Banter 247 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:14 amIndeed. My point isn’t that hrc is the be all, end all. I’ve made it a specific point to highlight that it *isn’t* when talking about it, for exactly the reasons you list. Rather, my perspective is that it is *a* thing, as opposed to *the* thing.Ankerson wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:55 amBanter 247 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:52 amre: a knife dulling in 35 feet when properly sharpened— it was sharpened by a very experienced sharpener, for testing, using the same progression he uses for every test, and got about 9% as far as M390 tested at 62hrc. We have contacted the manufacturer, as the sample is one of multiples hit around 50hrc.
As for S30V vs M390, and whether I’d notice the difference: that’s my point. I do a lot of cutting. Comparing S30V at typical production ranges (58-60 hrc) and M390/20CV/204P at 60-62, yeah. The difference becomes appreciable. 58-60 vs 58-60? I’ve made the same argument myself, many times, and it’s why we’re here talking about running M390/20CV/204P at a range where it differentiates.
If it's at 50 HRC that's a problem.
Yeah contact the maker.
But then another could be 62 HRC with a blown grain that will perform even worse than the 50 HRC blade.
There is much more to it than just the HRC number, you could fill books with all the variables on heat treating, and there are plenty of books on it.
Could also take a blades, both at 62 HRC, one HTed for better corrosion resistance or toughness than the other.
HRC does matter, but so does everything else.
The HRC number alone isn't really enough to put all the eggs in.