- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Messages
- 219
I've always used 1095 and it seems alot of people use the 1084. Is there a differance? Besides the carbon level. I was going to order some from Sheffield, has anyone used both. Thanks for your replies in advance.
-
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.
1095 vs. 1084 what's the deal.
- Thread starter blackboogers
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 85
Well 1084 is usually a good bit tougher, without neccesarily sacrificing hardness.
1084 is much less risky in the quench, too.
Makes sense now doesnt it.
1084 is much less risky in the quench, too.
Makes sense now doesnt it.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 615
The main difference lies in the Manganese content. 1095 will generally have about 0.40% Manganese. With 1084, depending on the particular batch, the Manganese content will generally be somewhere from 0.72% - 0.90%.
One of the things that Manganese does is increase the hardness penetration of steel in the quench by decreasing the critical quenching speed.
So what that means is that with 1095 you have a much narrower window time wise to get the steel from the critical range down into the range where the Austenite shears off into Martensite.
On a small blade where you can get it out and into the quench real quick, I suppose it's not as much of a big deal. On a larger blade, if it takes you a second or two fumbling with the blade trying to get it into the quench, then you'll miss the nose curve and not get maximum Martensite transformation. In other words "It don't get as hard as it oughta".
I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I imagine that's why you'll often see 1095 listed as water quench, and 1084 listed as oil quench. The water would assure a faster drop in the temperature. Of course it also makes the steel more susceptible to cracking because of the shock involved.
That's why a lot of us lean towards 1084.
###
[ He comes back and says ... ]
I see Joe mentioned that 1084 was tougher. I don't have enough experience with 1095 to argue or confirm that fact, but I can see where that "could" be the case. Another of the effects of Manganese on the steel is that it slightly increases the strength of the ferrite.
Again, that's strictly conjecture on my part -- no scientific data or enough personal experience to back it up.
One of the things that Manganese does is increase the hardness penetration of steel in the quench by decreasing the critical quenching speed.
So what that means is that with 1095 you have a much narrower window time wise to get the steel from the critical range down into the range where the Austenite shears off into Martensite.
On a small blade where you can get it out and into the quench real quick, I suppose it's not as much of a big deal. On a larger blade, if it takes you a second or two fumbling with the blade trying to get it into the quench, then you'll miss the nose curve and not get maximum Martensite transformation. In other words "It don't get as hard as it oughta".
I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I imagine that's why you'll often see 1095 listed as water quench, and 1084 listed as oil quench. The water would assure a faster drop in the temperature. Of course it also makes the steel more susceptible to cracking because of the shock involved.
That's why a lot of us lean towards 1084.
###
[ He comes back and says ... ]
I see Joe mentioned that 1084 was tougher. I don't have enough experience with 1095 to argue or confirm that fact, but I can see where that "could" be the case. Another of the effects of Manganese on the steel is that it slightly increases the strength of the ferrite.
Again, that's strictly conjecture on my part -- no scientific data or enough personal experience to back it up.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 85
I said it usually can be tougher. Swords are my specialty, but I think you are right that you will barely notice much in small knives.
Mainly it will end up on the particulars of the heat treatment, though 1084 is more forgiving in both water and oil.
Mainly it will end up on the particulars of the heat treatment, though 1084 is more forgiving in both water and oil.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 615
We are in agreement Joe.
I just realized that my statement about not having enough experience with 1095 to argue or confirm the fact about the toughness, could have been taken as meaning that I wanted to argue the fact.
Not at all. I'm just making sure that everyone knows I don't consider myself an expert on the subject.
A few years ago there was some buzz going on about SSG's (spec sheet guru's). Those are guys who give out information as if they were authorities, based solely on what they read off spec sheets -- no experience to back it up. I just don't want to end up in that category.
I just realized that my statement about not having enough experience with 1095 to argue or confirm the fact about the toughness, could have been taken as meaning that I wanted to argue the fact.
Not at all. I'm just making sure that everyone knows I don't consider myself an expert on the subject.
A few years ago there was some buzz going on about SSG's (spec sheet guru's). Those are guys who give out information as if they were authorities, based solely on what they read off spec sheets -- no experience to back it up. I just don't want to end up in that category.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 85
With all the different batches I dont think anyone is, anyway.Originally posted by primos
I'm just making sure that everyone knows I don't consider myself an expert on the subject.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,419
I've heard a couple of different things too, from various sources. That is -
1095 has had problems with impurities, pits etc. A manufacturing problem, not an inherent issue with the steel. Higher probability of warpage, breakage in the quench stage. Inconsistent carbon content, in fact too high, up to 1.25-1.3% in some batches, needing different tempering ranges for best results ...
Not sure how true these are, but I'm not sure if using 1084 is supposed to necessarily fix it. My own expereince is with the problems of tempering correctly, and warpage. (2 blades using 1095, assured to me by the maker, made from files, different brands, though, quenched in oil and tempered in the oven at the same time. Both warped in oil. When final ground and edge tested, one did perfectly (to me), the other seemed very hard still and when flexed on a brass rod, an entire section of edge snapped off. Tried another spot - snapped off again. The grain looked small enough - just too hard.
Haven't had the problems since moving to 1084 (although I don't use it much anymore). An even simpler reason for me is that 1095 / W-1 is near impossible to get here. The supplier has heaps of forging bar 1084 lying around though ...
Can anyone confirm or comment if these are true ?
1095 has had problems with impurities, pits etc. A manufacturing problem, not an inherent issue with the steel. Higher probability of warpage, breakage in the quench stage. Inconsistent carbon content, in fact too high, up to 1.25-1.3% in some batches, needing different tempering ranges for best results ...
Not sure how true these are, but I'm not sure if using 1084 is supposed to necessarily fix it. My own expereince is with the problems of tempering correctly, and warpage. (2 blades using 1095, assured to me by the maker, made from files, different brands, though, quenched in oil and tempered in the oven at the same time. Both warped in oil. When final ground and edge tested, one did perfectly (to me), the other seemed very hard still and when flexed on a brass rod, an entire section of edge snapped off. Tried another spot - snapped off again. The grain looked small enough - just too hard.
Haven't had the problems since moving to 1084 (although I don't use it much anymore). An even simpler reason for me is that 1095 / W-1 is near impossible to get here. The supplier has heaps of forging bar 1084 lying around though ...
Can anyone confirm or comment if these are true ?
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 85
1095 is not hard to find in good stock. I have heard of many occasions of flawed 5160, however.
Some batches of 1095/W1 (they are the same now, another effect of steel mil cost effecting) go up to 1.4 C.
The problem of differing batches is a problem with all grades, even 1084. If you are smart you take a good luck at the chemical analysis, they give you, and work with it.
1084 goes up to .94 C. but with more manganese than 1095.
Warping has more to do with the guy behind the fire than the starting stock, but it does happen to all of us.
Unfortanately steels will barely ever have consistent chemistries, unless you buy a large melt of your own. Just work around it.
Some batches of 1095/W1 (they are the same now, another effect of steel mil cost effecting) go up to 1.4 C.
The problem of differing batches is a problem with all grades, even 1084. If you are smart you take a good luck at the chemical analysis, they give you, and work with it.
1084 goes up to .94 C. but with more manganese than 1095.
Warping has more to do with the guy behind the fire than the starting stock, but it does happen to all of us.
Unfortanately steels will barely ever have consistent chemistries, unless you buy a large melt of your own. Just work around it.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,419
Thanks Joe.
I guess I was taking even more of a punt when working with files instead of a consistent batch.
I also know what you mean. A lot of the warpage was definitely due to me mucking it up as I went along, but I have enough obsessive log book records to show that it "consistently" happens more with one steel than another. Eg.- the files (1095/W-1) 2/5 warpages (and BAD!) vs. 1/16 in O-1 and only in quite thin stock, none at all so far in L-6 (but its all been thick 1/4inch stock). Oh, and only 1/12 warpages for 1084. Thats been over a 9month period.
Weird. Its not just all me. I wonder if most of you guys are getting the same problems, but you're just better at the whole heat treatment / forge thing than I am anyhow.
I suppose what I'm saying is that even if you take skill into account, some steels are "easier" to use than others, particularly for newbies. Would that be fair ?
I might bring up "warpage in heat treat" as another thread.
Cheers.
I guess I was taking even more of a punt when working with files instead of a consistent batch.
I also know what you mean. A lot of the warpage was definitely due to me mucking it up as I went along, but I have enough obsessive log book records to show that it "consistently" happens more with one steel than another. Eg.- the files (1095/W-1) 2/5 warpages (and BAD!) vs. 1/16 in O-1 and only in quite thin stock, none at all so far in L-6 (but its all been thick 1/4inch stock). Oh, and only 1/12 warpages for 1084. Thats been over a 9month period.
Weird. Its not just all me. I wonder if most of you guys are getting the same problems, but you're just better at the whole heat treatment / forge thing than I am anyhow.
I suppose what I'm saying is that even if you take skill into account, some steels are "easier" to use than others, particularly for newbies. Would that be fair ?
I might bring up "warpage in heat treat" as another thread.
Cheers.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2001
- Messages
- 5,705
The place where I get my steel carries 1084/95. I haven't tried any of it yet but not sure what to call it.
As for warpage, I was having a heck of time with it. Mentioned it to Wayne Goddard and he said my quench was to fast. I had been using Quenchtec B, a Texaco product. Wayne swares by his goop. I bought a can of Crisco and haven't had a problem since. Smells much better, very seldom flashes and when it does its nothing compaired to the oil.
As for warpage, I was having a heck of time with it. Mentioned it to Wayne Goddard and he said my quench was to fast. I had been using Quenchtec B, a Texaco product. Wayne swares by his goop. I bought a can of Crisco and haven't had a problem since. Smells much better, very seldom flashes and when it does its nothing compaired to the oil.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Messages
- 219
I had problems with warpage at first. Now after I profile the blade I anneal, grind and most importantly go to a very even heat. I may have extremely minor warpage that is either corrected by grinding or straightening on the vise.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 85
You are thinking of it in the wrong way. If you are doing something wrong, the blades will still have the problem, some just wont show you as much, but may still hold that defect.
My suggestion above all things is normalize a few times take it to the grinder and files, make sure all is well with geometry, and that its basicly ready for quench. Now normalize at least a few more times. This will cause the grain to not only grow smaller, but will cause it to reorganize itself a bit(beleive it or not) and it will correct some of the forging problems. If thats the case, it will probably fix the problem if it is something else too.
Folks just underestimate thermal cycling. 3 just isnt enough guys. Normalize-normalize-normalize- and then normalize some more.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,419
Hadn't thought of it that way. Makes sense.
In spite of the darned statistics I've kept, overall, the amount of warpages has reduced across the board anyhow so maybe I AM getting somewhere with consistency in my techniques.
On the issue of oils and speed of quench - I checked out my pot of vegetable oil a month ago. I'd been getting bad warpages all in a row - poured a fresh batch of oil and realised it was much thicker than the repeatedly used batch which was like water ! Maybe it was degraded from repeated quenches (smelt bad too) ! I'm not sure but with new oil, the warpages reduced again.
Its all trial and error with a bit of theory thrown in, but a colleague at work told me that along the "less haste, more speed" philosophy, sometimes, just stopping and paying some attention (whatever attention) sometimes helps just by itself.
I have a mental picture that if my workshop smells like fried chicken when I'm oil quenching, its fine. After a while the sizzling oil starts to smell like my first car, and its time to change oil ! I have no idea whether this makes any difference whatsoever, but I'll put it down in my book of tricks.
Does that make sense ? I really want to get back to 1084 / 1095 and start doing some clay backed quenching.
In spite of the darned statistics I've kept, overall, the amount of warpages has reduced across the board anyhow so maybe I AM getting somewhere with consistency in my techniques.
On the issue of oils and speed of quench - I checked out my pot of vegetable oil a month ago. I'd been getting bad warpages all in a row - poured a fresh batch of oil and realised it was much thicker than the repeatedly used batch which was like water ! Maybe it was degraded from repeated quenches (smelt bad too) ! I'm not sure but with new oil, the warpages reduced again.
Its all trial and error with a bit of theory thrown in, but a colleague at work told me that along the "less haste, more speed" philosophy, sometimes, just stopping and paying some attention (whatever attention) sometimes helps just by itself.
I have a mental picture that if my workshop smells like fried chicken when I'm oil quenching, its fine. After a while the sizzling oil starts to smell like my first car, and its time to change oil ! I have no idea whether this makes any difference whatsoever, but I'll put it down in my book of tricks.
Does that make sense ? I really want to get back to 1084 / 1095 and start doing some clay backed quenching.