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

Updated HRC ratings on S35VN and ATS-34. :)

Both came in at 59 HRC.
 
rodriguez7 said:
Are you going to try sr-101 and sr-77?
Click to expand...

Nothing that is both thin enough and long enough to test and without a coating on the blades.

I really couldn't test my 3V strider because of the Black Oxide coating that is pretty abrasive, it's thin enough though being it's hollow ground.

Maybe after it smooths out a lot after a lot of use I might be able to test it.
 
Last edited:
It occurred to me that although 1095 steel can be hardened to very different hardnesses, it might be interesting if you were to test it as it comes on a very popular knife, for instance, one of the Ka-Bar knives, like the USMC fighting knife. Granted, the KaBar isn't all that hard, yet it is very tough. Even so, just to have an idea, a benchmark, of how 1095 performs on one or another blade could be helpful.
 
Folderguy said:
It occurred to me that although 1095 steel can be hardened to very different hardnesses, it might be interesting if you were to test it as it comes on a very popular knife, for instance, one of the Ka-Bar knives, like the USMC fighting knife. Granted, the KaBar isn't all that hard, yet it is very tough. Even so, just to have an idea, a benchmark, of how 1095 performs on one or another blade could be helpful.
Click to expand...

I have a folder in 1095 here that I will test once I get around to it, it's at 59 RC and very thin so we will see.
 
N680 is awesome. Spydie s30 edge retention with extreme corrosive resistance . Wish they made more blades in this steel .
 
DennisStrickland said:
my read on n680 shows alloy content to not perform even close to s30. even n690 probably wo'nt shade s30.--dennis
Click to expand...

It has more than enough Chrome Carbides to have enough wear resistanse to do very well, that's N680 and N690, they are very similar in carbide content, both are high alloy steels.

N690

Carbon - 1.08
Silicon - .40
Manganese - .40
Chromium - 17.30
Molybdenum - 1.10
Vandium - 1.10
Cobalt - 1.5

N680

Carbon - .54
Silicon - .45
Manganese - .40
Chromium - 17.30
Molybdenum - 1.10
Vandium - .10
 
N680 also contains nitrogen that replaces carbon and forms nitrides. This is one of the reasons N680 works so well in spite of the relatively low amount of carbon.

Tbl-Elements-s.jpg
Tbl-N680-s.jpg
Tbl-N690-s.jpg
 
Still, those results are quite mind-boggling. Compared to the 1.4% of carbon in S30V, it should have a higher carbide/nitride volume than both N690 and N680. Both steels have more chromium certainly, but there should be much more free in the matrix than in carbides/nitrides, especially given that nitrogen is much less prone to forming nitrides. And S30V has harder vanadium carbides as well, along with the finer grain structure from PM process.

Kinda makes me wonder what could cause these results. The S30V at Rc 60 should be harder and tougher as well with a higher volume of harder carbides...

This is a tough pill to swallow.
 
Ankerson said:
It has more than enough Chrome Carbides to have enough wear resistanse to do very well, that's N680 and N690, they are very similar in carbide content, both are high alloy steels.

N690

Carbon - 1.08
Silicon - .40
Manganese - .40
Chromium - 17.30
Molybdenum - 1.10
Vandium - 1.10
Cobalt - 1.5

N680

Carbon - .54
Silicon - .45
Manganese - .40
Chromium - 17.30
Molybdenum - 1.10
Vandium - .10
Click to expand...

Not true. N680 does not have enough carbon to form significant amounts of carbide.

Nitrogen in the steel does not form nitrides. It hardens the steel similar to what Carbon does. But it does not form nitrides.
 
I'm going to withdraw this comment.
Frank
 
not to get off tangent but i wonder if some of our metallurgists could explain the mechanics of niobium & nitrogen in ferrous alloys? [Mete perhaps]--thanks dennis.
 
DennisStrickland said:
not to get off tangent but i wonder if some of our metallurgists could explain the mechanics of niobium & nitrogen in ferrous alloys? [Mete perhaps]--thanks dennis.
Click to expand...

Sometimes we get results that backup what we say about there really aren't any set in stone answers when talking about steels.

Some steels test better than some would think while others might not test as well as some might think they should.

That's what makes it all so interesting and confirms that it's a constant learning process.
 
This is a long and useful thread, but I may have missed a few things. I don't know if I have read every page.
Did you rank the steels within categories, and how "broad" are the categories themselves? How did you decide where to make the cuts and define the categories?
I reread the first page, but I am interested in how you set this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top