sp43, so how is ontario's....

You are absolutely correct, there is very little or no price difference between the two steels. Both are produced at the steel mill to the same standards. One of the main problems I have seen with the heat treatment of 1095 is quenching it fast enough to miss the nose of the pearlite curve so you don't wind up with a mixed microstructure of martensite and pearlite. I have seen 1095 heat treated by a variety heat treaters/knife companies and methods (including marquenching) which had this problem. Ontario is capable of heat treating both materials without a problem especially since I designed a quench tank with impeller agitation and a "J-Tube" to direct and concentrate the flow of the oil.

Thank you for your post.
 
jbmonkey said:
good article. yeah sure that pic is you and not the big lebowski.....😁

View attachment 1825220


thank you, and wow the 1095 diehard fans sure went nutty in the comments.......

here's the link for those wanting to read it...
.
ontarioknife.com

Dan Maragni Intro / 1095-1075 Switch

Ontario Knife Company Resident knife expert Dan Maragni introduces himself and explains the decision to make the switch from 1075 steel to 1095.
ontarioknife.com ontarioknife.com
Click to expand...

Dan Maragni said:
Wow, The Big Lebowski, what an honor. The image was developed by Matt Catanese our Sales, Marketing and Design Specialist but I don't think he had The Dude in mind when he created it.

I was also surprised by "nuttiness" of the comments by obviously diehard fans of 1095. I have been working with the material for about 47 years and don't have that kind of emotional attachment to it.

Thanks for your link to the article.
Click to expand...
After reading comments about the steels I was pretty surprised as well.

1075 is a respected steel used by many different makers.
 
I would also like to add that I keep one or two SP knives in each of my four vehicles. They truly are a usable tool that hits that sweet spot of value combined with performance.
 
MolokaiRider said:
After reading comments about the steels I was pretty surprised as well.

1075 is a respected steel used by many different makers.
Click to expand...
I wasn't as surprised- even I fall victim to "a little carbon is good, so more must be better" mindsets.
I've elected to not buy some knives before that were in 1075, even though I'm almost positive I wouldn't know the practical difference between 1075 and 1095.
 
I also believed that "a little carbon is good, so more much be better" when I started making blades and as I mentioned before I have made and seen many very good blades made from steel with a carbon content of around 0.95%. It was when I started seriously researching swords back in the early 1990's that I realized that there were better options. I began by tracking down sources that had metallurgical information about ancient swords both Japanese and European and I was fortunate that over the next decade there was a boom in that kind of study. I found there was a remarkable consistency in the material used in both cultures for sword blades and the carbon contents for swords made from bloomery smelters were usually between 0.6%-0.8% carbon. The focus of my study was sword blades which were heat treated by quenching because many swords, especially early ones, were not heat treated at all.
 
Yes, comments were interesting.

My advice to the skeptics is to buy one, sharpen it up good and test it out and report back to us. It will become quickly apparent if it is an inferior steel for chopping. If it dulls quickly or rolls the edge, then the comments are justified. If not, then you can report that too.

I have a Condor Boomslang that is 1075. I didn't like it at first. But as my sharpening skills improved, I would go back to it & have at it some more. I did this over and over again. It is wicked sharp now and I like it a whole lot more. Still gotta thin out the handle for my hands. But it has not rolled the edge yet. Yes, I have batoned it. I think it needs to be sharpened more often but it is so easy to sharpen, that it's really not an issue. Literally 1 or 2 swipes on each side of the blade with a 14" Butchers steel is all it takes to bring it back. I have many 1095 knives. I love em'. Until I have one in 1075 fail, I will reserve any harsh criticism.

In the end, they are tools and sometimes tools break. That's why you test them to your satisfaction BEFORE you have to trust your life to them. Also remember, we are talking about tools in the very low end price point. So if it needs to be sharpened and modified a little, I am good with that. Now if I paid $400+ for one, I would expect it to be razor sharp and have zero issues. But I would never pay that much for a 1075 small blade. I just don't see the need to complain yet. There are plenty of other choices of steels and companies to buy from. Your money, your choice.
 
Last edited:
It was explained many times by "Dan Da Man" of how OKC's 1075 was selected for its main used steel not in their US contracted ones. My long of the short interpretation of it to me is, giving OKC's resources and capabilities that they made a formula of 1075 that has better durability and wear than 1095 at the cost of needing some a bit more sharpening. That is a very very long of the short interpretation. See Pocket Knife Jimmy's (The evil keeper of great knives under glass!) posts on it as well.

OKC's formula of 1075 is better for knives being less breakage, wear and tear and other thingies than 1095 super long of the shortness, with the slight of the needing a but more sharpening.

Like OKC's type of 420 HC formula for their steel/knives. What I have done with 420 Woodsman shows its nice and rough and tough. Although the once I gave away became kitchen butcher knives and large critter cutting season blades. Still they are great for water borne misadventures. And tie your packs to the gunnel or it goes in the drink! Their Real Full Tang also is a big plus, and the 5160 version is a SP-50 with a full tang that makes it superiorly different from the SP-50. (I perfer my SP-51 over the SP-50 with its saber grind, but a full metal tang of my one OKC Woodsman makes it a winner.)
 
Mr. TwinStick- Thank you for your sensible "testing" focussed post. It seems obvious to me (and clearly you feel the same way) that in order to make an accurate decision you need to investigate, experiment and test a blade. I also appreciate your "knives are tools" perspective which is exactly my own focus and to me the most important aspect of knife design and construction. I enjoy knives in all their roles as art objects, as collectables, etc. but my personal bias is as tools. Coincidentally functional knife/sword design will be the topic of my next article for the Ontario website.

Mr. Rouger- Thank you for your accurate summation of the 1095/1075 selection process by Ontario especially your realistic observation that every knife company must work within it's resources and capabilities. Your comments on 420 steel were very gratifying. I have never been a fan of the steel and found the wide range of permissible carbon contents from the mill to be problematic. Once I started specifying a minimum carbon content in the 420 we purchased my opinion of the steel started to change. And when I had the blades tested by Ontario (my testing days are long past) I really started to respect the material and prefer it to many of the higher carbon stainless steels for a field knife due to its toughness.

Thank you both for your insightful posts and typical of many of the posts here cause me to constantly reexamine my own perspectives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top