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

[waterstoneblades]

Sorry Jim, I wasn't clear about the steel. It's the V10 I meant !

 

[Ankerson]

Sorry Jim ,I wasn't clear about the steel. It's the V10 I meant !

OK.

Dunno yet, haven't seen it, I am sure it's a very nice steel.

 

[jdm61]

So if the difference is 100% and the rope is half the size, wouldn't we still at a 400-500 cut equivalency with a low alloy tool steel at the point where the tester designed to quit? Still fairly impressive I would think. Also, with only 1 12 inches of the blade exposed, I would think that draw cutting would give quite the advantage. Another question us how effective of a draw cut could you do with a lump of tap the size of a golf ball right up near the cutting edge. Seems to me the cuts would almost have to be push cut like using the curved part of the tip of the blade.

I have actually done the tests before, push cutting vs draw cuts using the same knives, there is a very, very large difference, well over 100% typically.

But it's not consistent at all as it's shearing instead of cutting.

 

[Ankerson]

Another question us how effective of a draw cut could you do with a lump of tap the size of a golf ball right up near the cutting edge. Seems to me the cuts would almost have to be push cut like using the curved part of the tip of the blade.

Yeah, that was my point, glad you caught it.

As far as the rest goes nobody really knows what the real stopping point was or anything more.

All I can say is that I wouldn't want to do it, not worth the effort or the rope.

With some low alloy steel say the draw cuts ended up being like 100 cuts, the push cuts could be 200 or more depending on the variables the way that I test with my stopping point at 20 LBS.

Now if someone wanted to keep going until they hit like 50 to 100 pounds then who knows, I am not doing it, been there done that.

 

[jdm61]

True dat. I found this interesting because this steel is most often promoted as a "tough steel" and a higher carbon replacement for say 5160. The only major change between ti and say 5160 appears to be .2% more carbon, the same chromium content and a dose of vanadium like you would expect to find in say W2, which is to say great for grain refinement, but not a whole lot left to form a ton of vanadium carbides....in theory. Yet we see that that little bit of vanadium appears to make W2 much more chip resistant than its V free cousins like W1 and 1095. A steel like 80CrV2 is never going to have the kind of abrasion resistance as some of the crazy super high alloy PM steels that you have tested especially with heat treatments where the maker is looking beyond the industry standard and more at what makes a knife like object cut better, like Phil Wilson. I think that we can see from examples like this is that there are a number of steels that may have the capacity to go beyond "what the chemistry will give you"in certain areas if you look beyond the industry standard head treatment, ESPECAILLY if the steel in question and the attendant heat treatment recipes was not primarily design for very thin cutting tools. 52100 is a prime example of that. 1550F? Lot so big honking abrasion resistant chromium carbides ideally suited for a ball bearings. 1475F? A stable edge so fine that it will cut you if you even just think about it.

 

[me2]

Just to clarify, 52100 quenched from 1560°F has less carbide than when quenched from 1475°F, though the average size is likely still below 1 micron.

 

[Ankerson]

True dat. I found this interesting because this steel is most often promoted as a "tough steel" and a higher carbon replacement for say 5160. The only major change between ti and say 5160 appears to be .2% more carbon, the same chromium content and a dose of vanadium like you would expect to find in say W2, which is to say great for grain refinement, but not a whole lot left to form a ton of vanadium carbides....in theory. Yet we see that that little bit of vanadium appears to make W2 much more chip resistant than its V free cousins like W1 and 1095. A steel like 80CrV2 is never going to have the kind of abrasion resistance as some of the crazy super high alloy PM steels that you have tested especially with heat treatments where the maker is looking beyond the industry standard and more at what makes a knife like object cut better, like Phil Wilson. I think that we can see from examples like this is that there are a number of steels that may have the capacity to go beyond "what the chemistry will give you"in certain areas if you look beyond the industry standard head treatment, ESPECAILLY if the steel in question and the attendant heat treatment recipes was not primarily design for very thin cutting tools. 52100 is a prime example of that. 1550F? Lot so big honking abrasion resistant chromium carbides ideally suited for a ball bearings. 1475F? A stable edge so fine that it will cut you if you even just think about it.

One still only has so much alloy to play with depending on the steel.

So all a maker can really do is balance the HT, RC hardness, geometry, design, edge finish to get the blade that will perform to the level they need it to.

But they are still limited by the alloy content of the steel in the end, it's only going to take them so far, if they need something different then another steel would be needed.

Not that my testing is perfect or the end all beat all or anything, but it will cut right to the chase in the end as it is a structured test.

 

[jdm61]

But more carbon in solution, right?

Just to clarify, 52100 quenched from 1560°F has less carbide than when quenched from 1475°F, though the average size is likely still below 1 micron.

 

[jdm61]

True but look how far "so far" can be. Your test results for that one custom AEB-L knife should be a little bit of an eye opener. The chemistry of that steel says that it should form a super fine, very stable edge, but it should not be able to compare with Elmax in abrasion resistance at ANY level, right? Likewise, the relatively poor performance of Elmax at 58.5 compared to the AEB-L or other Elmax samples make yo wonder why anyone would leave it as 58.5 as opposed to somewhere north of 60 in a smaller knife? One question that your tests raise is one of edge THICKNESS which I guess is just another aspect of geometry. You result seem to indicate that if you have a steel that can maintain stability, a very thing edge that may be slightly dulled will still continue to cut for considerably longer than the same steel with a thicker edge. I am thinking of your example of the Manix 2 in 110V. Clearly the factory left a bit of performance back in the stall with their choice of edge thickness, right?

One still only has so much alloy to play with depending on the steel.

So all a maker can really do is balance the HT, RC hardness, geometry, design, edge finish to get the blade that will perform to the level they need it to.

But they are still limited by the alloy content of the steel in the end, it's only going to take them so far, if they need something different then another steel would be needed.

Not that my testing is perfect or the end all beat all or anything, but it will cut right to the chase in the end as it is a structured test.

 

[Ankerson]

True but look how far "so far" can be. Your test results for that one custom AEB-L knife should be a little bit of an eye opener. The chemistry of that steel says that it should form a super fine, very stable edge, but it should not be able to compare with Elmax in abrasion resistance at ANY level, right? Likewise, the relatively poor performance of Elmax at 58.5 compared to the AEB-L or other Elmax samples make yo wonder why anyone would leave it as 58.5 as opposed to somewhere north of 60 in a smaller knife? One question that your tests raise is one of edge THICKNESS which I guess is just another aspect of geometry. You result seem to indicate that if you have a steel that can maintain stability, a very thing edge that may be slightly dulled will still continue to cut for considerably longer than the same steel with a thicker edge. I am thinking of your example of the Manix 2 in 110V. Clearly the factory left a bit of performance back in the stall with their choice of edge thickness, right?

Blade geometry is extremely important and can have a very large effect.

Take AEB-L for example, another knife at a more normal thickness of .025" behind the edge and at the same RC range wouldn't have done near as well.

So I wouldn't get all that excited over how well AEB-L did, it was the effect of excellent blade geometry that really made the difference.

I started adding the thinner customs into the coarse edge section to show how much of an effect blade geometry can have and it can be rather large.

That's were apples to apples comes in, take another blade in the same thickness range and compare them to each other and we are right back to reality again.

That's something that I have been trying to pound into peoples heads for a very long time, now I added it.

ELMAX really needs to be in the 60-62 range to perform at it's best, but the lower range is good for harder use blades.

The knife has to be designed for what it's intended use will be, that's something custom makers have much more leeway doing as they can make them one at a time tailored to the customer. Production makers have to make the knives for the masses not knowing who will end up with them or what they will be used for. So we typically see production blades in the .025 to .035 range depending on the knives as a general rule.

Less pressure to make the cut generally means the slower the edge will dull to make it simple.

 

[jdm61]

But AEB-L is cheap strip steel made using 100 year old technology that is only suitable for disposable razor blades, cheap stamped kitchen cutlery and inexpensive plastic handled Scandinavian throwaway knives............. As for the Elmax, you obviously gain a LOT by going over 60, but I question how much "toughness" you actually lose and should that be a factor in your decision to use Elmax considering how much abrasion resistance you seem to give up by going below 60.

Blade geometry is extremely important and can have a very large effect.

Take AEB-L for example, another knife at a more normal thickness of .025" behind the edge and at the same RC range wouldn't have done near as well.

So I wouldn't get all that excited over how well AEB-L did, it was the effect of excellent blade geometry that really made the difference.

I started adding the thinner customs into the coarse edge section to show how much of an effect blade geometry can have and it can be rather large.

That's were apples to apples comes in, take another blade in the same thickness range and compare them to each other and we are right back to reality again.

That's something that I have been trying to pound into peoples heads for a very long time, now I added it.

ELMAX really needs to be in the 60-62 range to perform at it's best, but the lower range is good for harder use blades.

The knife has to be designed for what it's intended use will be, that's something custom makers have much more leeway doing as they can make them one at a time tailored to the customer. Production makers have to make the knives for the masses not knowing who will end up with them or what they will be used for. So we typically see production blades in the .025 to .035 range depending on the knives as a general rule.

Less pressure to make the cut generally means the slower the edge will dull to make it simple.

 

[Ankerson]

But AEB-L is cheap strip steel made using 100 year old technology that is only suitable for disposable razor blades and inexpensive plastic handled Scandinavian throwaway knives............. As for the Elmax, you obviously gain a LOT by going over 60, but I question how much "toughness" you actually lose and should that be a factor in your decision to use Elmax considering how much abrasion resistance you seem to give up by going below 60.

The real question is how much toughness do you really need in say a 3" to 4" folder for example?

Or something like a nice thin 5" slicer knowing that's what it will be used for?

Taking into count that geometry has such a large effect that steels like S90V have been pounded through bricks with very little damage.

Impact toughness is highly over rated for most knives as any kind of measure.

 

[jdm61]

True, but I am looking at some projects where impact resistance is a factor, tomahawks and large choppers. However, I am starting to think that even with those tools, some folks give up other properties for absolute impact toughness when they don't have to. Using 4140 is one example that has me a bit puzzled. Some of that may be a cost issue. 4140, is tough, cheap and readily available and a number ro makers use it for hawks and such. With that said, I would never use 4140 for a knife, even hard use one, so why would I use it for a full tang hawk when I have very impact resistant simple tool steel like L6 around that will take a good edge and thatI don't have to leave at 52 RC on the cutting edge?

The real question is how much toughness do you really need in say a 3" to 4" folder for example?

Or something like a nice thin 5" slicer knowing that's what it will be used for?

Taking into count that geometry has such a large effect that steels like S90V have been pounded through bricks with very little damage.

Impact toughness is highly over rated for most knives as any kind of measure.

 

[Ankerson]

True, but I am looking at some projects where impact resistance is a factor, tomahawks and large choppers. However, I am starting to think that even with those tools, some folks give up other properties for absolute impact toughness when they don't have to. Using 4140 is one example that has me a bit puzzled. Some of that may be a cost issue. For example 4140, is tough cheap and readily available and a number ro makers use it for hawks and such. I would never use 4140 for a knife, even hard use one, so why would I use it for a full tang hawk when I have very impact resistant simple tool steel like L6 around that will take a good edge and thatI don't have to leave at 52 RC on the cutting edge?

I agree, it's not like you are making jackhammer bits.

L6 would be a good choice for a large chopper depending on HT, or even a tomahawk, just have to balance the performance.

Or say even a field knife for some ham fisted dude that's going to pound the blade through breast bones and pop out hip joints, I would use A2 and just adjust the geometry.

While some other dude who really knows what they are doing I could use CPM 154 at 62 and grind it thin like .010" for a nice slicer.

Have to take the customer into count in the end.

 

[jdm61]

But as we know, when you start talking about "hard use tools" you may be targeting an audience for whom "hard use" actually means "ritual Youtube abuse" so you have to adjust your material choices and HT regimen accordingly.

I agree, it's not like you are making jackhammer bits.

L6 would be a good choice for a large chopper depending on HT, or even a tomahawk, just have to balance the performance.

Or say even a field knife for some ham fisted dude that's going to pound the blade through breast bones and pop out hip joints, I would use A2 and just adjust the geometry.

While some other dude who really knows what they are doing I could use CPM 154 at 62 and grind it thin like .010" for a nice slicer.

Have to take the customer into count in the end.

 

[Ankerson]

But as we know, when you start talking about "hard use tools" you may be targeting an audience for whom "hard use" actually means "ritual Youtube abuse" so you have to adjust your material choices and HT regimen accordingly.

Don't get me started.

Want to keep this thread on track.

My opinions on that matter are well known.

 

[jdm61]

Point taken. Oh, by the way. Did I remember to congratulate you on reaching your goal of slicing up enough rope to re-rig the USS Constitution 4 times over? :thumbup: But seriously, ladies and germs, keep up the good work. Just out of curiosity, have you looked into how the high temperature temper vs. low temperature temper on some of these higher alloy steels impacts the cutting properties that you are examining?

Don't get me started.

Want to keep this thread on track.

My opinions on that matter are well known.

 

[Ankerson]

Point taken. Oh, by the way. Did I remember to congratulate you on reaching your goal of slicing up enough rope to re-rig the USS Constitution 4 times over? :thumbup: But seriously, ladies and germs, keep up the good work. Just out of curiosity, have you looked into how the high temperature temper vs. low temperature temper on some of these higher alloy steels impacts the cutting properties that you are examining?

Yes, I have been and the results that I have seen indicate that the high end tempering gives the best performance.

While the Low End tempering provides added toughness at the cost of edge retention.

However it's not recommended to use the low temperature tempering.

Much better to use the high temperature tempering scale to adjust the needed finial RC hardness.

 

[me2]

Yes, the higher temperature puts more carbon in solution, with all the issues that brings.

 

[jdm61]

That makes sense. Some of the discussion that I read revolved around 3V and the loss of some toughness and corrosion resistance at the higher temps.

Yes, I have been and the results that I have seen indicate that the high end tempering gives the best performance.

While the Low End tempering provides added toughness at the cost of edge retention.

However it's not recommended to use the low temperature tempering.

Much better to use the high temperature tempering scale to adjust the needed finial RC hardness.