Knife Steel EDC Performance Rankings

[JRinFL]

All I can say is that I'm glad that Larrin is here on this forum.

[TomAiello]

Maxamet is a relatively low toughness material.

I'd say this is true.

But that's a lot different from saying that it's too "it's brittle so probably not a great everyday knife." This is the statement from the original poster that I find contentious. I have used Maxamet as an 'everyday knife' on hundreds of days with zero problems.

[TomAiello]

Added Total Ropes Cut. Thanks to Cedric and Ada.

Are you compiling your opinions from various internet sources? Or are you actually using (or testing) these blade steels? What knives (and what geometries) are you using/testing?

[TkoK83Spy]

We've asked about his testing a good 10+ times and he keeps skating around the question. I'm going to guess he's compiled this from internet sources and random reviews.

You never really know until you try them out on your own, with consistent materials being cut!

[Karl_H]

Maxamet is a relatively low toughness material.

I'd say this is true.

But that's a lot differnt from saying that it's too "it's brittle so probably not a great everyday knife." This is the statement from the original poster that I find contentious. I have used Maxamet as an 'everyday knife' on hundreds of days with zero problems.

I find the entire OP to be contentious and not particularly helpful... to me.

Larrin’s articles may not be for everyone. However, I think anyone that truly cares about steel performance should read his articles and consider supporting his work.

Larrin provides standardized test data, with interpretation from a professional metallurgist. You can also draw your own conclusions from his data sets. He does not make any conclusions, solely based on hearsay. He avoids oversimplification. All of these things that Larrin provides are sorely lacking in the much of the knife industry / community.

[Deadboxhero]

Trinity 300,

It's fine to do your own testing and share or even give anecdotal accounts or share your own empirical evidence, keep in mind the observer would also account from your experience and abilities as well to the merit of the information given. For example, "Steel A doesn't take a good edge" yet said person is using a pull through sharpener.


The problem here is that this thread is compiling random tests selected randomly with bias and random accounts to a random and bias rating system.

This kind of information can be detrimental to new comers that genuinely want to understand how things work.

This thread is a blast from the past. It reminds me how far the community has come from the early 2000's when it was an absolute free for all and you had threads like this sowing confusion and chaos.

It's good to be excited but I'd recommend in the future just build your own data or anecdotal accounts and share. If you make a video we can also see empirically where the opinions and data is coming from as well.

It's okay to share an opinion but at least show where the opinions are coming from first hand. I'm less interested in the opinions of someones opinion of second hand and third hand information.



-Shawn

[bearfacedkiller]

Added Total Ropes Cut. Thanks to Cedric and Ada.

Are you compiling your opinions from various internet sources? Or are you actually using (or testing) these blade steels? What knives (and what geometries) are you using/testing?

Sure looks like he is regurgitating a mix of data from a few different “experts” on YouTube and probably other internet sources.

OP, your enthusiasm is understood and appreciated. You are in like company as we are all steel geeks to some degree. Keep studying, learning and testing and come to your own conclusions. This is a deep subject with so many variables that even studying it scientifically poses challenges. We have some extremely knowledgeable people on here who are very generous with that knowledge.

Hang out, enjoy folks with similar interests and share as well as learn. That is what draws many of us here.

Lastly, I don’t think I said this yet, welcome to the forum!

[JonLeBlanc]

H1 is garbage.

I wish Spyderco made a carbon steel blade.

Spyderco does use carbon steel. The entire Para/Military family plus the Manix2 was given the 52100 treatment.

[Trinity300]

Are you compiling your opinions from various internet sources? Or are you actually using (or testing) these blade steels? What knives (and what geometries) are you using/testing?

I have used maybe a quarter of them, but no quantitative testing was done. I will defer to those that have quantitative results. Cedric and Ada posted the raw results. The most common geometry looks to be 20 degrees using a Worksharp and 17 degrees using a Lansky or KME.

We've asked about his testing a good 10+ times and he keeps skating around the question. I'm going to guess he's compiled this from internet sources and random reviews.

You never really know until you try them out on your own, with consistent materials being cut!

I disagree. I feel that if someone’s testing is accurate enough, I do not feel compelled to test it myself. All testing I have done is qualitative anyway. You can decide for yourself whether a scientific argument is correct, and if you have to do everything yourself before you can come to an opinion, more power to you. Personally, I don’t have the time to gather quantitative data, so I am thankful for those that can. A compilation of several data points is going to showcase a better representation than one data point anyway. I don’t think Cedric's testing is perfect (for example S45VN’s edge retention came out way above S30V and S35VN, whereas Larrin’s testing showed them to be closer to each other in performance) but it’s still pretty solid overall. Lab results can differ from real world results too.

Okay so how do you explain the Triple B videos demonstrating that it's not fragile?

Triple B doesn’t demonstrate that it is not fragile. He just doesn’t reach the a high enough stress to break the knife. It is also important to note that the geometry of the knife and the roughness of the grind makes a big difference.

For more info on how knives fracture:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/08/05/ ... -not-fail/

Bingo.

I am unsure how to articulate my opinion on ApostleP on here while still maintaining shiny footprints. I would suggest getting your info from knifesteelsnerds instead of apostlep, that’s for sure.

TLDR: No, don’t use that source, use this one.

Actual CVN impact toughness test data for Maxamet and other steels:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2020/05/01/ ... fe-steels/

As you can see from Larrin’s test data, Maxamet is a relatively low toughness material.

Okay, same result. Although, I would not entirely discount ApostleP. I mean he does sharpen knives professionally, so he sees a lot of them. There will always be outliers.

Larrin provides standardized test data, with interpretation from a professional metallurgist. You can also draw your own conclusions from his data sets. He does not make any conclusions, solely based on hearsay. He avoids oversimplification. All of these things that Larrin provides are sorely lacking in the much of the knife industry / community.

He posts his findings so one can make their own conclusions, and these are mine. I don’t see how this is “contentious” as someone said earlier. I’m simply pulling a dataset and creating tiers based on that data set. The higher scored, more well-balanced steels will come out on top for all around use.

What I have gleaned is that knives are a very personal thing. People will love what they love. What works for one may not work for someone else. That said, you do you.

[bearfacedkiller]

Sorry if my post was too long, I am long winded.

I suggested knifesteelnerds because Larrin is a metallurgist with a degree from a good school. I consider him an expert and a reliable source of info. He is trying to approach all this as a scientist which I believe in. ApostleP is a self proclaimed expert who sharpen knives. Interestingly he cannot sharpen Maxamet which I find easy to sharpen. Does that make me an expert?

You seem to have this all figured out so I do not know how we may be of help to you. We are all here to learn so if you ever decide you want to be a part of that we will be here to share in that with you.

[VooDooChild]

You certainly have to accept the scientific method and data from others at a certain point. Theres just not enough time for any individual to verify all the experimental results after a certain point. Or equipment, money, expertise, etc. This is why standards in academia along with peer review is very important.

Trinity, I think part of the issue is that most people here have done the same research as you. Its great if you want to compile a comprehensive data set. But given all the info out there, I think youre going to need an entire webpage.

[bearfacedkiller]

Trinity, I think part of the issue is that most people here have done the same research as you.

I think that this is what we all are trying to say in a way. Most of us have combed through the majority of the data out there. A few years ago all we had was Ankerson’s list and Cliff Stamps testing. Now we have a lot more. I like Cedric Ada and while his testing isn’t perfect I do think it has value. Larrin is clearly trying to fill in some of the gaps and trying to clear up some of the foggy areas. Most of it has some value.

Many of us have tried to rank steels or at least categorize them. Many of us have learned just how futile that is. With all of the hardness testing going on lately it is also becoming obvious that one companies S30V is going to outperform another companies M390. Then there is geometry. It is fun to study and try to understand the different steels but there are so many variables that ranking them doesn’t always have value.

Larrin’s super double top secret project should give us more clarity in this foggy mess but in the end the variables will still all exist in practical situations.

[Trinity300]

I am still looking for some quantitative corrosion testing that is not theoretical if anyone has a source. I hope someone could do something like this but with different steels instead of oils:

http://www.dayattherange.com/?page_id=3667
https://www.accurateshooter.com/technic ... -products/
https://youtu.be/uOB5eCR ... e=youtu.be

Edit: I found Larrin did a few: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/10/14/ ... e-testing/ :)

[The Meat man]

Okay so how do you explain the Triple B videos demonstrating that it's not fragile?

Triple B doesn’t demonstrate that it is not fragile. He just doesn’t reach the a high enough stress to break the knife. It is also important to note that the geometry of the knife and the roughness of the grind makes a big difference.

For more info on how knives fracture:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/08/05/ ... -not-fail/

Bingo.

Then you need to define what you mean by "fragile". ApostleP wasn't just saying that Maxamet is fragile, he said it was like glass or ceramic. It isn't.

Triple B does demonstrate that Maxamet is plenty strong enough to make an EDC steel. Obviously any blade steel can be snapped with enough abuse. How high a stress do you want to see? Is whacking the knife on hardwood and carving aluminum not enough?

[TomAiello]

Are you compiling your opinions from various internet sources? Or are you actually using (or testing) these blade steels? What knives (and what geometries) are you using/testing?

I have used maybe a quarter of them, but no quantitative testing was done. I will defer to those that have quantitative results. Cedric and Ada posted the raw results. The most common geometry looks to be 20 degrees using a Worksharp and 17 degrees using a Lansky or KME.

Given that you have made personal editorial asides (like "not suitable for EDC") on some of the steels, can we assume that you have used the ones that you made those personal editorials on?

To be specific, what Maxamet blades have you used that you found too fragile for your personal EDC uses, what were those uses, and what was the result that made you believe that Maxamet was too fragile for EDC use?

I'm not talking about using this or that source. I'm talking about your _original_, _personal_ conclusions, expressed as notes, specifically your _personal_ (not sourced from someone else's test) statement that Maxamet is too fragile for EDC.

[Deadboxhero]

I disagree, without first hand experience, one would not know what is pertinent information or not.

Also,

I would be less likely to trust numbers that are filtered with bias from others data and testing.

Each piece of data and testing could also be pulled out of context.

Lastly, those values are based off of a subjective interpretation from that information.

Some new folks will not understand that those values may not be accurate. People take numbers as fact, but these values wouldn't be factual.


But don't let that stop you, :D
I feel there should just be a disclaimer at the end of those numbers :D

Have fun.

Are you compiling your opinions from various internet sources? Or are you actually using (or testing) these blade steels? What knives (and what geometries) are you using/testing?

I have used maybe a quarter of them, but no quantitative testing was done. I will defer to those that have quantitative results. Cedric and Ada posted the raw results. The most common geometry looks to be 20 degrees using a Worksharp and 17 degrees using a Lansky or KME.

We've asked about his testing a good 10+ times and he keeps skating around the question. I'm going to guess he's compiled this from internet sources and random reviews.

You never really know until you try them out on your own, with consistent materials being cut!

I disagree. I feel that if someone’s testing is accurate enough, I do not feel compelled to test it myself. All testing I have done is qualitative anyway. You can decide for yourself whether a scientific argument is correct, and if you have to do everything yourself before you can come to an opinion, more power to you. Personally, I don’t have the time to gather quantitative data, so I am thankful for those that can. A compilation of several data points is going to showcase a better representation than one data point anyway. I don’t think Cedric's testing is perfect (for example S45VN’s edge retention came out way above S30V and S35VN, whereas Larrin’s testing showed them to be closer to each other in performance) but it’s still pretty solid overall. Lab results can differ from real world results too.

Okay so how do you explain the Triple B videos demonstrating that it's not fragile?

Triple B doesn’t demonstrate that it is not fragile. He just doesn’t reach the a high enough stress to break the knife. It is also important to note that the geometry of the knife and the roughness of the grind makes a big difference.

For more info on how knives fracture:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/08/05/ ... -not-fail/

Bingo.

I am unsure how to articulate my opinion on ApostleP on here while still maintaining shiny footprints. I would suggest getting your info from knifesteelsnerds instead of apostlep, that’s for sure.

TLDR: No, don’t use that source, use this one.

Actual CVN impact toughness test data for Maxamet and other steels:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2020/05/01/ ... fe-steels/

As you can see from Larrin’s test data, Maxamet is a relatively low toughness material.

Okay, same result. Although, I would not entirely discount ApostleP. I mean he does sharpen knives professionally, so he sees a lot of them. There will always be outliers.

Larrin provides standardized test data, with interpretation from a professional metallurgist. You can also draw your own conclusions from his data sets. He does not make any conclusions, solely based on hearsay. He avoids oversimplification. All of these things that Larrin provides are sorely lacking in the much of the knife industry / community.

He posts his findings so one can make their own conclusions, and these are mine. I don’t see how this is “contentious” as someone said earlier. I’m simply pulling a dataset and creating tiers based on that data set. The higher scored, more well-balanced steels will come out on top for all around use.

What I have gleaned is that knives are a very personal thing. People will love what they love. What works for one may not work for someone else. That said, you do you.

[Hopweaver]

Steel comparison thread on the Spyderco Forum... Let me grab some popcorn!

[Mike Slayer]

Three steels i know intimately are CPM-3v, CPM-S30V and LC200N. I personally find LC200N edge retention to be in between CPM-3v and S30V. I keep a courser edge on both 3v and S30V but use a more polished edge on my Spydiechef. Looking at datapoints from Larrin and Pete their test with course edges on LC200N their results weren’t far off from each other. If I remember correctly the angle per side was fairly close as well. Larrins test showed 380 TCC and Petes was 430 TRC. When Pete mirror polished the LC200N edge TRC jumped to 550. Pete’s TRC numbers for LC200N seem to have jumped up over time as he changed the edge geometry and polished the edge. I would be interested for Larrin to try a polished edge on his LC200N sample to see what happens. In my opinion all three of these steel have more than enough edge retention for me. 3v and LC200N have a **** good balance between toughness and edge retention for my uses. Some times I don’t think people realize how tough LC200N actually is.

[bearfacedkiller]

I am still looking for some quantitative corrosion testing that is not theoretical if anyone has a source. I hope someone could do something like this but with different steels instead of oils:

http://www.dayattherange.com/?page_id=3667
https://www.accurateshooter.com/technic ... -products/
https://youtu.be/uOB5eCR ... e=youtu.be

Edit: I found Larrin did a few: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/10/14/ ... e-testing/ :)

The scientific way is with a q-fog machine. Spyderco has one and has done their own testing but none of that info has been released to the public. That sure would be some sweet data to get our hands on! :)

[Trinity300]

I am still looking for some quantitative corrosion testing that is not theoretical if anyone has a source. I hope someone could do something like this but with different steels instead of oils:

http://www.dayattherange.com/?page_id=3667
https://www.accurateshooter.com/technic ... -products/
https://youtu.be/uOB5eCR ... e=youtu.be

Edit: I found Larrin did a few: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2019/10/14/ ... e-testing/ :)

The scientific way is with a q-fog machine. Spyderco has one and has done their own testing but none of that info has been released to the public. That sure would be some sweet data to get our hands on! :)

I'd love to see some raw data from companies (I mean I'm sure Crucible, Bohler, etc do their own testing too). I bet if they released any data there would be some differences in how they test though, so a comparison would be hard, but still better than nothing.