Ranking of Steels in Categories based on Edge Retention cutting 5/8" rope

Added Darrin Sanders Custom in CPM 10V at 63 RC, .012" behind the edge.
 
It would appear that edge geometry and alloy content along with the correct heat treat is what gives the best cutting results.
Those 3 things together is, IMO, what really makes a great knife.
 
I love seeing the updates here... Even though I have come close to achieving my perfect knife combination, its still nice to know what happening out there...
 
Big Chris said:
It would appear that edge geometry and alloy content along with the correct heat treat is what gives the best cutting results.
Those 3 things together is, IMO, what really makes a great knife.
Click to expand...

True, most people don't really understand how important those things really are, I mean sure they read it or they heard it and go yeah that's right.

But once you start comparing and doing some real testing and comparing to a large database things become more apparent very quickly.

I think it's interesting how much I can tell what is going on with a blade when I am cutting and seeing the pattern develop, I find I can tell a lot about it.
 
Last edited:
Yep, that's the "trifecta" for performance. I think the testing of the blades that have been re-ground really highlight the difference geometry can make.
 
I left the steels that had tests run both ways, coarse and refined edges. I took out the steels that were tested only one way. I also removed the steels that matched performance with both tests. I condensed the category numbers for the fine edge test results and matched them up for the coarse edge results, leaving this:

6000 grit

Category 1
1. M390 (60)

Category 2
2. ZDP-189 (65)
2. ELMAX (60)
2. CTS-XHP (Military) (60+)

Category 3
3. S30V (60)
3. ELMAX (58.5) Mule
3. D2 - Dozier K2

Category 4
4. CTS-B75P (Mule)


400 grit

2. ZDP -189 - 420 - Endura 4 - 65 RC
1. M390 - 400 - Benchmade 810-1401 Contego 60-62 RC
1. M390 - 380 - Military - 61 RC
2/3. ELMAX - 340 - ZT 0770CF - ? RC
2/3. ELMAX - 340 - Para 2 - ? RC
3. S30V - 300 - Military - 60 RC
2. CTS-XHP - 240 - Military - 60.5 RC
4. CTS-B75P - 240 - Mule
3. Dozier D2 - 220 - Dozier K2
3. ELMAX - 220 - Mule - 58.5 RC

Now some match kind of closely, but others are way different. They're performing better one way or the other where the test results leave conflicting information. That means that some steels will perform better with a fine edge or vice versa. I think that if it jumps or drops two steels, that proves that either it performs better or worse, whichever direction it went.

This is what the test results lead me to believe and they're based on Ankerson's results. What confuses me is that he says ALL steels perform better with a coarse edge, but his testing says otherwise. So I don't know what to make of it aside from I need to let my own testing decide and not use these results as a definite guide, which is preferable anyway.

CTS-XHP performed significantly better with a polished edge.
ZDP-189 performed significantly better with a coarse edge.
M390 performed better with a polished edge.
B75P performed better with a coarse edge.
S30V performed better with a fine edge, but that one's a gray area because Elmax wasn't defined in Fine Edge Category 2 like it was for the coarse edge test.
 
bodog said:
I left the steels that had tests run both ways, coarse and refined edges. I took out the steels that were tested only one way. I also removed the steels that matched performance with both tests. I condensed the category numbers for the fine edge test results and matched them up for the coarse edge results, leaving this:

6000 grit

Category 1
1. M390 (60)

Category 2
2. ZDP-189 (65)
2. ELMAX (60)
2. CTS-XHP (Military) (60+)

Category 3
3. S30V (60)
3. ELMAX (58.5) Mule
3. D2 - Dozier K2

Category 4
4. CTS-B75P (Mule)


400 grit

2. ZDP -189 - 420 - Endura 4 - 65 RC
1. M390 - 400 - Benchmade 810-1401 Contego 60-62 RC
1. M390 - 380 - Military - 61 RC
2/3. ELMAX - 340 - ZT 0770CF - ? RC
2/3. ELMAX - 340 - Para 2 - ? RC
3. S30V - 300 - Military - 60 RC
2. CTS-XHP - 240 - Military - 60.5 RC
4. CTS-B75P - 240 - Mule
3. Dozier D2 - 220 - Dozier K2
3. ELMAX - 220 - Mule - 58.5 RC

Now some match kind of closely, but others are way different. They're performing better one way or the other where the test results leave conflicting information. That means that some steels will perform better with a fine edge or vice versa. I think that if it jumps or drops two steels, that proves that either it performs better or worse, whichever direction it went.

This is what the test results lead me to believe and they're based on Ankerson's results. What confuses me is that he says ALL steels perform better with a coarse edge, but his testing says otherwise. So I don't know what to make of it aside from I need to let my own testing decide and not use these results as a definite guide, which is preferable anyway.

CTS-XHP performed significantly better with a polished edge.
ZDP-189 performed significantly better with a coarse edge.
M390 performed better with a polished edge.
B75P performed better with a coarse edge.
S30V performed better with a fine edge, but that one's a gray area because Elmax wasn't defined in Fine Edge Category 2 like it was for the coarse edge test.
Click to expand...



You are making a lot of assumptions without knowing what the actual numbers really are in the polished edge section..

You are so far off on this....
 
Ankerson said:
You are making a lot of assumptions without knowing what the actual numbers really are in the polished edge section..

You are so far off on this....
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, but can the differences be explained?
 
bodog said:
Quite possibly, but can the differences be explained?
Click to expand...

All I am saying is the same thing as I always said, the polished edge section is a general guide only.

NOBODY has those numbers for the categories....
 
Bodog, don't assume the delta between all steels' coarse and polished results would be the same. Alloy would probably play a role in dictating how much better a given steel does with a coarse edge, but "x" steel will go longer with a coarse edge than with a polished edge in a downward pressure to cut test like Jim's always. That's not to say that if steel x does better than steel y in polished that steel x has to be better in coarse as well.
 
nccole said:
Bodog, don't assume the delta between all steels' coarse and polished results would be the same. Alloy would probably play a role in dictating how much better a given steel does with a coarse edge, but "x" steel will go longer with a coarse edge than with a polished edge in a downward pressure to cut test like Jim's always. That's not to say that if steel x does better than steel y in polished that steel x has to be better in coarse as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's across the board and it's a very large difference..
 
We hardly ever know what the heat treat is on any of our knives -- and we virtually never know what the heat treat is with any meaningful specificity. We're lucky to know the hardness within a couple Rc points. Whether any given edge geometry is better for a particular task depends on that task. Ditto for the kind of sharpened edge we create.

Knife performance depends on many factors -- and an almost infinite number of factor combinations.

Jim's tests give us a pretty good idea of how well a knife will cut a particular type of rope in a particular, well-defined test by one particular and careful person; but factors that improve rope cutting can also decrease performance in other areas. We never hear about the tradeoffs. And there are a lot of tradeoffs. The top-performing knives in Jim's rope-cutting tests will also be poor-performing knives in other tests.

The truth is that we're never going to get a comprehensive guide that will answer all our knife-performance questions. Knives are black boxes.
 
Twindog said:
We hardly ever know what the heat treat is on any of our knives -- and we virtually never know what the heat treat is with any meaningful specificity. We're lucky to know the hardness within a couple Rc points. Whether any given edge geometry is better for a particular task depends on that task. Ditto for the kind of sharpened edge we create.

Knife performance depends on many factors -- and an almost infinite number of factor combinations.

Jim's tests give us a pretty good idea of how well a knife will cut a particular type of rope in a particular, well-defined test by one particular and careful person; but factors that improve rope cutting can also decrease performance in other areas. We never hear about the tradeoffs. And there are a lot of tradeoffs. The top-performing knives in Jim's rope-cutting tests will also be poor-performing knives in other tests.

The truth is that we're never going to get a comprehensive guide that will answer all our knife-performance questions. Knives are black boxes.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree.
 
Keep in mind, Jim also cuts cardboard and wood. While he doesn't quantity it as nicely, he notes any issues with those types of cutting if any. Of course there are many variables, but if a guy comes on here and claims results while cutting lots of random stuff in random ways, everyone is all up in arms and rightfully so. Take it for what it is but with the addition of thickness behind the edge and 15° edge angle, this is as valuable if not more valuable than CATRA IMO.
 
bodog said:
I think that if it jumps or drops two steels, that proves that either it performs better or worse, whichever direction it went.

...What confuses me is that he says ALL steels perform better with a coarse edge, but his testing says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Ankerson said:
None of the ones listed in the Polished edge section did near 300 cuts...

So yeah polished edges perform a lot less.
Click to expand...

bodog, they ALL performed better, none performed worse, they all went UP in direction. The polished-edge categories were a general guide, i.e. Jim grouped them according to how easy they were to tell apart and it clearly wasn't easy. The steels in each category aren't really in order, they're just grouped together, the line between one category an another can be very fuzzy, i.e. potential for overlap. Remember, Jim tests for cutting-force once every 20 cuts - not all that precise, but fairly realistic. With a polished edge in this type of cutting the carbide content has less impact on wear-resistance. CATRA confirms this. With a coarser edge, cutting geometry and carbide content really shine, the compacted categories suddenly spread across a broader spectrum. But always keep in mind that 'once every 20 cuts' - knives 40 cuts of eachother performed roughly the same. This isn't the kind of data from which one should generate such statements as "X knife+steel performed 10-20% better than Y knife+steel", it's just not that precise. It is again a guide.

If you want to test polished-edge performance, you should look at Steve Elliot's work comparing wood-planers, use wherein a strong polished apex is key: http://bladetest.infillplane.com/index.html
 
Big Chris said:
It would appear that edge geometry and alloy content along with the correct heat treat is what gives the best cutting results.
Those 3 things together is, IMO, what really makes a great knife.
Click to expand...

One of the lessons here, I think, is that unless you compare more or less exactly the same blade profile and edge you are really testing the overall knife, rather than the steel. There are too many variables (stock thickness, primary and secondary bevel angles, secondary bevel finish, hardness, etc.). Nevertheless, the data is interesting and useful.
 
JNewell said:
One of the lessons here, I think, is that unless you compare more or less exactly the same blade profile and edge you are really testing the overall knife, rather than the steel. There are too many variables (stock thickness, primary and secondary bevel angles, secondary bevel finish, hardness, etc.). Nevertheless, the data is interesting and useful.
Click to expand...

That's one of the main reason why I started including the customs in the coarse edge section and adding the geometry information so people can see what differences things like thinner geometry can make.
 
Ankerson said:
That's one of the main reason why I started including the customs in the coarse edge section and adding the geometry information so people can see what differences things like thinner geometry can make.
Click to expand...

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Nice too see those added as it gives some variety as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top