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

Hi guys. First of, thanks Ankerson for doing these tests.

Forgive my ignorance on this but I am a bit confused. I have read all the opinions and posts of many when it comes to steels but could never find an answer to the following.

Take two same category steels like the AUS8 and S30V at 58. Now when the cuts are made till one can see edge deformation (loss of edge retention) on these steels are similar. But would the composition of S30V enable it to hold a "working" edge for longer then AUS8 due to its composition?

The reason I ask is in my use (not controlled like a test etc). AUS8 is fine, up until it starts loosing the fine edge. After that it seems to dull much faster then my other edges be it S30V or 154CM (and I try to touch up an edge as soon as possible so it does not get too dull). Therefore it requires more sharpening, more removal of steel and therefore shorter life span (theory wise anyway). Longevity for me is something I like in a knife. If S30V can provide that due to higher wear resistance over AUS8/VG10 I would take it.

Thanks for any answer.
 
knarfeng said:
I understand about giving the same level of initial sharpness, but your ranking does not match my usage experience, nor do I think it match the usage experience of the average poster here.

I understand that a polished blade may well cut better and longer than a non-polished blade. However, if it requires a polished edge to achieve your result, and most users don't use a polished edge, will your ranking reflect the experience of the general population? The average user, even on BF, does not use a 6000-grit finish. Will the average user in the field actually get the same edge retention with AUS8 as with VG10 or S30V? I tend to doubt that they will. I don't.
Click to expand...

I don't think the order will change all that much, but they all will have a shorter sharpness curve and even some might completely change because they are prone to chipping. But I do believe they all will still be in their respective groups in the end in relation to the other steels. All I did was start them all off even giving them all the same chance equally.

I believe in this kind of testing we need to remove all of the variables possible or at least cut them down to the point that they don't have much effect. Sharpness is HUGE and I do mean HUGE and can be a big enough variable that it could change the outcome by a large amount. I can tell by my testing that some steels could have changed groups if the sharpening wasn't exact, some of the categories are that close together.

That is part of the reason why I am grouping them the way I am, I am not ranking them 1st through last in order. We really need a CARTA for that, and even then that's not perfect, but it's good, better than doing it by hand.



gunmike1 said:
I'll try send the Millie in CPM D2 and the Rift in 154CM next week. Any interest in an S90V Manix 2 @ 59 RC? The S90V Manix 2 is a great knife for throwing a rough 320 grit edge on it that tree tops arm hairs and easily push cuts newsprint then slicing cardboard forever. It is reluctant to take a polish but will get a TP slicing edge with some work. Im sending off my other S90V Manix 2 and my M4 Gayle Bradley and my M4 Millies off for testing the hardness. Any interest in one of those M4 knives if they end up testing out at 64 RC? That might represent a change in it's performance. I also have a ZDP 189 Mule that is supposedly 67 RC or so. That may represent ZDP better than the knife you used, but my Mule is among the brittle ones that was so hard Spyderco tempered them down to a lower hardness so they would be less prone to breakage. That knife may make me and Sodak happier since we are fans of ZDP.

I really applaud you efforts and my collection is available to you if you have the time or inclination to test different steels at different hardness levels. Another thing just popped in my head about the great edges you put on the knives: Have you ran into any steels that just don't take a polished edge easily? As I described S90V just isn't too easy to polish up in my experience, where M4 and others get blinged out quickly and easily. I think one of the reasons I love M4 is it's ease of sharpening paired with it's excellent edge retention. S90V holds a working edge forever but you have to fight it to get the polished show off edge that I like, which is why I generally just put that DMT Coarse edge on it and let it cut away.

Mike
Click to expand...

Just send them when you are ready, no real hurry, I will add them as they come in.

I haven't seen any steels yet that wouldn't take a polished edge, even S110V took it pretty easy. The only problem there is it was a part Serrated edge, no good for rope testing.

S90V, well I can't wait to test that one I can tell you, same with XHP.

I just tested the Gayle Bradley in M4 and that did well.
 
marthinus said:
Hi guys. First of, thanks Ankerson for doing these tests.

Forgive my ignorance on this but I am a bit confused. I have read all the opinions and posts of many when it comes to steels but could never find an answer to the following.

Take two same category steels like the AUS8 and S30V at 58. Now when the cuts are made till one can see edge deformation (loss of edge retention) on these steels are similar. But would the composition of S30V enable it to hold a "working" edge for longer then AUS8 due to its composition?

The reason I ask is in my use (not controlled like a test etc). AUS8 is fine, up until it starts loosing the fine edge. After that it seems to dull much faster then my other edges be it S30V or 154CM (and I try to touch up an edge as soon as possible so it does not get too dull). Therefore it requires more sharpening, more removal of steel and therefore shorter life span (theory wise anyway). Longevity for me is something I like in a knife. If S30V can provide that due to higher wear resistance over AUS8/VG10 I would take it.

Thanks for any answer.
Click to expand...

I am not testing to dull.

I test to 20 LBS of down force on rope, once they hit that the test is over and believe me that is enough, 20 LBS of down force is really a lot of pressure doing it by hand. If you don't believe me take a folder and put the blade on a scale and push down until, it hits 18-20 LBS, then do it over and over again repeatably a hundred times. Then think about the fact that I am doing controlled slices at those weights and you will start to understand the work involved.

The CARTA would be the ultimate for testing to dull and the final ranking of the steels 1,2,3,4 ect.

Some steels like S30V, S90V and a few others will continue to cut for a very long time due to the composition of the steels.
 
When Vassili was doing 800 cuts in his testing, the differences in the rate of dulling between some steels was pretty stark. Still, that is a lot of cutting. And CATRA testing on some steels goes over 700 or even a 1000, and that is slicing into silica impregnated cardstock. There is absolutely a difference in wear rate of the edges, it's one of the main reasons for different steel formulations-wear resistance. But doing enough cutting to really make a difference between "premium" steels could be tiresome.
 
Ankerson said:
I am not testing to dull.

I test to 20 LBS of down force on rope, once they hit that the test is over and believe me that is enough, 20 LBS of down force is really a lot of pressure doing it by hand. If you don't believe me take a folder and put the blade on a scale and push down until, it hits 18-20 LBS, then do it over and over again repeatably a hundred times. Then think about the fact that I am doing controlled slices at those weights and you will start to understand the work involved.

The CARTA would be the ultimate for testing to dull and the final ranking of the steels 1,2,3,4 ect.

Some steels like S30V, S90V and a few others will continue to cut for a very long time due to the composition of the steels.
Click to expand...

I know you are not testing to dull. I believe you cutting with 20LBS of force over and over can be tiresome, been there when doing work in remote areas and one does not have the tools one wished one had :grumpy:

Thanks again for your tests and answering my question. :thumbup:

hardheart said:
When Vassili was doing 800 cuts in his testing, the differences in the rate of dulling between some steels was pretty stark. Still, that is a lot of cutting. And CATRA testing on some steels goes over 700 or even a 1000, and that is slicing into silica impregnated cardstock. There is absolutely a difference in wear rate of the edges, it's one of the main reasons for different steel formulations-wear resistance. But doing enough cutting to really make a difference between "premium" steels could be tiresome.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering my question. :thumbup:

CATRA would be awesome to use if one could afford it.
 
hardheart said:
When Vassili was doing 800 cuts in his testing, the differences in the rate of dulling between some steels was pretty stark. Still, that is a lot of cutting. And CATRA testing on some steels goes over 700 or even a 1000, and that is slicing into silica impregnated cardstock. There is absolutely a difference in wear rate of the edges, it's one of the main reasons for different steel formulations-wear resistance. But doing enough cutting to really make a difference between "premium" steels could be tiresome.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah it could be, I could see some making over 1000 to maybe 1500 cuts and still going.

That would be a lot of work lets say.

The problem with that though would be at some point work hardening would start to take effect and the edges would start to fracture, roll, chip out etc and it would get worse the longer the test went on.

Plus the pressure needed to slice through the rope would start to reach levels of 30 - 50+ LBS at some point 75 + LBS and that wouldn't be possible or realistic to keep it accurate doing by hand since the rope would have to be sliced completely through in one slice to get the pressure reading. That's why machines are better for testing to dull.
 
Last edited:
Ankerson said:
Oh yeah it could be, I could see some making over 1000 to maybe 1500 cuts and still going.

That would be a lot of work lets say.

The problem with that though would be at some point work hardening would start to take effect and the edges would start to fracture, roll, chip out etc and it would get worse the longer the test went on.

Plus the pressure needed to slice through the rope would start to reach levels of 30 - 50+ LBS at some point 75 + LBS and that wouldn't be possible or realistic to keep it accurate doing by hand since the rope would have to be sliced completely through in one slice to get the pressure reading. That's why machines are better for testing to dull.
Click to expand...

While I am not suggesting that it isn't a lot of work, I doubt there will be an issue with work hardening steel that is already 60+rc. Edges that were at the point of chipping and rolling would also have already exceeded any set points on a well constructed test as well.

Also, the big difference would be the way the tests are set up, as many do not rely on a scale reading of cutting rope, but rather the rope cutting serves as the work for the knife, and sharpness is measured in other ways in order to keep accuracy high.
 
Any Cal. said:
While I am not suggesting that it isn't a lot of work, I doubt there will be an issue with work hardening steel that is already 60+rc. Edges that were at the point of chipping and rolling would also have already exceeded any set points on a well constructed test as well.

Also, the big difference would be the way the tests are set up, as many do not rely on a scale reading of cutting rope, but rather the rope cutting serves as the work for the knife, and sharpness is measured in other ways in order to keep accuracy high.
Click to expand...

That's not what I have found in my testing, I have seen work hardening on different steels at different hardness including over 60 RC.

I best thing you can do is start doing some testing.
 
sodak said:
I'm actually a little bummed that ZDP didn't do even better than the others, especially given the hardness. It's pretty much kicked all of my other knives out of my pocket for EDC, I've been really enjoying it in my Caly's. Oh well, I love to see these results, even if they aren't what I was expecting.

That's what makes this fun, you gotta have an open mind!
Click to expand...

knarfeng said:
I understand about giving the same level of initial sharpness, but your ranking does not match my usage experience, nor do I think it match the usage experience of the average poster here.
Click to expand...

Personal observations don't necessarily have to mean less when compared to other testing. One key is that our personal use of knives has its own set points that may not coincide with a test.

An example would be my own uses, in which a knife is either pushcutting sharp or isn't. A test that measures past that point will not necessarily give any info that is worthwhile to my needs, as the end point of the test will differ.

A second example would be the start point, which knarfeng alludes to, that of initial sharpness. If a steel works extremely well between a users start and end point, the only way that something could be shown better is if a set of data points were shown where that conclusion could be made.

One user was husking corn as a test of his knives, and his start point was his sharpening ability, and end point was when the knife no longer made short slicing cuts on corn husks. If I had made a chart regarding pushcutting sharpness, it would have done him no good at all, because his end point was drastically different.
 
Ankerson said:
That's not what I have found in my testing, I have seen work hardening on different steels at different hardness including over 60 RC.

I best thing you can do is start doing some testing.
Click to expand...

I have done some, though I haven't tested work hardening of already hardened steels. How much of an increase in hardness did you find?
 
Any Cal. said:
Personal observations don't necessarily have to mean less when compared to other testing. One key is that our personal use of knives has its own set points that may not coincide with a test.

An example would be my own uses, in which a knife is either pushcutting sharp or isn't. A test that measures past that point will not necessarily give any info that is worthwhile to my needs, as the end point of the test will differ.

A second example would be the start point, which knarfeng alludes to, that of initial sharpness. If a steel works extremely well between a users start and end point, the only way that something could be shown better is if a set of data points were shown where that conclusion could be made.

One user was husking corn as a test of his knives, and his start point was his sharpening ability, and end point was when the knife no longer made short slicing cuts on corn husks. If I had made a chart regarding pushcutting sharpness, it would have done him no good at all, because his end point was drastically different.
Click to expand...

Theories are fine, but I will say again get some media and start doing some cutting.
 
Any Cal. said:
I have done some, though I haven't tested work hardening of already hardened steels. How much of an increase in hardness did you find?
Click to expand...

Enough to the point of the edges starting to fail after some point, chips, flat spots etc.

That usually doesn't happen until a lot of cutting though, unless the HT is not right.
 
Ankerson said:
Theories are fine, but I will say again get some media and start doing some cutting.
Click to expand...

That was not a theory, it is easily shown.

And once again, I will say, I do my own testing, so am unsure why you keep repeating this.

Anyway, it is obvious that you are not offering the information required for me to be able to benefit from your efforts, so I must reluctantly bid you good day.

Thank you for the efforts that you put forth, regardless. :)
 
Thanks for the testing buddy, only thing I was surprised about is VG-1. I've never owned it, but every thing I've read/heard made VG-10 seem a good deal better. May be that was just anti-CS nonsense, since they are the main company to use it.
 
Noctis3880 said:
Wonder where Elmax and S90V would rank.
Click to expand...

A production ELMAX blade should sit around ZDP-189 range and a production S90V blade should beat ELMAX.

But we won't know until regular production blades start to show up in ELMAX.
 
OrdnanceBubbaUSMC said:
Thanks for the testing buddy, only thing I was surprised about is VG-1. I've never owned it, but every thing I've read/heard made VG-10 seem a good deal better. May be that was just anti-CS nonsense, since they are the main company to use it.
Click to expand...

VG-1 was my main steel for cutting cardboard for a very long time, it's a lot better steel than people think it is.

S30V at 60 RC and VG-1 feel and act the same when cutting IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top