Higher hardness 1095

Ya mean these guys? Been using em for years. This particular batch is AEB-L though.

mn6l2Ez.jpg
 
Maximumbob54 said:
Have to ask why did everyone stop? Everything about it sounds too good like I'm just waiting for the hammer to drop on an "oh duh" type moment.
Click to expand...
There were very few of us interested. Gunmike1, myself, and Me2 are the only members that come immediately to mind. I was able to score some power hacksaw blades in M2 at 66 HRC from a fellow forumite in Canada who unfortunately died in a car accident. I shared these with several BF members, one who kindly made a couple of blades for me. Talk about edge retention..... I've always wondered why there wasn't more interest either. If you get 1095 at 65, it's a whole different steel, like it woke up. It would be perfect in a stockman or opinel. And contrary to "conventional wisdom", it sharpens up MUCH faster and easier at 65 than at 58, even with aluminum or silicone oxide stones. Very little burring.
 
Last edited:
Maximumbob54 said:
Does anyone have any experience with knives in 1095 or similar simple steels that aren't stuck in the realm of 55 to 58 HRC??? I've been following someone on YT that had a custom maker do a smaller fairly thin fixed blade in 1095 at a 60+ HRC. Some light wood processing and a little not overly harsh baton use but enough that I assume the edge would crumble or a whack later and it would crack. Nope. And the knife still cut through paper. Which I know is not the end all be all test but once again you would think it would be all chipped and rolled and instead swoosh right through.

So what gives? Just the most lucky person or is there some other reason we don't see 1095 any harder than the usual???
Click to expand...

Search on YouTube for Cliff Stamp videos. Cliff was a big 1095 and other simple steels supporter. I believe he had knives in 1095 hardened to 66hrc, if I'm not mistaken. Slicers, of course.
 
DeadboxHero said:
It's not really a concern in the production setting. When the steel is bought and received it is in the annealed condition from the mill. Manufacturers often have there blades cut out from the sheet with laser or water jet including the holes for the handles. All of that is done before sending out for heat treatment.

There can be some important details missing in the HT causing problems even at the same HRC

For a custom knife, you also drill the holes in the tang before hardening not after so it's not a factor.

As far as chipping during finishing, that is a big sign that the heat treatment is straight junk or very poor practices are being used which either can be ruled out.


Here is an example, I made and heat treated a knife in 1084 which is 64.0rc after tempering.
fE0VjYo.jpeg



After finish grinding in prep for hand sanding, no chipping, again handle holes drilled before HT.

DGmYiWi.jpeg


After hand sanding and tapering tang nice and thin again, no chipping.
[Video]
https://imgur.com/xNFYdnM


After finishing and sharpening the knife, no difficulty in sharpening and no chipping.
5XPieef.jpeg



Now we can certainly use a different heat treatment and temper to the same hardness and make it into a chippy brittle piece of junk.

Microstructure, Microstructure, Microstructure.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Last edited:
I have two or three of those giant hacksaw blades left. It’s hell to grind but it will be a nice knife when my kids finally finish it.

I had an A2 blade at 63 HRc. I broke the handle off trying to finish it though.
 
me2 said:
Similar to Spyderco making a true zero ground edge and then having to add a secondary bevel, there is no room for forgiveness with such heat treatments.

Alvin Johnson was the makers name. He ground his blades straight razor thin and hardened them well above what most people use for knives. O1 at 64 JRc, 1095 at 66 HRc, A2 at 63, and M4/M3 at 65 were his steels of choice. However he made kitchen knives and replacement blades for slip joint pocket knives; nothing you’d ever want to baton.
Click to expand...

I was able to test one of Alvin Johnson's blades. He sent me a large stockman that he had rebladed, and the edge retention was very good. He also ground it very thin so it was a real slicer. However, before I even received it, the sheepsfoot blade had broken, evidence of a little brittleness at the higher Rc. I had to return the knife, but he let me keep the broken sheepsfoot; I still have it.
 
Maximumbob54 said:
.... But above all at least 60-62 HRC.
Click to expand...

You'd probably still be better off with 15n20 or something similar in that range, especially the lower end of that range. You can get a thinner edge that cuts better/longer with better toughness.

63/64 or higher is where You'd really start to see 1095 shine as a slicer.
 
lambertiana said:
I was able to test one of Alvin Johnson's blades. He sent me a large stockman that he had rebladed, and the edge retention was very good. He also ground it very thin so it was a real slicer. However, before I even received it, the sheepsfoot blade had broken, evidence of a little brittleness at the higher Rc. I had to return the knife, but he let me keep the broken sheepsfoot; I still have it.
Click to expand...
Is Alvin still around with these? We used to talk via Bulletin boards years ago. I've always wondered what happened to him and if he's still playing around with the high hardness blades.
 
Last I heard Alvin had passed away. It was a message a while ago in rec.knives. IIRC he had already retired from the railroad when Cliff started messing with his blades in the early 2000s. He’d be in his late 80s now or more.
 
By the time I found rec.knives it had been over run with trolls. You could still search and find good information but I didn’t want to post or anything.

1095 and O1 both have lower toughness than one might expect, but for the types of knives Alvin made, they worked fine. I was interested in his O1. It wasn’t as much of a bear to grind as the M2/M3 saw blades but a little more wear resistant than the 1095 blades.
 
DeadboxHero said:
It's not really a concern in the production setting. When the steel is bought and received it is in the annealed condition from the mill. Manufacturers often have there blades cut out from the sheet with laser or water jet including the holes for the handles. All of that is done before sending out for heat treatment.

There can be some important details missing in the HT causing problems even at the same HRC

For a custom knife, you also drill the holes in the tang before hardening not after so it's not a factor.

As far as chipping during finishing, that is a big sign that the heat treatment is straight junk or very poor practices are being used which either can be ruled out.


Here is an example, I made and heat treated a knife in 1084 which is 64.0rc after tempering.
fE0VjYo.jpeg



After finish grinding in prep for hand sanding, no chipping, again handle holes drilled before HT.

DGmYiWi.jpeg


After hand sanding and tapering tang nice and thin again, no chipping.
[Video]
https://imgur.com/xNFYdnM


After finishing and sharpening the knife, no difficulty in sharpening and no chipping.
5XPieef.jpeg



Now we can certainly use a different heat treatment and temper to the same hardness and make it into a chippy brittle piece of junk.

Microstructure, Microstructure, Microstructure.
Click to expand...
... is this the order thread?
:eek:
 
As others have echoed, 1095 is actually a very high carbon steel with low toughness. In my opinion, its not really suitable for a big chopper that takes alot of impact. 1095 is likely run at such low hardness because of the need for extra toughness in commercial knives which people often use inappropriately.

For affordable carbon steels, 15N20 and 52100 are better options IMO.
 
No doubt there are better steels, this was purely about just what you can actually get from 1095 since I'm starting to see some conflicting info from the usual. But if I buy a knife in 1095 then it's I usually 55 to 58 HRC, thick behind the edge, and a fairly thick V edge. All that is done in the name of tough and easy to sharpen.

BUT... BIG HAIRY BUTT...

I'm also starting to see some scary thin 1095 blades at a high hardness that aren't breaking, are still easy to sharpen despite staying sharp. Add to that supposedly they were still easy to machine and do final finishing. And there are a few that have posted in this that they've experienced the same.

Which lead me to questioning why this isn't more of a thing we see???
 
I wish I knew. I'd get some in a heartbeat. Perhaps because it isn't the latest and greatest steel of the month?

Maybe because we are a tiny fraction of the knife using population, most people would grab the knife, pry open a paint can, then snap! Then they would say the knife is obviously junk. My M2 blades are 1/8 in thick, about 1.5 - 2 in wide (I think) and full flat grinds. I can go a LONG time between resharpenings. I know me2 posted a picture some years back of the mountain of cardboard he cut and the knife was still sharp.

For years, someone would post along the lines of "1095 is all I need". I would reply that if you tried it at 65, you'd never go back.... The closest in performance I've seen in low alloy steels is Murray Carter and his Hitachi white steel. He gets them to 62 or 63, IIRC. They are absolute slicing machines, very nice to use and easy to sharpen. They don't quite match the performance of high Vanadium alloys, but they are closer than I expected.

Kind of a recurring theme, isn't it? :D
 
I like the idea of a simple, high hardness slicer. Minor point: you'd probably rather have 1084 or 80CrV2, as it's my understanding that they'll be simpler to heat treat and outperform 1095 on toughness by a wide margin while offering no tangible downsides.

A question I would ask, though, is if I were to ask a bladesmith who's capable of making custom heat treated, high performance knives to make me something in 1084, why wouldn't I just ask them to use AEB-L or 14C28N? The steel cost difference is minimal and their work and expertise is going to be expensive either way, so I'd think you'd get more for your money by selecting a simple steel that has a better overall balance of properties. I don't mean any offense by that question; I would love to understand what about 1084/1095 makes folks happier than using the high edge stability stainless options.
 
There are a handful of recent fixed blade companies making soft 1095 knives but it’s not as if 1095 has never been heat treated above 60 before. Lots of knives in 1095 in the 58-61 Rc range, and of course some that are harder. Below 58 is a pretty low target for 1095 I don’t know why these companies have been copying each other in recent years.
 
marrenmiller said:
I like the idea of a simple, high hardness slicer. Minor point: you'd probably rather have 1084 or 80CrV2, as it's my understanding that they'll be simpler to heat treat and outperform 1095 on toughness by a wide margin while offering no tangible downsides.

A question I would ask, though, is if I were to ask a bladesmith who's capable of making custom heat treated, high performance knives to make me something in 1084, why wouldn't I just ask them to use AEB-L or 14C28N? The steel cost difference is minimal and their work and expertise is going to be expensive either way, so I'd think you'd get more for your money by selecting a simple steel that has a better overall balance of properties. I don't mean any offense by that question; I would love to understand what about 1084/1095 makes folks happier than using the high edge stability stainless options.
Click to expand...
Simple answer, because I want it.

Long answer, I have a Delica and Stretch in K390 or CruCarta PM2 and I doubt I could get much better without paying a whole lot more. This is just a novelty desire item, nothing more. I'm certainly not out to convert anyone. It's almost like trying to chase down a ghost to prove a point if to no one else but myself.
 
Larrin said:
There are a handful of recent fixed blade companies making soft 1095 knives but it’s not as if 1095 has never been heat treated above 60 before. Lots of knives in 1095 in the 58-61 Rc range, and of course some that are harder. Below 58 is a pretty low target for 1095 I don’t know why these companies have been copying each other in recent years.
Click to expand...
I suspect you would get some answers like "because that's the way it's always been done" or similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top