AEB-L Urban Performance Reviews

[The Meat man]

Lots of subjective opinions here. There's nothing wrong with that at all; just keep in mind that they are subjective.

It all depends on what the user wants out of the steel. Killer edge retention? Obviously, AEB-L is not the best bet, but no one here is claiming that it can hold against REX 121 in that regard. That's comparing apples to oranges.

Not everyone wants or needs extreme wear resistance. Lots of people value other steel attributes above wear resistance. Just because AEB-L falls short in wear resistance compared to REX 121 does not mean it is a junk steel.

[Ankerson]

Lots of subjective opinions here. There's nothing wrong with that at all; just keep in mind that they are subjective.

It all depends on what the user wants out of the steel. Killer edge retention? Obviously, AEB-L is not the best bet, but no one here is claiming that it can hold against REX 121 in that regard. That's comparing apples to oranges.

Not everyone wants or needs extreme wear resistance. Lots of people value other steel attributes above wear resistance. Just because AEB-L falls short in wear resistance compared to REX 121 does not mean it is a junk steel.

We aren't even talking about steels like REX 121.

I was talking about steels like VG-10, N690, AUS-8 etc, it's well below all of those.

I am being realistic.

Personally I would take steels like S30V or S35VN over just about anything for daily use. Also used a Stretch in VG-10 for awhile and it worked well also, had to touch that one up after about a week. Still have it, it's kinda beat up, lots of scratched on the blade from use etc.

I used S30V and AUS-8 for YEARS at work and they did extremely well, cardboard, pallet straps etc.

There was a period of years when I would take different knives in different steels to work and use them for a few months testing them. That's on top of my normal testing to get more of a take on how they worked in a real world use situation.

[Deadboxhero]

I'm not sure if folks realize that most steels are only using .40-.60% carbon in solution to get hard to make lathe martensite. We try to avoid the plate martensite which is brittle

From 1095 to CPM 4v to S90V to 15v

0.40-0.60% in solution

Only about that much Carbon is being used to make the matrix hard. The rest is left over as primary carbides

The AEBL is designed to put most of that carbon in solution and temper it out as hard secondary carbides.
Those secondary "K2" carbides (Cr7C3) are still harder and at higher volume than the iron carbides (fe2.4C Fe2.5C, Fe3C) in 1095 etc while still being stainless and very fine.

That is why it is called a "stainless 52100"

That is why I like it for the same reasons I like 52100.

52100 doesn't cut very long on rope either.

So far nothing out cuts Rex121 at 70rc on rope but I found that in real world use the "user" was the biggest variable to universal performance. Not the steel.

[Ankerson]

I'm not sure if folks realize that most steels are only using .40-.60% carbon in solution to get hard to make lathe martensite. We try to avoid the plate martensite which is brittle

From 1095 to CPM 4v to S90V to 15v

0.40-0.60% in solution

Only about that much Carbon is being used to make the matrix hard. The rest is left over as primary carbides

The AEBL is designed to put most of that carbon in solution and temper it out as hard secondary carbides.
Those secondary "K2" carbides (Cr7C3) are still harder and at higher volume than the iron carbides (fe2.4C Fe2.5C, Fe3C) in 1095 etc while still being stainless and very fine.

That is why it is called a "stainless 52100"

That is why I like it for the same reasons I like 52100.

52100 doesn't cut very long on rope either.

So far nothing out cuts Rex121 at 70rc on rope but I found that in real world use the "user" was the biggest variable to universal performance. Not the steel.

AEB-L has just enough carbon to get hard and just enough Chromium to be stainless, it's a very simple steel.

Sounds like you are buying into that hype that has been going for a very long time now.

Yeah I know why the Scientists love it, it's obvious, I read the same book they used in school, and that's the same things they repeat all the time, but in practical use it just doesn't live up to all the hype.

Yes it is very fine grained, it's easy to sharpen due to the lack of carbide percentage, the stones don't have to work as hard to move the steel due to the lack of carbide content. That's also the reason why it doesn't have the wear resistance that the other steels do. The Alloy just isn't there, there is just no way around that.



They made the steel for razor blades, commercial razor blades, they needed to keep the cost down and it needed to be easy to work with for the machinery in mass production. So they came up with AEB-L for that purpose.

[Deadboxhero]

I'm not sure if folks realize that most steels are only using .40-.60% carbon in solution to get hard to make lathe martensite. We try to avoid the plate martensite which is brittle

From 1095 to CPM 4v to S90V to 15v

0.40-0.60% in solution

Only about that much Carbon is being used to make the matrix hard. The rest is left over as primary carbides

The AEBL is designed to put most of that carbon in solution and temper it out as hard secondary carbides.
Those secondary "K2" carbides (Cr7C3) are still harder and at higher volume than the iron carbides (fe2.4C Fe2.5C, Fe3C) in 1095 etc while still being stainless and very fine.

That is why it is called a "stainless 52100"

That is why I like it for the same reasons I like 52100.

52100 doesn't cut very long on rope either.

So far nothing out cuts Rex121 at 70rc on rope but I found that in real world use the "user" was the biggest variable to universal performance. Not the steel.

AEB-L has just enough carbon to get hard and just enough Chromium to be stainless, it's a very simple steel.

Sounds like you are buying into that hype that has been getting for a very long time now.

Yes it is very fine grained, it's easy to sharpen due to the lack of carbide percentage, the stones don't have to work as hard to move the steel due to the lack of carbide content. That's also the reason why it doesn't have the wear resistance that the other steels do. The Alloy just isn't there, there is just no way around that.

They made the steel for razor blades, commercial razor blades, they needed to keep the cost down and it needed to be easy to work with for the machinery in mass production. So they came up with AEB-L for that purpose.

What was did I say that was hype? AEBL out cutting 1095?

[Ankerson]

I'm not sure if folks realize that most steels are only using .40-.60% carbon in solution to get hard to make lathe martensite. We try to avoid the plate martensite which is brittle

From 1095 to CPM 4v to S90V to 15v

0.40-0.60% in solution

Only about that much Carbon is being used to make the matrix hard. The rest is left over as primary carbides

The AEBL is designed to put most of that carbon in solution and temper it out as hard secondary carbides.
Those secondary "K2" carbides (Cr7C3) are still harder and at higher volume than the iron carbides (fe2.4C Fe2.5C, Fe3C) in 1095 etc while still being stainless and very fine.

That is why it is called a "stainless 52100"

That is why I like it for the same reasons I like 52100.

52100 doesn't cut very long on rope either.

So far nothing out cuts Rex121 at 70rc on rope but I found that in real world use the "user" was the biggest variable to universal performance. Not the steel.

AEB-L has just enough carbon to get hard and just enough Chromium to be stainless, it's a very simple steel.

Sounds like you are buying into that hype that has been getting for a very long time now.

Yes it is very fine grained, it's easy to sharpen due to the lack of carbide percentage, the stones don't have to work as hard to move the steel due to the lack of carbide content. That's also the reason why it doesn't have the wear resistance that the other steels do. The Alloy just isn't there, there is just no way around that.

They made the steel for razor blades, commercial razor blades, they needed to keep the cost down and it needed to be easy to work with for the machinery in mass production. So they came up with AEB-L for that purpose.

What was did I say that was hype? AEBL out cutting 1095?

In my experience it doesn't out cut 1095.

But then all of those steels are VERY close performance wise as they are all simple steels to begin with so it could be subjective.

I don't think about any of them as far as a general use steel goes, at least not for the past 20 years or so.

Even back in the 70's we had 440C in some production knives. A lot of people had a hard time sharpening that on their stones unless they used Silicon Carbide stones. So a lot of them complained and BUCK started using 420HC that was easier to sharpen for them.

We have much better sharpening equipment today for the masses than we all had back then.

[Larrin]

Yeah I know why the Scientists love it, it's obvious, I read the same book they used in school, and that's the same things they repeat all the time, but in practical use it just doesn't live up to all the hype.

Which school textbook talks about AEB-L?

[Ankerson]

Yeah I know why the Scientists love it, it's obvious, I read the same book they used in school, and that's the same things they repeat all the time, but in practical use it just doesn't live up to all the hype.

Which school textbook talks about AEB-L?

The same one that they all seem to refer to continuously.

There was a whole chapter on AEB-L.

I used to have a copy of it years ago.

[Deadboxhero]

I'm not sure if folks realize that most steels are only using .40-.60% carbon in solution to get hard to make lathe martensite. We try to avoid the plate martensite which is brittle

From 1095 to CPM 4v to S90V to 15v

0.40-0.60% in solution

Only about that much Carbon is being used to make the matrix hard. The rest is left over as primary carbides

The AEBL is designed to put most of that carbon in solution and temper it out as hard secondary carbides.
Those secondary "K2" carbides (Cr7C3) are still harder and at higher volume than the iron carbides (fe2.4C Fe2.5C, Fe3C) in 1095 etc while still being stainless and very fine.

That is why it is called a "stainless 52100"

That is why I like it for the same reasons I like 52100.

52100 doesn't cut very long on rope either.

So far nothing out cuts Rex121 at 70rc on rope but I found that in real world use the "user" was the biggest variable to universal performance. Not the steel.

AEB-L has just enough carbon to get hard and just enough Chromium to be stainless, it's a very simple steel.

Sounds like you are buying into that hype that has been getting for a very long time now.

Yes it is very fine grained, it's easy to sharpen due to the lack of carbide percentage, the stones don't have to work as hard to move the steel due to the lack of carbide content. That's also the reason why it doesn't have the wear resistance that the other steels do. The Alloy just isn't there, there is just no way around that.

They made the steel for razor blades, commercial razor blades, they needed to keep the cost down and it needed to be easy to work with for the machinery in mass production. So they came up with AEB-L for that purpose.

What was did I say that was hype? AEBL out cutting 1095?

In my experience it doesn't out cut 1095.

But then all of those steels are VERY close performance wise as they are all simple steels to begin with so it could be subjective.

I don't think about any of them as far as a general use steel goes, at least not for the past 20 years or so.

Even back in the 70's we had 440C in some production knives. A lot of people had a hard time sharpening that on their stones unless they used Silicon Carbide stones. So a lot of them complained and BUCK started using 420HC that was easier to sharpen for them.

We have much better sharpening equipment today for the masses than we all had back then.

It out cuts 1095 and 52100 in my experience.

AEBL is not the same as 420hc.

That extra carbon in AEB-L increases the working hardness and wear resistance with tempering over 420hc

[Ankerson]

AEB-L has just enough carbon to get hard and just enough Chromium to be stainless, it's a very simple steel.

Sounds like you are buying into that hype that has been getting for a very long time now.

Yes it is very fine grained, it's easy to sharpen due to the lack of carbide percentage, the stones don't have to work as hard to move the steel due to the lack of carbide content. That's also the reason why it doesn't have the wear resistance that the other steels do. The Alloy just isn't there, there is just no way around that.

They made the steel for razor blades, commercial razor blades, they needed to keep the cost down and it needed to be easy to work with for the machinery in mass production. So they came up with AEB-L for that purpose.

What was did I say that was hype? AEBL out cutting 1095?

In my experience it doesn't out cut 1095.

But then all of those steels are VERY close performance wise as they are all simple steels to begin with so it could be subjective.

I don't think about any of them as far as a general use steel goes, at least not for the past 20 years or so.

Even back in the 70's we had 440C in some production knives. A lot of people had a hard time sharpening that on their stones unless they used Silicon Carbide stones. So a lot of them complained and BUCK started using 420HC that was easier to sharpen for them.

We have much better sharpening equipment today for the masses than we all had back then.

It out cuts 1095 and 52100 in my experience.

AEBL is not the same as 420hc.

That extra carbon in AEB-L increases the working hardness and wear resistance with tempering over 420hc

Nope, not in this the lifetime it doesn't.

You can get it harder, but the wear resistance is still lower.

[Larrin]

The same one that they all seem to refer to continuously.

There was a whole chapter on AEB-L.

I used to have a copy of it years ago.

There is no school textbook that talks about AEB-L. Unless you're talking about Verhoeven's book "Metallurgy for Bladesmiths" which as you can tell by the title was not written for schools nor was it used by them.

[Ankerson]

The same one that they all seem to refer to continuously.

There was a whole chapter on AEB-L.

I used to have a copy of it years ago.

There is no school textbook that talks about AEB-L. Unless you're talking about Verhoeven's book "Metallurgy for Bladesmiths" which as you can tell by the title was not written for schools nor was it used by them.

That's the one.

It wasn't written for schools, but it was still used as far as I know for reference.

It might not be anymore, but it used to be for sure.

Just about everything I read or hear about AEB-L is straight from that book almost word for word.

I believe he used AEB-L as an example of the as he called it the perfect steel in his book.

[Deadboxhero]

Here are some pictures of the microstructures

AEB-L has harder Carbides and higher volume than the simple carbon steels.

I explained above how carbon in solution and primary and secondary carbides work.

At first glance ~.68% carbon in AEB-L is lower than ~.95% carbon in 1095 so it's easy to assume that the more carbon wins, however the mechanics of how the structures are made doesn't work in such a simplistic manner as I explained above.

AEB-L has more volume of harder carbides than 1095





And we have a simliar volume in 52100 hence why it's often called stainless 52100 but the Cr7C3 Carbides are harder than the Cr3C and Fe3C Carbides in 52100.

[Ankerson]

Here are some pictures of the microstructures

AEB-L has harder Carbides and higher volume than the simple carbon steels.

I explained above how carbon in solution and primary and secondary carbides work.

At first glance ~.68% carbon in AEB-L is lower than ~.95% carbon in 1095 so it's easy to assume that the more carbon wins, however the mechanics of how the structures are made doesn't work in such a simplistic manner as I explained above.

AEB-L has more volume of harder carbides than 1095





And we have a simliar volume in 52100 hence why it's often called stainless 52100 but the Cr7C3 Carbides are harder than the Cr3C and Fe3C Carbides in 52100.

I have seen all of those before, you aren't showing me anything that I haven't seen already and so many times I can't even count them.

[Larrin]

It wasn't written for schools, but it was still used as far as I know for reference.

It might not be anymore, but it used to be for sure.

OK, sure. :rolleyes:

[Ankerson]

It wasn't written for schools, but it was still used as far as I know for reference.

It might not be anymore, but it used to be for sure.

OK, sure. :rolleyes:

Almost everyone quotes his book word for word, posts photos etc right from that book when they are talking about AEB-L.

It's like gospel or something.

There are a few that don't care however that I talked to.

[Deadboxhero]

No, these Micrographs are new, I also just added the carbide volumes and types to them as well.

It's pretty straight forward.

Anything with harder carbides at simliar size with more volume and higher matrix hardness will cut longer.

Here are some pictures of the microstructures

AEB-L has harder Carbides and higher volume than the simple carbon steels.

I explained above how carbon in solution and primary and secondary carbides work.

At first glance ~.68% carbon in AEB-L is lower than ~.95% carbon in 1095 so it's easy to assume that the more carbon wins, however the mechanics of how the structures are made doesn't work in such a simplistic manner as I explained above.

AEB-L has more volume of harder carbides than 1095





And we have a simliar volume in 52100 hence why it's often called stainless 52100 but the Cr7C3 Carbides are harder than the Cr3C and Fe3C Carbides in 52100.

I have seen all of those before, you aren't showing me anything that I haven't seen already and so many times I can't even count them.

[Ankerson]

No, these Micrographs are new, I also just added the carbide volumes and types to them as well.

It's pretty straight forward.

Anything with harder carbides at simliar size with more volume and higher matrix hardness will cut longer.

Here are some pictures of the microstructures

AEB-L has harder Carbides and higher volume than the simple carbon steels.

I explained above how carbon in solution and primary and secondary carbides work.

At first glance ~.68% carbon in AEB-L is lower than ~.95% carbon in 1095 so it's easy to assume that the more carbon wins, however the mechanics of how the structures are made doesn't work in such a simplistic manner as I explained above.

AEB-L has more volume of harder carbides than 1095





And we have a simliar volume in 52100 hence why it's often called stainless 52100 but the Cr7C3 Carbides are harder than the Cr3C and Fe3C Carbides in 52100.

I have seen all of those before, you aren't showing me anything that I haven't seen already and so many times I can't even count them.

The issue is that AEB-L doesn't have those carbides to begin with, that's the issue.

The actual carbide volume is so low when compared to the other steels the wear resistance is the result.

But then it's low on all of the simple basic steels, as I said they are all very close performance wise.

They designed the steel just to get hard and be stainless, not for edge retention or wear resistance.

That came straight from Bohler, I actually spoke with them years ago and asked them.


Don't confuse hardness with wear resistance, the harder the steel is to a point the less the apex will deform in comparison to the same steel at lower hardness. The less the apex deforms the longer it will cut (Stay sharp) in retrospect than the same steel at lower hardness.

That has more to do with compression strength than anything else, the harder the steel is the higher the compression strength is.

There is a direct relationship.

Wear resistance or resistance to wear is directly related to carbide volume and the type of carbides they are.

There is a huge difference.

[Deadboxhero]

That's a picture of AEB-L, the little white dots are the carbides

I agree that it's not a highly wear resistant steel.

But it is clearly more wear resistant than 1095.

I make knives with all three of these steels.

I'm no stranger to using them either

No, these Micrographs are new, I also just added the carbide volumes and types to them as well.

It's pretty straight forward.

Anything with harder carbides at simliar size with more volume and higher matrix hardness will cut longer.

Here are some pictures of the microstructures

AEB-L has harder Carbides and higher volume than the simple carbon steels.

I explained above how carbon in solution and primary and secondary carbides work.

At first glance ~.68% carbon in AEB-L is lower than ~.95% carbon in 1095 so it's easy to assume that the more carbon wins, however the mechanics of how the structures are made doesn't work in such a simplistic manner as I explained above.

AEB-L has more volume of harder carbides than 1095





And we have a simliar volume in 52100 hence why it's often called stainless 52100 but the Cr7C3 Carbides are harder than the Cr3C and Fe3C Carbides in 52100.

I have seen all of those before, you aren't showing me anything that I haven't seen already and so many times I can't even count them.

The issue is that AEB-L doesn't have those carbides to begin with, that's the issue.

The actual carbide volume is so low when compared to the other steels the wear resistance is the result.

But then it's low on all of the simple basic steels, as I said they are all very close performance wise.

They designed the steel just to get hard and be stainless, not for edge retention.

[Ankerson]

That's a picture of AEB-L, the little white dots are the carbides

I agree that it's not a highly wear resistant steel.

But it is clearly more wear resistant than 1095.

I make knives with all three of these steels.

I'm no stranger to using them either

No, these Micrographs are new, I also just added the carbide volumes and types to them as well.

It's pretty straight forward.

Anything with harder carbides at simliar size with more volume and higher matrix hardness will cut longer.

I have seen all of those before, you aren't showing me anything that I haven't seen already and so many times I can't even count them.

The issue is that AEB-L doesn't have those carbides to begin with, that's the issue.

The actual carbide volume is so low when compared to the other steels the wear resistance is the result.

But then it's low on all of the simple basic steels, as I said they are all very close performance wise.

They designed the steel just to get hard and be stainless, not for edge retention.

Don't confuse hardness with wear resistance, the harder the steel is to a point the less the apex will deform in comparison to the same steel at lower hardness. The less the apex deforms the longer it will cut (Stay sharp) in retrospect than the same steel at lower hardness.

That has more to do with compression strength than anything else, the harder the steel is the higher the compression strength is.

There is a direct relationship.

Wear resistance or resistance to wear is directly related to carbide volume and the type of carbides they are.

There is a huge difference.

They both matter in the end however as they work together, but they aren't the same thing.