and it holds a fine edge longer than most production knives.
 
Larrin Larrin But would the difference be to much between low carbide and high carbide?

Can like all those claims have validity if we use for example AEB-L vs 10v?

Like cheap Low carbide being able to support thinner structure and though being "better". Or is the edge stability at high hardness difference not so much to make a considerable difference?
 
When you consider the major reason for dulling is plastic deformation of the edge, hardness does appear to count for more.
 
Well, 1095 is a simple steel. It obviously works well for a knife -- not much wear resistance, not very tough, rusts easily.

O-1 is fairly simple, and is popular among knife makers -- even worse wear resistance, rusts when you look at it and is not very tough.

But with alloys, you can make a blade virtually rustproof (Vanax, at the same hardness, is a bit tougher than 1095, has much better wear resistance and is extremely stainless).

With alloys, you can make a blade extremely tough at a highly useful hardness (3V) and still have good wear resistance.

With alloys, you can give a knife super wear resistance -- (Rex 121 can be 50 times better than O-1).

With alloys, you can make a 3V knife that is tougher, more wear resistant and more rust resistant than 1095 or O1.
 
I've come to appreciate tool steels like 3V and M4 lately. They seem to combine the best qualities of low alloy steels and high alloy "super" steels. And probably I'll get around to trying Larrin's Magnacut one of these days... well, that really means as soon as I can find one:D.
 
I've come to appreciate tool steels like 3V and M4 lately. They seem to combine the best qualities of low alloy steels and high alloy "super" steels. And probably I'll get around to trying Larrin's Magnacut one of these days... well, that really means as soon as I can find one:D.

A Alberta Ed while you're waiting, try CPM Cru-Wear if you get the chance. Assuming you haven't already.

Sort of splits the difference between 3V and M4 with better corrosion resistance.

Better toughness and corrosion resistance than M4, better edge holding and corrosion resistance than 3V.
 
A Alberta Ed while you're waiting, try CPM Cru-Wear if you get the chance. Assuming you haven't already.

Sort of splits the difference between 3V and M4 with better corrosion resistance.

Better toughness and corrosion resistance than M4, better edge holding and corrosion resistance than 3V.

Cruwear has lower corrosion resistance than 3V FYI.
 
Speaking of which, Larrin Larrin , where do you stand on the "carbide tear out" controversy of sharpening / honing high carbide steel with ceramic vs. diamond?

It goes hand in hand with this discussion.
I’ve seen it proposed that high vanadium steels have reduced edge retention if sharpened with conventional abrasives that are softer than the carbides, but I haven’t seen convincing evidence of it.
 
Cruwear has lower corrosion resistance than 3V FYI.

I’ve seen it proposed that high vanadium steels have reduced edge retention if sharpened with conventional abrasives that are softer than the carbides, but I haven’t seen convincing evidence of it.

Thanks, Larrin Larrin

By the way, can you verify that the info reported by S shqxk in the quote above is correct? I've been operating under the, perhaps erroneous, impression that CPM Cru-Wear had higher corrosion resistance than 3V. Can you clarify, one way or the other? (I imagine they are probably close.)

I don't mind being put right...and perhaps that is an indication why my small 3V fixed blade has fared so well these past twenty or so years.

Thanks in advance.
 
I'm not Larrin Larrin , Blues Blues , but below are his data. Agree with all you said about Cruwear vs. 3V. Corrosion resistance difference is almost identical and depends on what you are testing for:

i-GcfpVnP-X2.jpg
 
Back
Top