Posted: 12/13/2013 10:32:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote History Quoted:
Because the blade steel is significantly less important than fit an finish, with tempering of said steel being a huge part of that quality factor. You can quote me how much better M390 and Elmax are than 154CM any day of the week, and i'd agree, if all things are equal, but if the heat treat on that Elmax or M390 is shit, then the knife is going to be shit too, no matter how much you want throw around how great your 3rd gen powder steel knife is. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
why people don't talk about blade steel, which is the most important factor of a knife, not brand or price.
if two knives using the same steel, how can they justify huge price difference, just due to the brand?
Because the blade steel is significantly less important than fit an finish, with tempering of said steel being a huge part of that quality factor. You can quote me how much better M390 and Elmax are than 154CM any day of the week, and i'd agree, if all things are equal, but if the heat treat on that Elmax or M390 is shit, then the knife is going to be shit too, no matter how much you want throw around how great your 3rd gen powder steel knife is.
I'm actually growing tired of powdered steels. In my experiences, they're harder to sharpen and seem a bit more chippy under hard use for a very slight increase in edge retention. Not to mention pretty much all high production companies have ongoing issues burning the edge during sharpening of powdered steels.
I think 154CM is superior to S30V and CPM154 in a hard use blade. Hell, I'll take 440C or AUS8 for a beater knife over most powdered steels even. Not to say tye testing was realistic, but everyone freaked out all these expensive knives were breaking in Noss' knife tests. Realistically it wasn't because of the brand being a rip off like some took it as, it was all of the fancy "modern" powdered steel blades breaking long before the traditional steel blades.
|
|