I have been debating for several weeks which version I want to buy and still can't decide. I don't own any D2 steele blades and have no experience with them as far as sharpening. I do own one 1095 blade and it's fairly easy to sharpen with my standard Lansky setup(ceramic). Whichever model I buy is going to be used as a general outdoor/camping knife. Most of the people on here seem to prefer the D2 in the RAT is it really that much better? Which version do you guys suggest and is there anything I should consider with either version. Thanks for all replies.
RAT 7 - D2 or 1095
- Thread starter MiloDimas
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 116
I have the 1095 and have used it to hack at some pine very heavily, it still shaved after doing 30-50 hard hacks. I have never used the D2 but you will not be dissapointed with the 1095.
Travis
Travis
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,277
1095 is good but d-2 is definitely an upgrade.
I have just received a RAT7D2. I have not had a chance to use it yet but it slices newspaper straight from the box. D2 is considered to have very good edge holding. Have a look at this review site. It has some useful info. http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/reviews.html The author of the site also posts to this forum. Unless you are going to dig holes or chop bricks I think you can choose either and get a good knife. There isn't much difference in price either. On www.knifecenter.com there is only $10 difference in price. Either knife would perform for you.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 40,155
A RAT7 is a fair sized blade. Depending on where and how it will be used ("general camping" covers a lot of turf) either steel might be better. 1095 is usually considered to be tougher. D2 is way more corrsosion resistant, but is more prone to chipping in usage involving impact.
In a blade that size I believe I would opt for the 1095 because I might be more prone to chop with it and I think the 1095 would hold up to that better. I would keep it well lubricated and clean to combat corrosion and go with that.
My opinion only. You could easily reach the opposite conclusion, and you will have a better idea of what you really want the knife to do.
In a blade that size I believe I would opt for the 1095 because I might be more prone to chop with it and I think the 1095 would hold up to that better. I would keep it well lubricated and clean to combat corrosion and go with that.
My opinion only. You could easily reach the opposite conclusion, and you will have a better idea of what you really want the knife to do.
t1mpani
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,478
The simple fact of the matter is that no steel is an all-around "upgrade" of any other steel. They all have strengths and weaknesses, and every single one makes tradeoffs to excell in a particular area.
I like D2 very much--it would not be my choice on a blade this size. This knife is not ideally suited to chopping/limbing, but with the full-tang, slab grips and 3/16" stock thickness it is none the less built as more of a hard use utility blade than a pure cutter, and the advantages that D2 has over 1095 in terms of abrasion resistance and deformation resistance will not shine out in such use. As others have said, it is far more likely to chip and fracture under heavier uses.
Now certainly, there is the camp here that believes that chopping or other "rough" use should not be the principle consideration in selecting a blade steel, and they're certainly as entitled to their opinion as myself. However, if all the knife is ever going to be used for is the same type of slicing tasks that you could use a fillet knife for, why not just buy a fillet knife which will--regardless of steel type--slice circles around the RAT7 due to far slimmer blade geometry? No--a knife of this size and weight (I'm not saying it's heavy, just far heavier than a fillet knife) is intended for more than just food prep, whittling or skinning.
Given the design, I think D2 is a step backwards from 1095--now, on the smaller knives out of this series it'd be a different story, as their uses would likely be relegated more to straightforward cutting.
Be sure to let us know when you decide.
I like D2 very much--it would not be my choice on a blade this size. This knife is not ideally suited to chopping/limbing, but with the full-tang, slab grips and 3/16" stock thickness it is none the less built as more of a hard use utility blade than a pure cutter, and the advantages that D2 has over 1095 in terms of abrasion resistance and deformation resistance will not shine out in such use. As others have said, it is far more likely to chip and fracture under heavier uses.
Now certainly, there is the camp here that believes that chopping or other "rough" use should not be the principle consideration in selecting a blade steel, and they're certainly as entitled to their opinion as myself. However, if all the knife is ever going to be used for is the same type of slicing tasks that you could use a fillet knife for, why not just buy a fillet knife which will--regardless of steel type--slice circles around the RAT7 due to far slimmer blade geometry? No--a knife of this size and weight (I'm not saying it's heavy, just far heavier than a fillet knife) is intended for more than just food prep, whittling or skinning.
Given the design, I think D2 is a step backwards from 1095--now, on the smaller knives out of this series it'd be a different story, as their uses would likely be relegated more to straightforward cutting.
Be sure to let us know when you decide.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,952
I love D2 in folders, but for the fixed blade I'd go with the 1095, particularly if it has some kind of protective coating on it to help eliminate the rust and corrosion issue although 1095 isn't the worst of the carbon steels with that. Most of mine take on a discoloration that becomes unsightly over time. I'll usually gun blue them with several coats to help evenly distribute that patina before it starts and it seems to make it look better. Most of the time if you wipe the blades off and make sure not to leave it overnight in a moist environment where it can get pitted it will be fine.
STR
STR
If the tasks are limited to wood cutting, the choice of steels matters little. Perhaps D2 would be better for edge-holding in that application.
If your tasks include digging, pointing dirty tent pegs, cutting roots - any tasks involving dirt - stay away from D2. Dirt is essentially rocks of varying size, and is very likely to result in a chipped edge for D2 blades. Repairing chipped D2 edges in the field is a pain in the ass.
I'd go with 1095 as best overall choice for the broadest range of tasks, and easier edge repair in the field.
Hope this helps!
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 835
I chose the Rat-7 in 1095.:thumbup: :thumbup:
Really is a most excellent knife.
It'll do most all that you want in an outdoor knife.
Match it with a little 2.5-3inch blade and your set.
Really is a most excellent knife.
It'll do most all that you want in an outdoor knife.
Match it with a little 2.5-3inch blade and your set.
Exactly right. View the knife as part of a set, rather than just one to carry. Queen makes nice D2 slipjoints which would complement a 1095 camp knife nicely.
t1mpani
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,478
Yep they do--I have a Queen Canoe in D2 in my pocket right now. :thumbup:
From what I see, most manufacturers like Ontario and Ka-bar charge for D2 as an upgrade to there standard steel. But from what I am hearing, for a larger fixed blade, it sounds like 1095 is a better choice over D2.
I only mentioned Ka-Bar because I do have a D2 Extreme, very nice knife, I just have never used it.
If D2 is not the best choice for larger camp knives, why do some manufactures offer it? Are there other advantages besides edge retention (cutting, not chopping) and corrosion resistance?
t1mpani
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,478
Market. D2 is a newer steel than 1095, and does indeed do some things better. Many people take that to mean it does ALL things better, though, which simply is not true. Same thing with S30V now, and ATS-34 from a couple of years ago. The manufacturers can charge more for the "hot new" steels in large fixed blades because most people will either not use them at all, or use them in ways that don't put any particular stress on them (opening the cardboard box of their next knife that they're not going to use very hard), so their weaknesses don't show up. Any steel has advantages and disadvantages--for the uses that most accept a camp knife should be able to handle, D2 is not as good a choice as 1095. That said, there are many choices of steels that might well be better than 1095 for this kind of use--again, you have to decide what your requirements are (abrasion resistance, deformation resistance, ease of sharpening, corrosion resistance, etc.) and make your choices with the understanding that there is no single "best" steel to fulfill them. Everything is a tradeoff.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,952
If you plan on a lot of chopping and stuff like that where impacting is a factor I'd sure pick the 1095. D2 is great in small slicing utility fixed blades like you see Bob Dozier and Gene Ingram making among others. Once you get up into choppers I don't really think D2 is the best choice unless its maybe a really thick one over 1/8" in thickness. 3/16" D2 can do moderate work though just doing some light debranching or kindling stuff. D2 is a great steel and one of my favorites but somewhat more limited or specialized whereas, 1095 is more versatile at least in my experience. D2 will be closer to stainless in corrosion resistance though.
STR
STR
t1mpani
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,478