1095 vs. 0-1

U

Uncle Bill

Joined
Aug 24, 1999
Messages
434
I notice that most carbon steel blades are 1095 while comparitively few are 0-1. What's the difference, and why is 1095 more common?

Can somebody provide an informed comparison of these two steels and describe why one or the other might be chosen?

------------------
I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but I would prefer THAT to their being educated by the state.
 
I think that 1095 is one of the lowest cost steels for a knive, it's just a plain high carbon steel, while O1 is a tool steel. For the same hardness I think that you can get a tougher blade with O1. Although I don't recall that it includes O1 www.specialtyblades.com has a nice comparison of different materials at their site, as does Crucible.
 
If you look at Joe Talmadge's Steel FAQ in Bladeforums you get some idea of what 1095 and O1 are like. The 1095 alloy is cheaper than O1, but the quality is likely to be more variable. I've had some 1095 that takes an incredible edge (Russell Green River skinner) and some that is just very good. O1 contains vanadium which should make it more uniformly take a fine edge and hold it well. Less expensive alloys that are similar to O1 include 0170-6 (also known as 50100-B) and (probably) Cold Steel's Carbon V.
 
So what makes something just a plain ol' carbon steel and what makes it a "tool" steel?

------------------
I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but I would prefer THAT to their being educated by the state.
 
My impression is that a "tool" steel is really short for a "machine tool" steel. Something that can be hardened to either cut metal or at least tolerate being rubbed by tool being used. A common type of tool steel stock is drill rod. I've used it to make improvised spade drills, reams, and drill bushings. It gets real hard when heated and quenched in oil or water. When you buy a tool steel it will be designated as a tool steel. It will have extra alloying elements beyond carbon to make the edge extra tough.

The carbon steels are mostly intended to make tools that don't cut metal. Alloys like 1075 or 1095 are called "improved plow steels". They had to stand up to scraping through dirt and hitting some rocks, but were not expected to stay real sharp when it happened. They were intended not to bend or chip too badly under those applications. Of course you can beat your plowshares into some pretty decent knives and swords. Since these alloys were invented in the 19th century they were not expected to have to cut through metal armor so are not metal cutting "tool steels".
 
Hi,

Perhaps I am naive, but what then is the "value added" by going to O-1? Certainly 1095 used by reputable makers is not so variable in performance as the variability of the steel itself from mill to mill. In such a simple steel, if one knows how to properly heat treat, the results should be consistent supposing good quality bar stock from a trusted supplier shouldn't they?

It seems in researching the issue myself that 0-1 is claimed to possess better "shock resistance" than 1095 does. What does that mean in real terms? Perhaps 1095 was invented for a plow, but really, how many of us are ever going to be called upon to stab an armored target? Besides, it won't be the steel that would fail to penetrate any armor you encounter, it will be your arm's failure to push through it. I note that swords made of 1050 and other plow-like steels will cut most armor with impunity. Mass, design (overall and edge, grind, etc.) and manufacturing skill (tempering, fitting) seem to play a bigger part in knife and sword performance than relatively minor differences in metal composition.

Am I just wrong about this?
 
Type of metal seems to make a big difference in wear resistance, which if everything else is equal is probably the largest contributor to edge holding, while toughness won't be factor for robust designs and/or light duty. Still, I've seen lots of broken knives over the years, and some of the more brittle stainless steels that are made too hard for a given design and use seem to break. A tougher steel should allow for a thinner blade which should be able to function without damage at a given level of use, and being thinner it should also cut better.
 
O1 has vanadium. I generally opt for alloys with vanadium because they are easier to get and keep razor sharp. You get so that you can feel a difference (or think you can feel a difference). Usually a vanadium alloy feels smoother to me when I hone it. It seems like the hone cuts into the material more uniformly without feeling like it wants to skate across the hone. It has a fine grain structure that just keeps getting sharper as I keep honing. The feel of a good 1095 is different. It feels harder and smoother against the hone. It reminds me of trying to hone chrome. It does hone and does take an excellent edge. It feels like more of a problem than it really is. It also responds well to stropping.

I own many more knives with 1095 than with O1. What I went to for my last knife purchase was A2. It is tough, but is easy to get very, very sharp. So for cheap I'm happy with 1095 and for expensive I jump over O1 to A2 for a non-stainless alloy.

For stainless I've gone to VG-10, BG-42, and 440V.
 
01 isn't known for being very compatible with "heat'n'beat" hand-forging techniques. It CAN be done, Randall does it quite well but it's easy to get 'em too brittle. Randall solves that by leaving the Rockwell down around 56 - 58 if I recall right.

Many of the tool steels and better stainlesses like ATS34, BG42 are "one shot only" deals on heat-treating; screw it up and there ain't no way you're ever gonna get it re-normalized and treated properly, the blade is basically scrap. Hence forging is almost always out of the question, and you better be careful at the grinding wheel not to get it too hot or you'll "use up your one shot there" and the heat-treat will riddle it with brittle spots for every spot you cooked on the grinder. Alan Folts talked about grinding ATS34 with bare hands only so he could feel any heat build-up and back the heck off before he cooked the steel.

So unless you know your stuff, 01 can turn brittle. I flat-out wouldn't trust a machine-made production 01 blade, no way in hell.

Mad Dog takes the edge on his stock-removal 01 blades to around 62-63. He's running right up there as high as he can get 'em without brittleness problems, and he mostly succeeds with the *possible* exception of the TUSK...which I don't consider the best critter he makes anyways. The rest are awesome, IMHO, I love my ATAK variant (WSP1).

Anyways...1095 can be ground or forged. Japanese swords were more or less 1060-1084 range steels, with a few minor differences. The 95/84/60 refers to carbon content (60 = .6% carbon, etc.). More carbon equals better edgeholding at the expense of toughness.

I'm a bit surprised there's not a lot of US maker interest in 5160. It may have a poor rep as a "lowly" auto leaf spring steel but HI's kamis swear by the stuff versus railroad track steel (1084ish). It's awesome for big tough blades, forges well, takes a differencial temper pretty easily...nice for any big fighter or sword. Criswell makes some Japanese-influenced big pieces in it, Jim Hrisoulis(sp?) makes Medieval type swords for the RenFaire/SCA scenes in it...don't know of too many others. 5160 is considered a high carbon class that "borders on tool steel territory", sorta like how D2 "borders on stainless without quite getting there".

Jim March
 
If you haven't yet seen it, there's a good thread in the Shoptalk forum started by Don G, titled "3V, O1, 52100." Some good info that may be relevant here.

FYI -- Glen


------------------
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?" -Elvis Costello

[This message has been edited by storyville (edited 25 September 1999).]
 
Jim :

01 isn't known for being very compatible with "heat'n'beat" hand-forging techniques. It CAN be done, Randall does it quite well but it's easy to get 'em too brittle. Randall solves that by leaving the Rockwell down around 56 - 58 if I recall right.
Click to expand...

You could simply forge to shape and then do a full anneal and then heat treat from the start. Even the complex steels like the CPM alloys can be handled this way.

Many of the tool steels and better stainlesses like ATS34, BG42 are "one shot only" deals on heat-treating; screw it up and there ain't no way you're ever gonna get it re-normalized and treated properly, the blade is basically scrap.
Same thing here. While the simpler steels can be tempered repeatily, even the stainless ones can still be annealed back to austenite and the process begun again.

-Cliff
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
For years 1095 was all I used I had a friend that was a metalurgest that told me a few interesting fact's about 1095 that impressed me ,the 1095 is tough when heatreated 3 times 1450 to 1475 degrees f quenched in oil @ 150 degrees f. each time then tempered 3times in 425 degrees you will produce a blade tha will stand up under a microscope for density in the moleculer structure ,I also like O-1 but it is very hard to selectivly harden the blade made of O-1 Be carefull Tank

------------------
tbark
 
I think the reason bladesmiths don't like O1 is the Tungsten in it keeps the steel hard even when you fire it up hot. Making it difficult to forge. Tungsten is very unpopular with bladesmiths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top