The Best Steel - Cut Tests and Opinions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cold Steel claim 4116 out performs ALL 440s:

"4116 is a fine grained, stainless steel made by ThyssenKrupp in Germany and is used for hygienic applications (medical devices and the pharmaceutical industry) and food processing which make it a superb material for kitchen cutlery. The balance of carbon and chromium content give it a high degree of corrosion resistance and also impressive physical characteristics of strength and edge holding. Edge retention in actual cutting tests exceeded blades made of the 420 and 440 series of stainless steels. Other alloying elements contribute to grain refinement which increase blade strength and edge toughness and also allow for a finer, sharper edge."

Also:

"Alberta Ed
5,574
Jun 29, 1999
There are so many factors affecting 'edge retention' that claims of one steel over another are kind of meaningless. I believe that 420HC out-performed 440C in Buck's CATRA tests, and that is one reason why they chose that steel. I have a bunch of CS knives, including some in mystery '400 series' stainless steel, and they all cut."

As far as chopping wood with a 10" blade is concerned, 420J2 is definitely way, way better than Lile's D-2 in my experience: Very comparable in initial fine edge holding to D-2 (both excellent), yet 420J will never chip (and this on a $100 knife vs $1700 in D-2, both nearly identical in shape). For some reason cheap 420J does not have any propension to micro-roll under impact either... I would agree that, for me, 420J does outperform 440C in fine edge holding (no micro-rolling) while chopping, 440 only coming close with a micro-bevel, vs 420J with none: Amazing.

Only -30 C temperatures seemed to be 420's Achilles heel....

As I pointed out many times, the Knives Illustrated magazine test of 1999 had 440C way ahead of everything else, including early CPMs (including 3V) and INFI: Only D-2 came anywhere close in the rope cutting, and it was far behind... The 420J I have definitely behaves like it is better than 440C, and Cold Steel's claim for 4116 seems to be in line for that: Could be all about the heat-treat...

All of that with 420 being far easier to sharpen... If 4116 is anything like 420J or HC, supposedly "amazing" claims about it are not entirely impossible. Theory only goes so far.

Gaston
 
Theory my petuties.

As usual, you have twisted some facts and made up others.

1) Buck 420HC outperformed 440C when the 420HC blade had a new profile specifically developed to perform well in CATRA tests while the 440C blade had a conventional profile. This testing was performed during the development of Buck's "edge 2000" profile in the late 1990's. When the 440C blade was the same shape, it far outperformed the 420HC.

2) Cold steel Hyperbole. 4116 has roughly the same composition as 420HC. To say it is superior to 420HC is ridiculous.

3) and yet you have never produced that mystical magazine issue and no one else has ever seen it.
 
knarfeng said:
I completely disagree. Erroneous data is worse than no data.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be all bad, if erroneous data makes us look at the question we're asking, or the process we're using to answer the question. As far as I can tell, there is hardly any empirical knife testing information out there. Science is hard, and getting the wrong answers is part of finding the right ones.
 
I’ve watched a few C&A vids, but haven’t come across “unleashed.”
Can someone fill me in?
 
Gaston444 said:
As I pointed out many times, the Knives Illustrated magazine test of 1999 had 440C way ahead of everything else, including early CPMs (including 3V) and INFI: Only D-2 came anywhere close in the rope cutting, and it was far behind...
Click to expand...

Given the variety of sintered steels formulated and produced after '99, and the ever growing experience of making blades with them by professional/successful knife makers, don't you think an alleged 19 year old article, if it exists (please produce it for our perusal), is too out dated to be relevant now? Particularly if it did say something silly like 'powder steels suck for knife blades'?

As for 4116 'outperforming' all 440 series SS, that is so vague as to be meaningless, and just doesn't sound right at all. As specifically revealed by knarfeng.
 
As a maker for 23 years, Sharpener & Knife user a lot longer than that, this list that says 440C won’t cut the muster at some 60 cuts and is put in the lower ranks is complete Huey! ———//////——-with proper HT of RC 58-59 And of course a well designed blade. 440C will do fine in Free hanging rope cuts of 1” Sisal.. There are newer Steels that are improved edge retention. But that doesn’t make older Steels, not work!
 
That article only exists in his imagination. He has had 4 or 5 years to find it and hasn't. He posted asking for help on it, tried buying old copies or at least stated he was trying. If it existed in the fashion he claims he would have found it by now. The results he claims don't seem right but just finding an article he could use to back up his claims would be a win for him because he has been hammered on it for several years now.

I personally don't have a bias against anyone here but I see it as being wrong to not correct bad information posted here. There are way too many people who are learning knives and steel and giving them bad info is a disservice IMO. I have gone as far as to post links to a thread from us here talking about an article using mules created for the testing so they could control some of the variables that we usually point out. It had CPM 440V/S60V showing greater wear resistance and Infi was not part of the test.

Here is one thread we talked about this back in 2015.
"Jul 27, 2015 #52



Gaston444

1,498

Oct 1, 2014

The Mastiff said: ↑
You posted this stuff before in another thread. I'll ask you to come up with the article. There is some things in it I don't believe or think is possible. I believe I read an article that is the basis for your memory but it reads different in my memories. It wasn't in the 90's either.

90's testmule in infi for the article? Nope. There are too many inconsistencies to give any validity to what you posted here. Untill you can come up with details of what you claim I'm going to call bull on it. Sorry Gaston 444 but you are posting incorrect results.
You can't say I misrepresent the article if you haven't found it yourself, can you?

The article in question is, again, from KI or Blade, and dates very close to the first time I ever heard of "powder" Crucible Particle Metallurgy steels, so long, long before these "powder" steels ever became widely available in knives you could easily buy...: I was surprised the testers were even able to include two "powder" steels in the test, as I only knew of one existing at the time I read the article, and that was CPM 3V...: That was a big surprise... This is the timeline for the appearance of the first CPM "powder" metallurgy steels, in reverse order of appearance, from S30V back (From Crucible's very own site):

2001 - Developed stainless tool steel CPM® S30V® for applications requiring improved corrosion and wear resistance.
2000 - Developed VIM CRU® 60* and VIM CRU® 80* for hybrid bearing applications.
2000 - Developed advanced iron based powder metallurgy calibration standards for X-ray and optical emission equipment.
1999 – Developed second stainless tool steel CPM® S90V® for improved corrosion and wear resistance.
1998 - Developed CPM® Rex® 121, a new ultra hard (HRC 70-72) and abrasion resistant high speed steel.
1997 - Developed VIM CRU® 20* for hybrid bearing applications.
1997 - Developed CPM® SS100®, a new high strength corrosion resistant steel using nitrogen as an alloying element and rapid solidification processing.
1997 - Developed CPM® 3V®, a high toughness steel with good wear resistance.

I believe the steel 440C beat the daylights out of was CPM 3V (and CPM SS100, since I remember clearly there were two CPM "powder" steels included in the test): As I said, that test included two CPM "powder" steels long before I ever heard of production or even custom knives being offered in one "powder" steel... The magazine had really pulled all the stops on that one...

Now we know the the most problable date for the article is 1997-98, and it makes sense because by 1998 I got a Spyderco Civilian (a knife without peer then or now), and I kind of lost interest in all other knives for about 15 years after that...: I certainly would not have read this article much past 1998, as by 1999 my hobby interests had completely changed, towards miniature modelling...

INFI began in 1998, so it fits within that timeframe... It was very new then too I remember...

You certainly have the wrong article if it is not from the late '90s. I do remember the "1997-98" article was very odd in that it failed to praise 440C's results, despite the data within the article being quite overwhelming... There was a sense of downright schizophrenia in the conclusions, as if the 440C results had to be downplayed... ATS34 did very, very poorly, as did INFI, CPM 3V, CPM SS100, and even D2 did not do much better (though I vaguely remember D2 might have been a bit ahead of the large pack of distant losers). In fact there was really nothing that even came close to 440C for edge-holding on soft or semi-hard materials, particularly manilla rope...

I lost all interest in "supersteels" after that... Other than 440C that is...

Surely there is someone out there with a complete 97-99 run of both KI or Blade...

Gaston"
 
The Mastiff said:
That article only exists in his imagination. He has had 4 or 5 years to find it and hasn't. He posted asking for help on it, tried buying old copies or at least stated he was trying. If it existed in the fashion he claims he would have found it by now. The results he claims don't seem right but just finding an article he could use to back up his claims would be a win for him because he has been hammered on it for several years now.

I personally don't have a bias against anyone here but I see it as being wrong to not correct bad information posted here. There are way too many people who are learning knives and steel and giving them bad info is a disservice IMO. I have gone as far as to post links to a thread from us here talking about an article using mules created for the testing so they could control some of the variables that we usually point out. It had CPM 440V/S60V showing greater wear resistance and Infi was not part of the test.

Here is one thread we talked about this back in 2015.
"Jul 27, 2015 #52



Gaston444

1,498

Oct 1, 2014

The Mastiff said: ↑
You posted this stuff before in another thread. I'll ask you to come up with the article. There is some things in it I don't believe or think is possible. I believe I read an article that is the basis for your memory but it reads different in my memories. It wasn't in the 90's either.

90's testmule in infi for the article? Nope. There are too many inconsistencies to give any validity to what you posted here. Untill you can come up with details of what you claim I'm going to call bull on it. Sorry Gaston 444 but you are posting incorrect results.
You can't say I misrepresent the article if you haven't found it yourself, can you?

The article in question is, again, from KI or Blade, and dates very close to the first time I ever heard of "powder" Crucible Particle Metallurgy steels, so long, long before these "powder" steels ever became widely available in knives you could easily buy...: I was surprised the testers were even able to include two "powder" steels in the test, as I only knew of one existing at the time I read the article, and that was CPM 3V...: That was a big surprise... This is the timeline for the appearance of the first CPM "powder" metallurgy steels, in reverse order of appearance, from S30V back (From Crucible's very own site):

2001 - Developed stainless tool steel CPM® S30V® for applications requiring improved corrosion and wear resistance.
2000 - Developed VIM CRU® 60* and VIM CRU® 80* for hybrid bearing applications.
2000 - Developed advanced iron based powder metallurgy calibration standards for X-ray and optical emission equipment.
1999 – Developed second stainless tool steel CPM® S90V® for improved corrosion and wear resistance.
1998 - Developed CPM® Rex® 121, a new ultra hard (HRC 70-72) and abrasion resistant high speed steel.
1997 - Developed VIM CRU® 20* for hybrid bearing applications.
1997 - Developed CPM® SS100®, a new high strength corrosion resistant steel using nitrogen as an alloying element and rapid solidification processing.
1997 - Developed CPM® 3V®, a high toughness steel with good wear resistance.

I believe the steel 440C beat the daylights out of was CPM 3V (and CPM SS100, since I remember clearly there were two CPM "powder" steels included in the test): As I said, that test included two CPM "powder" steels long before I ever heard of production or even custom knives being offered in one "powder" steel... The magazine had really pulled all the stops on that one...

Now we know the the most problable date for the article is 1997-98, and it makes sense because by 1998 I got a Spyderco Civilian (a knife without peer then or now), and I kind of lost interest in all other knives for about 15 years after that...: I certainly would not have read this article much past 1998, as by 1999 my hobby interests had completely changed, towards miniature modelling...

INFI began in 1998, so it fits within that timeframe... It was very new then too I remember...

You certainly have the wrong article if it is not from the late '90s. I do remember the "1997-98" article was very odd in that it failed to praise 440C's results, despite the data within the article being quite overwhelming... There was a sense of downright schizophrenia in the conclusions, as if the 440C results had to be downplayed... ATS34 did very, very poorly, as did INFI, CPM 3V, CPM SS100, and even D2 did not do much better (though I vaguely remember D2 might have been a bit ahead of the large pack of distant losers). In fact there was really nothing that even came close to 440C for edge-holding on soft or semi-hard materials, particularly manilla rope...

I lost all interest in "supersteels" after that... Other than 440C that is...

Surely there is someone out there with a complete 97-99 run of both KI or Blade...

Gaston"
Click to expand...

Just curious: Aren't you a bit worried about making such ridiculous pronouncements for something that was published less than 20 years ago in a major knife magazine publication? One other poster here did remember it, but only vaguely. Could you come up with reasons I would make this up?

Haven't you at least considered what will happen when it turns up?

I contacted the Library of Congress, and perhaps this should be of interest to all knife nuts (but hey, apparently not) that the Library of Congress does not keep runs of "Knives Illustrated", "Blade" or any of the other knife related magazines (just a few "sample" issues: Pathetic...), and nothing in digital form(!), even though it is their claimed(?) duty to do keep something of just about everything. They prefer spending millions on micro-cameras, so they can pulp original paper... They also make quite stark choices as to what will interest historians of the future apparently.

If the Library of Congress can't find it, why do you say I would have found it by now? On what basis?

You would have grounds for doubt if at least one person here claimed to own a full 1998-2000 run of "Knives Illustrated", and said that this test appears nowhere, but so far not one of you has done that. In four years! I am amazed at how little knife fans seem to care about old magazines related to their hobby (or remember old tests with unexpected results), which does seem to indicate this hobby is highly driven by short-lived fads: This in fact completely demonstrates this, if nothing else.

By the way, that 1999 test, if I remember right, rated 420 pretty low... So, like all things, I would certainly not claim it is the absolute truth in everything. I don't have your advantage of baseless certainty.

Gaston
 
Tests like these are good for referenceing possibilities of performance. Like trying to rate how good a fighter is from as sparring match or a single fight. Not enough real world variables are introduced, not enough consistent variables are present to give an overall conclusive rating.
 
knarfeng said:
I completely disagree. Erroneous data is worse than no data.
Click to expand...
Exactly ! That s way I don t watch any video about testing edge retention ...Only reliable data I have is that my 440 C knive can cut full meter of sausage........... :)
 
I don't see anything wrong with Pete's rope tests. He's not claiming them to be 100% scientific and I see them as a pretty good test of real world use. He's up front about what he is doing and what kind of edge he puts on the blades. People don't use knives in laboratory conditions, but in real life, where they don't make consistent cuts through the same media. I take his tests as saying X manufacturer's model knife in X steel with a certain edge was able to cut rope so many times.

I wouldn't use his results to make definite comparisons between two steels with fairly close results. If one knife made 250 cuts and another only made 235 cuts, I wouldn't necessarily say the one that made 250 cuts was better. I would say it was better than one that made only 75 cuts though. Whether he should be calling them "steel edge retention tests" or "knife with a certain steel edge retention tests" is maybe debatable, but I think most people understand that his tests just demonstrate a rough expectation of how a steel should perform.
 
4mer_FMF said:
I’ve watched a few C&A vids, but haven’t come across “unleashed.”
Can someone fill me in?
Click to expand...


"Cedric & Ada Gear and Outdoors" videos are made by Pete. I think Pete's dogs names are Cedric & Ada.

Pete says that the standard Worksharp edge test uses 20 degree micro convex edges. Where "unleashed" tests happen are when 17 degree edges are used for tests unless otherwise noted above in my notes. The test counts the number of cuts to very abrasive 1 inch thick sisal rope.

If you look in his published results, you may not see a whole lot mentioned about UNLEASHED. I watched the videos and took the information from them and put it down in a document. What you are seeing is what happens to cutting ability of the steel when Pete goes from "20 degree micro convex edges," to "17 degree micro convex edges," and he may decide to polish the edges, or stop sharpening at a particular stone. I took the best notes that I could.
 
Gaston444 said:
Just curious: Aren't you a bit worried about making such ridiculous pronouncements for something that was published less than 20 years ago in a major knife magazine publication? One other poster here did remember it, but only vaguely. Could you come up with reasons I would make this up?

Haven't you at least considered what will happen when it turns up?

I contacted the Library of Congress, and perhaps this should be of interest to all knife nuts (but hey, apparently not) that the Library of Congress does not keep runs of "Knives Illustrated", "Blade" or any of the other knife related magazines (just a few "sample" issues: Pathetic...), and nothing in digital form(!), even though it is their claimed(?) duty to do keep something of just about everything. They prefer spending millions on micro-cameras, so they can pulp original paper... They also make quite stark choices as to what will interest historians of the future apparently.

If the Library of Congress can't find it, why do you say I would have found it by now? On what basis?

You would have grounds for doubt if at least one person here claimed to own a full 1998-2000 run of "Knives Illustrated", and said that this test appears nowhere, but so far not one of you has done that. In four years! I am amazed at how little knife fans seem to care about old magazines related to their hobby (or remember old tests with unexpected results), which does seem to indicate this hobby is highly driven by short-lived fads: This in fact completely demonstrates this, if nothing else.

By the way, that 1999 test, if I remember right, rated 420 pretty low... So, like all things, I would certainly not claim it is the absolute truth in everything. I don't have your advantage of baseless certainty.

Gaston
Click to expand...
In a Rational argument, the person making the claim must present their data to back their claims up!—————- So if you can’t provide this magazine issue. Then it doesn’t exist & you should stop touting it as your source.
 
The Mastiff said:

Surely there is someone out there with a complete 97-99 run of both KI or Blade...

Gaston"
Click to expand...

Gaston, if the test was in Blade, it will be in here...

s-l1600.jpg


If it was in Knives Illustrated and it was a major test, more than likely, it would have been announced/advertised on the cover. Eventually, it will surface on eBay and could be found by searching Knives Illustrated and putting the year behind it.
 
Cedric and Ada seem genuine and enthusiastic, but I put no faith in his ranking or data. I've made hundreds of cuts through 3/8" manila rope with simple Gerber steels and was still able to cut printer paper. I also tend not to trust any testing that publishes results then says they're not scientific. "Here are my numbers. Guess if they're reliable."
 
Last edited:
OP, thanks for this thread. The identity of the knives used tomtest various steels provides addtional useful information.
Cedric and Ada s information may not be scienfific, but it is not useless. These comparisons may have some correlation with real world use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top