Sharpening 1095 comparison

tueller

tueller

Basic Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
1,319
So I enjoyed spending some time sharpening my edc users, an ontario rat 3 (from before the split) and a ka-bar bk14. I used a medium and fine stone then a strop w/ white compound. I got great results but couldn't help but notice that the Ontario was easier to sharpen (didn't take as long to get shaving sharp) than the bk14. If memory serves me correctly I think the bk14 held its edge longer though.

This brings me to my questions. Due to the different heat treatments should the ka-bar (cro-van) 1095 hold an edge longer and take a little longer to sharpen than Ontario 1095? Basically does my observations make sense with the two different 1095 steels? If so, what should I expect with other 1095's (esee's rowen, tops, etc.)? And how will the other 1095 steels compare when it comes to sharpening and edge retention?

Just curious because i am a big 1095 guy and am in the process of trying to take my sharpening skills (or lack there of) to the next level.
 
I've noticed that 1095 can vary widely in how it sharpens up, just with some variation in hardness (RC). At mid-50s RC, it can feel almost buttery on more aggressive hones, and it's sometimes tricky to detect burr formation when it's so 'soft'. On a diamond hone, especially, a burr can be created and erased in one pass on steels like this.

On the other hand, at high-50s/low-60s RC (think Schrade's USA blades in 1095), burrs are easier to detect, and still easy to clean up. Schrade's 1095 is as close to perfect as I've ever seen, in terms of the edge it'll take, how well it retains the edge, and the minimal effort required to do it.


David
 
Take a very close look at the edge geometries of the different knives. Assuming competent HT on the steels, the edge thickness and angle will well overshadow any difference in HT. The hardnesses can't be 10 points difference, but a point or 3 would be tough to notice if the geometries are measurably different. Out of curiosity, how much Cr and V are in the 1095CrV? I'm guessing not very much.
 
If the steel are all 1095? The sharpening ease/hardness factors are blade geometry and most importantly the heat treat RC hardness of each knife.
 
me2 said:
Take a very close look at the edge geometries of the different knives. Assuming competent HT on the steels, the edge thickness and angle will well overshadow any difference in HT. The hardnesses can't be 10 points difference, but a point or 3 would be tough to notice if the geometries are measurably different. Out of curiosity, how much Cr and V are in the 1095CrV? I'm guessing not very much.
Click to expand...

In 1095CV:
0.4-0.6% chromium
0.15-0.25% vanadium

Next to nothing. I'd think this wouldn't be enough to make much difference at all, in terms of how easily it sharpens up.


David
 
Last edited:
I've noticed a bit of this as well - different HT and RC will make some difference. The added CroVan makes a bit of a difference too. For the most part I find them to be very similar in how they sharpen up and hold an edge. The only real standout that comes to mind is an Old Hickory paring knife in 1095 that is quite soft (and flexible) which does not hold an edge well. My TOPS knives hold similar to my Carbon Moras. My BK11 holds an edge a bit longer, and so does my Jarvenpaa puukko - though I admittedly do not know if this is 1095, only that it is carbon.

Some variation to be sure. Compared to the variation from some Aus8 or 440c from one manufacturer to the next, the differences in 1095 are not glaring overall IMHO, but I am no expert.
 
Interesting. Some of this is going over my head but it sounds like I am putting too much emphasis on different 1095 steel and HT qualities and overlooked the amount the knife design/ edge geometry affects things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top