the dreaded steel thread

D

deadzonepatrol

Joined
Apr 11, 2019
Messages
233
I just read through a thread in the general discussion forum called "Why does everyone think 1095 is tough?" https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/why-does-everyone-think-1095-is-tough.1766220/page-2 Interesting thread, although it gave me a headache.

Anyway, at post #34 of that thread, there is a chart with numbers specifying the charpy scores of various steels. You can find some of the steels or their equivalents that were/are used by CS. The chart is by knifesteelnerds and can be found here: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2020/06/15/what-is-the-best-budget-knife-steel/

I thought many CS fans would be interested in the data specified therein. So I made this new thread to talk about it.

What I found most interesting is that 1084 is at 25 ft/lbs (HRC60), whereas 1095 was only 10 ft/lbs (HRC57). 1084 in that chart is the closest equivalent to SK5, which CS used to advertise as being a Japanese equivalent to American 1080 steel. O-1 is only at 15 ft/lbs (59HRC). And A2 is only at 15 ft/lbs (60HRC). So it would appear that 1084 is much tougher than even O-1 or A2. I had no idea! I knew the toughness of 10xx steels would increase as the carbon level decreased, but I had no idea that there was such a huge difference in toughness between 1084 and 1095.

Also, 4116 tested at about 7.5 ft/lbs (HRC57), significantly lower than 1095.

There is one caveat about this test chart. The data therein cannot be compared to testing by other companies because of differences in test samples. For instance, in this test by knifesteelnerds, they used "subsize unnotched Charpy speciman". Whereas, in tests by other companies, Carpenter used "unnotched IZOD" samples and Crucible used "c-notched Charpy" samples. That is why the data for A2, for instance, is only 15 ft/lbs, whereas Crucible tested at 40 ft/lbs.

One other asterisk about the chart. The heat treat of steels at different temperatures to achieve different rockwell hardnesses will yield different Charpy results. Unfortunately, the testers did not test every steel at every rockwell hardness. Many values that I would have wanted to see are missing, such as 1084 at HRC57.
 
What I find interesting is AEB-L, which has even slightly higher toughness than 1084 and much higher edge retention. Plus it's stainless. Like 1084, it sharpens easily to a very fine edge. It does all this by having just the right mix of carbon and chromium. Other than 0.6% Mn, it contains nothing else. Here's a link to a good discussion of it: http://www.nordsmithknives.com/blog...perfect-stainless-steel-for-an-outdoors-knife.
I don't understand why it isn't used more. Must be a supply problem. But then again ther are two more steels in the same class that are nearly as good. So I don't get it.
 
Mark Spark said:
What I find interesting is AEB-L, which has even slightly higher toughness than 1084 and much higher edge retention. Plus it's stainless. Like 1084, it sharpens easily to a very fine edge. It does all this by having just the right mix of carbon and chromium. Other than 0.6% Mn, it contains nothing else. Here's a link to a good discussion of it: http://www.nordsmithknives.com/blog...perfect-stainless-steel-for-an-outdoors-knife.
I don't understand why it isn't used more. Must be a supply problem. But then again ther are two more steels in the same class that are nearly as good. So I don't get it.
Click to expand...
don't think its a supply problem. I dont know why though? it is a fantastic steel for cutting tools.
 
I feel like it is difficult to objectively discuss this entire topic because nothing is fixed, and it is difficult or impossible to even test to determine what steel you are really testing or talking about. It depends who made the Steel, and where, and what level of quality control... and whether they are telling the truth. Then add in the knife maker and all those variables. Where did they get the Steel, are they telling the truth about what Steel they purchased, is their supplier telling the truth about the steel they think they delivered, how good was the heat treatment really... and so on.

Few things are certain. I have heard that Chinese standards are so bad that you never know what you are getting-- you only know it will be worse than you paid for. I have heard that Japanese steels made in Japan are exactly what you are promised. I understand that some manufacturers will call something by name or number when it is actually a Chinese knock off or "equivalent".

As Cold Steel said here, they tested American A2 and it was awesome, they tested other "A2 steels" and they were poor. If you buy a knife, even if it said it was made here in America, how do you know which steel they used?

All we have is a general consensus. It sucks, but there it is.
 
jbmonkey said:
don't think its a supply problem. I dont know why though? it is a fantastic steel for cutting tools.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, it was just really hard to get in standard knife thicknesses, it was always super thin stock usually. It took a long time to get it in folding knife thicknesses, and just recently I've seen it stocked up to 1/4".
 
Chris_Texas said:
I feel like it is difficult to objectively discuss this entire topic because nothing is fixed, and it is difficult or impossible to even test to determine what steel you are really testing or talking about. It depends who made the Steel, and where, and what level of quality control... and whether they are telling the truth. Then add in the knife maker and all those variables. Where did they get the Steel, are they telling the truth about what Steel they purchased, is their supplier telling the truth about the steel they think they delivered, how good was the heat treatment really... and so on.

Few things are certain. I have heard that Chinese standards are so bad that you never know what you are getting-- you only know it will be worse than you paid for. I have heard that Japanese steels made in Japan are exactly what you are promised. I understand that some manufacturers will call something by name or number when it is actually a Chinese knock off or "equivalent".

As Cold Steel said here, they tested American A2 and it was awesome, they tested other "A2 steels" and they were poor. If you buy a knife, even if it said it was made here in America, how do you know which steel they used?

All we have is a general consensus. It sucks, but there it is.
Click to expand...
The A2 Steel Update thread https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/a2-steel-update.1742924/ contained two of the most interesting posts I've ever seen in regard to knife steels. At post #190, LT talked about the difference b/w the American and foreign A2 steels that CS tested (two batches of foreign steel "was substantially inferior" to American A2) and that no matter how good the heat treatment, it couldn't compensate for the faults in the steel, as per their lab analysis. And at post #584, Andrew Demko said they used the best heat treat by Peters for the American A2 but "results [were] not [half] as good" when they tested the foreign A2, which had been made into knives by their Taiwan factory at 60RC. (I think 60 RC is regarded as the best hardness for A2, where it is toughest in the Charpy scores.)

So it was confirmed what many of us suspected: that where you get the steel and what company made it is just as important as the steel type or the heat treatment. CS didn't specify what country the "foreign" steel came from, but I think we can all guess....

Which is why whenever CS or any other company gets steel from Japan, Germany, or the USA, they always specify it as a selling point for their knives made from those steels. Those three countries seem to be most highly regarded, as far as manufactured steel quality and consistency is concerned.

Some custom makers even specify what company they ordered their steel from (e.g. New Jersey Steel Baron). This is clearly a selling point.

In the end, it does come down to how much trust you have in your knife company or custom maker. You can't exactly hover over your maker while he works, to ensure that he's actually using the steel he said he would. Just as you can't exactly go over their books, to make sure that they actually ordered the steel from so and so company like they said.
 
Another interesting issue with regard to all this: remember those threads that occasionally pop up about whether stock removal makes just as tough a knife as forging?

Stock removal should make just as tough a knife, if the steel is quality, without improper substances mixed in. But that assumption could be false, as we've talked about here. If the steel quality is poor, then skillful forging can make a tougher knife, because heating, hammering can beat out some of the impurities or spread them out more evenly, eliminating weak spots. Stock removal is dependent on consistent quality of modern steel manufacture. If that consistency is not there, it's basically a case of "garbage in, garbage out".
 
deadzonepatrol said:
I just read through a thread in the general discussion forum called "Why does everyone think 1095 is tough?" https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/why-does-everyone-think-1095-is-tough.1766220/page-2 Interesting thread, although it gave me a headache.

Anyway, at post #34 of that thread, there is a chart with numbers specifying the charpy scores of various steels. You can find some of the steels or their equivalents that were/are used by CS. The chart is by knifesteelnerds and can be found here: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2020/06/15/what-is-the-best-budget-knife-steel/

I thought many CS fans would be interested in the data specified therein. So I made this new thread to talk about it.

What I found most interesting is that 1084 is at 25 ft/lbs (HRC60), whereas 1095 was only 10 ft/lbs (HRC57). 1084 in that chart is the closest equivalent to SK5, which CS used to advertise as being a Japanese equivalent to American 1080 steel. O-1 is only at 15 ft/lbs (59HRC). And A2 is only at 15 ft/lbs (60HRC). So it would appear that 1084 is much tougher than even O-1 or A2. I had no idea! I knew the toughness of 10xx steels would increase as the carbon level decreased, but I had no idea that there was such a huge difference in toughness between 1084 and 1095.

Also, 4116 tested at about 7.5 ft/lbs (HRC57), significantly lower than 1095.

There is one caveat about this test chart. The data therein cannot be compared to testing by other companies because of differences in test samples. For instance, in this test by knifesteelnerds, they used "subsize unnotched Charpy speciman". Whereas, in tests by other companies, Carpenter used "unnotched IZOD" samples and Crucible used "c-notched Charpy" samples. That is why the data for A2, for instance, is only 15 ft/lbs, whereas Crucible tested at 40 ft/lbs.

One other asterisk about the chart. The heat treat of steels at different temperatures to achieve different rockwell hardnesses will yield different Charpy results. Unfortunately, the testers did not test every steel at every rockwell hardness. Many values that I would have wanted to see are missing, such as 1084 at HRC57.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top