CTS-XHP How hard is Spyderco running it?

knarfeng

knarfeng

senex morosus moderator
Staff member
Super Mod
Moderator
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
42,141
I've seen a number of threads on the CTS-XHP blades Spyderco is putting out. Can't seem to find a definitive answer for how hard they run it. All I've seen is speculation. I don't see any hardness data on the Spyderco web site. Seems to me they used to post their hardness specs for the various alloys they use.

Oh, and if it varies by knife, then it would be on a Chaparral.
 
Someone on another forum just tested an frn Chaparral in XHP:

"The Spyderco Chaparral was tested recently. I did three checks, it came out at 63.0, two were slightly above 63 and one was slightly below 63.5, so I'm calling it 63.0."

Just one data point, but from recent production on the correct model. :thumbsup:
 
^^That's a nice find, but from 2010. Ironically, Sal did post a "thanx" following the quote I provided above from 12/22/2017.

I could post a link to the source, but it's from "You-know-who's" forum so I didn't know if I should.
 
inkynate said:
^^That's a nice find, but from 2010. Ironically, Sal did post a "thanx" following the quote I provided above from 12/22/2017.

I could post a link to the source, but it's from "You-know-who's" forum so I didn't know if I should.
Click to expand...

I didn't see your post until after I posted mine and refreshed the page. I said "ironically" because I just happened to be reading this yesterday. I agree with you that those rockwell test are certainly better data points than a dated "should be" even if it's from the man himself. Haha this was by no means an attempt to try to prove you wrong or anything I just thought that was a decent starting point.
 
inkynate said:
Someone on another forum just tested an frn Chaparral in XHP:

"The Spyderco Chaparral was tested recently. I did three checks, it came out at 63.0, two were slightly above 63 and one was slightly below 63.5, so I'm calling it 63.0."

Just one data point, but from recent production on the correct model. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

PM sent.
 
cashville said:
I didn't see your post until after I posted mine and refreshed the page. I said "ironically" because I just happened to be reading this yesterday. I agree with you that those rockwell test are certainly better data points than a dated "should be" even if it's from the man himself. Haha this was by no means an attempt to try to prove you wrong or anything I just thought that was a decent starting point.
Click to expand...

No worries man, I thought maybe that was the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top