Sorry guys, you're wrong, Rob Simonich is right

shortgoth

shortgoth

Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
227
Just hope I spelt his name right ;)

After going through the TOPS knives thread (and the "commentary" thread), I noticed Mr Clark posted something which caused various people to laugh at him. I haven't quoted the exact sentence, but the gist of it is that most average knife users won't be able to tell the difference in the steel thier knife uses. You know what, he's right.

Obioviously if you want to go to extremes and say "oh no he isn't, you're saying that a pot metal Pakistan POS is made of just as good a steel of S30V, shut up" (or words to that effect) then you're just being disingenuous, please go away now and don't waste any more of your time reading this drivel.

But comparisons of same-series steels, regardless of the exact makeup, heat treat, etc, bear the point out. Let's first try to guestimate the "average user". Ignore the Special Forces Operatives, the hardcore survivalists, the mall ninjas, and the "I keep my knife virginous for SD" people, I'd guess (correct me if you think differently and can do is reasonably cohesively) somewhere between 50-70% of "EDC"s get carried in people's pockets all day and are used 4-10 times maximum. Opening letters and parcels, trimming the occasional hangnail or loose thread, nothing that could in any way be construed as major use.

So say this "average" person cutting on "average" 8 soft, easily slicable objects per day, that makes 56 cuts a week, then again the "average" person will re-hone it at the end of that week.

There's no way in **** (my censoring, not the forums) that 50-60 cuts per week on soft, pliable objects is ever going to be enough to tell you the exact qualities of the steel you're using.

So here's the basis of this.

Me: working 5 nights a week, making 200-300 cuts per night on thin sheet plastics, paper, and corrugated cardboard (1/8" to 1/4" thick). Also using for letter/parcel opening opening (say 12-15 per week), and the usual loose threads, the occasional cake, nothing really worth including.

The knives: All reprofiled to 22 degrees for the primary edge bevel. By hand, with diamond plates (go see the pics on my website, you might be able to see that despite me doing it the old fashioned way by hand, the bevels are straight and even, a max variance of +/- 0.5 degrees, not enough to make a difference). Why 22 degrees? It works for me, YMMV, etc, etc. Measured with a vernier caliper and basic trigonometry.

Kershaw Whirlwind: 440A, decent heat treat.

Smith & Wesson "flickable" HRT folder: 440C, decent heat treat.

"Maple" cheap Chinese POS: could be anything from "pot steel" at the worst to 420HC at best. Who knows with these things?

Master Cutlery Diablo (Tom Anderson designed. Gorgeous folding dagger): 440A, poor heat treat.

Using the above knives at work and at home, the differences in the steels and heat treats with regards to ease of sharpening is nil, the difference between the knives with regards to edge retention only becomes apparent after 2 night's work (plus daytime usage, say an average of 500 cycles and cuts). (If anyone's interested, I could go into more detail but this is far too long as it is to make such a simple point)

So my ~500 cuts to notice any difference compared to "mr average"'s 8-20 cuts in the same time period means what? You'll never know. Even if Mr Average managed to hold himself to not sharpening, polishing, honing, whatever his knife for long enough to notice the difference, it'll take a two months or so before he notices anything significant.

If you've read this far, well done. Why did you bother? ;) Just wanted to make a simple point but took far too long getting to it really. In summation, the only way an average (urban, note, I don't live in the sticks) EDC carrier is going to notice the difference between any 400-series stainless regardless of heat treat or exact composition is if they go for a two months or more without touching the blade. can anyone here really see that happen with us knife knuts? ;)

As an addendum, also over the same time period, the Talonite EDC (same primary edge bevel) will out-cut the lot of them by around 1.75x, the ceramic on the Boker Infinity will out-cut that by a further 2x, and the titanium alloy of the Boker Orion becomes virtually useless after ~50 cuts into soft pliable stuff.

I don't own any folders with the S*V series, but I'd hazard a guess that results would be the same in that series, and that low-alloy high-carbons also come out virtually identical within thier own series. (Only own FBs with those blade materials, and they don't get used much)

EDITED TO CORRECT TYPOS
 
I believed it when I first saw it. But trying to tell 'cutlery experts' that all the steels are pretty much the same as far as the average user is concerned is, like R.W Clark did, is bound to elicit some caustic replies, like it did.
That of course does not make it any less true, but sometimes the truth is a bit hard to accept for some people.

Make no mistake, I like getting hyped over the latest & greatest as much as anyone, but I also know that for my purposes, all the steels would work equally well.
 
You spelt RW Clark way wrong! :D And I dont agree with the statement for the most part, but he has a great point. :)
 
I find heat treat is the biggest factor in whether a knife fits my needs. I've got knives made from most of the Super Steels and certainly have my favorites but, to be honest in my usuage, a plain old 1095 knife by Newt Livesay has served me well enough to recognize my prejudice for the latest and greatest steels is not based on a true need on my part.

On the other hand, don't ask me to give up my BG-42 and CPM-3V knives ;)
 
A few of us have tried to make this point. First that the quality of the heat treat makes as much or more difference than the composition of the steel, and second, the average user can't tell the difference between good steels even if not in the same series. At least this is true in so far as over-all performance is concerned in the average joe's day to day tasks.

I have had people tell me they could tell the difference between two steels based on the kind of edge they took, and while I understand this idea, I still believe that the heat treat and the edge geometry have more to do with this than the steel composition...
 
I can't believe how much time I wasted reading the TOPS thread, in order to find out what you were talking about. :barf:
 
R W Clark? Gah, sorry guys, I'd been working all night before posting that and was ill.

dsvirsky, oh come on, it was entertaining. ;)
 
A white collar user isn't in to any do-it-yourself activities may never notice any difference in his EDC blade alloys. You don't really need an edge on a letter opener. As soon as you venture into a little manual labor (or hobby) your rate of blade wear gets quicker. The most common urban materials that will start to differentiate blades are cardboard and carpet. For cardboard you may not notice alloy differences if you use a serrated edge. The sawing action will mask edge dullness. If you have a very thin blade it will work pretty well (if you're not used to a box cutter's performance) even as it gets relatively dull. If you have a thicker smooth edge blade you will notice it getting duller faster if you cut a lot of boxes. Anything softer than 420HC will be conspicuous.

I think you are wrong that average users sharpen or hone their knives. Most of them don't own a sharpener and don't know about honing. They like serrated blades since they keep on working without any maintenance. The old Buck 110 got its good reputation back when it was made of wear resistant 440C. It was a pain to sharpen, but served a lot of basic users well. There were many cheap imitations that came and went back in the 60's that just didn't hold an edge like a genuine Buck. That was a thick blade for a folder. Thin blade knives worked well enough that you wouldn't find any that really stand out as better or worse in users' minds.
 
I tend to agree with you, shortgoth (and others), that on low-stress cutting (and low-stress cutting in limited amounts) many knife users would have a hard time telling the difference between steels (as long as they are not too far off in performance...ex: 420HC and S90V).

I also agree with you that heat treat is often more important than the steel's composition.

However, on higher-stress cutting (such as chopping), the difference between steels is often more evident (assuming decent heat treats). Stronger steels (RC is a large foctor) can be brought to a thinner edge without them rolling or misaligning readily. However, if you thin down the edge on a strong steel that is not also quite tough, if you hit a rock or other hard surface (sometimes even sand or small rocks in dirt, or, if the steel is far from tough and/or the edge is VERY thin, hard wood can be a damaging medium) while chopping, you will quite probably atleast chip the edge badly. Using a steel that is not tough also has the tendency to blow chunks out of the edge or even fail catastrophically if you accidentally hit a hard object while chopping.

Of course, blade and edge geometry play a large factor in this, but so does the steel (I'm assuming a decent heat treat).

Although I didn't comment on this in the TOPS thread, hard use is one of the main uses of atleast the larger TOPS knives. So steel choice (again, assuming a decent heat treat), in this case, is more pertinent than in many others. TOPS uses a decent steel for hard use, IMHO, but that certainly is not to say it's the best.
 
That makes sense when you keep it "in the same series" as was specified.
I can't tell any difference using ATS-34, 154CM, and ATS-55 for instance.
Making that a general statement is a crock, though.
When you compare that 440A to ATS-34, and ATS-34 to 420V the differences are huge, and would be noticeable to anyone who used the knives much. The question is not whether there are differences, but how significant those differences are to an individual.
You might not see a practical difference in S30V, S60V, and S90V in light use, but the CPM series of steels is broader than that, and there are serious differences throughout the range in terms of toughness and corrosion resistance.
 
I agree, and I disagree. I think that his general point was that there are much larger factors in knife durability than the difference between similar high-carbon steels such as 1095 and O-1, or 154CM and BG-42 for example. I agree with that.

Certainly though, an average knife user will be able to tell the difference in edge holding between 420HC and CPM S90V. They would be able to tell the difference sharpening too.

But as far as telling the difference in strength and durability between combat/survival knives made from one quarter inch stock from 1095, ATS-34, or INFI?

I don't think so. They all take a ridiculously huge amount of abuse to break if heat treated well, which reflects on the value of an unconditional warranty. And I think that was RW's point.
 
I think Steve has it correct. That was my impression of what RW Clark said. The key is also the statement "within types".

I would think that if you were to blindfold someone and give them say (4) large knives of different popular steels "within a certain type" with the same exact weight and handles, they would not be able to discern what steel they were chopping, cutting, or slicing with. Obviously kids-DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!

It would only be through fairly extensive usage and sharpening that the unique qualities within steel types would become apparent, and even then probably only to the most astute among us.

For many, if not most, of us non-proffessional knife users any well forged\heat treated modern steel will meet out needs just fine. Obviously different edge profiles will have an effect on how a certain knife or type of knife performs our mostly mundane every-day tasks (for instance, my Spyderco Dyad is a more efficient cardboard slicer than my Greco MST, but who splits kindling with a Dyad?).

Sometimes all this talk of super-steels is just a matter of bragging rights I believe. Because the reality is, most of us will never need to push our knives that hard.

But then again....WHAT IF? :D

Mongrel

Mongrel
 
I think anyone will notice the difference between how a good carbon steel cuts (say 1095) versus a typical stainless steel like 420- or 440-. It's just sharper, unless the edge on the stainless has been done amazingly well.
And for the minority who actually sharpen their knives, that will make the difference even more obvious.
For the kind of use Shortgoth describes, a typical SAK blade will hold up pretty well for a long time. Maybe after a couple of years you can take it to the mall and have it sharpened.;)
 
For really sharp blades the edge degradation is more noticable, in other words occures faster, and for comparison those would be better that half dull knives, or ok not so sharp ones.

ATS-34 and 154CM similary heat treated will be very difficult to tell, if not impossible, because of their chemistry, for the user and for RW Clark himself, unless special equipment is used.
Speaking of which, it is very different to sharpen ATS-34 from Strider and 154CM from Benchmade. And according to specs both are hardened around 61 hrc. I'm not exactly sure if I'd be able to tell one from another during light cutting, but for chopping, and harsh material cutting I definitely was able the difference, since one chipped and another didn't. Same with BG-42 from Strider.

As of the 420 and S30V I'll take that bet. And I think a lot of folks here will be able to tell the difference either by usage, or by sharpening. Donno why Mr. Clark thinks that's too difficult.
 
Gator,
I am just curious. Was it the Benchmade or the Strider that you had problems sharpening?
Thanks
Luke
 
Originally posted by Lukers
Gator,
I am just curious. Was it the Benchmade or the Strider that you had problems sharpening?
Click to expand...
I didn't exactly have problems with sharpening. NIB edges were too thick to me and I've reprofiled them. Just the Strider MH was harder to grind. I was using the same sharpening system (edge-pro) for Strider MH(ats-34), BM Osborne 770 and 730 Ares (both 154CM).
 
The reason why a lot of people would not see a difference, especially in the larger 1/4" knives that Steve noted, is because the majority are vastly overbuilt and thus no damage will be induced during use, regardless of the steel. Of course the cutting abilities will be vastly different. If the edges are reduced, then differences between the blade will become significant. I am not talking about a little more dulling either, but one blade shattering, another rippling, and one staying perfectly fine.

As for just normal cutting, again it depends on what you do and what your standards are for sharpness and cutting ability in general. I have used four unmarked blades out of four different steels (L6,1084,52100, D2), and could quite easily tell them apart doing some carpet cutting. Even small differences like 1-2 RC will induce enough effect to be noticable. Ref :

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178186

Awhile ago I gave a fillet knife in S90V to some fisherman without telling them anything about it. Everyone of them remarked on how it stayed sharp. The difference between something like 1095 at ~50 RC to S90V at ~59 RC is simply huge. You are talking going from steeling every few fish, to handling a days catch without a touchup (20-60 cod).

Steel can make a large difference, but yes, it can be swamped out by poor choices in geometry and other elements of design. However given a knifemaker with enough skill and knowledge, better materials will produce better knives.


-Cliff
 
So, when we say "average user", are we thinking of the big picture? Certainly, the "average" bladeforums reader is much more educated on this stuff than the general public. While I believe most anyone will be able to tell the difference between vastly differing steels -- 420 and 3V being good extremes -- by and large I think "average" knife users won't see much difference between most steels, like between 440C, ATS34, and 1095 (other than rusting). Meanwhile, we here howl at the difference between 154CM and ATS-34, because one might be marginally cleaner than the other!

Anyway, I think the "average" user won't see the difference between many steels for many of the reasons mentioned:

  • They may not user their knives that hard
  • They don't compare steels head to head or seek out tests that do
  • They go with whatever the factory edge geometry is
  • etc.

My pet peeve lately has been that third bullet, the edge geometry. I see one set of threads where people raise a huge fuss over getting the absolute best steel. And then, another thread where someone asks about sharpening angles, and the responses are overwhelmingly, "I sharpen all my folders to 20 degrees", or something like that. The point I've been trying to make recently is that one of the advantages of a better steel is that you can profile the edge for enhanced performance, and if you're not doing that, you're not really getting all the advantages that you read about.

Joe
 
As usual, Joe brings up a good point up for discussion on the third bullet.

When I first started buying better knives, they were generally thick and heavy with fairly obtuse edges. They didn't so much cut as they were really just crushing the material in half in a sort of cleaving action.

I then started buying knives with better steel which stayed "sharp" for a longer period of time but, didn't cut much better. Over time, I listened to words of wisdom from people like Joe and started beveling the edges steeper. Guess what? Those same knives cut much better. Since I wasn't trying to cut oil field pipe in two, I didn't see rolled, chipped or, otherwise damaged edges either.

Then I finally wised up and started buying knives that were thinner which made them much easier to carry around and they cut even better :) I didn't really need that 1/4 inch thick saber ground knife made from some super steel to pull packing staples out of a box after all.

Now I was starting to see the benefit of that super steel. A thinner and lighter knife with much better edge geometery. Now I have a knife that is wicked sharp, stays that way a long time and, is strong enough to stand up to the real world abuse I dish out.

If I buy a thick knife now, it is because I want a heavy knife for chopping, not because I need a 1/4 inch of steel to withstand the prying stress of my ususage.

My knife tastes have definitely changed over time away from heavy knives with obtuse edge geometeries to knives that are very thin with edge geometery's to match the steel type chosen.

I select makers that know that know how to use the steel selected which ensures I get a knife ground properly with a great edge geometery and make sure the heat treat is spot on.

I still have my moments where I enjoy swinging a huge heavy knife but, that isn't out of necessity either. After all, who really needs a Trace Rinaldi CPM 3V Armegeddon :D , especially for someone puny like myself. Yes, I've got a knife that is ready for World War 3 but, it will never see action like that. Now back to the kitchen and the BG-42 TTKK ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top