1095 VS 1080 VS 1075 at equal hardness. What's the performance difference?

[lumberjake]

What I am asking is, I see blades in 1080 1075 etc reaching the same hardness so why choose a steel with higher carbon?
All else being equal, the exact same knives at the exact same hardness using similar heat treat, wouldn't the 1075 blade have more toughness while performing the same?
Why use 1095 over these other steels if you aren't going for higher hardness?
Maybe it's a dumb question but I understand that toughness is generally related to carbon content. Carbon content creates carbide which I am assuming relates to hardness of the steel.
I see 1095 being used a lot more than the others but I also see the other steels often reaching the same hardness so I wonder why even bother with 1095? Is there an advantage because from what I understand the extra carbon is more a liability all else equal.
Am I wrong?
Obviously this is kind of technical. Looking for an objective explanation if any.

 

[J. Doyle]

Carbon only creates carbides if the content exceeds the eutectoid point and if care was taken in heat treat to not put the excess into solution by overheating.

Many factory brands misuse 1095. There are recent threads on this.

The question is more complex than it seems because everything is a trade off.

Generally if you want more toughness, 1075 wins. If you want more wear resistance, 1095 wins. This assumes much, like careful heat treating and proper edge geometry.

 

[kod]

Because consumers are stupid and 1095 is bigger than 1075 so it must be better.

Same reason american fast food joints tried 1/3lb burgers and went back to 1/4lb. 4 is bigger than 3, it must be better.

 

[Maximumbob54]

The only 1075 I've used was a Condor Bushlore and I currently have a Terrasaur in 1095. I cannot tell the difference between the two of them. They both go dull way too fast.

 

[shinyedges]

Because consumers are stupid and 1095 is bigger than 1075 so it must be better.

Same reason american fast food joints tried 1/3lb burgers and went back to 1/4lb. 4 is bigger than 3, it must be better.

Hmmm.

 

[shinyedges]

I think 1095 was the go to steel for so long for several brands that people just got used to it. 80crv2, 1084/1080+ and others outperform 1095 for general knife stuff. I don't find the wear resistance to be any different in any meaningful way, probably because 1095 is left so soft.

People often misunderstand "toughness" when it comes to knives. A piece of mild steel is tough. It's a terrible knife steel. The ability to resist deformation, disalignment, rolls etc is a function of strength in many instances. If the steel can maintain the ability to take impact AND be ran harder it will be the "tougher" blade in that you'll see less damage in rougher use. There's so many variables, this is very general and there's lots of caveats.

if you only ever use your knife in wood, a soft 55-58 hrc may not matter as much. Over swing at a log on the ground and contact rocks and watch the deformation/damage, do the same with a steel that is stronger and tougher and observe the difference, I assure you it's visibly different and not that hard to discern.

I'd go 5160 over 1075 or 1095 all day.

 

[shinyedges]

Carbon only creates carbides if the content exceeds the eutectoid point and if care was taken in heat treat to not put the excess into solution by overheating.

Many factory brands misuse 1095. There are recent threads on this.

The question is more complex than it seems because everything is a trade off.

Generally if you want more toughness, 1075 wins. If you want more wear resistance, 1095 wins. This assumes much, like careful heat treating and proper edge geometry.

John, I don't buy steels for knives and I'm curious, what's the typical cost difference for 80crv2, 5160, 1095, 1080, 1075?

 

[J. Doyle]

John, I don't buy steels for knives and I'm curious, what's the typical cost difference for 80crv2, 5160, 1095, 1080, 1075?

Not much difference at all. Those are all in the same price range. Within $1 or $2 for 4' lengths last I checked.

And heat treating steps/processing steps are and machining costs are all roughly the same.

 

[shinyedges]

Not much difference at all. Those are all in the same price range. Within $1 or $2 for 4' lengths last I checked.

And heat treating steps/processing steps are and machining costs are all roughly the same.

Thank you, I was under the impression that was the case but just wanted to make sure.

 

[me2]

1075 and 1080 are essentially the same steel. 1095 is not necessarily harder, but is often less tough than the others. As-quenched hardness isn’t really related to the amount of carbides and hardness between 1075/1080 and 1095 can often be the same. Knives made from these two steels would be very difficult to tell apart and the differences would depend on the heat treatment more than anything. Differences in geometry would more than overwhelm differences in steel between these steels in a knife.