Production M390 - Expectation vs Reality?

Mo2 said:
Iirc "Unknowns" could be due to a coating over the ti, or maybe it's not in the XRF gun database or maybe the media used to blast the scales may be throwing it off. I don't remember what the deal was. I do believe it was described in the video for that specific knife.
Click to expand...

Many ti alloys are not in a database as a "registered" or graded alloy. It's better to look at the exact chemical composition when it comes to ti. Also a lot of the ti alloy that comes out of China in recent years is all over the place when it comes to alloy composition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mo2
Pàdruig said:
Honestly, I think this is an excellent conversation to have, particularly for those who are interested in such things.

What I do not find acceptable are the aspersions being cast on reputable dealers, their collaborations, and the manufacturers they work with. And then getting indignant that a dealer should dare question their findings... Social media is comprised of the torches and pitchforks of the modern age. Quick to cast judgement and slow to rectify or even acknowledge when mistakes are made.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
Folks say that 20cv, m390 and 204p are all the same, but I have to say my 20cv is a little harder to sharpen than the other 2 and holds its sharpness a little longer as well. I can get m390 and 204p very sharp fairly quickly. Don't know why it takes a little longer with the 20cv.
 
steff27 said:
If you can point me to another folder for about 100$, with one of these modern PM steels, a blade not thicker than 2.5mm, a thin grind, a pretty and utilitarian design, please do, I'm eager to check it out.
Click to expand...

I don't know about a "pretty" design - definitely utilitarian - the Spyderco Delica in M390 fits these criteria with a 2.5mm thick blade. It's also available with ZDP-189, which doesn't quite carry the cachet that M390 does these days but is still a high wear resistance PM steel in its own right.
 
If M390 is heat treated to comparable edge retention of S30v what is its comparable toughness though? Is it significantly more tough then S30v?
 
redw0lf said:
Well, lionsteel as example, posts the HRC on each product on the site. Wouldn't that be in scope of false advertising?
We trust it was done right by one guy? Why did he step away?
Click to expand...

To some extent yes. But if you have to go after a supplier/manufacturer for producing something out of spec (more like a faulty product than false advertising) then you pretty much have to get lawyers involved and be sure the data is pretty darn reliable and be able to be proven to be reliable (documentation, training, direct observations, reviews of documents, etc.). At least, that's how it is in the food industry. If you have a shared interest with the supplier/manufacturer, you can throw some weight around for "mutually beneficial" solution. If you're simply telling them their product is crap, or there is crap in it, better make sure you're incredibly confident in what you're going to claim.

Banter 247 said:
Here you go:

02N7cWt.png


In the interest of objectivity, here are notes:

1. Tester arranged meeting at Peters with their guy.

2. They compared notes on testing methodology and calibrated process.

3. The Dom did hit higher than previous. They hit it multiple times, could not collectively figure out what was different, and agreed that a third test was a good idea.

4. They tested one previously untested blade, as noted in the linked comment. Results were in-range for what Lionsteel has aimed for.

5. They tested multiple (if memory serves correctly, 4) other, previously tested samples to calibrate and confirmed the results on those.

My advice to the group, as mentioned elsewhere/previously, has been to third party verify any low outliers and report privately to companies first.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting take by collectorknives. I see both side of this as I've been on both sides, calling out suppliers for sending unsafe product but also looking to see if your product is now subject to a recall. Generally, this is best handled behind closed doors for legality's sake, from what I've seen. I don't know the exact rules of slander, but there seems to be enough grey area that many people/businesses like to avoid it.

3rd party testing, as a regular practice, is generally quite expensive and really falls within standard QA measures. Since this looks like a potential situation of potential litigation, or at least a lot of crap to be thrown still, 3rd party is the best way to go to limit potential biases. In general, internal QA testing to a set standard, like ISO, allows for better in-process controls and more testing instead of even worse spot checking with 3rd party and the corrective action being limited to solely re-work or disposal of faulty product. The earlier the test can be done the better, and that means 3rd party usually isn't the best option. It is a good way to verify or validate.

Interesting read so far, more so on the quality control aspect of this since that's been my field of work for the past decade and some. At this point, it already looks like it won't end well for someone since damage has already been done to one business.
 
Banter 247 said:
You presented an “A vs B” proposition, and I’m asking what you believe A and B to be in opposition on.
Click to expand...
I believe that the "Mr X" performing these tests is completely wrong.

I will not at this ascribe any malfeasance to him at this time. I suspect it's a typical garbage in garbage out scenario.
 
Pàdruig said:
Honestly, I think this is an excellent conversation to have, particularly for those who are interested in such things.

What I do not find acceptable are the aspersions being cast on reputable dealers, their collaborations, and the manufacturers they work with. And then getting indignant that a dealer should dare question their findings... Social media is comprised of the torches and pitchforks of the modern age. Quick to cast judgement and slow to rectify or even acknowledge when mistakes are made.
Click to expand...
Falsehood will fly, as it were, on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps, though sure, are slow and solemn,
 
Skywalker31 said:
I don't know about a "pretty" design - definitely utilitarian - the Spyderco Delica in M390 fits these criteria with a 2.5mm thick blade. It's also available with ZDP-189, which doesn't quite carry the cachet that M390 does these days but is still a high wear resistance PM steel in its own right.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion. I remember not being impressed with the edge thickness the last time I handled a Delica. But that might be because I compared it to an Opinel...

My analog caliper (resolution: 0.05 mm) gives me a thickness behind the edge of 0.4 mm on a factory Shuffler edge. For comparison, the same measurement gives me between 0.3 and 0.35 on the main blade of a 91 mm Victorinox. Unfortunately I can't measure the Shuffler I ground to 15 dps, because I can't find it anymore...

Anybody have measurements for the Delica edge?
 
To me this was a good lesson about Rockwell hardness testing.
I knew the concept but have not gone deep into it.

I work with microscopes and manipulators to deal with micron-scale objects.
These devices are set on anti-vibration tables.
Still, a very gentle (accidental) tapping on the table can cause vibrations with tens of micron amplitude sometimes.

Then I saw some videos of Rockwell hardness testing by manufacturers and custom makers using machines set on a desk in dusty-looking environment.
Some of them show verification of "a" hardness standard but not multiple standards covering a range of interest.

I think the measurement can be very precise and reliable when done properly.
But there is no guarantee that it is the case for each result.
I don't think I take these numbers seriously any longer, as they rely on very precise measurement in a micron-scale.
 
miso2 said:
To me this was a good lesson about Rockwell hardness testing.
I knew the concept but have not gone deep into it.

I work with microscopes and manipulators to deal with micron-scale objects.
These devices are set on anti-vibration tables.
Still, a very gentle (accidental) tapping on the table can cause vibrations with tens of micron amplitude sometimes.

Then I saw some videos of Rockwell hardness testing by manufacturers and custom makers using machines set on a desk in dusty-looking environment.
Some of them show verification of "a" hardness standard but not multiple standards covering a range of interest.

I think the measurement can be very precise and reliable when done properly.
But there is no guarantee that it is the case for each result.
I don't think I take these numbers seriously any longer, as they rely on very precise measurement in a micron-scale.
Click to expand...

I am no expert...I am just some guy. I have seen rooms with precision measuring equipment
for aerospace components. The "tables" were solid granite that were more like huge blocks.
The room was also temperature controlled closely and record kept of the temperature.
And measurements made were time stamped too. So a record of the environment
correlated to when the measurement was made. It was also very, very, clean.

Some conditions are better than others! I can appreciate your apprehension!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top