Gosh, a lot of personal attacks in that OP...
... In the thread I read several guys really put down the 1095 steel like some garbage in comparision to the INFI. Even though I know that 1095 isnt the best steel, from what I read before I was considering it to be a forgiving choice for a work horse knife, especially with a large blade such as Junglas....
The thread you mention, posted May-July 2010?
I followed that thread as it was composed and did not get the impression that the contributors considered 1095 "garbage" - in fact, most praised it highly as among the best steels for hard use knives, given the proper heat-treatment, and praise was given to ESEE for precisely that - perhaps the BEST 1095 HT around!.
However, O1, L6, 1060, A8, D2 and others may be considered "superior" in terms of performance level, again with a good heat-treatment, based on their properties.
For a machete fixed-blade, the CS Kukri Machete in
1055 has been repeatedly reviewed as an
amazing performer, even by Noss (who takes knives to the limits of durability), and it is very low priced.
The metal-workers / smiths on that "other" forum commented that TOPS and ESEE charge a high price for an old and
very basic steel, Becker too although theirs are less costly. Now, temper that with the consideration that a number of catastrophic failures have been reported in large Becker and (esp.) TOPS knives (not so much ESEE, which is
popular on that "other" forum precisely because Rowen's knives have proved so durable), lending credence to the idea that 1095 may not be the best steel choice for such a large blade, esp. at such a price. That does not mean the Junglas will fail, or more to the point, that it will ever fail
YOU in your use of it.
But would you pay $160 for a 1095 blade when similar offerings may be had for less than half the price and 1095 might be a poor choice...?
I have never owned Busse and probably never will due to the ridiculously high price tag for a production fixed blade...
Others think $160 for a
1095 production fixed blade is ridiculous and so will never own an ESEE. *shrug*
...From their words INFI is very expensive to produce and hard to work with where some of them said it shouldnt even be compared to 1095.
...I have seen many reviews of Jungas in action, .... Nutnfancy ...highly praised the blade that stood very well after some hard use.
... mixed opinions of what exactly INFI is... said that its some kind of a secret. ...I can live with a fact that INFI is better than 1095 in some aspects but I have a hard time believing it will blow it in the dust...
I agree with posters that Busse Combat knives are not comparable to other production knives, they are basically ALL customs - not so much the Scrapyard & SwampRat knives, and price reflects that, but INFI is indeed proprietary steel and Jerry Busse himself says that it is indeed hard to work with, has provided only limited information regarding it (yes, it IS secret), and does not seem concerned with the high price tag.
1095 has many times been compared to INFI, and objectively INFI is considered superior, even vastly superior in that when 1095 breaks INFI carries on - in that sense, INFI leaves 1095 (and many other steels) "in the dust". There is indeed a stress limit to each steel, and chances are that you may never meet either in your use. And ESEE's warranty is excellent... but you are more likely to use it than if you paid for INFI - again, not because ESEE knives are likely to fail in normal use, just that INFI is less likely.
May I ask why you regard "Nutnfancy" so highly? I recall a review where he praises a knife for its durable build and then later that same knife fails? How often is he actually comparatively critical of a blade? "High praise" from some reviewers ain't too difficult to come by, I'm just sayin' (nothing against the reviewer, I just prefer less lip-service and exaggeration, more criticism and laconic presentation of actual results - mho).
Another question I have is the blade thickness used in Junglas 3/16 for 10" blade, can it be a real issue? At the same thread people said that they wouldn't accept nothing less of 1/4" for a 6" hard use blade.
Thickness of the blade should depend on intended use and quality of steel and heat-treatment. As a cutting implement, thinner usually cuts better and is lighter to boot, so a thinner blade that maintains the strength (including lateral) of a thicker blade in the same range of tasks is superior. As techniques & technology improve, thinner blades do the work of older thicker models. If 3/16" 1095 does what you want it to do without fracturing, :thumbup:. But if you are really concerned about lateral strength, 1/4" is a standard for hard-use high durability. ESEE thinks 3/16" 1095 is sufficient and backs it up with their warranty. Maybe Noss will present a D-test to show us the limits of the tool, then we'll all know just what the 3/16" is sufficient
for and whether that extra 1/16" would make a difference?
To sum-up, ESEE is
praised on that "other" forum and the one D-tested performed above expectations, but the metalsmiths think it overly expensive. Yes, INFI is objectively superior to 1095, and a Battle Mistress will
likely outperform a Junglas in durability. But will you ever need that level of superiority in your personal use of a knife? If not, then go ahead and let price be the determining factor. (Heck, alot of people get by on 420J.)
Just an observation that might give you pause if you aren't wanting/able to re-profile the grinds on your knives.
