Westflorida
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2001
- Messages
- 638
Which steel is more corrosion resistant?
Thanks, Steve
Thanks, Steve
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
1050 vs 1086
- Thread starter Westflorida
- Start date
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
I can not swear to this, but I don't think either one is more corrosion resistant. The 50 and 86 represent the difference in the percentage of carbon in the steel. One has .50% carbon, the other has .86%. 1050 is not a very good steel for knives IMO because it is to soft. To hold an edge you would have to have such a high RC value that the knife would be brittle. 1086 or 1095 make much better blade steels.
Keith.
Keith.
Westflorida
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2001
- Messages
- 638
Bimmer,
My Shobu is in Tampa with my parents. Last time I saw it there were little rust spots on the blade,but I was not really taking care of it. I am sure if you use the right protectant it will stay rust-free.
My Shobu is in Tampa with my parents. Last time I saw it there were little rust spots on the blade,but I was not really taking care of it. I am sure if you use the right protectant it will stay rust-free.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Both of these as noted above are steels that will rust very readily. As to which one will go first, in alloy steels it seems to be my experience that higher levels of Carbon seems to make steels more prone to rusting. However it is difficult (impossible) to predict what a spread of changes in alloy composition make so I could have just been seeing that. However I have heard that general rule more than once.
But I have heard the opposite as well. You would for example think that based on the above that mild steel would not rust readily at all compared to 1095 due to the very low carbon content - but the exact opposite happens. Mild steel rusts fairly quickly. Again though even pure carbon steels like 1095 have trace alloy elements in them.
In short, I don't know which would fare better, but would bet on 1050 (but not very much) and neither will hold out well against corrosion.
-Cliff
But I have heard the opposite as well. You would for example think that based on the above that mild steel would not rust readily at all compared to 1095 due to the very low carbon content - but the exact opposite happens. Mild steel rusts fairly quickly. Again though even pure carbon steels like 1095 have trace alloy elements in them.
In short, I don't know which would fare better, but would bet on 1050 (but not very much) and neither will hold out well against corrosion.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Nov 6, 1999
- Messages
- 2,639
1086 (0.86% compared to 0.50%) has a lot more carbon and will theoretically make a better edge holding blade. But neither are rust resistant at all.
It takes more than 12% free chromium in the steel for it to be considered stain-resistant (not stain-free). Neither of these two simple steels has Any significant chromium content. So they will both rust readily. You might choose 1050 over 1086 for a really big blade which will do some chopping (impacts) and you want to trade for more flexibility at the expense of edge holding.
Paracelsus
It takes more than 12% free chromium in the steel for it to be considered stain-resistant (not stain-free). Neither of these two simple steels has Any significant chromium content. So they will both rust readily. You might choose 1050 over 1086 for a really big blade which will do some chopping (impacts) and you want to trade for more flexibility at the expense of edge holding.
Paracelsus