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

^ drat, you're right. That's a shame really. Is there really that much difference between the K390 Mule cutting edge of 3.31" vs. the Native 5 s110v cutting edge of 2.43"? Well, yeah, I guess that *is* a pretty big difference.

Not that it matters in a practical sense... what's really going to be the difference between 820 cuts of a 5/8 inch manila rope vs... 750 or 900 or whatever in s110v. But it is fun to know which really is the current king of steels in a commercially available knife, in wear resistance. It will matter much more whether somebody will need the corrosion resistance of s110v, where there will be no comparison at all to k390, or the better toughness of k390 (though I haven't really seen any comparison b/w the two in toughness other than k390 is supposed to equal M4).
 
Last edited:
He did test the N5 in S110V, but I don't think it was one of the official tests on this page.
 
While I respect your effort for doing the review, some of your testing wasn't make sense..

First, you always talk about how hardness and carbide alloy affect on edge retention. I really don't see how 5160 at 55rc would be in the same category as S30V at 58.5rc... you always said 1-2 point of hardness are noticeable affect the performance of same steel.

Second, CTS-B75P is very similar to BG42 which has an edge over 154CM due to the vanadium content. And CTS-B75P were made form Carpenter 2nd power steel technology which should even more refine than CPM steel. But you listed CTS-B75P to the same category as INFI?? I don't see how something like that possible especially when CTS-B75P HT'ed to >60rc.

The last is why VG-1 which has much lower carbide would be in the same category to S30V at 60rc? I pretty sure Hitachi listed VG-1 lower than VG-10.

I don't have any offence and I would be glad for any enlightening, thanks.
 
Last edited:
CMP-40V said:
While I respect your effort for doing the review, some of your testing wasn't make sense..

First, you always talk about how hardness and carbide alloy affect on edge retention. I really don't see how 5160 at 55rc were in the same category as S30V at 58.5rc... you always said 1-2 point of hardness are noticeable affect the performance of same steel.

Second, CTS-B75P is very similar to BG42 which has an edge over 154CM due to the vanadium content. And CTS-B75P were made form Carpenter 2nd power steel technology which should even more refine than CPM steel. But you listed CTS-B75P to the same category as INFI?? I don't see how something like that possible especially when CTS-B75P HT'ed to >60rc.

The last is why VG-1 which has much lower high hardness carbide were in the same category to S30V at 60rc? I pretty sure Hitachi listed VG-1 lower than VG-10.

I donงt have any offence and I would be glad for any enlightening, thanks.
Click to expand...

The categories are for general reference due to the polished edges along with some of the variables in the knives used.

The coarse edge testing is somewhat more accurate showing the smaller differences in the steels.
 
CMP-40V said:
While I respect your effort for doing the review, some of your testing wasn't make sense..

First, you always talk about how hardness and carbide alloy affect on edge retention. I really don't see how 5160 at 55rc would be in the same category as S30V at 58.5rc... you always said 1-2 point of hardness are noticeable affect the performance of same steel.

Second, CTS-B75P is very similar to BG42 which has an edge over 154CM due to the vanadium content. And CTS-B75P were made form Carpenter 2nd power steel technology which should even more refine than CPM steel. But you listed CTS-B75P to the same category as INFI?? I don't see how something like that possible especially when CTS-B75P HT'ed to >60rc.

The last is why VG-1 which has much lower carbide would be in the same category to S30V at 60rc? I pretty sure Hitachi listed VG-1 lower than VG-10.

I don't have any offence and I would be glad for any enlightening, thanks.
Click to expand...



Jim's just providing the results of this personal testing.

He is not trying to promote certain steels over others.

He will be the first to admit that different protocols will result in different results, his course edge testing is evidence of this.


You may not like or understand his results, but don't shoot the messenger, he's one of the best sources of honest information we have here.

At least I put a lot of stock in what I've learned from his testing.




Big Mike
 
CMP-40V said:
While I respect your effort for doing the review, some of your testing wasn't make sense..

First, you always talk about how hardness and carbide alloy affect on edge retention. I really don't see how 5160 at 55rc would be in the same category as S30V at 58.5rc... you always said 1-2 point of hardness are noticeable affect the performance of same steel.

Second, CTS-B75P is very similar to BG42 which has an edge over 154CM due to the vanadium content. And CTS-B75P were made form Carpenter 2nd power steel technology which should even more refine than CPM steel. But you listed CTS-B75P to the same category as INFI?? I don't see how something like that possible especially when CTS-B75P HT'ed to >60rc.

The last is why VG-1 which has much lower carbide would be in the same category to S30V at 60rc? I pretty sure Hitachi listed VG-1 lower than VG-10.

I don't have any offence and I would be glad for any enlightening, thanks.
Click to expand...


Ankerson has a lot of credibility here. Do you do testing as well?
 
Science includes having your methodology and /or results questioned.
Religion is a matter of faith.
Jim is doing just fine. No need to shoot the messenger - who has questions..
 
Thomas Linton said:
Science includes having your methodology and /or results questioned.
Religion is a matter of faith.
Jim is doing just fine. No need to shoot the messenger - who has questions..
Click to expand...

Good response Thomas.

This is far from scientific, and until he gets a Catra and identical blades to test, this is as close as we will get. But discussion is always welcome. Maybe some more testing could be done inside each category by those of us who question the results. INFI vs. B75P in a very similar knife would be a good start, but it may prove very difficult to find similar blades with similar edge thicknesses and similar hardness.
 
Well I know that everyone has to be validated and feel good about what THEY know or think about everything and I am just a new guy here so maybe this type of questioning is common on this forum however it seems to me that after almost 3 years of following a rigidly defined testing protocol like this on many many knives people should spend time trying to understand the results instead of questioning them or asking for a rational for them. Most of what we know regarding almost everything is hear say and advertising hype mixed with exaggeration and ignorance. Now here is a real world comparison of a set number of variables giving reproducible results and some aren't 'happy' with them? Don't fit with what they 'know' about steel/ knives, whatever? The variables could be different, I don't polish blades either, you could push cut instead of slice, you could do a lot of different thing but the data is still invaluable as it is. I guess I'm just ranting as I think this represents an incredibly great GREAT project of the likes of none other from anyone I've seen on this board (well maybe Knarfeng and Phil etc not playing favorites or anything) but certainly worthy of not being lightly questioned. Question yourself and where your knowledge came from - we know where this came from. No offense meant just want Jim to know how great this experiment seems to me and want him to continue. 3 years is along time ......keep the passion man.
 
TriviaMonster said:
Good response Thomas.

This is far from scientific...
Click to expand...

His testing is very "scientific" You may not like the number of variables but that does not exclude it from being scientific. He sets forth and explains his methods, criteria, and subjects on page one. He goes above and beyond with his extensive knowledge to explain and identify variables, and give insight on how those variables might skew the results. There wouldn't be people questioning it and scratching their heads if it wasn't necessary. If we knew all the answers before hand what would be the point?
 
Thomas Linton said:
Science includes having your methodology and /or results questioned.
Religion is a matter of faith.
Jim is doing just fine. No need to shoot the messenger - who has questions..
Click to expand...

I agree, that's why I asked if the "messenger" does testing. A healthy disagreement is fine as long as one provides alternative data.
 
singularity35 said:
I agree, that's why I asked if the "messenger" does testing. A healthy disagreement is fine as long as one provides alternative data.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, you don't need alternative data to disagree with methods used to obtain the first set of data. However, that being said, I have no qualms about Ankerson's methods. Edge retention is highly variable based on a myriad of inputs, and it's possible to have the exact same list Ankerson does, just using different edge angles, sharpening grits, cutting force limits, material being cut, etc. And it's possible that this would give us different results.

What Ankerson has done here is give us an excellent idea of where steels fall given a specific set of circumstances. It's a general guide, not to be taken as 100% correct under 100% of possible scenarios. I think people are forgetting that.
 
Minnesotapride88 said:
To play devil's advocate, you don't need alternative data to disagree with methods used to obtain the first set of data. However, that being said, I have no qualms about Ankerson's methods. Edge retention is highly variable based on a myriad of inputs, and it's possible to have the exact same list Ankerson does, just using different edge angles, sharpening grits, cutting force limits, material being cut, etc. And it's possible that this would give us different results.

What Ankerson has done here is give us an excellent idea of where steels fall given a specific set of circumstances. It's a general guide, not to be taken as 100% correct under 100% of possible scenarios. I think people are forgetting that.
Click to expand...

I know that, in fact some of my uses have given me different results but it would be nice for someone giving a different opinion to at least qualify with a "in my use" or "in my tests which have the following protocol" or even just "from what I read in the interwebz"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top