So much D2 blade steel -for real ?

OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
If a Chinese knife is advertised with K110 steel, if it comes from a Bohler factory (rather than just being regular D2), it almost certainly came out of Bohler's Chinese production rather than being imported from Europe. Even if you assume you're getting Bohler K110 and not random Chinese D2, the heat treat is still from the knife manufacturer, so the issues related to heat treat don't change. And since the reputable brands are using D2 when they say they are, I don't know see using K110 as gaining much of anything.
Click to expand...
Where are you seeing that Bohler has manufacturing in China?
 
OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
If a Chinese knife is advertised with K110 steel, if it comes from a Bohler factory (rather than just being regular D2), it almost certainly came out of Bohler's Chinese production rather than being imported from Europe. Even if you assume you're getting Bohler K110 and not random Chinese D2, the heat treat is still from the knife manufacturer, so the issues related to heat treat don't change. And since the reputable brands are using D2 when they say they are, I don't know see using K110 as gaining much of anything.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, it was obvious that I was only considering the more trustworthy Chinese companies. So just as I'd trust their 14C28N, 154CM, or S35VN to be just that; I'd expect their K110 to be just that. While K110 might be hard to differentiate via XRF, one of the variables that has come up in discussions of why Chinese D2 often falls short is quality control for the steel itself. For instance, the vanadium content seems to vary in test results for Chinese D2.

So if the K110 is cleaner or better controlled as a base material, then that could be a good thing. Of course, you are right that the heat treatments are being done by the same people. So far, I've only seen a couple of Chinese companies using K110, including Bestech and Petrified Fish. Both of those companies already make a lot of knives in D2. At least in the case of PF, they seem to get one of the better heat treatments on Chinese D2. So I'm at least curious to see how it does.

I'll get a sample from Petrified Fish out for cut testing when I can.
 
Chronovore said:
Hopefully, it was obvious that I was only considering the more trustworthy Chinese companies. So just as I'd trust their 14C28N, 154CM, or S35VN to be just that; I'd expect their K110 to be just that. While K110 might be hard to differentiate via XRF, one of the variables that has come up in discussions of why Chinese D2 often falls short is quality control for the steel itself. For instance, the vanadium content seems to vary in test results for Chinese D2.

So if the K110 is cleaner or better controlled as a base material, then that could be a good thing. Of course, you are right that the heat treatments are being done by the same people. So far, I've only seen a couple of Chinese companies using K110, including Bestech and Petrified Fish. Both of those companies already make a lot of knives in D2. At least in the case of PF, they seem to get one of the better heat treatments on Chinese D2. So I'm at least curious to see how it does.

I'll get a sample from Petrified Fish out for cut testing when I can.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue may be that the spec (at least from the patent) for D2 is kind of loose for vanadium content; the patent spec is between 0.75 and 1.25%. It's very possible that even with the same steel producer that some batches of D2 end up with differing amounts of carbide-forming elements and still meet the specs (and that's not even getting into out-of-spec materials).
 
OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
Part of the issue may be that the spec (at least from the patent) for D2 is kind of loose for vanadium content; the patent spec is between 0.75 and 1.25%. It's very possible that even with the same steel producer that some batches of D2 end up with differing amounts of carbide-forming elements and still meet the specs (and that's not even getting into out-of-spec materials).
Click to expand...

The elemental data is given in the spreadsheet. I don't know the accuracy of their device but assuming the values are correct, take a quick scroll through the results. Excluding samples that were ruled out as fake, the vanadium content for Chinese D2 tends to be on the lower end of that range with several samples falling below 0.75%.
 
The first data in the table lists a D2 kmife with 10.6% Cr which is too low for the D2 spec, but because it is low and not high it is called D2. There are several other D2 readings which are also under the 11% minimum. An example of the gun reading too high is row 30 with 3V at 9.8% Cr which is almost certainly outside the tolerance allowed by Crucible. XRF guns don’t have super high precision so it is hard to say for sure that having 13% Cr positively identifies it as 8Cr13MoV rather than D2. Plus the XRF test doesn’t show carbon. Even if the gun is accurate and the steel does have 13%+ Cr it could be several other steels. Calling it 8Cr13MoV seems brazen. The low end V/Mo readings are supporting evidence, sure, but I still wouldn’t go claiming I know for sure it is 8Cr13MoV.
 
Larrin said:
The first data in the table lists a D2 kmife with 10.6% Cr which is too low for the D2 spec, but because it is low and not high it is called D2. There are several other D2 readings which are also under the 11% minimum. An example of the gun reading too high is row 30 with 3V at 9.8% Cr which is almost certainly outside the tolerance allowed by Crucible. XRF guns don’t have super high precision so it is hard to say for sure that having 13% Cr positively identifies it as 8Cr13MoV rather than D2. Plus the XRF test doesn’t show carbon. Even if the gun is accurate and the steel does have 13%+ Cr it could be several other steels. Calling it 8Cr13MoV seems brazen. The low end V/Mo readings are supporting evidence, sure, but I still wouldn’t go claiming I know for sure it is 8Cr13MoV.
Click to expand...

I usually watch the results as they are released in his batch test videos. There have been at least two occasions where a steel stamp was obviously false, LTK assumed that it was 8Cr13Mov or 8Cr14Mov, but by the numbers I'd have guessed 5Cr15Mov.

I've often commented that he is too kind in judgement or too generous with assumptions. Of course, I'm still very glad that he is doing this. However imperfect, this is a major effort that helps to identify bad actors in the marketplace. It can also help new or smaller companies that don't lie about their steel content.
 
Chronovore said:
I usually watch the results as they are released in his batch test videos. There have been at least two occasions where a steel stamp was obviously false, LTK assumed that it was 8Cr13Mov or 8Cr14Mov, but by the numbers I'd have guessed 5Cr15Mov.

I've often commented that he is too kind in judgement or too generous with assumptions. Of course, I'm still very glad that he is doing this. However imperfect, this is a major effort that helps to identify bad actors in the marketplace. It can also help new or smaller companies that don't lie about their steel content.
Click to expand...
The fact that the test cannot measure carbon content means that the testing is speculative at best. If a company wanted to avoid accusations of using inferior steels and knew that this was the most common cost effective test, then it would be reasonably easy to "beat" the test. Better than nothing, sure.
 
chalby said:
The fact that the test cannot measure carbon content means that the testing is speculative at best. If a company wanted to avoid accusations of using inferior steels and knew that this was the most common cost effective test, then it would be reasonably easy to "beat" the test. Better than nothing, sure.
Click to expand...

This seems pretty bleak. To a hardcore skeptic, pretty much any science could be ruled "speculative at best". Is there a better method of testing available? This is far from terrible and "nothing" seems to be the alternative. Is any other person or organization out there checking steel claims for EDC knives?

As far as trying to trick the testing, that seems a little far-fetched. Imagine what would actually be involved in finding alloys to closely match the Cr, Mo, V, etc. of a popular blade steel, just in case of the one guy doing XRF testing, and machining that alloy into a passable product. The companies putting false steel stamps on knives seem unlikely to pursue such an effort. Generally, they are going to do what they can to get their product to market and make a sale as cost-effectively as possible.

A common tactic in the world of fake steel stamps is the rebranding of an existing product. For instance, Company X makes a cheap but functional knife in 3Cr13, 5Cr15, or 8Cr13 on the high end. Company Y buys them in bulk, stamps them with whatever logo and a steel stamp that they think will sell it in the West, and charges a substantial mark-up on AliExpress, Amazon, eBay, etc. Despite a few recent developments, Eafengrow is probably the most well-known example of a Company Y in the current market.
 
Larrin said:
Where are you seeing that Bohler has manufacturing in China?
Click to expand...

Bohler's website: https://www.bohler.com.cn/en/profile/
To better serve our China customers, BÖHLER established a new factory with modern production equipment, complete functions and advanced process in Shanghai in 2015. As a “one-stop shop”, we have substantially expanded our production capacity, increased raw material inventory and supply, improved vacuum heat treatment facilities and machining efficiency to meet customers’ needs. Today, our footprints are all over the country. With Shanghai as the fulcrum, we set up branches and established factories in Foshan, Chengdu and Shenyang, and set up offices in Dalian, Tianjin and Suzhou to better serve local customers. We provide comprehensive customer pre and after-sales technical support to help customers build a comprehensive range of materials and surface treatment personalized solutions. We also have 3D printing capabilities for metal parts and provide printing powder to further improve the overall manufacturing capabilities of high-alloy steel parts.

History - BÖHLER China

www.bohler.com.cn www.bohler.com.cn
Chinese subsidiary formed in 2012; Shanghai factory opened in 2016, Chengdu in 2017, Shenyang in 2018, and Foshan in 2019.

This is the annual report for Bohler's parent company: https://www.voestalpine.com/group/s...ublications-2020-21/2020-21-annual-report.pdf
According to the subsidiaries list, the Chinese subsidiary listed on their timeline, Bohler Special Steels (Shanghai), falls under their High Performance Metals Division, which makes tool steels like K110.
 
OrangeBlueOrangeBlue said:
Bohler's website: https://www.bohler.com.cn/en/profile/
To better serve our China customers, BÖHLER established a new factory with modern production equipment, complete functions and advanced process in Shanghai in 2015. As a “one-stop shop”, we have substantially expanded our production capacity, increased raw material inventory and supply, improved vacuum heat treatment facilities and machining efficiency to meet customers’ needs. Today, our footprints are all over the country. With Shanghai as the fulcrum, we set up branches and established factories in Foshan, Chengdu and Shenyang, and set up offices in Dalian, Tianjin and Suzhou to better serve local customers. We provide comprehensive customer pre and after-sales technical support to help customers build a comprehensive range of materials and surface treatment personalized solutions. We also have 3D printing capabilities for metal parts and provide printing powder to further improve the overall manufacturing capabilities of high-alloy steel parts.

History - BÖHLER China

www.bohler.com.cn www.bohler.com.cn
Chinese subsidiary formed in 2012; Shanghai factory opened in 2016, Chengdu in 2017, Shenyang in 2018, and Foshan in 2019.

This is the annual report for Bohler's parent company: https://www.voestalpine.com/group/s...ublications-2020-21/2020-21-annual-report.pdf
According to the subsidiaries list, the Chinese subsidiary listed on their timeline, Bohler Special Steels (Shanghai), falls under their High Performance Metals Division, which makes tool steels like K110.
Click to expand...
None of that says melting, hot rolling, etc. Just material storage and heat treating, etc. Normal service center stuff.
 
I try to avoid buying things made in China when possible. Especially when there are so many quality U.S. made knives that sell for very reasonable prices. I would assume some of the higher end Chinese companies like Reate, We and Civvi will have the steels that they claim, but I don't have the same confidence in the smaller manufacturers.
 
Chronovore said:
This seems pretty bleak. To a hardcore skeptic, pretty much any science could be ruled "speculative at best". Is there a better method of testing available? This is far from terrible and "nothing" seems to be the alternative. Is any other person or organization out there checking steel claims for EDC knives?

As far as trying to trick the testing, that seems a little far-fetched. Imagine what would actually be involved in finding alloys to closely match the Cr, Mo, V, etc. of a popular blade steel, just in case of the one guy doing XRF testing, and machining that alloy into a passable product. The companies putting false steel stamps on knives seem unlikely to pursue such an effort. Generally, they are going to do what they can to get their product to market and make a sale as cost-effectively as possible.

A common tactic in the world of fake steel stamps is the rebranding of an existing product. For instance, Company X makes a cheap but functional knife in 3Cr13, 5Cr15, or 8Cr13 on the high end. Company Y buys them in bulk, stamps them with whatever logo and a steel stamp that they think will sell it in the West, and charges a substantial mark-up on AliExpress, Amazon, eBay, etc. Despite a few recent developments, Eafengrow is probably the most well-known example of a Company Y in the current market.
Click to expand...
Bleak? That's a bit dramatic. I'm not a hardcore skeptic; the tests have value. I just think particularly in verifying that steels are what they say they are, these tests are speculative. Probably for ruling out particular steels these tests are fine. If you were going for a more scientific fact based approach you could combine this with tests like maybe wear resistance and toughness and so on to build on isolated results that are not definitive. You would still be speculating to a point, but you would start to have a more complete picture.

As I said though, better than nothing. Just my opinion anyway.
 
chalby said:
Bleak? That's a bit dramatic. I'm not a hardcore skeptic; the tests have value. I just think particularly in verifying that steels are what they say they are, these tests are speculative. Probably for ruling out particular steels these tests are fine. If you were going for a more scientific fact based approach you could combine this with tests like maybe wear resistance and toughness and so on to build on isolated results that are not definitive. You would still be speculating to a point, but you would start to have a more complete picture.

As I said though, better than nothing. Just my opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

The hardness tests are an additional data point when available. There are also cut testers out there posting data. However, their focus seems to be less in checking the veracity of smaller or lesser known brands and more in testing heat treatments when steel identity is not in question. Samples of some knives have been tested in both ways.

Here is a spreadsheet with cut testing data from Outpost 76, Supersteel Steve, and Tom Hosang. I think Pete from Cedric & Ada keeps a public spreadsheet too. An important thing to keep in mind is the test conditions for each particular tester. Outpost 76 has been my favorite for consistency.

Google Sheets: Sign-in

Access Google Sheets with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).
docs.google.com
 
My opinion is these tests are still of real value in seperating the bulls from the heffers. In other untreated obsessions - my experience has been the just plain fakes products may "look" like the real thing (whatever that is?). They will spectacularly fail any type of repeatable scientific standard test. For a guy with way too many knives and 60+ years of cutting stuff with 'em -heat treat still remains something I really don't understand -but really appreciate ? I cheerfully pay for that Bos mark on a Buck's blade. You can make a reasonably safe assumption that D2 that's somewhere near 60 RH -probably is D2 -just because the other blade steels that can get you to that tested reading are likely more expensive -what would be the reason to use - say S30V and claim it's D2 ?
 
I can not begin to tell you how really dissapointed and outright PO'd I am that the reality of blade steels is if ya want 'em to be hard and wear well -the darn things are a bear to sharpen. OK -that's bad enough - but the whole heat treat thang is definitely some sort of blackart and how they can make blade steel to be hard and not chip like crazy ? Don't understand that at all ??? But like women -can appreciate what I don't actually understand. (and SWMBO'd will make this clear to me if I should forget.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top