I apologize in advance for appearing bellicose or arrogant, but I'm not sure what a bunch of bromidic "simple vs alloy" generalizations have to do with what the OP is was looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bruno
Not any of his blades, but I have used other super steel razors.
I use one of those steels myself for wife-proof kitchen knives.
So you don't really have relevant experience. Your kitchen knife is not really relevant unless it is the same material. Just calling multiple materials "super steels" does not make them the same.
Quote:
Firstly, my remark is about the material itself. Carbon steel is cheap, easy to work by anyone, and easy to heat treat. Supersteels are expensive, harder to work, you can't even forge some of them, and heat treatment is not something you can do without at least a semi professional setup. In terms working it as a material, carbon steel is a clear win.
Not every maker is using a primitive backyard or garage forge, and quite a few makers are happy to send blades off to be heat treated professionally. Yep modern steels can be a bit more expensive...but custom razors are generally not bargain-basement deals in the first place, are they?
Quote:
Then you have to look at intended use. Most of those supersteels have been designed for heavy duty work. To take one silly example: I know a guy who had a razor custom made of M4 steel, and heat treated to max hardness. If you look at what M4 was meant for, you'll see that such a razor would be almost impossible to hone (and indeed proved to be just that). M4 is ideal for heavy duty chisels for high speed steel lathes, but its extreme wear resistance makes it near impossible to hone.
How is this related to XHP? Again, using the word "supersteel" for different materials doesn't make them the same. 304 and AEB-L are both "stainless", and A2 and O1 are both "tool steel".
Mr. Harner said XHP hones and grinds well. Mentioning an unrelated steel with an unrelated problem doesn't seem too helpful.
Quote:
Third, a very important factor for razors is grain size, and in most supersteels, the goal is still to end up with the properties of supersteel and the grain size of carbon steel. In other words, in terms of possible thinness of the edge, carbon steel is still the gold standard.
AEB-L. Also worthwhile to repeat that you're not saying anything about the steel this thread was initially intended to discuss.
The generalized assertions are probably reasonable, but do you know about any of the properties of PM steels that are thought suitable for razors, or just the ones that are heavily stereotyped in knifemaking?
Quote:
In the end, a razor is a tool with a very delicate edge, but with virtually zero need for any other properties than edge retention and small grain size. Being stainless is not that big an advantage for anyone who properly maintains his razors. Being tough is almost irrelevant because it's not a prybar or some other tool dealing with shearing forces. Being very wear resistant is even less desirable because wear resistance means it is much harder to hone. The only things important for razors are fine grain size and a hardness that is high enough for edge retention but not high enough to become brittle.
Are these general statements not obvious?
Quote:
In terms of material, super steels are at best equivalent in the areas where it matters, and bring only improvements where it doesn't. For the purpose of straight razors, that is. Not talking about heavy duty tools. That doesn't mean I think supersteels are bad. I just think that for the purpose of making razors, they don't add anything that is important enough to offset the increased cost and bother of working them.
Still not seeing anything relevant to XHP.