Blade steels - what's wrong with improvement?

[Ankerson]

Misono has a Sweden Steel series; Aoki Hamono uses AEB-L; Suisin uses 19C27; Japanese Chefs Knife in Seki OEMs a Swedish Stainless house brand; and Sakai Ichimonji, Ichimonji Chuko, Ginga, and Sakai Yusuke all offer Swedish steel knives as well.

Not that I'm obsessed with Japanese made knives with steel appropriate for acute edges or anything...

Good info, more of the Custom Makers over there branching out.

The ones I have seen and or used over the years have been White #2 or Blue.

VERY thin grinds at around 10 to 15 degrees per side edge geometry depending on how thin the blade was ground behind the edge.

So thin that at 15 DPS the edge bevel is so small it looks like a micro bevel.

 

[thombrogan]

Good info, more of the Custom Makers over there branching out.

They might be, but I was mentioning large, soulless corporations guided only by the profit motive. I know the family that sells their knives under the name "Shigefusa" use Swedish ingot carbon steel as well, but I neglected to mention them.

 

[Big Chris]

I will throw another example out that I experienced this morning. Just got an Edge Pro Sharpener and wanted to play with it. Took an O1 Utility knife, I made it with a 60-61 Rc, off the kitchen magnet rebeveled the edge. I laid it down to about 16 degrees inclusive and put a 30 degree microbevel on. That was too thin an edge for that knife at that hardness. Like I said before I can usually tell in about 5 minutes that a knife is O1. It sliced very effortlessly through cardboard at first, but did not take much before the edge looked like a saw edge. On that note I can use an M4 knife I made and heat treated to 63 Rc and cut 4 or 5 times, maybe more, the cardboard before any edge degradation starts to appear. It is like Jim has stated before, "some steels do not have the alloy content to support thin edge geometry and high hardness". O1 is a good "old" tool steel, but it has been surpassed with new technology. I have made a lot of knives from O1 and will make more if that is what a customer wants, but I will always try to talk them into 3V because it is such a well rounded steel. I have used 3V for about every type of knife, small hunters and parers, large and small chef knives, camp knives and choppers. I would bet it could make a very nice straight razor as well, but I am not into that as I am currently 15 months into working on my ZZ Top Beard.
I have not made a knife from 52100 but I have used AEB-L and I will say outright that I was very underwhelmed by the performance. I had it heat treated by Peters to 62 Rc and ground a chef knife from it. Very thin edge down around .005" at the shoulders. Very sharp, it had no issue tree topping arm, leg, or chest hairs, but I could not stand the small grain size. It did not have the aggressive cut that I like so much from my powdered high Vanadium steels. That small grain is what makes such a great razor blade and is also very beneficial for a chopper, but the only advantage I see it having in my kitchen would be the high chromium content.
All steels have their pluses and minuses and that is why the steel companies have hundreds of different flavors for us to choose from. My best or favorite is not your best or favorite.

 

[Ankerson]

They might be, but I was mentioning large, soulless corporations guided only by the profit motive. I know the family that sells their knives under the name "Shigefusa" use Swedish ingot carbon steel as well, but I neglected to mention them.

I was looking at some Customs and what steels they are using along with the more traditional White and Blue steels.

But then they aren't made by the soulless Corporations.

 

[CapitalizedLiving]

I'm a bit of a steel snob.

I like steels that have high toughness, wear resistance, and corrosion resistance. Luckily for me, more advanced steels seem to become available in knives almost biannually! They keep getting better and with almost unheard of properties.

And yet, there remains a segment of this little community that seems staunchly opposed to new steels. They'll use phrases like "flavor of the week" to describe them, as if that changes how much better the newer steel is. I don't understand that. It's not like a subscription service that runs out or stops being as good over time. That steel will retain it's properties and continue to be superior to the older steel regardless of how often it is used or how much someone likes an older steel.

Is it a familiarity thing? I understand if someone gets used to, say, S30V and likes how the steel performs - and I can understand wanting all knives to have whatever favored steel. What is the point, though, in badmouthing newer superior steels?

Yeah, older steels can still make good knives, but newer steels make better knives. Shouldn't we all want that? Isn't the gradual advancement something we should not only want but expect? Yeah, S30V, VG-10, and 440C used to be some of the best steels around - and now there are better ones. That's good, right? Why do so many people seem so grumpy about new steels? Don't you want a better cutting tool?

To the OP: I say things like "steel du jour" all the time, but yes I do see your point. Improvement is "good" if people are willing to pay for it. Incremental improvements that are popularized as the new benchmark lead to new improvements and benchmarks, and so on, until improvements are too miniscule to emphasize and/or the market doesn't care anymore. You happen to be in a pretty good position right now because you like change and there is a market for it at the moment. I see nothing wrong with that.

I just like simple steels, and I'm not much of an experimenter. So I don't say "this is the steel du jour" because I'm a hater, I say it because it's a true statement and because it reflects my tendency to remain in a fairly stationary position.

 

[Big Chris]

Look at it this way too, if we never improved or strive for improvement the production knives we all like and use so much would still have 440C. Companies would not have tried S30V, 154 CM or CPM 154. Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Ankerson]

Look at it this way too, if we never improved or strive for improvement the production knives we all like and use so much would still have 440C. Companies would not have tried S30V, 154 CM or CPM 154. Variety is the spice of life.

We all would still be beating the meat off bones with sticks without advancements..... Living like they did 30 Thousand years ago.......

So if we take the thought process of some the human race would have never advanced at all if that thought process was of the norm..... And people had no vision or stayed very traditional.....

And we would still be living in caves....

And yeah that is the same thought process......

We don't need those fancy things like electricity or any of the advancements......

We all would still be worshiping the sun, and the world was flat......

Even go back 10 thousand years ago, that was living back then man I tell you......

I just don't get kind that kind of mentality personally ........

I think it might do some people some good if they stepped back and thought about the way they are thinking about knives and apply that same thought process to everything on a broad scale....

And then really think about it and how things would be today if everyone thought like that through the thousands of years humans have been on the planet......

We would actually still be living in caves....

 

[sodak]

And I believe vanadium carbides are on the order of 2-4 microns, so how you plan to fit one of those into an apex 0.5 microns wide? You have to increase the edge angle to stabilize it unless you are somehow shaping the vandium carbide itself and apexing it.

Since I use a diamond stone, vanadium carbides sharpen like soft butter. I've yet to see carbides being ripped out of the matrix due to sharpening.

So as in your post about Buck, if the thinner edge performed better, imagine how much better it would perform on the Catra test if the apex angle was also lower (less resistance)...and as seen in Roman's work, some steels can handle less than 15dps. And these steels are also cheap and easily hardenable to above 60 RC.

When you run 0.005 inches and less behind the edge, the edge angles isn't nearly as important anymore. I've experimented with various edge angles on thin knives quite a bit, and I cannot tell any difference in cutting from 10 to 15 DPS - unless you count edge damage. Then it becomes apparent. In testing the edge, I'm talking about holding either newspaper or yellow pages vertically in one hand, and push cutting down through the paper with zero slicing motion 6 inches away from my point of hold. It takes an insanely sharp edge to pass this test.

Any resistance from the edge angle is dwarfed, in my opinion, by resistance of thicker stock. Unless you have some reference literature that you could point me to that says otherwise?

How many production knives in general do we see run above 60RC? Spyderco's S90V and S110V are run at 59-61. I think the K390 got above that. I know there are others, but even many of the super steels are not being run at super high hardnesses in production.

And the Scrapyard Scrapivore is listed as 62-64 and is 52100.

The Busse Boney AD's are above there. Everything in D2 that comes out of Bob Dozier's shop is 60 - 61, although you might consider him custom. Some of Spyderco's offerings (in CPM M4) are about 62. They are there, but sadly in the minority.

 

[Camber]

Since I use a diamond stone, vanadium carbides sharpen like soft butter. I've yet to see carbides being ripped out of the matrix due to sharpening.

Unless your diamond stone is rated as finer than 2 microns you are not sharpening (ie beveling) the vanadium carbides. What you are doing is shaping the matrix, and your abrasive grit, if it is indeed larger than the carbide size) is simply plowing it out of the way.

When you run 0.005 inches and less behind the edge, the edge angles isn't nearly as important anymore. I've experimented with various edge angles on thin knives quite a bit, and I cannot tell any difference in cutting from 10 to 15 DPS - unless you count edge damage. Then it becomes apparent. In testing the edge, I'm talking about holding either newspaper or yellow pages vertically in one hand, and push cutting down through the paper with zero slicing motion 6 inches away from my point of hold. It takes an insanely sharp edge to pass this test.

Of course I count edge damage! That is exactly the point of most of this discussion, and it's huge...it's quite possibly the number one thing we try to avoid with respect to the edge...even more so than premature dulling.
What steels suffered this damage in fact? And cutting what? And what do you think made them perform better at 15dps? I know you mentioned D2 already failing at 10dps...and that happens to be a high carbide steel.

Beyond that, while the edge angle may not be nearly as important, that does not negate it as a factor. It's a miniscule change to go from S30V to S35V, but yet we still worry about it at times. So if you can have a thin edge and it support 10dps, then why not, even if it's a small positive change, take that positive change?

And with respect to your paper cutting...yes, that is extremely sharp, but it has little to nothing to do with the thickness behind the edge (only in that the thinner edge makes it easier to get that sharp). It is based entirely on the apex sharpness because once you rupture the paper (which the apex is responsible for) there is little to no friction of the paper against the blade bevels, especially as you describe holding it because the paper falls to each side.

Any resistance from the edge angle is dwarfed, in my opinion, by resistance of thicker stock. Unless you have some reference literature that you could point me to that says otherwise?

I don't have reference literature, but some basic physics can be helpful I think. This statement is not true if the material being cut has little to no wedging affect on the primary of the blade. If the material falls to the sides (meats, many vegetables, even ropes many times, paper) then all we need is a sharp apex to rupture the material.
Moreover, I am not disputing the importance of thin stock, but how does that negate the benefits of a thinner edge angle if the steel can support it (even if it's not as large a factor)? If that were so, again, why not just run 25dps bevels on .005 thick edges? Apparently it doesn't make much difference from a 15dps edge angle on the same edge thickness is what I'm gathering with all this talk of edge thickness being the key and edge angle not really mattering.

 

[Gator97]

Hey Brogan, long time



You lost me there...
Ankserson said:Any steel, no matter what it is won't perform above it's alloy content all things being equal and assuming a proper heat treatment and made by someone who knows what they are doing.
I dont' think he meant more vanadium or other carbides will automatically mean thin edges. No matter how you HT 1095 or CPM 10V neither will become stainless, nor 10xx will become more wear resistant than 10V or S110V, etc.. And sadly, no amount of HT will make HVC alloys perform well at very low angles either.

The best Japanese style kitchen knives are made from Hitachi's white and blue paper steels and Swedish ingot carbon steels and they're made for some of the most precise cutting to appease some of the most discerning recipients of that food being cut (Kaiseki-style meals in Kyoto being the pinnacle).

Agreed, but that's kitchen use, which isn't cardboard, plastic, game skinning etc... I too prefer Aogami/Shirogami in the kitchen, because of the polished,thin edges, but when I have to cut cardboard I'd rather have 10V or S110V.

Agreed. That's why CPM-10V or CPM-S125V will be a perpetually bad choice for a yanagi or an outdoors chopper, but 1095 can make both without too much trouble (even though it'd be pushing it for 1095).

Also agreed. But I also think 1095 isn't the end of the road either. IMHO Shirogami and Aogami will do better. And I have my Watanabe Aogami 2 nesmuk experience, but can't really compare to 1095, since i have never had 1095 at 65hrc...

A thick knife made of S110V that's RC59-61 with a polished edge of 5 degrees per side will most emphatically not outcut a thin blade made of 1095 that RC65-66 with a polished edge of 5 degrees per side.

And why would someone do that to S110V Those are the kind of arguments used to "prove" new alloys are all hype and no substance.

Neither will a thin blade of S110V hardened to RC65-66 with a polished edge of 5 degrees per side. The S110V will lose that edge immediately and all the vanadium in the world won't do jack poopypants to help it.

I doubt anyone is arguing that. Point is taking the right steel for the right job, with proper geometry. And like you said below:

And one can make scenarios and uses where the S110V will completely outshine 1095 such as scraping barnacles off fiberglass hulls.

Or any abrasive material for that matter. There is no HT which will make 1095 ourperform S110V for that use, no geometry either.

 

[me2]

some steels do not have the alloy content to support thin edge geometry and high hardness

High alloy content, in terms of lots of carbide formation, does not lend itself to thin edge geometry and high hardness, though "thin" and "high hardness" are relative terms.

 

[Ankerson]

And something for the Science guys to chew on.

What if the Roman Empire either never fell or all of that Technology wasn't lost and or suppressed for over a thousand years...... Narrow Minded thinking did all of that..... No Advancements........ Everything went backwards...... People of Science were killed and or burned at the stake for being witches..... Also known as the dark ages.........

Think about were the human race would be today compared to were we really are currently....

Now that makes ones head spin....

It would be like jumping a thousand years into the future as far as science and the way of life is concerned......

So you would think that people of Science would be finding ways to improve technology instead of suppress it......... Just some food for thought.

You people are supposed to be the smart ones in the room with the big brains looking to improve things and make things better.

And some seem to working really hard at suppressing any new technology when it comes to the steels..... When as scientists you should be working to improve on it or find advancements.......

Or are just they just like the common folk of the past.......

 

[Fanglekai]

I don't believe anyone ignored the questions.

It just that nobody has the answers, or lets say definite answers.

A lot of different types of knives are used for those tasks in even more different grades of steels all over the world.

That's from home owners to Chefs to people in slaughter houses to Butchers to short order cooks to hunters to guides and the list goes on.

So that a very broad scale of use in talking about meat and that's even getting into fish.

All I can say is get something thin in the type of knife that is needed and work with the knife with different edge finishes until you find what works the best for you.

The best answer I can give is to contact a Custom Knife Maker and let him know what you need and listen to his recommendations.

I think you're getting my point. There are a multitude of tasks. A multitude of different needs. But if you're talking about new alloys being improvements over old alloys, you should be able to demonstrate that.

If we can't answer to what extent one steel performs better than another steel then how can we even begin to talk about improvements? How can you or anyone else for that matter say that new alloys are improvements over old alloys if no one can definitively demonstrate to what extent those alloys are actually improvements? Are they 3% improvement? 6%? 15%? Are they actually better for all possible tasks? Where is the proof?

If we can't show to what extent one steel performs better than another then how can we talk about cost vs performance? How do we know if paying 300% more for a knife is worth it if we can't say to what extent that knife would be an improvement over a cheaper one?

Does no one else see the need for detailed experimentation before postulating that new alloys are definitely improvements over old ones?

Again I'll ask the same simple question: Given the same geometry, would S110V be an improvement over 1095 for cutting meat (no bone)? If no one can answer even a simple question like this how can anyone make claims about performance when it comes to more complicated tasks?

 

[thombrogan]

Hey Brogan, long time

Hi, Zvi!

You lost me there...
Ankserson said:Any steel, no matter what it is won't perform above it's alloy content all things being equal and assuming a proper heat treatment and made by someone who knows what they are doing.
I dont' think he meant more vanadium or other carbides will automatically mean thin edges. No matter how you HT 1095 or CPM 10V neither will become stainless, nor 10xx will become more wear resistant than 10V or S110V, etc.. And sadly, no amount of HT will make HVC alloys perform well at very low angles either.

There are so many assumptions in there in heat-treating alone (as well as a weird strawman the likes of which I had never seen until Jim typed it and you paraphrased it) that the ceteris paribus qualifier need not be typed with a straight face.

Agreed, but that's kitchen use, which isn't cardboard, plastic, game skinning etc... I too prefer Aogami/Shirogami in the kitchen, because of the polished,thin edges, but when I have to cut cardboard I'd rather have 10V or S110V.

I remember your BM140HS versus Strider tests from years back where the Strider fixed blade kept its edge and the Nimravus; despite having nowhere near an appropriate heat-treatment; lost its edge, but finished the task. The M2 tool steel, thinner grind, and BT2 coating made it 'high-speed/low-drag.'

For cutting cardboard and plastic, a sharp thin grind on any kind of steel is my preference. Beyond that, I'd rather the blade not have inward curves and if it does (hard to have a hawkbill or recurve without them), then I'd like an alloy of either extreme side of the Great Carbide Divide (resharpening AUS-8A or CPM-S110V after sodcutting is sooo much easier than VG-10). Ceteris caribous, I'd rather use a Spyderco brand Atlantic Salt SE folding pocketknife as it works well with fiberglass, drywall, sod, wood, all kinds of plastics, doesn't cost a gajillion dollars (though expensive enough - especially with mandatory STR Low-Rider clip to cute it up) and only takes one hate-filled hour with the diamond Sharpmaker hones to get back to working condition.

Also agreed. But I also think 1095 isn't the end of the road either. IMHO Shirogami and Aogami will do better. And I have my Watanabe Aogami 2 nesmuk experience, but can't really compare to 1095, since i have never had 1095 at 65hrc...

From reading exchanges between Marco and Jon on Dave Martell's old forum, it seems some 'traditional' makers in Japan feel that tempering steel is sacrilege. Is Mr. Watanabe that kind of guy?

Alvin Johnston gave me some unfinished blades of O1 and 1095 treated to RC 63 (O1) and RC 65 (1095). I only finished one of the 1095 blades (thinned it on a wet grinder until it flexed when glided over a ceramic hone) and made the ugliest handle ever seen on a knife. It was my unstoppable demon in our last home's creepy basement until I used it to cut Kydex thermoplastic. I deviated from the straight line cuts it made with ease and that's all she wrote. Still, it was my first, my last, my everything to slice straight through 0.093" Kydex stock with the same effort my Benchmade BM130 used for cutting up boxes. I no longer have a wet grinder or the other two blades he made me, but good times...

And why would someone do that to S110V Those are the kind of arguments used to "prove" new alloys are all hype and no substance.

DIN 1.2552 isn't all hype and no substance, but it's new to me. To answer why anyone would do that to S110V is "It's being used as a knife steel instead for its class of steel's general purpose as a die-cutter or for moldmaking. It's just one more in a bafflingly long line of steels that is sold with a spiel of "this steel is amazing for acting like a box cutter or a scalpel for very long periods of time, but the thing is, you need to sharpen it at a thicker angle than a splitting maul or it won't work and you need to find a custom maker if you want it ground thin and hardened to a point where the extra wear resistance of its carbides might make themselves present and there's no guarantees on that - only fanboys to belittle you if you don't like it. Go get 'em, Tiger!"

I doubt anyone is arguing that. Point is taking the right steel for the right job, with proper geometry.

When the 'proper' geometry stops including traditional knife angles, it stops being 'proper.'

And like you said below:

blah blah blah sucks at non-cutting task blah blah blah

Or any abrasive material for that matter. There is no HT which will make 1095 ourperform S110V for that use, no geometry either.

True. S110V will generally be a better bridge between knife steel and carbide steel than 1095.

 

[sodak]

So as in your post about Buck, if the thinner edge performed better, imagine how much better it would perform on the Catra test if the apex angle was also lower (less resistance)...and as seen in Roman's work, some steels can handle less than 15dps. And these steels are also cheap and easily hardenable to above 60 RC.

Give it a shot and let us know how it works. I'd be quite interested in your results.

I don't have reference literature, but some basic physics can be helpful I think. This statement is not true if the material being cut has little to no wedging affect on the primary of the blade. If the material falls to the sides (meats, many vegetables, even ropes many times, paper) then all we need is a sharp apex to rupture the material.
Moreover, I am not disputing the importance of thin stock, but how does that negate the benefits of a thinner edge angle if the steel can support it (even if it's not as large a factor)? If that were so, again, why not just run 25dps bevels on .005 thick edges? Apparently it doesn't make much difference from a 15dps edge angle on the same edge thickness is what I'm gathering with all this talk of edge thickness being the key and edge angle not really mattering.

My point was that in sharpening different edge angles, I could not tell any difference based upon my cutting. Give it a shot, maybe you'll find different results. If you do, please share them. We can all learn from each other.

I'm not going to go out and do a bunch of tests to satisfy other people's curiosity. Only mine. Everyone is free to try it themselves.

I think you're getting my point. There are a multitude of tasks. A multitude of different needs. But if you're talking about new alloys being improvements over old alloys, you should be able to demonstrate that.

If we can't answer to what extent one steel performs better than another steel then how can we even begin to talk about improvements? How can you or anyone else for that matter say that new alloys are improvements over old alloys if no one can definitively demonstrate to what extent those alloys are actually improvements? Are they 3% improvement? 6%? 15%? Are they actually better for all possible tasks? Where is the proof?

If we can't show to what extent one steel performs better than another then how can we talk about cost vs performance? How do we know if paying 300% more for a knife is worth it if we can't say to what extent that knife would be an improvement over a cheaper one?

Does no one else see the need for detailed experimentation before postulating that new alloys are definitely improvements over old ones?

Have you not seen Ankerson's testing thread? That's exactly what he's doing. If you doubt his work or want clarification, start testing yourself. I've done a lot over the years, to the point that I'm satisfied with my results, although I've learned from Ankerson's tests also. Jump on in, the water's fine.

Again I'll ask the same simple question: Given the same geometry, would S110V be an improvement over 1095 for cutting meat (no bone)? If no one can answer even a simple question like this how can anyone make claims about performance when it comes to more complicated tasks?

I doubt it. But then again, I think if I sharpened a piece of aluminum flashing, I could get the exact same results. Cutting meat with no bone is hardly a challenging test for a knife. Probably why sushi knives can get so thin.

[...]

the Great Carbide Divide

[...]
"this steel is amazing for acting like a box cutter or a scalpel for very long periods of time, but the thing is, you need to sharpen it at a thicker angle than a splitting maul or it won't work and you need to find a custom maker if you want it ground thin and hardened to a point where the extra wear resistance of its carbides might make themselves present and there's no guarantees on that - only fanboys to belittle you if you don't like it. Go get 'em, Tiger!"
[...]

When the 'proper' geometry stops including traditional knife angles, it stops being 'proper.'

I really don't understand where all this is coming from. Wow. Some steels are more suitable for certain tasks than others. I've never seen a steel yet that has to be thicker than a splitting maul. What exactly are you referring to? I thin out almost all my knives when I get them, both the low and high alloy steels, but that's just me. Are you saying that we thin out knives too much?

 

[Ankerson]

I think you're getting my point. There are a multitude of tasks. A multitude of different needs. But if you're talking about new alloys being improvements over old alloys, you should be able to demonstrate that.

If we can't answer to what extent one steel performs better than another steel then how can we even begin to talk about improvements? How can you or anyone else for that matter say that new alloys are improvements over old alloys if no one can definitively demonstrate to what extent those alloys are actually improvements? Are they 3% improvement? 6%? 15%? Are they actually better for all possible tasks? Where is the proof?

If we can't show to what extent one steel performs better than another then how can we talk about cost vs performance? How do we know if paying 300% more for a knife is worth it if we can't say to what extent that knife would be an improvement over a cheaper one?

Does no one else see the need for detailed experimentation before postulating that new alloys are definitely improvements over old ones?

Again I'll ask the same simple question: Given the same geometry, would S110V be an improvement over 1095 for cutting meat (no bone)? If no one can answer even a simple question like this how can anyone make claims about performance when it comes to more complicated tasks?

You will see an improvement from S110V over 1095 in cutting meat, and it will be noticeable also, that much I can say with confidence.

How much percentage wise would depend on the actual knives compared, geometries, edge finishes etc and it will vary some.

That's why there isn't a definite answer because you are talking about real use here, actually using the knives at their intended tasks whatever they may be.

That's also why I recommended a custom knife maker because they can make a knife that is optimized for whatever kind of real work that you would be doing.

Now as far as cost per percentage it will vary, nobody can answer that one unless they have done the actual testing using those specific set of variables that you are looking at.

I can tell you one guy who just ain't gonna go out and buy a few 100 LBS of beef just to test, I don't have that kind of money to throw away....... That's just not gonna happen.

If it's worth it or not to spend the money on a custom knife that is optimized for what you want to do would be up to you, and that is something you will have to decide, nobody can make that choice for you.

 

[Big Chris]

I have to say as well that there will be a huge improvement in meat cutting when comparing S110V to 1095. Meat cutting has been one of my favorite ways to test cutting effectiveness in steels. S90V and 10V are the most aggressive cutters I have ever put to meat.

I just did a quick cutting test on some rope. I took the O1 knife I re beveled earlier and cut some 5/8" manilla rope. It made 15 cuts through the rope before it would no longer cut phone book paper. Next I took and M2 knife and did the same cutting. The M2 knife made 30 cuts before it would not cut the phone book paper. The O1 knife was slightly thinner behind the edge and made the first 5 cuts very effortlessly, but then started dragging very quickly. The M2 knife took roughly the same amount of pressure for the first 10 cuts and was then a gradual increase in pressure. I chose to compare these 2 because they neither is a powder steel. Not sure if this means that M2 is twice as good or not, but by being able to make twice the number of cuts to a given failure is worth the added cost to me. Roughly this means I should be able to skin and clean twice as many animals, make more meals, or even more feather sticks before it needs a touch up. Better performance is what I wanted from M2 and that is exactly what I got.

 

[thombrogan]

I've never seen a steel yet that has to be thicker than a splitting maul. What exactly are you referring to?

Thicker angle than the edge of a splitting maul.

I thin out almost all my knives when I get them, both the low and high alloy steels, but that's just me. Are you saying that we thin out knives too much?

We? I don't thin my knives out nearly enough especially since giving away my wet grinder to a guy who could use it more and better, not having anywhere good to run my sander, and my D8XX is finally pooping out after 7 years of tendon-rending grindage.

 

[Ankerson]

Thicker angle than the edge of a splitting maul.



We? I don't thin my knives out nearly enough especially since giving away my wet grinder to a guy who could use it more and better, not having anywhere good to run my sander, and my D8XX is finally pooping out after 7 years of tendon-rending grindage.

Why did you give it away again?

 

[thombrogan]

My neighbor needed it and he's a heck of a nice guy.