How tough CPM-3V really is?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Synov said:
Declining to the right means that toughness decreases as hardness increases for every steel type.

Here's the comparison that actually matters:

View attachment 2076251
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Helps.

Magnacut looks pretty good along with Vamax . . .and a few others if you squint. Looks like 440C shows lower numbers in the performance columns.

I am not clear on what the numbers mean in terms of units of measure (PSI, degrees of deflection, inches of cardboard cut???)

I have ruined any number of standard blade Buck 110s by snapping off the tip (toughness) or reputedly cutting open 100Lb bags of chemicals (edge retention).. I have come to understand that one premium knife maker only warrants their all-purpose fighting blades if they are used for cutting flesh. . . .any other usage voids the warranty.

How do current production blades of the newer, more advanced steels stand up?
 
VorpelSword said:
I have ruined any number of standard blade Buck 110s by snapping off the tip (toughness) or reputedly cutting open 100Lb bags of chemicals (edge retention)..
Click to expand...
Seems your issues with knives is not steel related but geometry related. Pick a knife with a strong tip or order a custom. Choose a thickness that can absorb your usage and then consider edge retention.
 
VorpelSword said:
I have ruined any number of standard blade Buck 110s by snapping off the tip (toughness) or reputedly cutting open 100Lb bags of chemicals (edge retention).. I have come to understand that one premium knife maker only warrants their all-purpose fighting blades if they are used for cutting flesh. . . .any other usage voids the warranty
Click to expand...
I'd suggest tanto tip, that is hard to break.
 
JoeBusic said:
Seems your issues with knives is not steel related but geometry related. Pick a knife with a strong tip or order a custom. Choose a thickness that can absorb your usage and then consider edge retention.
Click to expand...
My experience described was work related and occured during the mid 1980s when the Buck 110 was THE knife to have on your belt for anyone wearing a hard hat in the oil field. I have been retired for twenty years now and relie on a Leatherman Wave for my EDC.

My interest in steel is academic at this point.
 
Last edited:
VorpelSword said:
My experience described was work related and occured during the mid 1980s when the Buck 110 was THE knife to have on your belt for anyone wearing a hard hat in the oil field. I hae been rretired for twenty yeares now and relie on a Leatherman Wave for my edc.

My interest in steel is academic at this point.
Click to expand...
You still need a tanto like the rest of us OFs tho'.;)
 
^^^
OK, I am convinced: Does Leatherman offer a Tanto profile on their Wave model?

Anyway, with a multitool as my bus-riding-city-traveling EDC, I now tend to use the heftier screwdriver blade for prying, not either of the knife blades. Back in my 1980s era oilfield days, all I had was the Buck folder. That was pretty much all anyone had out on a rig back then.

Regarding the need for a tactical folder . . .Here in Texas, if personal security is a real-world concern, a citizen has the option of legally carrying a firearm in public . . . .I do not, but that is always a viable option. And now,to be clear: My personal security strategy is to avoid times, places and activities that would make me feel the need to have a pistol readily available.
 
Last edited:
Okay, here is a legit question. Which is tougher, a 3/16” 3V with a great heat treat or 1/4” 1095 with a great heat treat?
 
coolbreezy37 said:
Okay, here is a legit question. Which is tougher, a 3/16” 3V with a great heat treat or 1/4” 1095 with a great heat treat?
Click to expand...
3V. Double minimum. Steel wise difference is greater. Knife wise it's double minimum. And considering same geometry and fit and finish. Only steel and thickness different.
 
JoeBusic said:
3V. Double minimum. Steel wise difference is greater. Knife wise it's double minimum. And considering same geometry and fit and finish. Only steel and thickness different.
Click to expand...
I sure would like to see 3V/ztuff/A8/etc. perform/pass this test (I conducted)


Here is my 1095 vs 8670 vertical impact (sort of charpy un-notched) test


8670 is much tougher than 3V & Ztuff.
 
bluntcut said:
I sure would like to see 3V/ztuff/A8/etc. perform/pass this test (I conducted)


Here is my 1095 vs 8670 vertical impact (sort of charpy un-notched) test


8670 is much tougher than 3V & Ztuff.
Click to expand...
I’m done with pm steels (regarding toughness). Ztuff is “almost as tough as S7”. Erasteel ASP 2012 is “almost as tough as H13”. I don’t like the word “almost”, so no pm steels for me. 8670 sure is tough stuff, as 15n20, L6 (1.2714), S7, 1.2767, Ultrafort (Maraging) and 5160, my present steel choices.
 
Last edited:
Personally I couldn't care less, I've knives in many steels and hard use all my larger fixed blades but use them appropriately and none have ever failed or nor do I expect they ever will, this includes supposed weaker steels such as 1095.

Ive a 60 year old engineers hammer that is "tougher" than any 3v for hammering things and many pry/crowbars for prying.
 
Anyone have experience with Cold Steel’s 3V offerings? How is their heat treatment and do their blades hold up with this steel?
 
bluntcut said:
I sure would like to see 3V/ztuff/A8/etc. perform/pass this test (I conducted)


Here is my 1095 vs 8670 vertical impact (sort of charpy un-notched) test


8670 is much tougher than 3V & Ztuff.
Click to expand...
Your test is a compression test prime, toughness second. Delta3V can do it flawlessly. Normal 3V depends on the treater. But if you used your tweak HT for 1095, why not tweak 3V and test it? Of course same tweak reacts different to different steels. You're pushing more C in solution to make it stronger.
I have questions about the graph. When you say normalized to 2,5x10mm, what was your sample size and calculations to unify? What are Sequences? Variations of your method or something else? What is height in m? I guess hammer drop height, but not sure. If it its, why not uniform height?
 
JoeBusic said:
Your test is a compression test prime, toughness second. Delta3V can do it flawlessly. Normal 3V depends on the treater. But if you used your tweak HT for 1095, why not tweak 3V and test it? Of course same tweak reacts different to different steels. You're pushing more C in solution to make it stronger.
Click to expand...
I tested standard ht ztuff (60-62rc range) and it couldn't cut 12mm diameter rod. I doubt Nathan would assert his D3V produces result tougher than ztuff. Cutting 19mm vs 6mm diameter rod is many times more difficult...

JoeBusic said:
I have questions about the graph. When you say normalized to 2,5x10mm, what was your sample size and calculations to unify? What are Sequences? Variations of your method or something else? What is height in m? I guess hammer drop height, but not sure. If it its, why not uniform height?
Click to expand...
My samples size are varying 55 +- 1mm in length, 2.5 +- 0.2mm in thickness, 10 +- 0.5m in width, hence normalized cross section to sub size 2.5mm x 10mm - same dimension as Larrin's charpy impact toughness tests.

Sequences are steps manipulating crystal kinetic to create ideal matrix. Depend on parameters and number of steps, this process often take 10-20 days to complete.

Drop height is in meter

Hammer head is fixed weight, so varying the height to find the breaking point = impact toughness. My setup has a pressure/impact gauge to measure residual impact (after sample breakage) but this only use in 1-2 ftlbs range. Fixed height works for pendulum but not vertical device.
 
bluntcut said:
I tested standard ht ztuff (60-62rc range) and it couldn't cut 12mm diameter rod. I doubt Nathan would assert his D3V produces result tougher than ztuff. Cutting 19mm vs 6mm diameter rod is many times more difficult...


My samples size are varying 55 +- 1mm in length, 2.5 +- 0.2mm in thickness, 10 +- 0.5m in width, hence normalized cross section to sub size 2.5mm x 10mm - same dimension as Larrin's charpy impact toughness tests.

Sequences are steps manipulating crystal kinetic to create ideal matrix. Depend on parameters and number of steps, this process often take 10-20 days to complete.

Drop height is in meter

Hammer head is fixed weight, so varying the height to find the breaking point = impact toughness. My setup has a pressure/impact gauge to measure residual impact (after sample breakage) but this only use in 1-2 ftlbs range. Fixed height works for pendulum but not vertical device.
Click to expand...
On video here - D3V still took damage from going through a nail.

So I agree that there is plenty of carbon steels tougher than 3V.
 
bluntcut said:
... hence normalized cross section to sub size 2.5mm x 10mm...

..., this process often take 10-20 days to complete.

... Fixed height works for pendulum but not vertical device.
Click to expand...
Got it. Normalized as a term created some confusion. I think just saying "ground to size..." would be more appropriate.
10-20 days? That's a lot of days. Will you tweak to take it down? I understand science takes time.
Vertical devices can work just fine. But not using analog methods only. I'm in design of a vertical tester. 10kg weight, 1.5m high drop, accelerometer on the weight to measure speed all the way. It will show not just impact strength, but also deflection before break. And it's easier to make than a swinger. Takes a lot less space and is lighter in weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top