Just stumbled upon this vid now, and want to lay out some thoughts. Since trc still offers the 3rd gen with no major changes, I feel like my comment is still applicable. Both steels are extremely similar in the grand scheme of things. The three major differences between the two knives from the performance perspective are blade thickness, primary grind angle and hardness (don’t know about changes in behind-the-edge-thickness, which would make a major difference). I don’t need to address what hardness does for toughness and edge retention and blade thickness obviously influences a knife's resilience to lateral stress, maybe shock. That leaves us with the grind angle: if we presume that the edge thickness, grind angle and edge finish are exactly the same, the m390 one will certainly cut with less effort and may stay sharper for a longer period of time with light to medium cutting tasks. That might enhance with the extra HRC point in hardness. But in real world conditions, the edge retention will be pretty much the same with the main difference being that the 3rd gen is a better pry bar and the 2nd gen a better knife. I think the steel choice is entirely negligible between gen 2 and 3. The geometry decides which one is better suited for you, also keeping in mind the drastic increase of weight: my 2nd gen '16 models are 336 and 340 grams (I guess they added weight relief to the tang), which makes them about 70g lighter than this exact gen 3. In conclusion I prefer the 2nd gen because of a lot of reasons, none having to do with steel choice. I like its cutting ability, weight and simplicity - all points that made me skip on the 3rd gen. I also agree with another commenter's point that mentioned why they didn’t choose V4E instead of Elmax - would have been a much more reasonable and interesting choice imo. Trc offers dlc coated blades on every V4E blade I know of, which basically completely negates the argument that its stain resistance may be problematic. My perfect version of this knife probably would be a mildly convex ground 5 mil 2nd gen with an uncoated (I like natural patinas behind a mirror edge) blade that sports V4E at 59 HRC with a rather robust 15-17 dps microbevel. Needless to say that I’m also not a fan of their current stylistic direction which is much more tacticool than simplistic as it used to be, but as far as I can tell their quality still keeps up but pricing can’t anymore, let’s just say you probably won’t find a great deal with this manufacturer anymore. They remain a solid choice for now though.
M390 is good for small folders, but it's the steel you don't want on a big and also hard use knife blade, like the Apocalypse. Don't get blinded and confused, by the marketing hypes. On any fixed blade, since they are made for harder use, you need a carbon or, if you are more advanced user, then a tool steel. Superstainless, are very brittle and don't have the toughness, to withstand any hard use, or more than that abuse. 80CRV2, is the most suitable steel, for this kind of knives. For a bit smaller, Vanadis 4 E is another grear choice. Now, if you buy such expensive knives, just to leave them in a drawer, eating dust, then even the worst steel, would be better, because most of the times, these cheap junk steels, are very corrosion resistant.... I mean, it's stupid, to pay such high prices, with all that is going around the world nowdays,just to have an improperly built tool, eating dust in a box. isn't it?
@@skywalker3477 No problem, you are n't going to use it to cut Olive trees! Next time, if you want a real user, go for custom or at least, get a knife made with ballbearing steel, which is the best steel for outdoors knives. We older ones, have used more knives and for longer, and we have the least, brainwash through marketing. Listen to us!! Elmax, with a good heat treatment, is a good steel, for small to medium size knives. Only real negative, is that you have to really know, how to properly sharpen superhard steels like that! Enjoy!!
Both are top. Elmax is tougher,M390 is more wear resistant. But anyways M390 is tough enough an is more stainless. You cannot go wrong with both of them. I choose M390.
daniel Dan ,because they wanted to make the knife more robust.M390 has better wear resistance,but Elmax is tougher steel.Both are premium supersteels and you can't go wrong with either one of them.
daniel Dan ,at the moment they only make the heavier Elmax apocalypse.Maybe if you make a private order on their web site,they will make a custom M390 apocalypse for you.
daniel Dan also for a knife this big , and it’s purpose the m390 is not hardened to its full potential. At 63 hrc m390 will cut for days, but on such a big knife it would probably chip. So the elmax I believe he said was 59 hrc would cut just as good as m390 at 58-59 hrc, but be tougher
In my opinion elmax is better for survival knife,because it is tougher. But you can't go wrong with both of them. I have tested both knives and they did excellent.
Just stumbled upon this vid now, and want to lay out some thoughts. Since trc still offers the 3rd gen with no major changes, I feel like my comment is still applicable.
Both steels are extremely similar in the grand scheme of things.
The three major differences between the two knives from the performance perspective are blade thickness, primary grind angle and hardness (don’t know about changes in behind-the-edge-thickness, which would make a major difference). I don’t need to address what hardness does for toughness and edge retention and blade thickness obviously influences a knife's resilience to lateral stress, maybe shock.
That leaves us with the grind angle: if we presume that the edge thickness, grind angle and edge finish are exactly the same, the m390 one will certainly cut with less effort and may stay sharper for a longer period of time with light to medium cutting tasks. That might enhance with the extra HRC point in hardness.
But in real world conditions, the edge retention will be pretty much the same with the main difference being that the 3rd gen is a better pry bar and the 2nd gen a better knife.
I think the steel choice is entirely negligible between gen 2 and 3. The geometry decides which one is better suited for you, also keeping in mind the drastic increase of weight: my 2nd gen '16 models are 336 and 340 grams (I guess they added weight relief to the tang), which makes them about 70g lighter than this exact gen 3.
In conclusion I prefer the 2nd gen because of a lot of reasons, none having to do with steel choice.
I like its cutting ability, weight and simplicity - all points that made me skip on the 3rd gen. I also agree with another commenter's point that mentioned why they didn’t choose V4E instead of Elmax - would have been a much more reasonable and interesting choice imo. Trc offers dlc coated blades on every V4E blade I know of, which basically completely negates the argument that its stain resistance may be problematic.
My perfect version of this knife probably would be a mildly convex ground 5 mil 2nd gen with an uncoated (I like natural patinas behind a mirror edge) blade that sports V4E at 59 HRC with a rather robust 15-17 dps microbevel.
Needless to say that I’m also not a fan of their current stylistic direction which is much more tacticool than simplistic as it used to be, but as far as I can tell their quality still keeps up but pricing can’t anymore, let’s just say you probably won’t find a great deal with this manufacturer anymore. They remain a solid choice for now though.
Both very beautiful and very badass blades!!
The elmax apocalypse is a real beast ! And both great looking knives . I hope TRC will make a M390 version of the big apocalypse soon .
Tsosmits777 Tsakous i also hope so.
M390 is good for small folders, but it's the steel you don't want on a big and also hard use knife blade, like the Apocalypse. Don't get blinded and confused, by the marketing hypes. On any fixed blade, since they are made for harder use, you need a carbon or, if you are more advanced user, then a tool steel. Superstainless, are very brittle and don't have the toughness, to withstand any hard use, or more than that abuse. 80CRV2, is the most suitable steel, for this kind of knives. For a bit smaller, Vanadis 4 E is another grear choice. Now, if you buy such expensive knives, just to leave them in a drawer, eating dust, then even the worst steel, would be better, because most of the times, these cheap junk steels, are very corrosion resistant.... I mean, it's stupid, to pay such high prices, with all that is going around the world nowdays,just to have an improperly built tool, eating dust in a box. isn't it?
@@greekveteran2715 Damn bro i just bought the elmax Version
@@skywalker3477 No problem, you are n't going to use it to cut Olive trees! Next time, if you want a real user, go for custom or at least, get a knife made with ballbearing steel, which is the best steel for outdoors knives. We older ones, have used more knives and for longer, and we have the least, brainwash through marketing. Listen to us!! Elmax, with a good heat treatment, is a good steel, for small to medium size knives. Only real negative, is that you have to really know, how to properly sharpen superhard steels like that! Enjoy!!
I'd love to have the m390 version as well 😍
It's not available anymore. I sold mine. I use the Elmax version now,it is more robust.
Great comparison Video.
Thank you man!
Why they didn't use vanadis 4e for a new version of this knife?
In my opinion vanadis 4e is very tough and high grade steel,but it is not stainless. This is important for a survival knife. Plus elmax is excellent.
If a dagger knife what steel is better elmax or m390
Both are top. Elmax is tougher,M390 is more wear resistant. But anyways M390 is tough enough an is more stainless. You cannot go wrong with both of them. I choose M390.
Why the choose Elmax and not m390 for the last generation of this knife?
daniel Dan ,because they wanted to make the knife more robust.M390 has better wear resistance,but Elmax is tougher steel.Both are premium supersteels and you can't go wrong with either one of them.
Do you know if they still produce the Medium version?
The L is really nice but maybe heavy to carry.
daniel Dan ,at the moment they only make the heavier Elmax apocalypse.Maybe if you make a private order on their web site,they will make a custom M390 apocalypse for you.
daniel Dan also for a knife this big , and it’s purpose the m390 is not hardened to its full potential. At 63 hrc m390 will cut for days, but on such a big knife it would probably chip. So the elmax I believe he said was 59 hrc would cut just as good as m390 at 58-59 hrc, but be tougher
Which steel is better for survival knife?
In my opinion elmax is better for survival knife,because it is tougher. But you can't go wrong with both of them. I have tested both knives and they did excellent.
SURVIVAL VEGAN thank you
Elmax or M390 wins?
Both steels win,but for this type of blade,I think Elmax is better,because it is tougher.
Elmax rocks!
saunuolis