Blade steels - what's wrong with improvement?

[KennyB]

I just think the expense is too high for newer steels really, like the difference in performance dosn't reallys hine througha s much as the difference in cost.

 

[Gator97]

Yeah, you're quite right about that. There are plenty of very expensive knives made from old(er) alloys, but that doesn't seem to be a concern
I am pretty sure someone posting test results of 90deg bending wouldn't get much of a credit here on BF either.

 

[Ankerson]

I just think the expense is too high for newer steels really, like the difference in performance dosn't reallys hine througha s much as the difference in cost.

A knife made by a ABS Master Smith will cost a lot more than a knife made in one of the newer steels as they are works of art.

Now maybe some dude with a blow torch and a lawnmower blade would be different......

 

[Stays Sharp]

If Cliff Stamp was around he'd love to turn this thread upside down

 

[Ankerson]

Yeah, you're quite right about that. There are plenty of very expensive knives made from old(er) alloys, but that doesn't seem to be a concern
I am pretty sure someone posting test results of 90deg bending wouldn't get much of a credit here on BF either.

They would be flamed right off the forums I am guessing...

And rightly so for wrecking a work of art.

 

[A Justice]

Aside from western fillet knives, why exactly do you wanna bend the knife?

You Do understand that toughness is a desirable trait in knives? Why do you think INFI, 52100, 3V, L6 and the 10xx series is so popular?

By the same token, any fool using 1095 doesn't mean he/she HTed it correctly. Somehow, whenever we have debates about old and trusty steels vs. new superalloys, the old ones automatically get best possible HT(perhaps because it's simple) and new ones are assumed to have crappy HT. Not a valid comparison at all.

Familiarity and simplicity. It's not the old ones that get the best possible heat treat, it's the steels that an individual has treated 1,000 times, testing dozens of minute variations, with feedback from decades of use. Is it really that hard to understand why Gil Hibben still uses 440?

 

[marcinek]

You Do understand that toughness is a desirable trait in knives? Why do you think INFI, 52100, 3V, L6 and the 10xx series is so popular?

Familiarity and simplicity. It's not the old ones that get the best possible heat treat, it's the steels that an individual has treated 1,000 times, testing dozens of minute variations, with feedback from decades of use. Is it really that hard to understand why Gil Hibben still uses 440?

Dude. Wrong guy to question about understanding steel.

 

[pvicenzi]

If edge retention was all that mattered, we wouldn't have steel blade at all. Stellite, and ceramic would are a few examples.

 

[A Justice]

Dude. Wrong guy to question about understanding steel.

I kinda know who these two are, have read Ankerson's whole thread, and use the Zknives fairly often. Great stuff, but there are hints of bias toward edge retention in the posts in this thread though (which I would expect, if Ankerson was more concerned with toughness and ductility his tests would look much different), and I just wanted to make sure the other side of the coin was represented. This gets thrown around a lot (and I doubt it's usually true), but I do appreciate the work Ankerson and Gator do, and respect the knowledge they bring to the table immensely. Not enough people doing it.

Nobody is going to bend knives at 90 degrees on a daily basis, but they're not going to sit down and repeatedly cut a piece of rope 700 times either. Now I can appreciate the knives that do both, and the people that test them, and there's no reason to downplay the significance of either. Aaron Gough included a bend test in his testing for the Resolute a few months ago, and it's a very apt test when you're talking about an all around utility/outdoor/survival knife. As far as price is concerned, a more apt comparison would be a new maker selling their 1084 Blades for 150$, but selling the ones made out of S35VN for $350, where the material cost is the biggest factor in the price difference. When you get into the realm of ABS master smiths, the cost is more dependent on the hours of work involved than the materials, notwithstanding the handle materials that can cost a small fortune.

 

[Hevy Devy]

newer steels make better knives.

Nope, that's not true.

 

[Gator97]

You Do understand that toughness is a desirable trait in knives? Why do you think INFI, 52100, 3V, L6 and the 10xx series is so popular?

Very much so. And on top of the alloys you listed, I can add that toughness is very desirable trait for the light use knives, with very thin edges and high hardness. helps a lot with micro chipping. Vanadis 4E and CPM 3V being very good examples of that. 3V as usual gets mentioned or used for large blades, but it performs very well at 62-63HRC with 10deg per side edges.
I am still not convinced though that bending knives made out of the 100 year old alloys is more beneficial to users, industry, innovation or cutting...
Besides, 3V is rather new compared to 10xx. And discussion was in general about new alloys, not necessarily about large knives or swords. There's plenty of 10xx small knives.

Familiarity and simplicity. It's not the old ones that get the best possible heat treat, it's the steels that an individual has treated 1,000 times, testing dozens of minute variations, with feedback from decades of use. Is it really that hard to understand why Gil Hibben still uses 440?

I did mention that old stuff is easier to HT and produce. I agree on both, familiarity and simplicity, but that's the benefit maker(s) get, not the users, what the user gets is subpar performance and lower cost. And the reason Gil Hibben still uses 440A is profit. It is a lot easier and more profitable to produce 10 cheap knives form very cheap and easy to HT steel then spend 5x time to produce 1 knife which will cost 10x more...

Nobody is going to bend knives at 90 degrees on a daily basis, but they're not going to sit down and repeatedly cut a piece of rope 700 times either.

Agreed, but during normal use, average user is far more likely to accumulate 700 rops cuts equivalent of cutting, than bend a knife for 90deg. It's not that easy physically after all

P.S. Thanks, glad the steel chart is working out for you.

 

[Gator97]

If edge retention was all that mattered, we wouldn't have steel blade at all. Stellite, and ceramic would are a few examples.

Edge retention, at least in human held knives is a combination of many factors, not just wear resistance.

 

[leghog]

newer steels make better knives.

Nope, that's not true.

I'll agree with you there, Hevy Devy

 

[Huntsman Knife Co.]

The newer steels are better than the old ones, all things being equal. This certainly doesn't mean the old steels are bad. 52100 is one of my favorite steels even though it is technically a dated cutlery steel.

A 3V knife will out perform a 1095 knife in every single aspect.
An M390 knife will out perform a 440C knife in every single aspect.
An ELMAX knife will out perform a D2 knife in every single aspect.

Toughness, edge holding, stain resistance, grain structure you name it the new "super steels" do it better than the old standbys. I don't understand how there is still debate about his. There is no magic here, all of these claims can be, and have been empirically tested.

As a maker, I'm always looking at the latest and greatest super steels making their way into the knifemaking world like Vanadis 4E, K390, PD1 etc.. But with that in mind I still regularly use old standby steels like 52100, A2, or AEB-L. In fact, I still use them volume wise more than any of the newer steels They do what they are supposed to do and do it extremely well. They are also affordable. PM steels cost at least 3X as much as older steels and are generally harder to grind and work with which further drives up cost.

Do I love 10V, 3V, M390, and ELMAX? Yes.
If they were the same cost would I use them over traditional steels? Yes.
But they are not so I continue to use older steels that are proven to perform in blades.

 

[Fanglekai]

There's nothing wrong with improvement. I'm going to play devil's advocate in my post to make a few points. The challenge is selecting the best material for the task at hand. A number of factors decide what the best material is for the particular task. Newer alloys can have some pretty extreme properties, some have a great balance between toughness, wear resistance, and edge retention. Older alloys can have great balance as well. Cost is a factor along with the blend of properties that the material possesses.

Look at costs with the percent difference. If a knife with steel A with a good blend of attributes costs $100 and the same knife with steel B has better overall attributes offering performance gains, but it costs 300% what knife A costs, is it worth it? That depends on the needs of the purchaser and his or her budget.

So while 1095 may not be the toughest steel or have the highest edge retention, it does have a desirable blend of properties for many uses and it's not generally super expensive in comparison to other steels. There are many great alloys, but often they come and go in popularity. ATS-34 isn't used much anymore. 440C isn't used much anymore. Calling new alloys "flavor of the month" is fairly accurate. Many alloys come and go. Some remain popular and stick around for long periods of time. A steel like 1095 is proven and is a pretty great choice for many knives, from small slipjoints to larger fixed blades. Usually it's relatively inexpensive in comparison to knives made out of newer alloys like 3V, M390, etc.

I don't see a ton of people bashing new steels. Mostly I see people unwilling to pay a lot more money for, and let's be honest here, an unknown % increase in performance in various properties of the material. There is no chart that accurately reflects all the variables for toughness, edge retention on tons of materials, etc. and compares dozens of alloys to show performance ranking in real world environments.

There are too many variables to accurately and decisively measure performance of all the alloys out there: too many grits/finishes, bevel angles, inconsistencies in materials cut, lateral forces (user error, fatigue induced, tendency of the material to cause lateral force, etc), and the myriad of other variables.

So in reality no one can really say that knife B performs x% better than knife A in even one category. At best we can try to form a general sense of performance after doing a lot of testing and use, and maybe we can come to see how various steels can perform under a specific set of circumstances. It would take a monumental amount of research and testing to accurately compare all steels to come up with meaningful performance data for all around use for the general knife user.

In the end I think that many modern alloys are excellent and do show excellent performance in particular areas and many are great all around alloys. CPM-154 seems to me to be great for all around use, but I honestly have no idea how it actually compares to S30V, D2, VG-10, S110V, or 1095 if I had to come up with real, concrete % differences. The majority of what is discussed on this site with regards to performance is based off of gut feeling, experience, and/or possibly placebo or bias rather than rigorous scientific testing methods.

Let me play devil's advocate here: When it comes down to it who is able to answer even a relatively simple question like "For edge retention how does 1095 finished at 1200 grit at 20 degrees inclusive at .005" thick behind the edge compare to S110V finished at 600 grit and at 30 degrees inclusive at .01" thick behind the edge while cutting sirloin steak?"

If we can't give actual % differences based on real life scenarios then why do we need to be obsessed with the newest alloys?

 

[Ankerson]

Toughness, edge holding, stain resistance, grain structure you name it the new "super steels" do it better than the old standbys. I don't understand how there is still debate about this. There is no magic here, all of these claims can be, and have been empirically tested.

Cost, urban legends and general BS are the main reasons why.

Throw in some marketing about magic heat treatments and everything goes sideways especially if the knives are cheap....

 

[Gator97]

Well, I've had more than one Cutco owner frustrated with my negative comments on Cutco knives and very seriously arguing that their beloved cutco is still gong strong after 10,15,20, even 25 years and NEVER needed shapening, while being used in the kithchen "all the time"... Which category is that? Loyal? Ignorant?
Tales of 10xx knives skinning 1+ deer(boar, whatever large game) w/o any sharpening in between and still shaving/razor sharp.

 

[Ankerson]

There's nothing wrong with improvement. I'm going to play devil's advocate in my post to make a few points. The challenge is selecting the best material for the task at hand. A number of factors decide what the best material is for the particular task. Newer alloys can have some pretty extreme properties, some have a great balance between toughness, wear resistance, and edge retention. Older alloys can have great balance as well. Cost is a factor along with the blend of properties that the material possesses.

Look at costs with the percent difference. If a knife with steel A with a good blend of attributes costs $100 and the same knife with steel B has better overall attributes offering performance gains, but it costs 300% what knife A costs, is it worth it? That depends on the needs of the purchaser and his or her budget.

So while 1095 may not be the toughest steel or have the highest edge retention, it does have a desirable blend of properties for many uses and it's not generally super expensive in comparison to other steels. There are many great alloys, but often they come and go in popularity. ATS-34 isn't used much anymore. 440C isn't used much anymore. Calling new alloys "flavor of the month" is fairly accurate. Many alloys come and go. Some remain popular and stick around for long periods of time. A steel like 1095 is proven and is a pretty great choice for many knives, from small slipjoints to larger fixed blades. Usually it's relatively inexpensive in comparison to knives made out of newer alloys like 3V, M390, etc.

I don't see a ton of people bashing new steels. Mostly I see people unwilling to pay a lot more money for, and let's be honest here, an unknown % increase in performance in various properties of the material. There is no chart that accurately reflects all the variables for toughness, edge retention on tons of materials, etc. and compares dozens of alloys to show performance ranking in real world environments.

There are too many variables to accurately and decisively measure performance of all the alloys out there: too many grits/finishes, bevel angles, inconsistencies in materials cut, lateral forces (user error, fatigue induced, tendency of the material to cause lateral force, etc), and the myriad of other variables.

So in reality no one can really say that knife B performs x% better than knife A in even one category. At best we can try to form a general sense of performance after doing a lot of testing and use, and maybe we can come to see how various steels can perform under a specific set of circumstances. It would take a monumental amount of research and testing to accurately compare all steels to come up with meaningful performance data for all around use for the general knife user.

In the end I think that many modern alloys are excellent and do show excellent performance in particular areas and many are great all around alloys. CPM-154 seems to me to be great for all around use, but I honestly have no idea how it actually compares to S30V, D2, VG-10, S110V, or 1095 if I had to come up with real, concrete % differences. The majority of what is discussed on this site with regards to performance is based off of gut feeling, experience, and/or possibly placebo or bias rather than rigorous scientific testing methods.

Let me play devil's advocate here: When it comes down to it who is able to answer even a relatively simple question like "For edge retention how does 1095 finished at 1200 grit at 20 degrees inclusive at .005" thick behind the edge compare to S110V finished at 600 grit and at 30 degrees inclusive at .01" thick behind the edge while cutting sirloin steak?"

If we can't give actual % differences based on real life scenarios then why do we need to be obsessed with the newest alloys?

Someone send me a knife in say 1095 at 64 HRC at .010" or less behind the edge, 5" blade, flat ground with a 1/8" spine to test and I will make a point compared to some of the super steels that I have on hand in like knives on abrasive materials.

I will put a 10 DPS edge bevel on it and cut with it.

And I will show people how fast it goes dull, and it will be very fast when compared to the super steels, there is no way around it..... Even at 64 HRC.....

I made the challenge, it's out there, any takers?

I doubt it.....

Because they already know how it will turn out......

 

[chiral.grolim]

The newer steels are better than the old ones, all things being equal. This certainly doesn't mean the old steels are bad. 52100 is one of my favorite steels even though it is technically a dated cutlery steel.

A 3V knife will out perform a 1095 knife in every single aspect.
An M390 knife will out perform a 440C knife in every single aspect.
An ELMAX knife will out perform a D2 knife in every single aspect.

Toughness, edge holding, stain resistance, grain structure you name it the new "super steels" do it better than the old standbys. I don't understand how there is still debate about his. There is no magic here, all of these claims can be, and have been empirically tested.

Actually, my reading indicates that 52100 and AEB-L perform better than any more recent steel in "edge stability" specifically because of "grain structure" - these steels, when heat treated properly, present a finer grain structure than any of the powder steels HT'd at its very best. Indeed, they are the benchmark to which the powder-steels are compared. They are cheaper to produce, take a finer edge, take it quicker, and maintain it longer against impact and compressive stress. But AEB-L is superior to 52100 in corrosion-resistance.

CPM-3V will outperform 1095 in toughness, wear, and corrosion; M390 will out-perform 440C in all 3. But how does each of those compare to 52100 in ease of manufacture, maintenance, and edge-stability? Both present better corrosion resistance but M390 is not quite as tough... and MUCH more expensive and more difficult to manufacture. I'm not sure how 3V compares...

Again, I'm not poo-pooing the new steels, just playing the opposing side here. I LIKE the innovation of bringing these new steels to market, especially for certain applications. But the application is key.

If you don't need the ease of maintenance or the edge-stability provided by these "stand-bys", then they are for the dust bin. But these 2 at least are NOT inferior in respect to grain structure.

 

[leghog]

Someone send me a knife in say 1095 at 64 HRC at .010" or less behind the edge, 5" blade, flat ground with a 1/8" spine to test and I will make a point compared to some of the super steels that I have on hand in like knives on abrasive materials.

I will put a 10 DPS edge bevel on it and cut with it.

And I will show people how fast it goes dull, and it will be very fast when compared to the super steels, there is no way around it..... Even at 64 HRC.....

I made the challenge, it's out there, any takers?

I doubt it.....

Because they already know how it will turn out......

Then dull both and resharpen each and tell us how that goes too.