What do you choose? Is it 58/59 HRC super powder metal (m390, elmax MagnaCut, etc.) or 62/63 HRC D2, Sleipner or similar steel?

I've gotten to the point where I've come to value design and manufacturing quality over steel. Better steels are always nice, but I've been really happy with high quality knives in 154CM or even 440C. I don't use my knives so heavily that I feel that I absolutely need the latest supersteel. I think a lot of other people are in the same boat but will never admit it. Therefore, between those two options, I'd pick the supersteel that's been heat treated soft because that will have a higher resale value.
 
Tsujigiri said:
I've gotten to the point where I've come to value design and manufacturing quality over steel. Better steels are always nice, but I've been really happy with high quality knives in 154CM or even 440C. I don't use my knives so heavily that I feel that I absolutely need the latest supersteel. I think a lot of other people are in the same boat but will never admit it. Therefore, between those two options, I'd pick the supersteel that's been heat treated soft because that will have a higher resale value.
Click to expand...
This might be the best plot twist I've ever seen.
 
I think I initially misinterpreted the OP. What I initially read was:

"Would you rather have a super steel at low hardness (because low hardness is best), or would you rather have a non-super steel at high hardness (because simpler steels aren't best at high hardness)?"

What I think OP's question is really asking is:

"Would you rather have a better steel, with sub-optimal heat treatment, or a "worse" steel with better (if not a little ambitious) heat treatment?"

I will answer the latter and state that I prefer simpler steels with an optimized heat treatment over super steels with suboptimal heat treatments. I once dumped a nifty little fixed blade in M390 because it simply wouldn't hold an edge and chose to carry a fixed in D2 that held an edge much better, presumably due to a better heat treat. I later learned that the maker of the first knife ran their M390 around 58 at the time, which I think is just too low.

I'm not a maker, but I generally agree with the below:
navman said:
I have my S90V run at 61.5-62RC, maximized for cutting and edge retention not toughness. There is no reason a "super steel" designed for maximum cutting should not be run hard. And if you are making a chopper out of it...reconsider your steel choice. If I were making a 5" blade hunter from S90V I might run it at 60-61 RC, but that would be the lowest I would go.


Interestingly, you will still see some suppliers that recommend 58-59 RC for 90V....
Click to expand...
 
I prefer thin edges meant for slicing performance, so based on the original poster's question, the higher hardness D2 or Sleipner would be my choice. I've certainly noted in my anecdotal "real world" use that higher hardness works better for me. I won't make sweeping statements that high hardness is the best for all use cases, but for me, high hardness does work better in my daily carry knives. My most carried knife currently is a Spyderco Paramilitary 2 in CPM 15V which is a pretty high hardness and high carbide volume steel.
 
Bob Denman said:
I'm no carpenter... but isn't that what hammers are for?
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed they are. :)
I should wrote…What would happen with D2 63HRc edge if you cut cardboard box and run into a staple.

When I got my PF949 (K110 steel) I thought something is wrong with hardness because I had no problem to sharpen it. I had a feeling the blade is soft. Next working day …. a walk to our lab …. fancy HRc machine showed 60.9HRc....all ok from my side. The knife is harder as advertised by the manufacturer (58-60HRc).
But in general I wouldn't mind if my knife was 63 or even 64HRc. Just saying D2 could be tricky at higher hardness.

I must say I somehow don't fully trust knife makers and their advertised hardness. If I'm in doubt I measure the hardness myself.
 
Tried sleipner this year for the first time. Sharepened a bit better than D2 but rusted like hell when in kydex/hiking activities. I'm not shocked by rust or patina but also not big fan of poo spot patina.
 
oldmanwilly said:
I think I initially misinterpreted the OP. What I initially read was:

"Would you rather have a super steel at low hardness (because low hardness is best), or would you rather have a non-super steel at high hardness (because simpler steels aren't best at high hardness)?"

What I think OP's question is really asking is:

"Would you rather have a better steel, with sub-optimal heat treatment, or a "worse" steel with better (if not a little ambitious) heat treatment?"

I will answer the latter and state that I prefer simpler steels with an optimized heat treatment over super steels with suboptimal heat treatments. I once dumped a nifty little fixed blade in M390 because it simply wouldn't hold an edge and chose to carry a fixed in D2 that held an edge much better, presumably due to a better heat treat. I later learned that the maker of the first knife ran their M390 around 58 at the time, which I think is just too low.

I'm not a maker, but I generally agree with the below:
Click to expand...
You are so right, the essence of the title can be reduced to the second question you answered.The reason why I specifically mention some steels is to make the question more difficult because these steels can hold an edge as much as Super steels and it is difficult to understand the difference in daily life.
 
oldmanwilly said:
I think I initially misinterpreted the OP. What I initially read was:

"Would you rather have a super steel at low hardness (because low hardness is best), or would you rather have a non-super steel at high hardness (because simpler steels aren't best at high hardness)?"

What I think OP's question is really asking is:

"Would you rather have a better steel, with sub-optimal heat treatment, or a "worse" steel with better (if not a little ambitious) heat treatment?"

I will answer the latter and state that I prefer simpler steels with an optimized heat treatment over super steels with suboptimal heat treatments. I once dumped a nifty little fixed blade in M390 because it simply wouldn't hold an edge and chose to carry a fixed in D2 that held an edge much better, presumably due to a better heat treat. I later learned that the maker of the first knife ran their M390 around 58 at the time, which I think is just too low.

I'm not a maker, but I generally agree with the below:
Click to expand...
I understood the meaning, and I also would choose the second, I am not in love with a steel type, but rather how it can perform.
 
I suspect companies like Medford run things a bit soft because they know their customer base really well. Give those folks a knife that's too hard and tips will be snapping off left right and center.
 
If you don't sharpen or use your knife, I suppose nothing matters.


There's a lot of nuances to navigate.

Just because you have higher HRC doesn't mean it's going to be inherently badass.

That doesn't mean hardness needs to be bottomed out.

So that's not quite the black and white answer that new guys want to hear.

Probably one of the most difficult things to comprehend for normies is that you can have 1095 at 65 HRC and 15V at 60 HRC.

And if the primary method of dulling is purely from cutting them the 15V will cut longer despite the lower hardness.

Also hardness HRC is not universal.

HRC is the sum of the microstructure but not a clear picture of the actual constituents themselves making up that hardness, just like how body weight doesn't reflect body composition.

Let's say theoretically we take 1095 hardened at 1600f from a coarsely spherodizied condition, skip the cryo and under temper BOOM, 65 HRC.

Versus a finely spherodizied, lower austenitized, fast quenched and cryo'd 1095, also 65 HRC and at the same hardeness there is a significant difference in strength and stability even though both conditions are at 65.

Meanwhile, you would have normies screaming that their 1095 is 65 HRC so it's good to go but that's not telling you the full story.

Microstructure is King.
 
If we are talking about a CRK product I would be happy with whatever blade steel that I could find. CRK knives seem to be difficult find anymore.
 
DavidABQ said:
If we are talking about a CRK product I would be happy with whatever blade steel that I could find. CRK knives seem to be difficult find anymore.
Click to expand...
Don't give up looking! 👍
I just found a LH Sebbie 31 with brown micarta...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top