Someone please verify: CPM-20CV vs CTS-204P

Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
290
I have been reading up on 20CV and 204P and understand that they are basically the same steel. But I heard somewhere that 20CV has a slight edge over 204P in edge retention and that 204P has a slight edge over 20CV in corrosion resistance. This could be completely inaccurate but I cannot find any information that supports or denies this claim. So I was wondering if someone could verify if it is true or what the actual performance differences are between the two if any. I also know that heat treat and blade geometry play a huge factor in cutting ability so let’s just say it is the same, would there be any difference?
 
Heat treat is huge. My preference is to 20cv from using the steel from Demko, Benchmade and Cold Steel vs 204p from Spyderco and ZT.

Doesn’t answer your question and will take someone with use of very similar knives from the same maker/heat treat/blade grind.
 
The biggest difference between them is the Silicon amount, 20cv has 0.3% while 204p has 0.6%... they are otherwise almost identical, extremely high carbon and chrome...
I personally don't like such high amounts, as I hate to risk chip-outs but they'll both hold an edge really well.
 
I have been reading up on 20CV and 204P and understand that they are basically the same steel. But I heard somewhere that 20CV has a slight edge over 204P in edge retention and that 204P has a slight edge over 20CV in corrosion resistance. This could be completely inaccurate but I cannot find any information that supports or denies this claim. So I was wondering if someone could verify if it is true or what the actual performance differences are between the two if any. I also know that heat treat and blade geometry play a huge factor in cutting ability so let’s just say it is the same, would there be any difference?
In reality, no difference. Worry about the other factors.
 
I have been reading up on 20CV and 204P and understand that they are basically the same steel. But I heard somewhere that 20CV has a slight edge over 204P in edge retention and that 204P has a slight edge over 20CV in corrosion resistance. This could be completely inaccurate but I cannot find any information that supports or denies this claim. So I was wondering if someone could verify if it is true or what the actual performance differences are between the two if any. I also know that heat treat and blade geometry play a huge factor in cutting ability so let’s just say it is the same, would there be any difference?
Any difference between them is the heat treatment and nothing more.

Well besides the blade geometry and or edge angle. But two identical blades and edge angles with each different steel 20cv,204p,m30 with the same ht each will result in nearly identical results. From different companies each heat treatment will be different and each grind will be different and if you sharpen them they will be different.

But for the most part apples to apples they are the same.
 
Of this alloy:

20CV is first generation powder steel.

204P is second generation powder steel.

M390 is third generation steel.

Generally, the later generations produce finer and better distributed carbides, with less inclusions and greater toughness. In practice, it's complicated and highly nuanced.

Whether one has better edge retention, more toughness, more strength, more stain resistance depends on the heat treat and what characteristics the maker is looking for, not the basic steel processing of the same alloy.
 
Of this alloy:

20CV is first generation powder steel.

204P is second generation powder steel.

M390 is third generation steel.

Generally, the later generations produce finer and better distributed carbides, with less inclusions and greater toughness. In practice, it's complicated and highly nuanced.

Whether one has better edge retention, more toughness, more strength, more stain resistance depends on the heat treat and what characteristics the maker is looking for, not the basic steel processing of the same alloy.

Typically correct, however, my understanding, as explained to me by several steel nerds, Carpenter's 2nd gen PM process is essentially the same as BU's 3rd gen and yields similar results. The difference between Crucible and Carpenter/BU is the particle size of the powder. Overall apples to apples with very little noticeable difference to the end user.

I just finished blades in each grade and sent them to Brad at Peters' for HT, they will be HT'd as a single batch, not as M390, 204P and 20CV independently, and all will attain the correct hardness. The rest is on me :).
 
I have owned all of these and used them...lightly. Certainly, casual use will not reveal much of value.
These are such darned good steels that 95% of us would NEVER know the difference, in the woods or not.
 
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/shot-show-2018.1547489/page-11#post-17786394

Crucible Steels are 1st Generation - CPM Steels
Carpenter Power Steels are 2nd Generation
Bohler Powder Steels are 3rd Generation

The difference is refinement of the process allowing for more even distribution of the Alloy, finer grain structure and that increases toughness and allows for higher hardness.

Better is a matter of opinion between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations and that depends on what steels they are talking about and the HT.

Remember when talking about steels we don't get anything without giving something else up in the process.

N. Brian Huegel wrote:
As part of my interest in understanding powder metallurgy, I sent an email to Ronald Long at Carpenter Technology Corporation. He is the Commercial Manager of the Knife Blade Products division. He has graciously allowed me to share it with the forum. Here is a portion of our correspondence.

Q: Per this Spyderco forum thread, in what began as a discussion about their latest Mule made with Böhler M390, I have attempted to compare / contrast with your CTS-204P. As part of the discussion, it has been brought up that your powder metallurgy is 2nd generation whereas Böhler’s is 3rd generation.

A: From one of Carpenter’s R & D managers: “The first generation powder product that was originally produced in Sweden by Erasteel and Anval (now CPP AB) consisted of air induction melting in a top pouring furnace followed by pouring the molten metal into a tundish from which the molten metal is bottom poured out of the tundish and is atomized to produce a coarse powder, typically -1000 microns or -500 microns.

The second generation powder product as practiced by Erasteel, CPP AB, and Böhler, consists of the first generation air induction melting process followed by pouring the molten metal into a heated, refining tundish called an “ESH” tundish (Electro-Slag Heated tundish), where the molten metal is heated with graphite electrodes (Erasteel and Böhler process) or a plasma torch (CPP AB). The refining tundish permits the molten metal to be purified (reduce the amount of inclusions). After refining, the molten metal is poured out of the bottom of the tundish and is atomized to produce a coarse powder, typically -1000 microns or -500 microns (the same powder size as the first generation process).

Böhler’s third generation powder product consists of the second generation process followed by a modified atomization process that produces a finer powder, typically 250 microns. Böhler claims the finer powder reduces the presence of coarse carbides compared to the first and second generation, coarser powder.

As noted above, CPP AB uses the second generation powder process. CPP BVL (BVL is our facility in the US and our source for CTS 204P) uses both air induction melting and vacuum induction melting coupled with the use of reticulated refractory filters in its tundish to produce 150 micron powder (finer than Böhler’s powder) for P/M tool steel millform products. CPP BVL’s powder manufacturing process does not directly compare to the European classification system of “first, second and third” generation powder processing. BVL’s vacuum induction melting + filtration process plus the use of -150 micron powder is cleaner than the third generation process. The air induction melting process + filtration process plus the use of -150 micron powder is equivalent to the second generation process with a finer powder than the second generation process.”

From Ron: As you can see it is not exactly an “apples to apples” comparison when one puts the processes side by side.

Effectively, from dimensional perspective, our “2nd generation” process produces a finer, 150 micron powder than their “3rd generation” process which is 250 microns. And I don’t believe they would argue that their 250 micron material would have finer carbides than our 150 micron material.

The other issue is product cleanliness. I have asked for information on product rejection rates for inclusions and have yet to find an example. I am not saying they do not happen; just that folks are having problems finding the last time it did happen. In my short tenure here I have not dealt with an inclusion. I will look to get you a better definition of cleanliness relative to our product.

Regards,

Ronald Long
Carpenter Technology Corporation
Commercial Manager- Knife Blade Products


His only concern in allowing me to quote him and Carpenter is that he does not want to get into a situation where he might sound like, or be accused of, being critical of Böhler-Uddeholm which was not his intent. I do not believe that this will be the perception and I sincerely appreciate his explanation and knowledge on the subject. I also invited him to participate directly with this forum and also encouraged him and Carpenter to consider establishing a forum or sub-forum of their own. Time will tell if this comes to fruition, however, I do believe that the above is a definitive expression of Carpenter Technology’s deep commitment to our industry and the future of cutlery steels.
 
Nice, how old is this information? What year was this from?
2011 or earlier. Probably earlier. As this thread is quoting it from another thread that seems to be archived somewhere else.

https://www.spyderco.com/forumII/viewtopic.php?t=50603

Basically says 204p is as good or better than m390 in the process of making it. In terms of clean and micron size. Despite the size of the particles to begin with.

On another note, if you check out ankersons testing and Cedric Ada 20cv does extremely well in tests. We have yet to see a same angle same stock, same ht test between the three steels. But they all three do extremely well. I don't think anyone would see a difference if all the variables are the same. I do see alot of m390 between 59-61 hrc while I see alot of 204p and 20cv at 62hrc. And even different ht protocols with the same hrc will be different properties. Which is what people see when they compare Benchmade vs zt vs spyderco etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top