- Joined
- Jul 5, 2016
- Messages
- 480
I've finally decided on what I want for my hard-use knife that I'll use for most tough cutting tasks, short of splitting cords of wood, prying things apart, and stuff like that. The Zero Tolerance ZT 562 is exactly what I'm looking for. Solid construction, great ergonomics, and a decent blade steel in either variation. What I'm left deciding now is do I want to pay the extra $50-ish dollars for the carbon fiber version with CTS-204P steel over the G10 version with Elmax steel. I wouldn't mind the carbon fiber handles, but I'm not keen on getting the harder steel since I'd rather the steel be tougher and easier to sharpen. Sure CTS-204P can slice more things than Elmax before it loses an edge. But, will it be more likely to chip when contacting hard surfaces. An example would be cutting through a piece of wood and hitting a piece of nail that was embedded in it. I'd rather the blade edge roll or dent rather than chip so I can more easily repair the blade. Not looking to keep the blade super shiny and constantly razor sharp. Just want it to last after some rough use and not be a pain to maintain. 
I don't ask because I have no clue about the steel. I've compared the steels using results from others testing here on BF as well as other places (HRC tests, metal composition comparisons, general hard-use testing). But most of the information I find is not specific to the knives I'm comparing. Kershaw's heat treatment methods of the 2 steels would make a big difference too, from what I understand. And reading that Kershaw didn't impress with their initial batches of Elmax has me really wondering as well. If I could be certain that Kershaw heat treated properly and maintained an average of about 59.5 or higher HRC for their Elmax (on recent production runs) I'd certainly be happy with that. Most opinions I've found so far seem related to those earlier Elmax runs, which I'm hoping have been resolved but can't gauge well enough from what I've read so far.
I'm mainly asking for opinions from those who own either version of the ZT 562 and have used them. What do you think of the blade after some decent usage? Have you had any excessive blade chipping, denting, or other issues?
Thanks for reading and appreciate any replies!
I don't ask because I have no clue about the steel. I've compared the steels using results from others testing here on BF as well as other places (HRC tests, metal composition comparisons, general hard-use testing). But most of the information I find is not specific to the knives I'm comparing. Kershaw's heat treatment methods of the 2 steels would make a big difference too, from what I understand. And reading that Kershaw didn't impress with their initial batches of Elmax has me really wondering as well. If I could be certain that Kershaw heat treated properly and maintained an average of about 59.5 or higher HRC for their Elmax (on recent production runs) I'd certainly be happy with that. Most opinions I've found so far seem related to those earlier Elmax runs, which I'm hoping have been resolved but can't gauge well enough from what I've read so far.
I'm mainly asking for opinions from those who own either version of the ZT 562 and have used them. What do you think of the blade after some decent usage? Have you had any excessive blade chipping, denting, or other issues?
Thanks for reading and appreciate any replies!
