My List of Steels in order for Edge Retention So Far

Ankerson said:
I am finding the rope will dull the blades much faster than cardboard sofar.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so. My cardboard cutting tests leave me with sore fingers and piles of cardboard. It makes me wonder how cardboard got such a reputation for being so hard on an edge. With few exceptions, any steel I've tried on cardboard will cut for a long time before it dulls to the point of not being able to cut a piece of paper. This is my lower limit for useful cutting ability. If I can't slice paper, the knife won't cut much of anything else with any degree of control. Loss of control = time to sharpen. I've cut over 20 yards of cardboard on the same 1" of blade on AUS-6 and the edge would still take hair off my arm.

Carry on Ankerson. One of the issues with testing edge retention is the lack of accepted standard cutting material. Rope works for a lot of people, though I've not been able to get consistent results with it.
 
me2 said:
I sure hope so. My cardboard cutting tests leave me with sore fingers and piles of cardboard. It makes me wonder how cardboard got such a reputation for being so hard on an edge. With few exceptions, any steel I've tried on cardboard will cut for a long time before it dulls to the point of not being able to cut a piece of paper. This is my lower limit for useful cutting ability. If I can't slice paper, the knife won't cut much of anything else with any degree of control. Loss of control = time to sharpen. I've cut over 20 yards of cardboard on the same 1" of blade on AUS-6 and the edge would still take hair off my arm.

Carry on Ankerson. One of the issues with testing edge retention is the lack of accepted standard cutting material. Rope works for a lot of people, though I've not been able to get consistent results with it.
Click to expand...

It's been interesting sofar, but I am still working on a method. :)
 
I have not really read much here. I started on the first few pages to see what direction the thread was going and got to Thom Brogan's post and just decided to make a post myself at that point.

I always kind of cringe a little when these edge keeping tests get posted because in my own mind and in the mind of others apparently one has to wonder what is really being tested. What I mean by that is this. Lets just take number one, ZDP189. If you tested just that steel as Spyderco uses it in oh lets say a Calypso Jr. and compare that to the Kershaw use of the same steel in a Leek or even a Shallot model. What do you think you'd find? Well for one you'd find two different uses of the same steel so in effect you'd be testing the knife as a model, not the blade as a steel choice. Make sense? In other words we have to define when we are really testing the steel and a blade and since each company and each knife to some degree are unique well, so will the results be unique.

I could test the SG2 steel used in the Blur and compare it to the SG2 used in the JYDII and get marekedly different results from one to the other in all liklihood because both were done differently meaning there are significantly different blade geometries involved between those two even though blade steel is the same and I feel that would be much the same with ZDP189 or anything else used. Characteristics may be similar for how you feel edge keeping is for number of cuts, ease of sharpening or lack of ease and so on but if one edge is more obtuse than another, or one is flat grind and one is hollow grind even that can change the nature of how the knife behaves, how long it cuts, perceived effort to make it cut and so on.

Anyway, its interesting. I do like the discussion but I don't see that its worth getting all riled up over. :thumbup:

STR
 
Agree. Even testing a D4/E4 ZDP-189 against the Caly3 would be apples and oranges, or as you put it better, testing the knife as a whole rather than the steel.

The only platform that easily allows a real comparison of steel to steel is the Spyderco Mule project, and that has a bunch of limitations (range of steels in the program; specific hardness chosen; etc.)
 
JNewell said:
Agree. Even testing a D4/E4 ZDP-189 against the Caly3 would be apples and oranges, or as you put it better, testing the knife as a whole rather than the steel.

The only platform that easily allows a real comparison of steel to steel is the Spyderco Mule project, and that has a bunch of limitations (range of steels in the program; specific hardness chosen; etc.)
Click to expand...

Yes. I see now that Phil came in and said pretty much the same thing. Had I seen his post(s) before I posted I'd have probably just opted out and kept reading from the sidelines. :thumbup:

The Mule example is a good one though because really thats the only way to get to the nitty gritty of steel vs knife model I think and even then there would be marginally different results from blade to blade due to slight grind differences, thickness differences, fatigue and user differences meaning from one user to the next even though the blades would be pretty much identical and I'm sure other variables as well.

We talked about this in another thread briefly the other day mentioning the confusion some sought answer to regarding how for example, their Buck 110 bought for $30 at K-Mart or Wal-Mart could seemingly outcut their $400 Strider SnG even though the SnG was supposed to be equipped with this 'super steel' called S30V and the Buck with a steel they heard was not all that good. I can't tell you how many questions I have fielded in my inbox for email related to just this kind of scenario from the good ole boys out there using knives not getting what its all about with this 'better steel talk'. I don't remember who it was that said something like 'steels don't cut, blade geometry does' or something to that effect but its what I think is happening in those confusing situations for folks. Quite simply the perceived effort to make the same cuts using that $30 Buck 110 is less than it is to make the same cuts with the S30V SnG by Strider and they equate that effort to mean somebody must be pulling their leg when all it is is primary grind geometry and edge bevel angle differences from one to the other.

The other thing worth mentioning is the differences between most steels for intended purposes or better purposes for what its capable of being used for. In other words where it fits best. SR101 or INFI both being steels with higher flexibility and toughness being compared to ZDP189 or BG42 or some other steel normally seen in folders kind of makes me cringe too when it comes up because you are talking different purposes for these steels for what they are best suited for. You won't see SR101 in a small slicer usually and most guys using that or INFI are not usually too concerned with how well it might slice paper but more how well it can make short work of some brush clearing or a log for making a quick fire. These tougher steels are more equipped to be a chopper, differentially heat treated for toughness at the edge not for slicing paper. In contrast I don't think you'll be seeing any big choppers made of ZDP or BG42 anytime soon. ;)

STR
 
Great to see Phil Wilson posting here.

Phil Wilson said:
... What you found out is that a variety of knives sharpened the same will cut a lot differently. ...We tend to say like you did that the ZDP 189 knife cut the best so therefore it is the best steel. In that particular test in your hands, with that sharpening and that handle configuration, hardness, edge and edge profile, cutting that sample of carboard on that day on the basis of one test it was the best. I am not being critical of your testing, just trying to put it all in perspective.

I like to cut manila rope just because you get faster dulling and it tends to show up larger differences quicker. With the exact same knife configuration but with different steels it is still difficult to see small differences. For example I recently did some comparison tests with CPM S110V, CPM 10v, and CPM M4 all at the same hardness and there were no large differences like-- one blade cut 100 more cuts than another. For this reason I would say that they are in the same category. The differences lie in other areas like corrosion resistance and relative toughness and sharpening ability ... blade thickness and grind geometry make a huge difference in cutting performance. Heat treating as well. I recently compared CPM S110V at RC 60 to CPM S110V at RC 64. They act like different steels. Also you can heat treat the same steel to different objectives. CPM 154 is a good example. Using the lower tempering range emphasizes corrosion resistance and toughness while the higher range hardness and wear resistance. I admire you for doing some testing and even more for putting the results out there. It is all good information but I guess what I am saying is that we have to be careful testing knives and coming to some conclusions on realative performance of knife steels. Phil
Click to expand...

Phil is one of the most performance-oriented custom makers we are privileged to learn from. Take his insights into steel, grind, heat treat, and tesing as gospel.
 
I don't consider myself an amateur on steels and edges, but when Phil Wilson speaks, I listen.

sal
 
Whatever. I like when ppl take there own time and post there vids/opinions with various knives for comparison. I like looking at the Jim's Knife test videos. Videos like these help me make purchase with my needs and budget. For all the scientist out there put up some of there own test
 
I find this thread very interesting. Any testing is great in my opinion. It is when you combine all of the information that you can start to see a pattern emerge as to the best edge holding steel when used in ways that you will need.
 
The M390 steel looks promising:thumbup:.

But the million dollar question is:
Should I go for the Sibert 755 MPR or 710-1?

The 710-1 seems to come off as more of a collector's item than anything. Whereas the 755 seems to give a lot more bang for the buck. More blade, more handle, more titanium, a tougher lock(debatable of course), and all for a meager price of $150. It almost sounds too good to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top