Recommendation? What grit do you use for profiling

[maximus83]

What is your preferred grit for profiling and what are the trade-offs between using lower or higher profiling grits?

I've tried everything from my new 140 Atoma, a cheap 150 sk11, a 220 DMT XC, a 300 Ultrasharp, a 325 DMT C, and the 400 Arctic Fox. All worked great for creating the profile. On some I was even able to get the blade shaving sharp at the profiling stage.

Taking a guess at some of the trade-offs:

• Using your higher-grit stones for profiling in a sense would wear them out faster, because you'd have to do more grinding (or use more pressure) to remove the same amount of metal.
• Using lower grits stones creates a very coarse scratch pattern, and if you started at a really low grit, it will probably take a lot of work at higher grits to remove that coarse pattern.
• So are we talking a Goldlilocks solution here? We need the grit that is "just right" to start for profiling? There has to be a range of grits that is just about the right balance between removing metal quickly, but not creating SUCH a coarse scratch pattern that it takes extra work to remove it.

 

[jc57]

Norton Coarse India - I think that's about 150. Depends on the knife and how much work needs to be done.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

A lot depends on the individual knife: how large/thick the blade is, how wear-resistant is the steel(?), how thin the existing edge grind is, etc. For smaller traditional knives in simple carbon or low-alloy stainless, I've often just used something like a Fine diamond (600), or occasionally a Coarse (325); anything coarser leaves those already-thin edges pretty ragged, requiring a lot of refinishing afterward. For thicker, larger blades, an XC or coarser grit might be more favored.

The size of the hone/stone used makes a difference as well. I've done small traditional knives on pocket hones, for example. Somewhat medium/larger blades in modern knives would be easier with a 6" or larger bench stone.


David

 

[maximus83]

David, as a rule do you use the finest grit you can get away with provided it cuts reasonably fast on the specific blade?

A lot depends on the individual knife: how large/thick the blade is, how wear-resistant is the steel(?), how thin the existing edge grind is, etc. For smaller traditional knives in simple carbon or low-alloy stainless, I've often just used something like a Fine diamond (600), or occasionally a Coarse (325); anything coarser leaves those already-thin edges pretty ragged, requiring a lot of refinishing afterward. For thicker, larger blades, an XC or coarser grit might be more favored.

The size of the hone/stone used makes a difference as well. I've done small traditional knives on pocket hones, for example. Somewhat medium/larger blades in modern knives would be easier with a 6" or larger bench stone.


David

 

[Chris "Anagarika"]

It also depends on the stone vs steel, the harder & more carbide rich the steel, it will be scratched less deep than a simple carbon steel.

In my case, diamond at 300ish is lowest I’d go for simple steel like 8Cr13MoV, mostly I start at 600 diamond.

 

[maximus83]

It also depends on the stone vs steel, the harder & more carbide rich the steel, it will be scratched less deep than a simple carbon steel.

In my case, diamond at 300ish is lowest I’d go for simple steel like 8Cr13MoV, mostly I start at 600 diamond.

Chris I haven't tried profiling on the more fine grits, no particular reason for that, but I've never gone much above 300 in most cases. I did try the AF at 400, the idea there being this is one "do it all" stone that can profile, apex, strop, and polish, and it did very well at profiling too.

Do you find that for a single all-purpose sharpening stone, you can profile, finish, everything, on say a fine grit at 600? For my own usage, with say kitchen knives, folders, and utility fixed blades, I observed slightly better cutting performance when I started with a lower grit. Not any scientific Cliff Stamp style testing, but just practical observations, like: which grit when used on a kitchen knife made that knife perform better in common slicing and chopping tasks, including slicing tomatoes?

 

[Chris "Anagarika"]

Chris I haven't tried profiling on the more fine grits, no particular reason for that, but I've never gone much above 300 in most cases. I did try the AF at 400, the idea there being this is one "do it all" stone that can profile, apex, strop, and polish, and it did very well at profiling too.

Do you find that for a single all-purpose sharpening stone, you can profile, finish, everything, on say a fine grit at 600? For my own usage, with say kitchen knives, folders, and utility fixed blades, I observed slightly better cutting performance when I started with a lower grit. Not any scientific Cliff Stamp style testing, but just practical observations, like: which grit when used on a kitchen knife made that knife perform better in common slicing and chopping tasks, including slicing tomatoes?

I am one whose usage is light & prefer polished edge as I shave with them too. 600 diamond is about right for me, sometimes it eats steel faster than 360. I guess the clogging of softer steel on 360 is the culprit.

If I don’t have much time, the edge off the 600 is good enough to start my day, and can be quickly refined with EEF (8000). I am back to simpler steel like VG10 and 8Cr for this reason too.

For my wife paring knife (Victorinox), 600 is almost too aggressive eating the steel, I have to lighten my touch.

Both of us do more push than slice, perhaps that requires more polished apex.

Not sure if I answered your question.

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

David, as a rule do you use the finest grit you can get away with provided it cuts reasonably fast on the specific blade?

Exactly. If a Fine or Coarse hone can get the job done in maybe 30 minutes - 1 hour, or sometimes much less than that, I figure it's coarse enough. Much longer than that, and fatigue starts to create a new set of troubles. In that case, I'll look for something coarser. OR, a larger hone in the same grit could make the difference as well. Sometimes a 6" or 8" bench stone in a Fine grit will be faster than a pocket-sized hone in Coarse or XC, and leave the edge looking cleaner as well.


David

 

[maximus83]

Exactly. If a Fine or Coarse hone can get the job done in maybe 30 minutes - 1 hour, or sometimes much less than that, I figure it's coarse enough. Much longer than that, and fatigue starts to create a new set of troubles. In that case, I'll look for something coarser. OR, a larger hone in the same grit could make the difference as well. Sometimes a 6" or 8" bench stone in a Fine grit will be faster than a pocket-sized hone in Coarse or XC, and leave the edge looking cleaner as well.
David

So let's flip this around: if you using the finest you can get away with is a good operating principle, then I would almost say for most ordinary profiling of kitchen and utility blades, I DON'T want to be using super low grits like the Atoma 140. It's awesome, but it cuts extremely fast and takes a lot of metal, plus leaves a super coarse pattern. This stone almost seems specialized for: major repair and profiling jobs on large/thick blades, and lapping stones. For most other ordinary sharpening, I could/should be starting at higher grits.

Plausible?

 

[Obsessed with Edges]

So let's flip this around: if you using the finest you can get away with is a good operating principle, then I would almost say for most ordinary profiling of kitchen and utility blades, I DON'T want to be using super low grits like the Atoma 140. It's awesome, but it cuts extremely fast and takes a lot of metal, plus leaves a super coarse pattern. This stone almost seems specialized for: major repair and profiling jobs on large/thick blades, and lapping stones. For most other ordinary sharpening, I could/should be starting at higher grits.

Plausible?

Yes. Especially for any knives in simple stainless (like kitchen knives), starting with something like the coarse side of a simple aluminum oxide oil stone can handle reprofiling easily; you might even be able to do it pretty easily on the Fine side of the same stone, if the stone cuts well and the existing edge on the knife isn't too horrendously thick. And whichever side you start on, the finished edge coming off the Fine side fits a kitchen knife very well.

You might hear some people mention how certain steels like a certain type of stone over other types. I've come to feel that most ordinary kitchen knives like a simple aluminum oxide oil stone; the two go well together, and produce edges that work very well for kitchen uses (or more). This isn't to say that something like a Fine/EF diamond hone can't also produce great edges on such knives (I like them with Victorinox blades, in particular). But, you don't necesarily need anything extravagant or overly aggressive for such knives.


David

 

[samuraistuart]

For rough work, I LOVE a Crystolon. Silicon carbide, chews thru steel, constantly releases abrasive. Dishes, but pretty easy to flatten. I don't like diamond plates for that work, either. A good coarse stone is a pleasure to work with. I have a Sigma 120 silicon carbide, it has no binder (if I recall that right, it may have a ceramic binder), it's like solid SiC. But it is SUPER porous, hard to keep water on it, and needs to be conditioned once in a while with loose SiC. I even use it under running water to help with the porosity issue. Also bought a Baronyx Manticore (black and green SiC). It's like the Sigma, but has a ceramic binder that seems a little weaker (better for me) than the Sigma. Also have a Baronyx "Bull Thistle" synthetic ruby stone about 120 grit that eats thru steel as well. LOVE that one, too. I keep going back to the Crystolon for thinning/edge setting/rough work. It just has good properties. One stone I have become a little disappointed with (but it's hard to complain with that low price), is the Baronyx "American Mutt". It's a good stone, don't get me wrong, but I don't find it to eat thru steel very well. It seems harder than it should be, it does give a higher polish than it's rating. Didn't mean to make this about my stone review, but maybe it helps.

 

[maximus83]

For rough work, I LOVE a Crystolon. Silicon carbide, chews thru steel, constantly releases abrasive. Dishes, but pretty easy to flatten. I don't like diamond plates for that work, either. A good coarse stone is a pleasure to work with. I have a Sigma 120 silicon carbide, it has no binder (if I recall that right, it may have a ceramic binder), it's like solid SiC. But it is SUPER porous, hard to keep water on it, and needs to be conditioned once in a while with loose SiC. I even use it under running water to help with the porosity issue. Also bought a Baronyx Manticore (black and green SiC). It's like the Sigma, but has a ceramic binder that seems a little weaker (better for me) than the Sigma. Also have a Baronyx "Bull Thistle" synthetic ruby stone about 120 grit that eats thru steel as well. LOVE that one, too. I keep going back to the Crystolon for thinning/edge setting/rough work. It just has good properties. One stone I have become a little disappointed with (but it's hard to complain with that low price), is the Baronyx "American Mutt". It's a good stone, don't get me wrong, but I don't find it to eat thru steel very well. It seems harder than it should be, it does give a higher polish than it's rating. Didn't mean to make this about my stone review, but maybe it helps.

Yep, seems like a great coarse stone is the most important stone of a sharpening kit. Also, agree about the Mutt. I really like my other Baryonyx stones and the ones I have are favorites (Arctic Fox, AF field stone, and Ptarmigan).

One thing I see a little differently is the role of diamond stones; for me they are awesome for profiling. They cut quick, don't take a ton of pressure, are super easy to maintain, and let me create really clean consistent bevels with a minimum of effort. For profiling stones that I have, the Atoma 140 is the choice at the low grit when I need that, only used it once but I can see already it is just an amazing, quality stone. The DMT XC at 220 has been my best in the XC category, but with the Atoma now, not sure the DMT will see much use. My new Ultrasharp 300 continuous diamond gets the nod for the all-purpose coarse stone, I already like it a lot better than the DMT interrupted coarse stone, and it seems the most likely stone to start with for profiling from now on. If I want to start at a higher "medium" grit like 400 for things like kitchen knives, this is where the Arctic Fox can really shine and after learning how to use it for different purposes, I found I like it better than medium grit diamonds such as the DMT F.

 

[adamlau]

For a blade reprofile, my preferred grit is 80 in SiC. Specifically, the Naniwa Golden Lobster. It is the fastest cutting stone I have ever used and is without peer. However, 240 puts on a more consistent finish that blends in well with light to medium stonewashes without the need for an additional step. So I tend to go with 240 most of the time (seen below on a CPK EDC in D2). I do not like, diamonds for blade reprofiles due to the 1) increased likelihood of edge fracture at low-angle passes when edge-leading 2) deep scratches which require an additional progression to remove. I do not mind diamonds for edge bevels though I still prefer 240 SiC.

 

[David Martin]

For my kitchen knives when they need it. I take them to the coarse (150 grit Inida) then fine India. The coarse India is slow if you have some straightening to do. If just a tune up, then it's the fine India. For most all other knives I take them to the Norton coarse 120 grit as it doesn't waste any time. Then to the fine SiC and on to the fine India. I try to finish on this stone with no stropping. But sometimes I have to strop.
One other coarse stone that I really enjoy using is the ACE Hardware stone. A jet black coarse (80 grit )& fine stone in SiC, 2X8" size. This is a real work horse stone and I'm so glad I have it. Purchased it on some good information. It makes sharpening go so much faster. So, 3 coarse stones I use. I really like all my coarse stones and can't live without them. The finer stones are for finesse and finishing. The sharp edge is set by the work of the coarse stone. DM

 

[adamlau]

Like DM, I have multiple coarse stones in rotation: Naniwa Golden Lobster #80. Sigma Power Select II #240. Sun Tiger #220. Sun Tiger #240. Am also looking at the LVT #200 and the Naniwa Green Lobster #120 to add to the collection...

 

[David Martin]

Agreed. ^ Because of how they work at quickly removing metal. I would more readily pull my wallet out for a new coarse stone than one
above 200 grit. DM

 

[maximus83]

Hmm we have a quite a range of grits here. From 80 all the way to 600. Somewhat like stropping, quite a range of approaches. So I'm back to: tinker and figure out what I like.

 

[maximus83]

For a blade reprofile, my preferred grit is 80 in SiC. Specifically, the Naniwa Golden Lobster. It is the fastest cutting stone I have ever used and is without peer. However, 240 puts on a more consistent finish that blends in well with light to medium stonewashes without the need for an additional step. So I tend to go with 240 most of the time (seen below on a CPK EDC in D2). I do not like, diamonds for blade reprofiles due to the 1) increased likelihood of edge fracture at low-angle passes when edge-leading 2) deep scratches which require an additional progression to remove. I do not mind diamonds for edge bevels though I still prefer 240 SiC.

When you say blade reprofile, you mean you're changing the entire primary grind of the blade? I guess for that, makes sense to use a super low grit and take a lot of metal fast. I've never actually done a full blade reprofile. May be time to take a beater and try it. I'd probably use my Atoma since it's the lowest grit I have above the bastard file.

 

[adamlau]

Correct. The primary grind (or secondary, depending on interpretation).

 

[adamlau]

I've never actually done a full blade reprofile. May be time to take a beater and try it.

Absolutely give it a try. The EDC I posted earlier was taken to a zero grind at under 7 dps. This Fehrman below has a combo 1K/3K finish with a random, mottled pattern. A 240 finish would have decreased stain resistance significantly over the original satin.