Opinions on A-2 and 10-95

Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
27
I have a BRKT Mont-guide in A-2 . I am very happy with the performance. Im using it for general knocking around in the woods. Im looking at a RC4 in 10-95 and was wanting for some opinions on how the 10-95 will compare to the A-2.

Tim
 
That's written 1095. and RC4 ?? With the additional alloying elements A2 makes a better blade, more wear resistant, a little more corrosion resistant.Stick with the A2 it's better.
 
As Mete said, A2 is a better steel. But, if you like the overall design of the RC4, it is a great blade to own and use. The corrosion is limited to the non coated part of the blade, that is, the edge itself. Just keep in mind it is not meant to be a slicer like the BRKT you already own (unless you bring down the edge a bit).
Mikel
 
Both are tough steels.

The 1095 is a simple high carbon steel that offers a good balance of toughness and edge retention.


A2 is similar, but has added alloying elements. This steel is more wear resistant and thus offers better edge retention. It is also a bit more corrosion resistant then the simple high carbon 1095.


But steel is only one factor that determines a blades performance.


Edge geometry and heat treatment are just as important.


Like is always say: Buy a knife from a trusted knifemaker that was designed to handle the type of cutting tasks you have in mind and you won’t be disappointed.




Big Mike

"Scaring the Tree Huggers."


Forest & Stream
 
As big mike says. The reality is I find as much differences between knives made of the same steel as knives made of different steels. Between O1, A2 and 1095, I can't tell any difference in performance. They all tune up nicely.

The RC-4 is a great knife with an outstanding sheath. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one. Convexing the edge makes a big difference to its cutting performance.
 
The heat treatment on the RAT blades makes them perform very well. With a well done heat treat, in the cutlery application, 1095 doesn't give up much to A2.
 
RAT uses 1095 for a reason, the grind and heat treat must complement the steel. I would say that you'll be fine.
 
Both are excellent steel for outdoor use. Bothe companies put an excellent heat treat on it as well as carry excellent warrantees on their knives.

The only difference you will notice in the steels; is the a2 's ability to resist corrosion.

You can't go wrong with the RC-4, and by any chance you don't like it; they go pretty quick on the exchange here.
 
I've only had some RAT 1095 (an Izula) for about 24 hours and the thing about the steel that really stands out so far is the effortlessness required to get it screaming sharp. In this respect it reminds me a bit of 52100. It is the only knife I own that can whittle hair off of a DMT extra-fine hone, all the others require further polishing. I haven't used it very much yet, it did chew up a bunch of cardboard for recycling and while it lost a little edge, just stropping on my pant leg brought a lot of it back. While I'm by no means someone who shies away from tough to sharpen steel, there is something comforting about knowing how easily the edge can be brought back. I'm really looking forward to using it more :thumbup:
 
I like 1095. Sharpens good, and real easy to fix in the field. Separating joints, and just field dressing can beat a knife edge to heck.
 
Im not planning on getting rid of the Guide, just adding the RC4 to my pack. The guide is probably one of the best handling knives I've had and will probably be my #1 Skinner during bow season. The RC4 has been on my list for a while and Ive just decided I gotta have it. It seems to be better suited for the general woods abuse I put em through. I like the extra weight and the kydex sheath.

Thanks again

Tim
 
In the same knife I would go for A2 every time. Remember as already has been said the steel is one factor of many in a knife. I have had some really bad 1095 blades and some that are really good (i.e. Rat Cutlery). I tend to go for the A2 though.
 
Back
Top