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

Jim, the performance of the Wilson 10V @ 64.5 is just incredible . . .

8 times the cuts of S30V @ 60,
6 times the cuts of the M390 @ 60-62,
4 times the cuts of the S110V Mule @ 60,
2 times the cuts of the Sanders 10V @ 63.

The last comparison really shows the importance of edge geometry for slicing. Just how much tougher do you think the Sanders would be a point and a half less hard and .008 thicker behind the edge?
 
black mamba said:
Jim, the performance of the Wilson 10V @ 64.5 is just incredible . . .

8 times the cuts of S30V @ 60,
6 times the cuts of the M390 @ 60-62,
4 times the cuts of the S110V Mule @ 60,
2 times the cuts of the Sanders 10V @ 63.

The last comparison really shows the importance of edge geometry for slicing. Just how much tougher do you think the Sanders would be a point and a half less hard and .008 thicker behind the edge?
Click to expand...

It's pretty tough, I split wood with it and didn't have any issues so it's harder use for sure. :)
 
Jim in your first post, you wrote: "All the knives started at 14 ~ 15 LBS of down force except for M390 because it cuts so aggressively."

Is there a correlation between edge retention and aggressiveness? Not counting edge geometry, but just the steel itself, it seems like aggressiveness sounds like it has to do with carbide and austenite content, right? And it seems like edge retention has to do more with hardness. What does carbide/austenite content have to do with retention? Because it would seem like the most aggressive cutter should last the longest, but maybe the two don't correlate that way. Can you comment on aggressiveness as it relates to retention, and on steels that are particularly aggressive? Are there steels that are aggressive, but have poorer than expected edge retention, or that have great retention but are not aggressive? I'm curious as to how to understand and differentiate the two...
 
bluesmandan said:
Jim in your first post, you wrote: "All the knives started at 14 ~ 15 LBS of down force except for M390 because it cuts so aggressively."

Is there a correlation between edge retention and aggressiveness? Not counting edge geometry, but just the steel itself, it seems like aggressiveness sounds like it has to do with carbide and austenite content, right? And it seems like edge retention has to do more with hardness. What does carbide/austenite content have to do with retention? Because it would seem like the most aggressive cutter should last the longest, but maybe the two don't correlate that way. Can you comment on aggressiveness as it relates to retention, and on steels that are particularly aggressive? Are there steels that are aggressive, but have poorer than expected edge retention, or that have great retention but are not aggressive? I'm curious as to how to understand and differentiate the two...
Click to expand...

That was related to the polished edge that I was using before.
 
Should I understand the first post as metals in Category 1 have the best edge retention and those in Category 7, the least edge retention?
 
Ankerson said:
I stopped using polished edges for testing and went with a 400 grit edge finish awhile back, they are separated.
Click to expand...

I still don't have a good sense of the differences that arise between polished and coarse edges when different steels are compared and when different media are being cut.

I test my own blades for sharpness by slicing lightweight scratch-pad paper. At 400 grit, no blade I have cuts that paper well. But when I take them up to 1600 grit, which is where I usually stop and strop, the slicing ability is much, much better for all of my steels.

I almost never cut rope, other than for a single cut now and then. Nothing continuous, and I never notice any difficultly cutting rope with a polished edge.
 
Ankerson said:
I stopped using polished edges for testing and went with a 400 grit edge finish awhile back, they are separated.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. My question was about the correlation between steels that are regarded as "aggressive" cutters and those that have great edge retention... are they synonymous or parallel?

For those posting questions about more polished vs coarser grit finishes and the 400 grit edge used in this thread's tests... A perfectly polished edge is for push cuts (shaving something) and coarse edges are for draw cuts (sawing motion). Think of a razor vs. a saw. One is very polished for pushcuts, the other is very toothy for drawcuts. You use the amount of polish vs. toothiness that is required for whatever you are cutting. 6000 grit and up will be considered a polished edge, 1000 grit and below will be very toothy, and 2k to 4k will be a compromise. I polish razors out to 100,000 grit. Leather splitting blades I do to at least 12000 grit. Hunting and Kitchen knives I do to around 4000 grit (if you go too coarse, fat and skin will get caught up in the teeth and gum your blade up). And an EDC pocket knife I'll do anywhere from 500 to 8000 grit, depending on the roughness I expect it to see and the intended purpose.

A 400 grit finish I regard as very rough (the Buck Strider came with 220 grit!) and very toothy. It will be a tough, hard cutting edge, good for cutting rope and branches... not so good for slicing paper. It's all about purpose. Are you gonna shave hair, cut meat, cut rope, cut branches, slice paper, or what? I make a lot of boxes, so I slice a lot of paper, tape, and cardboard, and usually carry my EDC with a somewhat polished edge (right now it's 5000 grit, 30 degrees).

Now to stay on topic and not hijack this wonderful thread: The 400 grit edge used in this thread's testing is pretty ideal for cutting manila rope!
 
bluesmandan said:
Jim in your first post, you wrote: "All the knives started at 14 ~ 15 LBS of down force except for M390 because it cuts so aggressively."
Click to expand...

I also have similar question related to this initial statement, and the correlation of it to the various steel compositions. It seems to me this statement/comment could have a multitude of various meanings.

Assuming geometry is equal, help me to understand why the starting down force for m390 was different (assuming it was less), and what is meant by "cuts so aggressively" compared to all other steels in comparison (assuming geometry equal, and statement related to all m390 steels being compared).

I do not mean to infer anything, except that I am very confused by this comment and how it's related to the testing & data collection done.

Thanks for such a great thread, been monitoring for some time now ;-)

Chris
 
Haven't been as active on the forums lately, so just seeing this thread for the first time. Very cool.

This may have been suggested before, but what might also be interesting is collecting data on after an edge reaches some defined level of sharpness (or dullness), some (quasi?) objective means to sharpening the steel back to some define level of sharpness, presumably a level that may be considered a working or useful edge for normal carry. E.g., starting at 15lbs of pressure required to cut, say 2" manilla rope, once an edge requires 25lbs of force to cut through the material, it takes n number of passes on some sharpening stone s to cut that material at 15lbs of pressure again.
 
Kaizen1 said:
Haven't been as active on the forums lately, so just seeing this thread for the first time. Very cool.

This may have been suggested before, but what might also be interesting is collecting data on after an edge reaches some defined level of sharpness (or dullness), some (quasi?) objective means to sharpening the steel back to some define level of sharpness, presumably a level that may be considered a working or useful edge for normal carry. E.g., starting at 15lbs of pressure required to cut, say 2" manilla rope, once an edge requires 25lbs of force to cut through the material, it takes n number of passes on some sharpening stone s to cut that material at 15lbs of pressure again.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a great idea! Let us know what you find, I'd be very interested in the results, thanks!
 
sodak said:
This sounds like a great idea! Let us know what you find, I'd be very interested in the results, thanks!
Click to expand...

My mistake, I thought this was a discussion forum. Is there somewhere in the post where I'm telling anyone what they should do? I'm just throwing out ideas, jackass.
 
Kaizen1 said:
My mistake, I thought this was a discussion forum. Is there somewhere in the post where I'm telling anyone what they should do? I'm just throwing out ideas, jackass.
Click to expand...

The name calling for me undermined any sympathy for your defensive response. Yes, it is an (adult) discussion forum. And yes, it did sound like you were suggesting what someone do, with your first post to a very extensive discourse in which some of the best minds on BFC have discussed methodology in depth. Sodak has participated at length in this thread, and I understood his response to your post, but he was gratuitous in his sarcasm, and I was with you up till your last word.
 
Actually, after re-reading sodak's post, I think his response was reasonable (if a little sarcastic). You suggested an idea and he suggested it had merit and that you follow through on it.
 
Hi Will,

I was actually serious. I did a lot of testing about 10 years ago on the forum, and documented my process with explanations and pictures, just like Jim has done. I went so far as to take pictures of the UPC's and bar codes at Lowe's so that anyone could pick up the exact same material (Phil Wilson did). I always invited anyone to either confirm or contest my results, it's always better to have multiple people testing. It takes a LOT of time and effort. Jim has documented his process, I think it would be great for someone to pick up the ball and run with it, and post the results. There's no BF rule that Jim has to do it all, we can all try it (myself included), and compare results, especially if they can take the testing to a new level or direction.

I think if someone has a great idea, they should give it a shot. I'd still be interested in the results.
 
I agree. I think Jim had such a serious interest in understanding performance better himself that, in the absence of any definitive testing available to the public, he began doing tests himself. With the interest generated for so many others of us here in what he was doing, he has obliged all of us by taking on a time-and-labor-intensive program, free to all and with no compensation other than the test results for his own information and the good will and gratitude of the forum. I also agree that any participation by others willing to take on additional work based on the foundation he has laid here would be welcome information and, I'm sure, a welcome and well-deserved respite for Jim. :thumbup:
 
Will York said:
I agree. I think Jim had such a serious interest in understanding performance better himself that, in the absence of any definitive testing available to the public, he began doing tests himself. With the interest generated for so many others of us here in what he was doing, he has obliged all of us by taking on a time-and-labor-intensive program, free to all and with no compensation other than the test results for his own information and the good will and gratitude of the forum. I also agree that any participation by others willing to take on additional work based on the foundation he has laid here would be welcome information and, I'm sure, a welcome and well-deserved respite for Jim. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Thanks Will. :)

Taking into count that the knives aren't dull after testing, more so in the coarse edge section still having a usable edge on them it doesn't take more than a few passes on a ceramic or a strop to bring back the bite.

So I never saw the point myself other than noting it in the full reviews that I do.

Chris Berry (Big Chris) can attest to that since he got more than one knife back after I tested them with the as tested edge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top