In the nick of time, got one! :o With a special shoutout to Landon (xceptnl) who tipped me that there was one available. Thank you Landon, thumbs up! :) This mule will be fitted with some nice burly 'kampher/wood´ ('kamferhout' in dutch with a very nice spicy smell). Thanks again.
:rolleyes:
MT18P – Mule Team Fixed Blade featuring CPM-S110V
If anybody wants one bad enough to become an entrepreneur, there's a lot of 5 of them on fleecebay for $900 or best offer, haha
K-390 on hand: Mule Team 17, Police 4 G-10, Endela (burlap micarta), Endela backup, Endura (canvas micarta), Straight Stretch (now blade-swapped with G-10 Stretch), Delica Wharncliffe, Dragonfly Wharncliffe, & Dragonfly Wharncliffe shorty mod
Note to self: Less is more.
Note to self: Less is more.
-
Commendatore
- Member
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:39 pm
- Location: Austria
It is a piece of functional art. The slimmer profile of this Mule does affect cutting performance in a positive manner, though. For the sake of comparability it should be the same profile as the other 16 Mules before but the knife I got is an awesome crafted cutting tool.
So far it slid through paper, cardboard and some oranges without losing any of the factory ground sharpness (very sharp on my two specimen).
So I try to compare my two most used Mules (m390, low primary angle, CPM-XHP 30° incl.) to this slimmer profile, high primary grind S110V.
Thank you Sal and all the :spyder: crew for making the Mule program and especially this knife possible.I wouldn´t be able to afford a cutting tool like this without you!!
So far it slid through paper, cardboard and some oranges without losing any of the factory ground sharpness (very sharp on my two specimen).
So I try to compare my two most used Mules (m390, low primary angle, CPM-XHP 30° incl.) to this slimmer profile, high primary grind S110V.
Thank you Sal and all the :spyder: crew for making the Mule program and especially this knife possible.I wouldn´t be able to afford a cutting tool like this without you!!
Testing is done on rope, results in the Coarse edge testing section on page one.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showt ... -quot-rope
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showt ... -quot-rope
-
Philo Beddoe
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:54 pm
-
Philo Beddoe
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:54 pm
-
Laethageal
- Member
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Lost in my thoughts
Just wanted to share hardness test results on my S110V Mule that I feel very lucky to have snagged on Monday.
For some background, calibration on a Rockwell hardness test machine is verified on a test block that normally has a +/- 1HRC tolerance on it. These test blocks come in various ranges and it's important to verify calibration as close to the expected range as possible. The test block was a 55.6 HRC test block. The calibration was at the lower end of acceptable (54.7 HRC) on the test block, but still in tolerance so I'll report the raw numbers. I got measurements between 58.7 HRC towards the butt end of the tang to 59.4 HRC just behind the plunge line. That's very good consistency, but perhaps not as high as I would've liked to see. It's still going to be a beast of a knife with regard to edge holding, but it may be some of the reason it didn't rank as high as I might have expected in Jim Ankerson's testing. I know he said he'd be sending his out for hardness testing as well; it'll be interesting to see those results as well.
Cliff Notes version - MT18, S110V hardness test results, average of 5 tests on one blade, 59.1 HRC
For some background, calibration on a Rockwell hardness test machine is verified on a test block that normally has a +/- 1HRC tolerance on it. These test blocks come in various ranges and it's important to verify calibration as close to the expected range as possible. The test block was a 55.6 HRC test block. The calibration was at the lower end of acceptable (54.7 HRC) on the test block, but still in tolerance so I'll report the raw numbers. I got measurements between 58.7 HRC towards the butt end of the tang to 59.4 HRC just behind the plunge line. That's very good consistency, but perhaps not as high as I would've liked to see. It's still going to be a beast of a knife with regard to edge holding, but it may be some of the reason it didn't rank as high as I might have expected in Jim Ankerson's testing. I know he said he'd be sending his out for hardness testing as well; it'll be interesting to see those results as well.
Cliff Notes version - MT18, S110V hardness test results, average of 5 tests on one blade, 59.1 HRC
42 Spyderco fixed blades and counting...
JLS wrote:Just wanted to share hardness test results on my S110V Mule that I feel very lucky to have snagged on Monday.
For some background, calibration on a Rockwell hardness test machine is verified on a test block that normally has a +/- 1HRC tolerance on it. These test blocks come in various ranges and it's important to verify calibration as close to the expected range as possible. The test block was a 55.6 HRC test block. The calibration was at the lower end of acceptable (54.7 HRC) on the test block, but still in tolerance so I'll report the raw numbers. I got measurements between 58.7 HRC towards the butt end of the tang to 59.4 HRC just behind the plunge line. That's very good consistency, but perhaps not as high as I would've liked to see. It's still going to be a beast of a knife with regard to edge holding, but it may be some of the reason it didn't rank as high as I might have expected in Jim Ankerson's testing. I know he said he'd be sending his out for hardness testing as well; it'll be interesting to see those results as well.
Cliff Notes version - MT18, S110V hardness test results, average of 5 tests on one blade, 59.1 HRC
Cool, gives a range. :)
Will see what mine comes in at. :D
Thanks, JLS, I will update the thread. Taking 59.4 near the plunge line, that's tolerably close to Sal's earlier post about 60-61. Given the results on the test block (almost one full point low), would you adjust the test results upwards?JLS wrote:Just wanted to share hardness test results on my S110V Mule that I feel very lucky to have snagged on Monday.
For some background, calibration on a Rockwell hardness test machine is verified on a test block that normally has a +/- 1HRC tolerance on it. These test blocks come in various ranges and it's important to verify calibration as close to the expected range as possible. The test block was a 55.6 HRC test block. The calibration was at the lower end of acceptable (54.7 HRC) on the test block, but still in tolerance so I'll report the raw numbers. I got measurements between 58.7 HRC towards the butt end of the tang to 59.4 HRC just behind the plunge line. That's very good consistency, but perhaps not as high as I would've liked to see. It's still going to be a beast of a knife with regard to edge holding, but it may be some of the reason it didn't rank as high as I might have expected in Jim Ankerson's testing. I know he said he'd be sending his out for hardness testing as well; it'll be interesting to see those results as well.
Cliff Notes version - MT18, S110V hardness test results, average of 5 tests on one blade, 59.1 HRC
I think it would be safe to call it 60 RC given the variation.JNewell wrote:Thanks, JLS, I will update the thread. Taking 59.4 near the plunge line, that's tolerably close to Sal's earlier post about 60-61. Given the results on the test block (almost one full point low), would you adjust the test results upwards?
That puts it right on the money of what Sal stated.
JNewell wrote:Thanks, JLS, I will update the thread. Taking 59.4 near the plunge line, that's tolerably close to Sal's earlier post about 60-61. Given the results on the test block (almost one full point low), would you adjust the test results upwards?
Agreed. I won't modify data and I report the data as I see it, but wanted to be clear on the calibration as well for those who want to draw their own conclusions. HRC testing is not perfect by any means and I'd call it in the range Sal gave us as well. Couldn't find his post on hardness when I looked earlier.Ankerson wrote:I think it would be safe to call it 60 RC given the variation.
That puts it right on the money of what Sal stated.
I'm really looking forward to the results on your blade, Jim.
42 Spyderco fixed blades and counting...
JLS wrote:Agreed. I won't modify data and I report the data as I see it, but wanted to be clear on the calibration as well for those who want to draw their own conclusions. HRC testing is not perfect by any means and I'd call it in the range Sal gave us as well. Couldn't find his post on hardness when I looked earlier.
I'm really looking forward to the results on your blade, Jim.
Yeah HRC testing is + or - 1 HRC anyway and depends on the equipment, and the calibration and the person doing the actual testing so no it's not exactly dead on all the time. :)
So the range could be 59 to 62 looking at it that way depending...
But I would take what Sal says and his range.
I posted both of the posts - let me know if you think it isn't clear as presented in that thread.JLS wrote:Agreed. I won't modify data and I report the data as I see it, but wanted to be clear on the calibration as well for those who want to draw their own conclusions. HRC testing is not perfect by any means and I'd call it in the range Sal gave us as well. Couldn't find his post on hardness when I looked earlier.
I'm really looking forward to the results on your blade, Jim.
I started testing blades years ago as curiosity to see if manufacturers were being straight up. Back then, Spyderco was calling out hardness in their catalogs. Everything I ever tested from Spyderco was in the range they called out. Other manufacturers were either in or close, but nobody ever stayed in everytime except Spyderco.Ankerson wrote:Yeah HRC testing is + or - 1 HRC anyway and depends on the equipment, and the calibration and the person doing the actual testing so no it's not exactly dead on all the time. :)
So the range could be 59 to 62 looking at it that way depending...
But I would take what Sal says and his range.
I've continued testing more as continued confirmation than a challenge. As Jim notes above, I'd stay Spyderco called it this time as well.
42 Spyderco fixed blades and counting...