1095 vs Stainless Steel

hkpokes_you said:
If you temper 1095 around 58-60 it's roughly 50% tougher than S30v at 58-60 and twice as tough as 154cm and D2 at 58-60.
Click to expand...

This is not true! Scrap Yard cryogenically stress relieves their 154 CM knives. Coupled with their heat-treating process, the result is the toughest 154 CM knives to date. The HRC is 58-60, too.

Can you post links and/or pictures of any manufacturer's 1095 knives that are capable of only 50% of what the links below illustrate?

http://www.scrapyardknives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=202608&page=38&fpart=1&vc=1

http://www.scrapyardknives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=451415&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1&nt=3
 
hkpokes_you said:
I agree with you. D2, 154cm, S30v -- all of them are good steels. None of them are particularly brittle at ~60HRC with a good HT.
Click to expand...

CPM S30V will be the least tough; as will all powder steels. Powder steels are compressed in non-molten form. They will shear, rather than flex laterally as ingot steels can.

hkpokes_you said:
...and if you want to push the envolope on the HT and bring 1095 up to 64HRC you can still have a blade that's roughly as tough...
Click to expand...

The harder a steel, the less tough it is. A harder steel will provide better edge retention, but sacrifice toughness.
 
1095 isn't magic, but it is good steel as long as it's tailored for the job at hand.

Thick and softer for choppers and other hard uses or thin and hard for slicers, it can do both.

Don't expect miracles from it and it's just fine for most uses.

If I remember correctly 440C was the 1st stainless to really compete with 1095 for edge holding.
 
nozh2002 said:
Nice. Worse to save for future reference...
Click to expand...

That's how I remember it from way back, I used to use all carbon steel knives like most of the others I knew back then, lots of 1095.

Most of the stainless knives back then would dull if you looked at them too hard, then I got ahold of 440C and life got better because it held an edge close to what 1095 would and was stainless too.

I am talking about the Late 70's and early 80's here by the way, things were a lot different back then knife and steel wise.
 
Absolutely. 440C was really the first "premium" stainless steel for knife use. It snowballed from there. Continued stainless steel development for knives was to get something to better 440C performance. Call it the benchmark of premium stainless, if you will.
 
cramsey3006 said:
Absolutely. 440C was really the first "premium" stainless steel for knife use. It snowballed from there. Continued stainless steel development for knives was to get something to better 440C performance. Call it the benchmark of premium stainless, if you will.
Click to expand...

440C was the Buck 110 of stainless steels I think and I still remember people complaining about how hard it was to sharpen..... Funny when you think about the steels today.
 
Whatever your remember from your back... 440C was first steel with acceptable edge holding rather then junk stainless goof for cookware,
but it can not be near 1095 in edge holding of course. Only now best stainless came better (in edge holding).

I can imagine that it was promoted as "equal" to 1095, but this is same like saying 7 years ago that CPM S30V is premium or now Elmax or M690
are premium steels. Nothing to remember here from back or front - just simple use it once and it will be pretty clear right away.

Do some real test or real life use... It worse to do some reality check, sometimes and do not relay on what was sad that time or today.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I got one of those 440C 110s in the 60's. I had a dickens of a time sharpening it on my washita stone. I knew fellas at the time that gave up on their 110's and switched to lookalikes from Schrade and Camillus, because those were in 440A, which they could sharpen with their stones. Nowadays with ceramics and diamonds, it isn't a problem.

I'm told that 440C seems to perform best at ~58-60 HRC. I have compared the edge retention of 440C@58 to that of 1095@57 in side-by-side manila rope cutting tests. The 440C held an edge considerably better. I've never tried 1095 hardened to 60+, so I can't comment on that.
 
knarfeng said:
I got one of those 440C 110s in the 60's. I had a dickens of a time sharpening it on my washita stone. I knew fellas at the time that gave up on their 110's and switched to lookalikes from Schrade and Camillus, because those were in 440A, which they could sharpen with their stones. Nowadays with ceramics and diamonds, it isn't a problem.

I'm told that 440C seems to perform best at ~58-60 HRC. I have compared the edge retention of 440C@58 to that of 1095@57 in side-by-side manila rope cutting tests. The 440C held an edge considerably better. I've never tried 1095 hardened to 60+, so I can't comment on that.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about edge looking better after visual inspection, am I right?

Let straight this out, because when you talk about retention it is actually about how edge looks
under magnification glass. I am using different approach measuring how edge cuts thread on
postal scale - it is much more time consuming but this is I think represents better sharpness of
the blade.

I think this is a key difference leading to different results.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Buck_110 said:
CPM S30V will be the least tough; as will all powder steels. Powder steels are compressed in non-molten form. They will shear, rather than flex laterally as ingot steels can.
Click to expand...
No. The PM process improves toughness. Look at any impact numbers between ingot and PM produced alloys of the same composition, like M4 or 154CM. The amount of flex is determined by the geometry of the piece, not the hardness. Double the thickness, and the resistance goes up by eight times. Hardness affects plastic deformation, bending or breaking, not elastic flexing. A dead soft annealed piece of steel will flex the same amount as a hardened and tempered piece if they are the same dimensions and have the same load applied.

1095 is also very shallow hardening. If marginal quenchants are used, or if the piece is quenched too slowly, you're not going to get full martensite. That pearlite will help toughen things up, but is worthless at the cutting edge.
 
Last edited:
nozh2002 said:
I assume you are talking about edge looking better after visual inspection, am I right?

Let straight this out, because when you talk about retention it is actually about how edge looks
under magnification glass. I am using different approach measuring how edge cuts thread on
postal scale - it is much more time consuming but this is I think represents better sharpness of
the blade.

I think this is a key difference leading to different results.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

What kind of thread for test? Dial or digital scale? Was scale calibrated?
 
knarfeng said:
I'm told that 440C seems to perform best at ~58-60 HRC. I have compared the edge retention of 440C@58 to that of 1095@57 in side-by-side manila rope cutting tests. The 440C held an edge considerably better. I've never tried 1095 hardened to 60+, so I can't comment on that.
Click to expand...

that makes sense because the chromium carbides in 440C will help it be more abrasive resistant than 1095 in that situation.


p.s. i really enjoy properly hardened carbon steel.
 
knarfeng said:
I got one of those 440C 110s in the 60's. I had a dickens of a time sharpening it on my washita stone. I knew fellas at the time that gave up on their 110's and switched to lookalikes from Schrade and Camillus, because those were in 440A, which they could sharpen with their stones. Nowadays with ceramics and diamonds, it isn't a problem.

I'm told that 440C seems to perform best at ~58-60 HRC. I have compared the edge retention of 440C@58 to that of 1095@57 in side-by-side manila rope cutting tests. The 440C held an edge considerably better. I've never tried 1095 hardened to 60+, so I can't comment on that.
Click to expand...

If 1095 is above 60 HRC, say 64 or 65 HRC it will change things quite a bit, but what we gain in edge retention is lost in toughness.
 
Have been using an izula 2 molle locked to my belt horizontally above my ass at work for shit chores. When I say shit chores I mean stuff I wouldn't want to use my folder for. I.e. today I had to cut plastic off hoop house as it has started to rip I dragged boss street over plastic over wood bout fifty feet each side . Icould but wouldn't want to do that with my 0551 I'm carrying in pocket for twine carboard othe misc stuff threw out day. As you see I said boss street wich is where my point lies. I had been carrying my izula cause its nice and small but 1095 hasn't been doing it for me latley as I have been working 7 to 7 setting up nursery I don't feel like going home and sharpening or doing anything for that matter. Yeah the boss is a little heavier but its still shaving.
 
hardheart said:
No. The PM process improves toughness. Look at any impact numbers between ingot and PM produced alloys of the same composition, like M4 or 154CM.
Click to expand...

Impact absorption and lateral flexibility are quite different. If powder steels can indeed sustain lateral flexing without failing, why does Crucible(just to name one) forgo publishing data which shows this to be the case? Instead, they notch the reverse side of a powder steel, and then whack it on the opposite side. How practical is that? When will a knife actually be subjected to that in the real world? Although some lateral flex tests are extreme, a knife will more likely be used for prying than notched and whacked in the real world.

hardheart said:
The amount of flex is determined by the geometry of the piece, not the hardness.
Click to expand...

The amount of flex is attributed to the temper. Leaf springs and fillet knives both flex; despite very different geometries. Toughness, or the lack of it, is attributed to hardness; as is edge retention.

hardheart said:
A dead soft annealed piece of steel will flex the same amount as a hardened and tempered piece if they are the same dimensions and have the same load applied.
Click to expand...

You're saying steel which is not tempered will flex, rather than bend?
 
Last edited:
2brothers said:
What kind of thread for test? Dial or digital scale? Was scale calibrated?
Click to expand...

Yes and Kershaw results versus 1095:

Best Kershaw I tested was CPM D2 - 14 th place which is pretty good for Kershaw
Kershaw CPM S30V ZT302 is on 30th place (however Buck 110 with same steel was on 22nd)
Kershaw CPM S110V is only 24th place.
But even worse was Kershaw Elmax - ZT350 hold 32nd place, even behind CPM S30V which is pretty average.

Of course 13C26 from Kershaw hold 40 th place, but it will be hard to expece anything better here
and SG2 from Kershaw is 44 th which is second from the end, but this is pretty same what SGPS shows (41st).

While production 1095 from GEC on 26th place
and of course heat treated by Jody Muller takes 7 th place.

Unfortunately Kershaw is one of companies which does not have CATRA test machine(at leas as far as I know)
and so can not do CATRA testing on what they are doing.

Hope my findings will help.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
Been using 0551 at work . Elmax reminds me alot of cpms30v but I would say its slighlty better. It is not on same level as xhp and zdp though. That said I don't use till workable edge is gone I use till very sharp edge is gone. I don't use my folders for hard use either.I like my blades very sharp .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top