AEBL VS NITRO V

E

Ellis483

Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
12
I have been using CPM 3. V which i really liked but now to expensive on retirement income, like many other steels. I have switched to AEBL as a cost effective alternative, it woks fine on the EDC fixed blades I have made, I have been looking at Nitrov since it is still cost effective and is suppose to be an upgrade to AEBL, I am making a couple of different fixed blades I have designed, I WNT STAINLESS , etc. The fixed blade \s are 8 and 10,5 inches long And about 3/16 thick, Nitrov sounds good but is it better.

Thank You
 
As a user, AEB-L and Nitro-V feel very similar.

If I understand Larrin correctly (link below), Nitro-V is a bit more corrosion resistant, and AEB-L a bit tougher at similar HRC.

AEB-L vs Nitro-V
 
In my testing using and making knives in both steels nitro-v seems more corrosion resistant and had slightly better edge retention, both steels had equal edge stability/toughness in a practical cutting test. They are very close to each other in performance but with the very slight improvements I prefer nitro-v myself as it’s not much more in cost than aebl. But honestly both are good steels.
 
I'm not going to get into AEB-L vs CPM-3V, but there are other points of the decision that seem to have been left out.

One thing I advise people about is that looking at the price of two steels to decide which to choose is like looking at the price of two tools to decide which one to buy. While price is important, the merits of the item, its durability, and its specific abilities for what you want to do with it are usually far greater in the choice.
The steel is often a small percentage of the total cost in making a knife. The total of steel, handle material, other fittings, belts and consumables, sheath, etc. usually places the blade steel at about 15-25% of the cost in making a knife. And, we aren't even going to discuss the cost of the equipment in making knives.

CPM-3V is about 4.5 times the cost of AEB-L. On the AKS website. A 24" X2" bar at .100" will easily make five regular knives. The prices are $90 vs $20. Using round numbers, you will have roughly $20 in each 3V blade and $5 in each AEB-L blade. Thus, $15 is not a significant cost increase to merit the lower blade abilities unless the AEB-L would have been a suitable choice for the blade you want to make in the first place. The final knives will lend up costing only $15 less for the one vs the other. So, a knife that cost $75 total to produce vs a knife that cost $60 doesn't seem much difference, especially if the difference is an increase in quality and ability.
 
Stacy I think it really depends on thickness and size of knives.

I just ran numbers myself and for equal comparison I used 2' long x 2" wide piece of 1/8 inch steel. For steel this size and thickness and the pattern I would use I could get 2 knives per piece of steel.

For 3v shipped it is $101.94 and for AEB-L it would be $21.10.

I personally would choose AEB-L as 40 dollars difference in steel price per knife is significant for my customer base.
 
Obviously, if you make large knives in thicker steel, it will increase the cost difference. I was giving an example based on normal hunter or kitchen utility knives. The OP is a retired hobbyist, not a production seller. I do agree if cost is a major factor, then AEB-L is a good choice for many types of knives.
 
also got to play out belt usage per steel likely not much difference in abel vs nitroV but compared to 3v maybe. i have come to the point that XHP is not being made anymore and i will have to find a replacement. being "full time" cost is a deal but not a deal breaker as i have built my reputation on performance. im really kicking around the idea of having a custom melt of xhp done but thats 250lb min order im going to have to do some testing on nitrov and magnacut. just as a not i make mostly kitchen knives so i spend a lot of time at the grinder and throw out about half of my steel
 
As a hobbyist myself, cost of steel is a large factor, but another is cost of heat treatment. I currently do not have an oven to heat treat my own blades. So, I need to send out to a commercial provider. A small number of blades is costly per blade and some vendors have added additional processing fees depending on steel type. When it’s all said and done, HT can be as much or more of cost per blade then the choice of steel. There may be situations where less expensive steel may cost more per blade in the end than a more costly option after factoring in HT.
 
Robert Erickson said:
Nitro V is around 15% more expensive compared to AEB-L. In my experience there isn't a discernible difference in grinding/finishing and performance between the two so I usually stick with AEB-L.
Here's a nice review of Nitro V by Larrin Larrin Thomas
Click to expand...
I tested both steels cutting 1/2” rope on a end grain cutting board and had 2900 cuts with nitro-v and 2700 with aeb-l, same hardness within reason and same geometry and sharpening. I continued to cut rope until both knives were completely dull and recorded the cuts at 100 cut intervals. That’s just my experience from when I started testing between the two to pick one for a standard stainless option on my kitchen and edc knives
 
Joshua Fisher said:
I tested both steels cutting 1/2” rope on a end grain cutting board and had 2900 cuts with nitro-v and 2700 with aeb-l, same hardness within reason and same geometry and sharpening. I continued to cut rope until both knives were completely dull and recorded the cuts at 100 cut intervals. That’s just my experience from when I started testing between the two to pick one for a standard stainless option on my kitchen and edc knives
Click to expand...
that's some dedication!
 
Lorien said:
that's some dedication!
Click to expand...
Hind sight being 20/20 I should have found some 1” rope. But the 1/2” top I could get locally in long enough lengths to be able to test multiple steels with the same roll to try and take out as many variables as possible. It was several hours of cutting by hand but it is a great test that I can repeat with any steels I want to try and create my own baseline for edge performance.
 
2900 vs 2700 is less than a 10% difference which is probably within the experimental scatter of your test, especially given the cutting is by hand and the end point is “completely dull.” With such a small difference between the steels a small hardness difference would probably drown out any steel difference also. And that would be assuming a “perfect test” with perfectly repeatable sharpening.
 
Last edited:
Larrin said:
2900 vs 2700 is less than a 10% difference which is probably within the experimental scatter of your test, especially given the cutting is by hand and the end point is “completely dull.” With such a small difference between the steels a small hardness difference would probably drown out any steel difference also. And that would be assuming a “perfect test” with perfectly repeatable sharpening.
Click to expand...
Sure I get that it’s a non scientific test by hand, but most of us don’t have a better way of testing. I’m also not saying nitro-v is exponentially better just saying I got slightly better performance from it in my testing but both steels are very close to each other in performance. Honestly the same can be said for just about any testing done, at what point is a sample size too small to be considered 100% valid. Unless we test hundreds or thousands of samples there will always be variability from a small sample size. Also this test being done by hand is an important factor, end users are using the knives by hand and not in a machine, how one steel reacts to that human element over another is important. It was just an internal test I did to check heat treat and edge retention and edge stability in a few steels to see how they would hold up to heavy use, everyone’s results in the same test could be different.
 
I get what you are saying about the human factor in use and agree there is a difference in that vs a lab test using specific equipment designed for a particular test. But, the human factor introduces variables from person to person not really associated with specific scientific testing. Yes ,we need end user results, but without scientific data/results we are back at “what I get in my shop and tests are different than your results”. I want/need both.
 
12C27, 13C26, AEB-L, NitroV, and 14C28N are all in the same class of steels. Of all of these, 14C28N is the best one.

14C28N was developed by Sanvick as an upgrade to 13C26/AEB-L when Kershaw was having trouble with rust on some of their bead blasted folders in coastal areas. Better edge holding and corrosion resistance was the result.

Hoss
 
I've been using AEB-L for about a year or so now and I have to say I think it's my favorite stainless steel overall so far. It cuts on the bandsaw easy. It drills easy. It machines easy (nail nicks and pulls). It grinds nice and it finishes as good as CPM154 if not better imo. I've not experienced any unusual warping issues with AEB-L and for any minor warping my 4oz straightening hammer takes care of it pretty quick. I have one question and maybe best suited to Hoss D DevinT would there be any benefit/detriment to introducing my slip joint springs to a cryo cycle with AEB-L? Either way what would the benefit or detriment be?
 
DevinT said:
It’s always good to eliminate retained austenite from moving parts. Flexing steel can transform RA into fresh martensite which is brittle and can sometimes be a problem. You can probably get away with not doing cryo but are better off doing it.

Hoss
Click to expand...
Thank you Hoss. This will help me towards improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top