5160 Buck 110 Question

Thanks Mikael. I guess if I want one bad enough, I'll find an old 5160 and send it to Uncle Leroy to pull a conversion.
 
It and the matching 119 were both brass.

DSCF0752_zpszixz0q22.jpg


DSCF0756_zps6knk4c6c.jpg


DSCF0758_zpsmtm8gubu.jpg


DSCF0754_zpshf4yviil.jpg
 
I do like buck's 5160. I've thought about a matching 110 to my 119 as well, but some of the blonde ebony ones I've been seeing may win out. Pretty happy with the LT's for now. 5160 in an LT frame could be pretty darn nice, great user build. Not that 420HC isn't a great option either.

Looks like all I can find have brass bolters, and Makael would know far more than I would.
 
David Martin said:
Not much difference between 1095 & 5160. Just 1% cr. DM
Click to expand...

Not true. Big difference in carbon and Manganese as well. Toughness of 5160 is a lot better than 1095 according to the information shared on knifesteelnerds by Larrin. Not saying 1095 is whimpy, 5160 is just very resistant to impact damage while still being able to reach appreciable hardness for fair edge retention.

upload_2019-8-12_11-16-16.png
upload_2019-8-12_11-17-18.png
 
bikerector said:
Not true. Big difference in carbon and Manganese as well. Toughness of 5160 is a lot better than 1095 according to the information shared on knifesteelnerds by Larrin. Not saying 1095 is whimpy, 5160 is just very resistant to impact damage while still being able to reach appreciable hardness for fair edge retention.

View attachment 1177585
View attachment 1177589
Click to expand...
good graph. thanks for posting....
 
I just don't see it that way. The noticed difference will be the cr. The rest will balance. The 2 are close in elements. It may come down to heat
treating whether a difference is noticed. DM
 
bikerector said:
Not true. Big difference in carbon and Manganese as well. Toughness of 5160 is a lot better than 1095 according to the information shared on knifesteelnerds by Larrin. Not saying 1095 is whimpy, 5160 is just very resistant to impact damage while still being able to reach appreciable hardness for fair edge retention.

View attachment 1177585
View attachment 1177589
Click to expand...
Thanks BE. Great comparison but now it makes me wonder where 01 fits into the same comparison.
 
Uncle Timbo said:
Thanks BE. Great comparison but now it makes me wonder where 01 fits into the same comparison.
Click to expand...

O1 is pretty close to 1095. I think the advantage O1 has is that the small additions of other elements allows it to cool faster so it can achieve a higher hardness, but don't quote me on that one.

Also added in 1095CV, since O1 has a lot of stuff that 1095CV has too, like V and Ni. The Tungsten is unique to the O1.

5160's big difference is the much lower carbon content making it brutally tough, even compared to these other tough steels.

upload_2019-8-21_9-35-55.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-8-21_9-34-29.png
    upload_2019-8-21_9-34-29.png
    11.1 KB · Views: 4
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top