Difference of Steels

The 1095 will have higher wear resistance because of the higher carbon content . The 5160 will be tougher .
 
Which corodes easier? I know that the 5160 is used on the Detatchment series. They are more for use in the woods IMO. Does that make the 5160 a stronger steel? Does it resist bending? Could you put in in a crack and push on it with out the tip breaking?
 
5160 is tougher and resists rust a bit better if the HRC is about the same, an there's no significant difference in edgeholding.
 
Redguy said:
5160 is tougher and resists rust a bit better if the HRC is about the same, an there's no significant difference in edgeholding.
Click to expand...

That last statement is arguably true, if the HRC is--again--exactly the same. Becaue of its higher carbon content, though, 1095 is capable of achieving a higher hardness than 5160 without becoming brittle. A 1095 blade at 63-64 RC will hold an edge much better, and 5160 can't chase it that high. I'm merely pointing that out in comparison of the steels in general, though--as Justin normally HTs them to about the same level, I'd go for 5160 every time just for the corrosion resistance.
 
Generally speaking, 5160 is the tougher(harder to break) steel, and will be slightly more corrosion resistant. 1095 will have better edge retention.

I think.:confused:
 
Yes 5160 is often used for spring and that because it has high fatigue strength in addition to toughness.....If you want a pry bar get a pry bar , don't use a knife !!!
 
mete said:
Yes 5160 is often used for spring and that because it has high fatigue strength in addition to toughness.....If you want a pry bar get a pry bar , don't use a knife !!!
Click to expand...

Then why do knives with blades thicker than 1/64" exist? I think people have images of somebody pulling out a _____ (fill in the thick knife of your choice) and trying to pull the door off a safe. Bigger knives are intended for different jobs than smaller knives, and for some of these you need a stronger blade.

inspira said:
is carbon v 5160?
Click to expand...

This has been oft-debated, but the general consensus is that currently Carbon V is the same 0170-6 used in the Becker blades. Camillus has long been rumoured to make Cold Steel's non-stainless blades for them, so this would make sense. Some say that it has been other steels at other times (whatever Cold Steel could get a deal on) but who knows...
 
t1mpani said:
That last statement is arguably true, if the HRC is--again--exactly the same. Becaue of its higher carbon content, though, 1095 is capable of achieving a higher hardness than 5160 without becoming brittle. A 1095 blade at 63-64 RC will hold an edge much better, and 5160 can't chase it that high. I'm merely pointing that out in comparison of the steels in general, though--as Justin normally HTs them to about the same level, I'd go for 5160 every time just for the corrosion resistance.
Click to expand...

Thank you, useful info here.
 
t1mpani said:
Then why do knives with blades thicker than 1/64" exist?
Click to expand...

Not to disagree with your point, I think it is obvious that when you make knives out of high toughness/strength tool steels in thick cross sections they can be used for significant prying - otherwise why use that steel. Most knives are in fact capable of vastly more work than they are used for, using a 1/8" thick knife to cut cardboard and only cut cardboard and do other light work is just silly, you can do all of that with a light duty Olfa (0.3 mm thick blade).

However thicker can be necessary for actual cutting performance because if you go too thin you can get binding problems. For all materials there is a sweet spot where if you go thinner you get excessive drag on the sides but if you go thicker there is too much force required to drive the material apart, ideally you have enough cross section to cause the material to split and reduce the drag. Machetes vs parangs on thick woods for example, the thicker blade actually cuts better.

The biggest difference in 1095 and 5160 depends on how it is heat treated, 1095 can get to 66 HRC and makes a very nice light duty knife. It can be spring tempered as well but there are better steels for that because the carbon content in 1095 is too high, the type of martensite formed is brittle and the temper has to be drawn too much to avoid 500F embrittlement. In short, 5160 is a better large blade steel and 1095 a nice smaller blade steel.

-Cliff
 
Oh, you're quite right---I was just using an extreme to illustrate with, as there are those (not saying that any have posted on this thread) who seem to be of the opinion that filet knives are the only cutting instrument anyone needs.
 
Generally most extreme opinions can be ignored. At times it can be of benefit to have a knife which is less optomized for cutting and more optomized for general utility. What I find amusing is people defending the pure optomization viewpoint with knives which are clearly not so designed. This is a knife designed to be little aside from a cutting instrument :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/Alvin/johnson_paring.jpg

It is full hard 1095 (66 HRC), less than 1/16" thick, full hollow grind, and the edge is usually 3-5 degrees per side with no micro-bevel. Still though, I do a lot of non-knife things with it (digging, scraping, cut metals/bone, etc.). One of the benefits to quality steels is that when properly optomized they are highly versatile even when the geometry is extreme.

Now considering that that little knife can do, do you really want to try to place restrictions on something like this :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/swamp rat/ratweiler/ratweiler.jpg

Most knives have purposes, the only ones I find odd are Thom's favorites, the ones which are too brittle to use heavily but too thick to cut well. I have handled a dozen or so which you really have to struggle to find a use for, never fails to be the "tactical" influence.

-Cliff
 
I remember that little 1095 knife---did you ever consider running O-1 against it at similar hardness? I think I've seen O-1 at 65RC before.
 
Not really---compositionally they're very different. O-1 has nearly twice the carbon content and is just a more complicated alloy. Scroll down on this page a ways and you'll find both of them on one of the charts:

http://www.cashenblades.com/Info/Steel selection/Steel selection.html

In terms of performance, O-1 is a tough steel but 5160 is tougher (more ductile, can take more deformation without serious damage). 5160 will resist corrosion MUCH better than O-1, though neither qualify as stainless. O-1 will, at the same hardness, hold an edge better in abrasive cutting tasks than will 5160, and can also--due to its higher carbon content--be reliably made much harder than 5160 without becoming brittle, and so its edge holding can pull ahead by that much more.
 
O1 can get that hard, but the toughness peak is slightly lower at around 63.5. It does very well there, and slightly outperformed the 1095 knife on used carpet. However if you really want a pure cutting tool then use full hard M2 at 65 HRC.

-Cliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top