Old Hickory 1095 or 1075

[Hashishiin]

Spey - The stuff that J. Doyle is saying, is basically what I read about the steel. He seems to have some real experience with 1075 vs 1095, which I really do not yet, but that is what I heard. I also heard that it would save them a few dollars too, so who knows, perhaps they did make the move to 1075 partially or wholly money-motivated. But the info I am getting is telling me it's tougher.

I have no personal stake in the game, I just wanted my knife to be good. I was just barely starting to know anything about steels when I got it, so I was looking for reasons not to see it as a downgrade. I think both steels are probably going to be good. The knife has very obtuse geometry. I think it would be good as a tough, chopping, prying type knife. It reminds me of pictures of Medford and Strider pocketknives when I look at it, just this big, chonking thing

 

[Spey]

I also have no personal stake in this discussion whatsoever other than my experiences over the years.

However, to make any kind of a statement that one steel is tougher than another or has better edge holding capability, etc. I think it's somewhat of false statement without very specific comparative data related to hardening and tempering of the steel and more importantly in geometry of both primary and secondary bevels.

If what is being meant by the statements is that 1075 is tougher than 1095 (all other things being equal) ..., well I would be very interested to see supportive data. Example: compare both steels at 60HRC in equal geometry and compare toughness.

Composition wise, they are VERY close.

 

[Hashishiin]

However, to make any kind of a statement that one steel is tougher than another or has better edge holding capability, etc. I think it's somewhat of false statement without very specific comparative data related to hardening and tempering of the steel and more importantly in geometry of both primary and secondary bevels.

This is why I wanted to specify that I am relaying information that I have read, not claiming it to be true through my own experiences.

 

[J. Doyle]

I also have no personal stake in this discussion whatsoever other than my experiences over the years.

However, to make any kind of a statement that one steel is tougher than another or has better edge holding capability, etc. I think it's somewhat of false statement without very specific comparative data related to hardening and tempering of the steel and more importantly in geometry of both primary and secondary bevels.

If what is being meant by the statements is that 1075 is tougher than 1095 (all other things being equal) ..., well I would be very interested to see supportive data. Example: compare both steels at 60HRC in equal geometry and compare toughness.

Composition wise, they are VERY close.

It isn't really a false statement. But some things do need to be assumed, i.e. proper heat treatment, proper tempering and as close to the same dimensions/edge geometry as possible.

Under those circumstances a hypoeutectoid (1075) steel will be tougher than a hypereutectoid (1095) steel, while the hypereutectoid steel will have an advantage in wear resistance.

In order to make 1095 as tough as 1075, it needs to be tempered way back, so much so that edge holding would suffer. In that case you're better off going with the 1075 to start with.

If your blade requires toughness first with goid edge holding second, opt for the 1075. If edge retention is a priority, then go with the 1095.

As you mentioned, the two steels are so similar that one might not notice a difference in edge holding under real world/field use.

 

[SwissHeritageCo]

Curious, as to belief that 1075 is "all around better steel" and that Ontario changed for reason of "toughness".

My understanding producing in 1075 vs. 1095 was related cost savings for manufacturer.

Additionally, many mfr's run 1095 between 58-60HRC, and some take it to 64-65HRC. 1075 not gonna match those specs and options.

I have no idea why they switched, I would agree with you that's it's almost always a cost saving mechanism. As per the 1075 at a higher hardness out performing 1095, I pretty much take Larrin's word on the subject for gospel.

 

[Spey]

I have no idea why they switched, I would agree with you that's it's almost always a cost saving mechanism. As per the 1075 at a higher hardness out performing 1095, I pretty much take Larrin's word on the subject for gospel.

Appreciate your comments !

It's pretty common for a steel "at a higher hardness out performing" another steel of lower hardness (with regard to edge retention due to abrasion wear). But, also common for that higher hardness steel to also be less tough at the same time (resistance to rolling chipping, etc.).

I am curious to read Larrin's "word on the subject" of 1075 outperforming 1095. Would appreciate if you could post a link to where he discusses this.

Thanks,