1095 steel: on paper vs. in practice

[DangerZone98]

I’ve always found it curious that a few steel charts online describe 1095’s toughness as ‘not that high’. And yet we see this steel all the time in tough guy survival knives: Esee, Becker, Tops, custom knives. Anecdotally, folks also seem to swear by their trusty 1095 knives.

There’s the factor of cost and I can buy that 1095 is probably cheaper to make versus more modern high spec steels.

Granted, I don’t subject any of my knives to hard use so I can’t give any comprehensive opinions on 1095’s limits. All in all though, my 1095 knives have all been solid enough for the job. Not as exciting or flashy as the CPM steels sure, but all have been reliable.

What are your thoughts on 1095? How do you like your knives using this steel?

 

[Arathol]

I like 1095. It just works.
I also find that chasing numbers is a fools game.....

 

[SwissHeritageCo]

That's how easy to tool translated into "good old fashion tough".

 

[The Zieg]

I have a handful of 1095 knives and they are amongst my favorites: Becker BK-15, Ka-Bar USN Mk 1, Cold Steel SRK in Carbon V (a sibling to 1095), Northwoods Hawthorne Jack, off the top of my head. I love a patina, a hard near-razor edge, and quick resharpening in the field (or barn, backyard, kitchen, etc.). I have worked these knives pretty damn hard and they really hold up.

 

[Alone]

I think about this all the time, usually after I've read, "1095 isn't that tough" here on this site, or right after I've beaten the snot out of TOPS Steel Eagle, BK&T 2 or 9, or an ESEE-5. In fact, something made me think about this subject just today, although I can't recall what that was.

While I'm not going to downplay the amount of work put into compiling them, I will post that I put very little weight into internet graphs. While I'm thankful that those graphs are available, I view them as a reference, not as The Bible. I'm a pragmatist and trust my own experience over any ranking based on controlled tests or theory.

Over the years, I have noted that, when I'm leaving the house for a possible stay outdoors, and start to hear that voice telling me, "You'd better take something tough", I will typically grab one of the four mentioned above, with the first one usually beating-out the other three most of the time.


...and this is from a guy who owns his fair share of the expensive/fanboy knives.

 

[Pablo668]

A couple of things spring to mind here. 1) try not to beat up of misuse your knives, some working conditions are tough granted, but if you don't do anything too ridiculous your knife should be fine.
2) How much better are the high end, new steels? I'm guessing they are good/better, but perhaps no by an order of magnitude.

 

[shunsui]

It's not that 1095 isn't that tough, doesn't hold an edge for long periods, and is a little corrosively challenged; it's that other steels simply test a little better.
Some test a lot better at certain things, but you have to chose what's important to you.

Most people aren't doing tough things with knives and may not need to cut a mile of rope. Personally I'd buy a MagnaCut these days instead of 1095, or at least a 1095CV, but you could get by fine with 1095.

 

[knarfeng]

I have a handful of 1095 knives and they are amongst my favorites: Becker BK-15, Ka-Bar USN Mk 1, Cold Steel SRK in Carbon V (a sibling to 1095), Northwoods Hawthorne Jack, off the top of my head. I love a patina, a hard near-razor edge, and quick resharpening in the field (or barn, backyard, kitchen, etc.). I have worked these knives pretty damn hard and they really hold up.

KaBar uses 1095 CroVan, not 1095. 1095 CroVan is similar to Carbon V. If you're talking about one of the early Cold Steel knives made by Cutco, the Carbon V IS 1095 Cro Van

 

[Surname]

1095 is not a tough steel. That is why a lot of the aforementioned knives are at a low Rockwell hardness. A steel being tough and a steel being soft are two different things.

For example, my 1095 Esees have been prone to edge problems. The knife is indestructible, but the edge is easy to damage.

My experience with 1095 is that it doesn't hold an edge as well as other steels, but is more than adequate for the average user, myself included. At lower Rockwells it has a lower edge stability, and that is something I'm not a fan of.

 

[DangerZone98]

1095 is not a tough steel. That is why a lot of the aforementioned knives are at a low Rockwell hardness. A steel being tough and a steel being soft are two different things.

For example, my 1095 Esees have been prone to edge problems. The knife is indestructible, but the edge is easy to damage.

My experience with 1095 is that it doesn't hold an edge as well as other steels, but is more than adequate for the average user, myself included. At lower Rockwells it has a lower edge stability, and that is something I'm not a fan of.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I guess I’ve never used my 1095s hard enough to run into edge problems yet. I’ll keep that in mind.

 

[knarfeng]

1095 is not a tough steel. That is why a lot of the aforementioned knives are at a low Rockwell hardness. A steel being tough and a steel being soft are two different things.

For example, my 1095 Esees have been prone to edge problems. The knife is indestructible, but the edge is easy to damage.

My experience with 1095 is that it doesn't hold an edge as well as other steels, but is more than adequate for the average user, myself included. At lower Rockwells it has a lower edge stability, and that is something I'm not a fan of.

I agree that 1095 is not particularly tough. 1075 is considerably tougher, for instance. But performance is a combination of the alloy and the shape. So if the blade designer takes the 1095 properties into consideration when he's deciding the shape, you can still end up with a knife that performs well.

 

[Alone]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I guess I’ve never used my 1095s hard enough to run into edge problems yet. I’ll keep that in mind.

I have.

Even after YEARS of hard use (*I'm admittedly not an axe/hatchet guy), I'm still shocked at the level of abuse that my 1095/1095CV knives will endure.

I've never had an issue with edge stability, even after beating the hell out of 'em. Just for comparison, I've folded the sh!t out of a couple of 3V edges...and I'm a big fan of 3V.


TOPS are differentially heat-treated. Sometimes, their edges are a bit like glass: hard and sharp as hell, but a bit chippy and brittle at the start. However, after a few sharpenings, they'll go straight from splitting aged Oak/Mesquite/Ligustrum to easily cutting food and cordage. My Beckers/ESEEs have performed in the same manner.


As far as the 1095 vs. 1095CV thing, I can't say that I've noticed any noticeable differences during my use(s).

Not trying to start an internet dogpile, but from my many years of usage, I treat the "1095 isn't tough" thing as simple gaslighting. My 1095/1095CV knives have performed AMAZINGLY.


Your mileage may vary...

 

[marrenmiller]

I used to break knives for fun, and found that it's shockingly difficult to break an overbuilt modern knife made in a relatively soft steel. That doesn't mean it's hard to wreck their edges or bend them, and it doesn't mean that using softer steel is good for knives.

Most of the survival-style knives that people reference as having god-tier toughness seem to use thick stock and obtuse grinds, and have thick edges. Of course soft 1095 in that context is durable; a piece of aluminum probably would be, too. I'd be much more impressed if 1095 held up better than other steels when used with good cutting geometry.

 

[greater]

I like the edges that carbon steels take however it I were to take a knife outdoors I would likely choose a stainless. Stainless is just more convenient. While I like carbon steels for their performance when it comes to my mediocre use the fact that I don't have to give stainless as much care and attention to prevent rusting is a big deal to me. If I ever take a knife to a beach or other salt water environment I would not want to deal with any carbon steels.

I don't know much about toughness comparisons with other modern steels but I am convinced carbon steel is pretty tough at the very least tough enough certainly much tougher than a brittle badly heat treated super steel. Carbon steels I have heard are also harder to screw up during the heat treating process.

 

[J. Doyle]

I’ve always found it curious that a few steel charts online describe 1095’s toughness as ‘not that high’. And yet we see this steel all the time in tough guy survival knives: Esee, Becker, Tops, custom knives. Anecdotally, folks also seem to swear by their trusty 1095 knives.

1095 isn't that tough. The reason people think it's "tough" and used in "tough guy survival" knives is because they don't understand what one has to do to 1095 to make it "tough".

You have to either,

1. Temper it so low that the hardness drops enough so it isn't chippy OR

2. Leave the cutting edge super thick OR

A combination of both.

Starting to sound like a broken record here but you'd be better off with 1075 or better still, 15n20. You would have much better toughness at higher hardness with a thinner edge. And at a cost the same as or below 1095.

Trying to make 1095 tough is leaving a lot of performance on the table and a waste of the steel.

If I remember right, ESEE started actually seeing the light and has started using some 1075.

 

[The Zieg]

KaBar uses 1095 CroVan, not 1095. 1095 CroVan is similar to Carbon V. If you're talking about one of the early Cold Steel knives made by Cutco, the Carbon V IS 1095 Cro Van

Interesting details Thanks! Whether you meant it not, my takeaway is that these steels are of the genus 1095, though of different species. If so, I'm still in the spirit of D DangerZone98 's original post. That is, for my uses, garden variety 1095, 1095 CroVan, and early Carbon V are "a' Jock Tamson's bairns": Distinctions without much difference. I find more difference amongst these knives to come from geometry, size, and handle material than their steel composition.

1095 works for me and I don't have to adjust my use of these knives to make up for any issues folks cite.

 

[DMG]

1095 is fine but all the indestructible 1095 blades are soft and thick. They dont slice well and they don't hold an edge long. But they don't break and you can sharpen them with anything. Like most things, it is a compromise. I prefer 3v but I am never sad when I have an Esee4 in 1095 on my belt.

 

[J. Doyle]

1095 works for me and I don't have to adjust my use of these knives to make up for any issues folks cite.

It's not really about running into issues. It's about dumbing down a steel to achieve a certain attribute when you would have been much better off with a different steel to begin with to get that same attribute.

Or in other words, if you love 1095 and it works great for you, would you trade up for more toughness, more hardness, at a thinner geometry which translate into better cutting, longer edge life......all for the same cost?

Personally, it's a no brainer for me. No downside.

 

[scdub]

I’ve always found it curious that a few steel charts online describe 1095’s toughness as ‘not that high’. And yet we see this steel all the time in tough guy survival knives: Esee, Becker, Tops, custom knives. Anecdotally, folks also seem to swear by their trusty 1095 knives.

I think we see it used often because of cost and the fact that most folks value abrasive edge retention over toughness - even when they’re making survival knives, etc.

Virtually all modern knife steels are incredibly tough - carbon and stainless. They are mostly “good enough” for cutting and chopping wood, however tougher steels can be used hard (chopping) with slightly thinner edges than less tough steels, and this is an important factor for folks like myself that chop hard, dead wood with their fixed blades -so we gravitate to 5160, A8 mod, S7, etc.

Anecdotally, folks say the same things about D2 being “super tough”, but generally they aren’t doing direct comparisons against knives with other carbon steels that are renowned for toughness, in similar geometries. Anecdotal evidence is really just “stuff some people said”. Not worthless, but not what I use to make decisions about the steels I choose in chopping knives.

So if the blade designer takes the 1095 properties into consideration when he's deciding the shape, you can still end up with a knife that performs well.

Agreed. Exactly. It’ll work just fine.

It just won’t be QUITE as tough as another knife of exactly the same shape and hardness in 5160.

 

[knarfeng]

It's well known that blade profile has more impact on edge retention than blade alloy does.
Profile has a similar impact on the toughness of a knife.