SK-5 Bushman failed in latest "Joe-X" Destruction Test

[IaccidentlyCutmyThumb]

Keep in mind, you can only call it another grade (1095) if all the other element percentages match up. And if they do, then you're saying Cold Steel advertised one thing and delivered another? Be careful. This was just for fun. But I get what you mean.

I never would have guessed. Interesting...

but for 1095 the only other element than iron is carbon...so what he's saying is pretty close to correct. Sure there's a little phosphorous in there and some other crap, but whatever. It's clear that it's not what it's being marketed as at this point. Kinda makes a guy suspicious doesn't it?

I'm sure their other steels like 52100 and whatever are what they're supposed to be, because my 52100 has been pretty freaking tough. But the SK-5 has had bad review after bad review. I have a recon tanto in SK 5 I haven't really used, but now I want to, and to use it hard.

 

[Bloodloss]

but for 1095 the only other element than iron is carbon...so what he's saying is pretty close to correct. Sure there's a little phosphorous in there and some other crap, but whatever. It's clear that it's not what it's being marketed as at this point. Kinda makes a guy suspicious doesn't it?

I'm sure their other steels like 52100 and whatever are what they're supposed to be, because my 52100 has been pretty freaking tough. But the SK-5 has had bad review after bad review. I have a recon tanto in SK 5 I haven't really used, but now I want to, and to use it hard.

Yeah, it was an interesting experiment and everyone can draw their own conclusion. However, to suggest that Cold Steel has done anything wrong at this point is reckless and a sure way to get this thread locked.
Even if my results were duplicated by another lab, we don't know Cold Steel's testing procedure or acceptance criteria for SK-5 or even who their supplier is. We don't even know all the lagalities that surround the term SK-5 to even begin to debate that.
All we can really tell from this testing is that there is probably a little more carbon in this steel than we would like to see and that the hardness is not the cause of any possible or suspected brittleness.

 

[IaccidentlyCutmyThumb]

Yeah, it was an interesting experiment and everyone can draw their own conclusion. However, to suggest that Cold Steel has done anything wrong at this point is reckless and a sure way to get this thread locked.
Even if my results were duplicated by another lab, we don't know Cold Steel's testing procedure or acceptance criteria for SK-5 or even who their supplier is. We don't even know all the lagalities that surround the term SK-5 to even begin to debate that.
All we can really tell from this testing is that there is probably a little more carbon in this steel than we would like to see and that the hardness is not the cause of any possible or suspected brittleness.

Oh I'm not saying that your issue is anything but a one-off, but I would like to see if it was just a one off or a repeated failure. Even if it was repeated, it would be interesting to see why.

 

[Bloodloss]

Oh I'm not saying that your issue is anything but a one-off, but I would like to see if it was just a one off or a repeated failure. Even if it was repeated, it would be interesting to see why.

Ok, understood.
Just to add clarification to what I've already posted, I don't consider the chemistry burn a fail because I don't know officially what SK-5 is, I only know what the internet says, and I don't know what Cold Steel is accepting as SK-5.
But, I agree that it would be interesting to see a larger number of samples.

 

[IaccidentlyCutmyThumb]

Ok, understood.
Just to add clarification to what I've already posted, I don't consider the chemistry burn a fail because I don't know officially what SK-5 is, I only know what the internet says, and I don't know what Cold Steel is accepting as SK-5.
But, I agree that it would be interesting to see a larger number of samples.

That's why I asked for a larger number of samples in a post. I want to see what's up with it. And I agree that SK-5 is a bit of a mystery, but I've seen places like KnifeCentre, Cedric and Ada, and I think some knife manufacturing companies talk about how it's analogous to 1084, so if you consider them more reputable sources I guess that's out there.

I am very suspicious about things that come from mainland China, which perhaps this "SK-5" is--again, I don't know but that's part of why I want an investigation. I have connections in that part of the world and all of them say that if you don't do mass testing of each batch of steel they will 100% scam you. There was a gun importer, Canada Ammo, that used to bring in tons of short barrelled Chinese Remington 870 knock offs. They were excellent, as they had forged internals, heavy barrels, and were known to be better than the Remingtons. Canada Ammo also had to have someone who travelled to China like 1/2 the year to ensure the products were being made to spec, and keep them to their word. We've also seen the issues with Chinese rubber in Ukraine as the tires have rotted off Russian vehicles, and they were not made to spec (and then also not maintained by the Russians).

All I'm saying, here and in the other thread I started, is that my eyebrows have been raised and that I want a community-led initiative to perform quality control measures, especially as there is no official representation of Cold Steel on this forum to answer our questions. If they go radio silent, and have issues, it's up to us, the fans, to do investigations they won't.

 

[IaccidentlyCutmyThumb]

Ok, understood.
Just to add clarification to what I've already posted, I don't consider the chemistry burn a fail because I don't know officially what SK-5 is, I only know what the internet says, and I don't know what Cold Steel is accepting as SK-5.
But, I agree that it would be interesting to see a larger number of samples.

Would you be willing to test more knives if they were shipped to you?

 

[Bloodloss]

Would you be willing to test more knives if they were shipped to you?

No. Here's why;
I'm pretty confident in the accuracy of my results, with the caveat of the carbon standard thing. Even if I took more steps to adjust my carbon reading, I don't think the results would change much. I think this test goes quite a ways to satisfy some curiosity of folks. Just because the carbon is reading higher than a random internet source says SK-5 is supposed to be, doesn't really mean much. I have drawn the conclusion that the SK-5 in my knife just isn't of the highest quality, and l don't see a problem with that at the price point. I'm sure some who read this don't even care what the steel really is and some will probably freak out that some random dude got a less than ideal chemistry burn result on one blade.
I can appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm not trying to quench your fire, so to speak, but just what would we be trying to prove by privately continuing in testing? At some point the same tests would have to be done by an uninvolved third party to verify my findings, which would cost hundreds of dollars at minimum. And we still don't know all the inside info about Cold Steel like what they define SK-5 as, which would be the first thing I would want to know before doing more work.

 

[IaccidentlyCutmyThumb]

No. Here's why;
I'm pretty confident in the accuracy of my results, with the caveat of the carbon standard thing. Even if I took more steps to adjust my carbon reading, I don't think the results would change much. I think this test goes quite a ways to satisfy some curiosity of folks. Just because the carbon is reading higher than a random internet source says SK-5 is supposed to be, doesn't really mean much. I have drawn the conclusion that the SK-5 in my knife just isn't of the highest quality, and l don't see a problem with that at the price point. I'm sure some who read this don't even care what the steel really is and some will probably freak out that some random dude got a less than ideal chemistry burn result on one blade.
I can appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm not trying to quench your fire, so to speak, but just what would we be trying to prove by privately continuing in testing? At some point the same tests would have to be done by an uninvolved third party to verify my findings, which would cost hundreds of dollars at minimum. And we still don't know all the inside info about Cold Steel like what they define SK-5 as, which would be the first thing I would want to know before doing more work.

A valid response, I might ask CS and see about getting some testing done near me by a local trade school that has programs for metallurgy and such. I agree nothing is completely, totally solid until there are independent third parties testing. Still, might be interesting to see what results we can get. That all being said, I do believe there are given definitional constraints to what SK-5 is, beyond what is said on the forums, and that what you received is beyond the scope of that definition, regardless of how CS may try to change the definition of SK-5.

 

[Blue Sky]

SK5 means something, it’s not a made-up term by CS. The specs aren’t hard to find. If testing a sample gives a result that doesn’t match, and we trust the results, then the material isn’t what it’s supposed to be. That should concern everyone.

 

[jdk1]

SK5 means something, it’s not a made-up term by CS. The specs aren’t hard to find. If testing a sample gives a result that doesn’t match, and we trust the results, then the material isn’t what it’s supposed to be. That should concern everyone.

Zknives SK-5