1095...So what's the verdict?

So back to the quench debate, I think its all moot one way or another unless your actualy getting samples of your blades cross sectioned and stuck under an electron mircoscope to determine its actual state you can't rely say that industrial qenchant is better, or that this is good enough. What you can do is cut stuff and if it preforms to you and your customers satisfaction then what more do you need. Also just cause your using an industrial qenchant doesn't mean the rest of your heat treatment will even let come close 100% martensite

It's also a non issue for me because I think plate martensite sucks, and lathe is king ;)
 
I've made 35 or 40 blades now, and all but the last 4 or 5 have been 10-95 quenched in canola oil heated to around 150 deg. I've had no problems with this combination. I recently made a large hidden tang bowie and needed a larger quench pan (old baking pan), so I needed more oil. I cleaned out the basement and added a quart of 30w oil, a quart of 80w transmission oil, and a half quart of auto. transmission fluid. This mixture flares up reliably when I quench a blade, and the smell brings back memories of a "73 Ford Van with a leaky transmission seal I used to own.
 
john0270 said:
So back to the quench debate, I think its all moot one way or another unless your actualy getting samples of your blades cross sectioned and stuck under an electron mircoscope to determine its actual state you can't rely say that industrial qenchant is better, or that this is good enough. What you can do is cut stuff and if it preforms to you and your customers satisfaction then what more do you need. Also just cause your using an industrial qenchant doesn't mean the rest of your heat treatment will even let come close 100% martensite

It's also a non issue for me because I think plate martensite sucks, and lathe is king ;)
Click to expand...


I think you can achieve some lath martensite with 1095 depending on how much carbon you put into solution. Obviously, the quench has little to do with it...

But you hit on some good points. There is a lot more than your quench medium to achieving a uniform microstructure. I'll also point out that Rockwell C scale measurements on a thin edge are not very meaningful, and hardness reading on the spine don't tell you what happened on the edge.

Here is an interesting quote:

Kevin R. Cashen said:
snip

The other reason for this stepped sample is that to go with the thinnest possible section is an unforeseen bias in the results. We think the edge is all that counts but any steel with carbon will harden in almost any quench if it is that thin, resulting in no significant differences across your sample data, and making all quenchants appear equal. But you are but testing whether the edge of any given knife will be hard enough, you are testing the quenching ability of various mediums, that will only be reflected in the depth of hardness in increasing thickness. This is how industry measures depth of hardness and the effectiveness of quench.

snip

Sincerely
Kevin R. Cashen
Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

This was from the quench wars thread. I think he is saying that in thin sections (the very edge) there is less difference between the quenching mediums.

I think most folks should use real quenching oils simply because it isn't that expensive and it is proven to work well. But to disparage those who don't, and suggest they're not concerned with performance and are satisfied with "second best" can be naive. There are so many things that can go wrong it only makes sense to stack the odds in your favor, OTOH there are so many things that can go wrong that the relatively minor difference between canola oil and "real" oil is the least of your concerns. Just because you have "real" oil and someone else doesn't does not mean your blades are better. How well you agitate is equally important. So perhaps the hypesters should start going on about their :jerkit:

Folks who have "seen the light" and moved to the real quench oil need to stop belittling those who haven't. You're missing the point and it just isn't that big a deal. What you did to the steel before austenitizing, the time and evenness of the soak and your quenching technique matters - but you can't just buy that and wear it as a badge, you actually have to know what you're doing.
 
One thing also that I've heard about 1095 that I like is that is does not require a "soak" time like the high-alloy steels like 01...if that's true or not. I don't have a really high-tech set-up, so not requiring a long soak at a specific temperature elliminates another variable for me. I figure I'm going to try something... I'm going to make two identical knives (not forged, but stock removal from the same bar of 1095) and quench one blade in canola and the other blade in a brine solution. If there is a marked difference in hardness achieved, it should be quite apparent when I do some cutting/performance tests. Perhaps I should also get these rockwell tested. What do you guy's think? Actually, I guess I should rockwell test before I even go to temper the blades.
 
Last edited:
Nathan, that is the least biased and most informed post I've read in this entire discussion. I've seen tons of "bashing" of using any quench medium other than one made for that purpose, but haven't seen any one of the bashers willing to test their blades for performance and compare them against blades quenched in some other medium, and the proof is in the pudding, after all. Have you bashers actually done any testing comparing the results obtained from various quenchants, or are you just spouting off what you've read? I've done loads of such testing, and the differences are minimal at most, with warpage being the only differing factor, and that is eliminated by proper normallizing.
If yours is better because you used Parks 50, prove it. If you're just "reducing variables", that's a personal choice of yours to make knife performance easier for you to attain, and a lot of other folks evidently don't feel the need to do that. Noone has derided anyone's use of a commercial quenchant, but lots of derision has been aimed at those of us that don't feel the need to remove the variables, but choose to work with them.

The originator asked about performance of 1095 quenched in canola oil, and mentioned Tai Goo specifically. He didn't ask if Parks 50 or Quench K or Toughquench would reduce variables.

The insults here are almost unbearable to read.
 
Last edited:
R.C.Reichert said:
One thing also that I've heard about 1095 that I like is that is does not require a "soak" time like the high-alloy steels like 01...if that's true or not. I don't have a really high-tech set-up, so not requiring a long soak at a specific temperature elliminates another variable for me. I figure I'm going to try something... I'm going to make two identical knives (not forged, but stock removal from the same bar of 1095) and quench one blade in canola and the other blade in a brine solution. If there is a marked difference in hardness achieved, it should be quite apparent when I do some cutting/performance tests. Perhaps I should also get these rockwell tested. What do you guy's think?
Click to expand...

It would be nice to see BOTH cutting tests and a rockwell test done near the spine, since that part is thicker.

I'm not sure about 1095 not requiring a soak time, should be similar to O-1, like 3-5 minutes. And if the pre-HT state is not speroidal annealled then soak times can be really short.
 
cotdt said:
It would be nice to see BOTH cutting tests and a rockwell test done near the spine, since that part is thicker.

I'm not sure about 1095 not requiring a soak time, should be similar to O-1, like 3-5 minutes. And if the pre-HT state is not speroidal annealled then soak times can be really short.
Click to expand...

How do I do a cutting test near the spine?:confused:
 
R. C., your post beat me to the punch. Testing is always good. I'd be hesitant to Rockwell the blades before tempering, though, unless you have a tester in your shop, simply because most as quenched steel is very unpredictable and could crack.

1095 does benefit from a short soak period to get that extra .15 % or so of carbon into solution.

I'm sure R.C. only means the Rockwell test near the spine.
 
I'm struggling with finding the rights words here, as I would have thought that my posts in this thread were free of any insulting connotations.

Because I've chosen to utilize information that has been garnered from hundreds of years of careful testing and improvement, I'm now described as a hater and a basher.

Most of my posts suggested that maybe, possibly, the original poster might wish to consider a different alternative than electing the obviously treacherous path of a hyper-eutectiod steel and it's admittedly nasty heat treating pitfalls. I would have thought this was thinking outside the box! The original poster also stated that he wished to not sacrifice performance. Giving him data that has been presented by HUNDREDS of metallurgists, scientists, tool and die makers, 'machinists', all that have spent countless hours and offering their findings so that we could benefit - this makes me a hater and a basher?

So be it.

If you don't have the sense to see that the door to the library is wide open, go ahead and stand outside in the rain. If you're willing to throw away the hard work, perseverance and dedication of all of the people throughout history that have PROVEN, over and over again, Mr. Robbins, that facts are concluded not through peer pressure, but rather through peer review, go ahead.

Bladeforums was once a bastion of hope and reason for the knifemaking community. In the brief span of time that I've been here, I've seen so many incredible talents walk away, shaking their heads.

Nathan, I'm appalled at the condescending tone in your post. I've tried to make my input in this thread as reasonable as possible, and as far as I can see the only folks insisting that oil is the only concern are the folks that refuse to accept data from anyone other than those using medieval technology.


For the record, my testing is done by a Ph.D. metallurgist friend of mine that is currently researching various input effects on phase formation of intermetallic compounds at UCSD. Of course, I'm pretty sure there isn't any canola oil in the facility, so you may wish to completely disregard any of my input, as it's obviously of no value.
 
For the record, I never used the word "hater", although it might be appropriate. You haven't used info that is hundreds of years old to select your quenchant, because it hasn't been around that long. What makes you a basher is that you cannot accept the fact that someone can make a blade and quench it in canola oil and get performance that compares to your blades quenched in a commercial quenchant. Have YOU done cutting tests comparing the two mediums? I HAVE! When you do everything else right, THERE IS NO DISCERNABLE DIFFERENCE between the two in regards to the final product.
Not being willing to recognize that is where the problem lies.

Noone has suggested that oil is the only concern. That is a "red herring" and doesn't help your case. What some of us are saying is EXACTLY that your choice of oil ISN"T the determining factor in the quality of the final knife. YOU put more importance on it than I do.

I challenge you to provide your "peer reviewed" experiment that proves canola oil quenching will give you an inferior blade to a blade quenched in a commercial quenchant.

If you care to look, you'll see that I've been here (on Bladeforums) longer than anyone posting in this thread, I believe. I've seen many come and go for various reasons, but the disrespect shown by many of the newcomers to the guys who've been here a while is the biggest reason they leave.

Edited to add: Don Hanson's been on here about a year longer than I have, and Karl Anderson has me by a little over a week.
 
Last edited:
Does your Phd. friend actually use knives in a comparative fashion to discover what works and doesn't work in the real world of knives?
 
Matthew Gregory said:
I'm struggling with finding the rights words here, as I would have thought that my posts in this thread were free of any insulting connotations.

Because I've chosen to utilize information that has been garnered from hundreds of years of careful testing and improvement, I'm now described as a hater and a basher.

snip

Bladeforums was once a bastion of hope and reason for the knifemaking community. In the brief span of time that I've been here, I've seen so many incredible talents walk away, shaking their heads.

Nathan, I'm appalled at the condescending tone in your post. I've tried to make my input in this thread as reasonable as possible, and as far as I can see the only folks insisting that oil is the only concern are the folks that refuse to accept data from anyone other than those using medieval technology.

snip
Click to expand...

Matthew, I did not intend to appear snide. The internet is a terrible medium for conveying tone. It is easy to misread. My quarrel is not with you. You have been respectful and reasonable. It is posts like this that have my shorts in a twist:

SShepherd said:
lol, I have to admit...thats the biggest BS excuse I've herd in a long time for mediocrity.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

That was unnecessary, misguided and a sad example of a newb abusing a knowledgable oldtimer because of a near religious zeal they have adopted about an element of the craft. Like most folks, I come here and do this because I enjoy it. Disrespectful trash talking takes a lot of the fun out of it. You, Matthew Gregory, have not shown anyone disrespect and I have no quarrel with you. You and I have the same opinion regarding quench oil. I will reiterate what I have said in my other two posts - "real" quench oil is a good idea for most folks, but it is not the end all be all solution and folks who don't want to use it are not heretics and should not be ostracized for their choice.

Todd Robbins said:
I've seen many come and go for various reasons, but the disrespect shown by many of the newcomers to the guys who've been here a while is the biggest reason they leave.
Click to expand...


Thank you, well said.
 
Good science should be impartial and un-biased.

In the real world, many comparison tests have been made between different makers, steels, quenching mediums etc... by the people who buy and use custom knives. Their findings don't always go along with what the test books say should be the outcome... or much of the type of information you find on the makers forums.

The biggest variable and the most biased judge is the knifemaker himself... Yes, people do come to the forum to share information, but this is often coupled with a desire to promote themselves and their methods.

Just because you profess a certain type of scientific idealism or logic on the boards, doesn't necessarily mean your knives are any better than those who don't.
 
Folks just need to make knives, experiment, and above all, test your blades.

Quench medium is just a small part of the puzzle.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Matthew, I did not intend to appear snide. The internet is a terrible medium for conveying tone. It is easy to misread. My quarrel is not with you. You have been respectful and reasonable. It is posts like this that have my shorts in a twist:
Click to expand...

That was unnecessary, misguided and a sad example of a newb abusing a knowledgable oldtimer because of a near religious zeal they have adopted about an element of the craft. Like most folks, I come here and do this because I enjoy it. Disrespectful trash talking takes a lot of the fun out of it. You, Matthew Gregory, have not shown anyone disrespect and I have no quarrel with you. You and I have the same opinion regarding quench oil. I will reiterate what I have said in my other two posts - "real" quench oil is a good idea for most folks, but it is not the end all be all solution and folks who don't want to use it are not heretics and should not be ostracized for their choice.




Thank you, well said.[/QUOTE]


Nathan...

I'm hardly a noob, and your opinion of me means plus or minus nothing.

The trash talk usually starts with Mr. Tai and his back handed attempts to point out how "misguided" everyone else is that decides to go the route of "crutches" aka, formulated quenches or digital heat treat ovens.
I think you need to see there's zealouts, as you call them, on both sides of the spectrum-- and here once again I'm agreeing with tai, the truth falls somewhere in the middle.
The idea that "masters" are above questions in their methods is pretty sucophantic.
I don't recall any of my posts saying "canola sucks", I do remember saying canola works, but something else works better. And then ofcourse someone decided to argue good-better-best.
I don't believe I've "bashed or hated" on anyone -- for the use of canola oil. I will say this though, there seems to be an underlying current of dislike for the idea that science has anything to do with knifemaking. I don't care how people make their knives, use bear piss- or virgin blood (if you can find it) to quench your blades in if you want.
 
Last edited:
Lets not let this turn into any kind of pissing match. Nathan was correct in his statement about the net often not being able to convey tone. Plus sometimes old stuff bounces up and is taken wrong. A lot of those in this thread know a bit about each other, our attitudes and approaches to bladesmithing and life. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to argue that opinion. I love a great debate. Even one on philosophy's, but lets not lose our fosuc and let it slip into anger and personal attacks. Most of the members have their share of faults. Fortunately, the vast majority have some wonderful skills and insights that they share with us. Thats what makes this place great. Many of us have made comments we probably should not have and have taken things the wrong way. Were all human.
main thing is that this place is about mostly about knives and this thread is about 105 and quenching it. I think just about everyone agrees that canola oil will work fine on knives, Parks 50 is great for it. The quench is only part of the story and this place has some great people. OK
 
My new hobby is going to be whittling Walmart blades with my 1095 canola quenched blades.:D I don't know if my knives will ever compare to those of some of the masters here, but I'm pretty confident I can at least make my knives better than most factory reproduced blades that are sold where I live. Just that tells me I must be doing something right.
 
Last edited:
I found a Buck hunting knife that I had lying around and decided to do some comparison testing with that against my hunting knife made with 1095 quenched canola... I used a 1/4" brass rod and completely went to town on it with both knives. Tried "sharpening" the brass rod like a pencil, tried whacking repeatedly against the brass rod. I even took each knife and whacked both edges together against each other really hard to see what kind of damage I could do.... Would I be violating any forum rules if I told you guys the results of those tests? Maybe it's not really a fair comparison because the Buck knife is not made with 1095 steel, but hey...a hunting knife is a hunting knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top