-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Two 1095 questions for experts
- Thread starter Marine E7
- Start date
1095 is not tougher than any stainless, but is likely tougher than the uber steels popular today. It can be extremely tough, but hardness will be around 56 or so. I personally like 1055ish steels for choppers. Charts like that I have found to be of questionable value. Given 2 unmarked blades of 1095 and 1095CroVan, I doubt one could tell which is which in use.
Carbide distribution is easiest to control in the simpler 10xx steels via heat treatment. The carbide volume of 1095 is lower than 52100 or À2. 1095 will almost certainly be tougher than S30V and similar steels. It CAN be tougher than 52100 or A2, but that will depend on heat treatment. It can certainly be as tough as you'd ever need, as it can be heat treated to take full chops into rock with only denting, no cracking. If treated that way, hardness and wear resistance will likely be lower than some would like. However, in a rough use knife, wear is rarely an issue and I'd take 1095 over something like 3V.
Carbide distribution is easiest to control in the simpler 10xx steels via heat treatment. The carbide volume of 1095 is lower than 52100 or À2. 1095 will almost certainly be tougher than S30V and similar steels. It CAN be tougher than 52100 or A2, but that will depend on heat treatment. It can certainly be as tough as you'd ever need, as it can be heat treated to take full chops into rock with only denting, no cracking. If treated that way, hardness and wear resistance will likely be lower than some would like. However, in a rough use knife, wear is rarely an issue and I'd take 1095 over something like 3V.
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,740
In hopes of keeping this one civil, which it mostly has for now. I offer my opinion, such as its worth.
It really comes down to a cost/value/performance equation that everyone reads a bit differently. In the past 10 years there has probably been as much advancement in heat-treatment, metallurgy, and design than there has in the 50, possibly 100 years previous. (maybe not but it sure seems we are racing along very fast)
Is 1095 the best best? no, there are steels that will be better at many aspects of knifery than 1095 is. But at a dollar for dollar evaluation, 1095 seems to be in a sweetspot for getting a lot of knife at a low cost. Will that always be the case? probably not, but at the moment its hard to really tell. Value is very subjective, to some an otherwise identical blade in another steel that is 3x the cost, might well be a bargain, but to many it may not be.
As much as this topic keeps popping up in last few weeks, and it seems to get really heated, it is my personal opinion that by and large, the numbers, ratings, and stats don't tell the entire story. There is nothing wrong with saying that 1095 doesn't hold an edge well enough for your needs, and you'd rather something more wear resistant. Just as there is nothing wrong with saying you don't mind sharpening more often and low price is more important. Once you get into big blade sizes the difficulty curve is not liner as far as I understand it, again making 1095 appeal to many as its well understood properties help keep the over-all cost much lower, where as some other steels are a much higher risk to work with.
1095 has been contrasted against AUS-8 as a comparable stainless. In my experience with both, I much prefer the 1095. the AUS-8 knives I've had have been very good, but as a value proposition, not better than the 1095 considering the added cost (other factors taken into account such as sheath and other feature cost)
In contrast to 1095, as we move up the ladder I don't have as much experience with other steels, but from what I've seen CPM-3V seems to hit another sweetspot. Yes it is a more expensive material, but it does seem to have a combination of factors (edge retention, flexibility, stain resistance) And they are better enough that the added cost seems justified. Lets just take for example the fact that you can get a bark river bravo-1 in A-2 and CMP-3V Now I don't have experience with A-2, but I have another barkie in 3V. To me there is not a large price gap between them, and what I've seen of the 3V suggests that its 20% cost increase may well provide more than 20% more value. But that's simply conjecture, and the end user may well never notice.
Would I spend twice as much on my RC-3 to get one in CPM-3V rather than 1095? Its possible. I'll have to live with my mini-bushcrafter for a while longer to see if the important parts (edge retention) seem to suggest its worth while.
It really comes down to a cost/value/performance equation that everyone reads a bit differently. In the past 10 years there has probably been as much advancement in heat-treatment, metallurgy, and design than there has in the 50, possibly 100 years previous. (maybe not but it sure seems we are racing along very fast)
Is 1095 the best best? no, there are steels that will be better at many aspects of knifery than 1095 is. But at a dollar for dollar evaluation, 1095 seems to be in a sweetspot for getting a lot of knife at a low cost. Will that always be the case? probably not, but at the moment its hard to really tell. Value is very subjective, to some an otherwise identical blade in another steel that is 3x the cost, might well be a bargain, but to many it may not be.
As much as this topic keeps popping up in last few weeks, and it seems to get really heated, it is my personal opinion that by and large, the numbers, ratings, and stats don't tell the entire story. There is nothing wrong with saying that 1095 doesn't hold an edge well enough for your needs, and you'd rather something more wear resistant. Just as there is nothing wrong with saying you don't mind sharpening more often and low price is more important. Once you get into big blade sizes the difficulty curve is not liner as far as I understand it, again making 1095 appeal to many as its well understood properties help keep the over-all cost much lower, where as some other steels are a much higher risk to work with.
1095 has been contrasted against AUS-8 as a comparable stainless. In my experience with both, I much prefer the 1095. the AUS-8 knives I've had have been very good, but as a value proposition, not better than the 1095 considering the added cost (other factors taken into account such as sheath and other feature cost)
In contrast to 1095, as we move up the ladder I don't have as much experience with other steels, but from what I've seen CPM-3V seems to hit another sweetspot. Yes it is a more expensive material, but it does seem to have a combination of factors (edge retention, flexibility, stain resistance) And they are better enough that the added cost seems justified. Lets just take for example the fact that you can get a bark river bravo-1 in A-2 and CMP-3V Now I don't have experience with A-2, but I have another barkie in 3V. To me there is not a large price gap between them, and what I've seen of the 3V suggests that its 20% cost increase may well provide more than 20% more value. But that's simply conjecture, and the end user may well never notice.
Would I spend twice as much on my RC-3 to get one in CPM-3V rather than 1095? Its possible. I'll have to live with my mini-bushcrafter for a while longer to see if the important parts (edge retention) seem to suggest its worth while.
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,740
I don't think so, since only Ka-bar uses crovan, and so many of the test results can really be chalked up to design choices rather than the material. All things being equal I think Ka-bar does a very good job with their crovan, and it is better than some 1095, but because 1095 can be done well, or poorly, its really more of matter of the maker. At the end of the day, if you like the design, then I think that should be the first factor, then the maker, then the steel. An okay steel from a great maker is still going to beat the pants off a good steel if the maker isn't taking the time they need to do things right.
Last edited:
Bigfattyt
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 19,215
I've used quite a few steels. 1095, and a handful of other 10XX steels. I've used tool steel, spring steel, ball bearing steel, and some proprietary steels like INFI.
I'd avoid taking sweeping statements as gospel:
I'd avoid taking sweeping statements as gospel:
Cold Steel built quite a reputation with this steel, as did Case.
The problem with Crovan (50100b) is that it isn't a commercially available steel. I have some, but only because I bought it from the Camillus closing. 50100 is, like 52100, a bearing steel. 50100b adds vanadium.
And while it may be considered something of an extreme way to put it, Crovan, like most any other low alloy or tool steel, has ingredients that every engineer or material scientist on earth would say lowers the brittleness of 1095. 1095 is about the most brittle carbon steel you can easily buy, because it has so much carbon and none of the elements that would refine that extra carbon.
When you're working in simple carbon 10xx steels, it is fairly easy to say "I am willing to forgo some wear resistance for greater impact strength, so I'll leave this much carbon out and aim for X hardness. And this is a good formula. Taking a high hardness steel like 1095 and tempering it down to increase impact strength works, but doesn't work nearly as well as simply using a lower carbon steel that doesn't have all that extra carbide forming carbon in it in the first place. That way you end up with more strength at a slightly higher hardness and wear resistance.
When you get into low alloys and tool steels, now you can separate wear resistance from hardness, toughness from carbon content.
If I wanted to make a chopper on a budget I'd probably use 1070. If I had a larger budget, 5160, then maybe L6, A2, 3V, etc. The most shock resistant steel anyone I've heard makes knives out of is S7, which is as much tougher than 3V as 3v is to 1095. They use it for jackhammer bits, normally.
If I was making a hunting 5" hunting knife on a budget I'd use 1095, because the cemetite carbides will make it hold an edge longer at higher hardnesses than 1080, and the knife won't get as much impact as a chopper. If I had more cash, I'd keep all that carbon but add some elements for toughness and wear resistance - 52100, O1, A2, D2, 4V, etc.
And if I didn't care about cost or high impact resistance, the higher end stainless like S35V, S110V, etc hold an incredible edge. But their impact toughness isn't as good as some of the carbon steels, though still better than 1095.
The main problem I see is the idea that tempering allows you to trade hardness for toughness in some sort of universal way. It does, but switching steels is a better way to do it since every steel has its comfort zone. 1070 is probably cheaper than 1095, and could be run harder than 1095 at the same toughness. O1 is another alloy that probably shouldn't even be used if it isn't going to be tough enough at 60 Hrc. Choppers should just be .6 to .8% carbon, simple or alloy steels. Adding 1095's extra carbon to then just temper it down to where the tough steels live doesn't make much sense (except for marketing).
Last edited:
I was hoping the "most" part prevented it from being too sweeping. I wish someone could find a temper/impact strength chart for the 10xx steels. I keep looking. But generally, it certainly looks like this:
This is a good general primer about steel properties, alloying ingredients, toughness, wear resistance, etc.
https://www.crucible.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html
Last edited:
Just want to say this is a very interesting thread filled with lots of good info indid not know. Now I have a question and forgive my ignorance on metallurgy. Ive read before that the modern supersteels do not make good fixed blades or choppers or swords due to them being powdered steels, from what i remember it was said the grain is a lot smaller so you get better edge retention and can hone very fine edges they cant take a good hit and is brittle due the fine grain which is why you see them mainly in folders. Whereas your carbon steels like your 10xx's and such have longer grain and link together better i would guess.
I think of it like ply wood vs. Particle board. Particle board can be shaped more finely and smooth but is weak in lateral strength comapred to ply wood that isnt as pretty or able to be worked finely is is stronger laterally.
Also what steel types allow differential hardening and hamons and how does that effect the equation of the topic. As far as i know only carbon steels can take a hamon? Sorry if this doesn't make any since, its late and I'm tired from work.
I think of it like ply wood vs. Particle board. Particle board can be shaped more finely and smooth but is weak in lateral strength comapred to ply wood that isnt as pretty or able to be worked finely is is stronger laterally.
Also what steel types allow differential hardening and hamons and how does that effect the equation of the topic. As far as i know only carbon steels can take a hamon? Sorry if this doesn't make any since, its late and I'm tired from work.
I do not think the PM thing is true, though I can certainly understand why PM and sintered metal injection molding could be confused. MIM is brittle. But it's an interesting thought that I'll be looking for.
Differential hardening is just when you have one piece of steel that is part hardened and part not. Generally, un-hardened steel has few properties that an engineer would desire. It was a good way for people with no thermometers, torches or anything else but a hot fire to get steel to behave in multiple ways at the same time. Differential tempering is a more modern, and sometimes very controlled, way to heat treat all the steel for its best properties, then make those properties vary across the steel. 50 Hrc and tough in one spot, 62 and more brittle in another. The idea is to put a brittle edge on an otherwise "tough" ductile blade. It is generally unnecessary and sometimes makes a lower quality product.
Hamons are the visual manifestation of where the two steel states come together. Some alloys show it better than another. It is just aesthetic.
What are the units on the vertical axis of the graph you found online and linked in your original post?
Bigfattyt
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 19,215
A2 can be plenty tough. Busse Combat used it in their knives quite a few years ago, and their heat treat really got a lot out of that steel.
I've used two, a mid sized and a smaller one, and they were tougher than I'd ever need.
Bark River has had more than its share of complaints about chipping edges, and not just in one steel. I believe part of this may be post heat treat grinding. Their convex edges are done on slack belts, after the heat treat. I love a convex grind,especially a full convex. I've burned more than one of my knives on a slack belt working Iup a wicked convex edge. I think some of their reported issues comes from human error after the main grinding and heat treat is already done. I do think they ate making feat knives, and an occasional mistake happens and slips through quality control.
The steel used is only the beginning of the equation for performance.
Precise parameters for heat treat temp, time at critical soak, quench speed, temper time and temperature, and for many steels Cryo treatment are required to get the best performance out of the steel. A lot of the steels knife makers use have a basic heat treat protocol suggested by the steel manufacturer, or an industry standard....but those are the floor, and not the ceiling for performance.
A well heat treated basic steel like any of the 10xx series steels will perform head and shoulders above any super steel if the heat treat parameters, quench parameters and tempering parameters are all wrong.
There are custom and production knife makers out there that are taking steel performance to wonderful levels.
It is also important to note, that when you are looking at performance charts, unless you know more information, they may not be as informative as you hope.
I was hoping the "most" part prevented it from being too sweeping. I wish someone could find a temper/impact strength chart for the 10xx steels. I keep looking. But generally, it certainly looks like this:
This is a good general primer about steel properties, alloying ingredients, toughness, wear resistance, etc.
https://www.crucible.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html
I've been to CPM's site more times than I can remember, and have spent a good bit of time reading heat treat information, looking at graphs, and talking with custom makers. I've seen a lot of charts over the years. I have a handy book on heat treating many of the common steels used in knife making. I've even made a knife my self, including the heat treat, and tempering.
The most knowledge has come from listening to and reading the advice of many of the world's most talented knife makers.
You may be seeing a chart at industry standard heat treat parameters. Those parameters may not be related to cutlery applications either.
Most makers, custom, and a lot of higher end production makers are not using anything resembling industry standard heat treat protocol. Some are putting so much extra into the process that it is proprietary.
For example, a chart showing me the toughness and wear resistance of S7 at industry may be showing me how I can expect it to behave with a basic heat treat protocol geared specifically toward use as a jackhammer bit, and not as a cutting tool.
Busse (their family knife company Scrap Yard) has used S7 extensively. They call their version Sr77. They seem to have gotten tons of toughness, and decent edge retention (but the steel is better for large choppers that will experience higher impact and torsional stress than a small knife).
Also, simply knowing the hardness may answer some questions, but not all questions as to how the steel was treated.
Many of the steels we are seeing make drastic leaps in performance in the cutlery field are not necessarily designed specifically for cutlery. Some are, but others are not.
52100, S7 and others. Jack hammer steel, roller and ball bearing steel, spring steel, shear steel, etc.
Most of the industry standard protocols are optimized for the industrial application. Much better performance can be coaxed out of the steel with all the parameters changes to get better results in cutlery applications. Usually optimum results for cuttlery are not going to mirror protocol for getting the most of the steels in other applications.
I don't believe this is correct. Some of toughest and highest performance steels in big choppers and swords right now seem to be coming from these pm steels.
I'm thinking of Dan Keffler, and others pushing the performance boundaries using CPM steels
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,740
It was also said that titanium could never hold any kind of edge, and there are those who are slowly starting to prove that might not be entirely the case, if things are done right. Off the bat, the powder steels might not have been good for certain applications, but that's more about the learning curve of the blade makers than the steel. I think Bigfattyt has hit it on the head, some people are at the performance floor, some are pushing the envelope.
Any time there is a certain complaint about any one maker, its important to realize what the whole story is. Did the maker go for a certain aspect that their customers then went in another direction? Was it part of a learning curve where some users pushed their tools to a limit the maker had not predicted? Or is it simply that a certain number of knives, no matter what happens will have some level of flaw undetectable at the QC stage, and some percentage of those blades will get pushed to failure. It happens with any product, in any industry. Its why you have warranties, because some things are not predictable, and the maker wants the customer to feel like they have gotten the value they paid for. The thing to remember is that here is where many of the failures get brought to our attention, and while it may seem like a certain blade might have a huge number of failures, you can't always compare that since we don't have sales numbers, or total warranty claim numbers. I would suspect that certain blades show up here broken and we see almost all of the actual failures, simply because they are more well known in the enthusiast community. And enthusiasts are more likely to find those blades that break under the extreme end of normal usage (not prying open crates or crap like that) where the average person does average person stuff, and either breaks the knife by doing something the knife was never intended to do, or never gets it close to its performance limit.
Any time there is a certain complaint about any one maker, its important to realize what the whole story is. Did the maker go for a certain aspect that their customers then went in another direction? Was it part of a learning curve where some users pushed their tools to a limit the maker had not predicted? Or is it simply that a certain number of knives, no matter what happens will have some level of flaw undetectable at the QC stage, and some percentage of those blades will get pushed to failure. It happens with any product, in any industry. Its why you have warranties, because some things are not predictable, and the maker wants the customer to feel like they have gotten the value they paid for. The thing to remember is that here is where many of the failures get brought to our attention, and while it may seem like a certain blade might have a huge number of failures, you can't always compare that since we don't have sales numbers, or total warranty claim numbers. I would suspect that certain blades show up here broken and we see almost all of the actual failures, simply because they are more well known in the enthusiast community. And enthusiasts are more likely to find those blades that break under the extreme end of normal usage (not prying open crates or crap like that) where the average person does average person stuff, and either breaks the knife by doing something the knife was never intended to do, or never gets it close to its performance limit.
To say differential hardening/tempering is unnecessary and sometimes lead to lower quality product is just totally ignorance.
People like Jerry Fisk, Adam DesRosiers, Burt Foster, Jason Knight and many more who considered to be one of the finest knife makers among the world are still doing what you called unnecessary and might lower product quality...
It's funny seeing people arguing steel performance just base on only composition or industrial graph
pretty much like judging the quality of beer just from it alcohol or ingredient content
i am not an expert on this topic , but i use and collect knives for over years and i like 1095 and other plain carbon steels and low alloy steels .:thumbup:
so , i will drop my two cents here :
First:1095 contains about 1% carbon , and you can not tell it as a tough steel, cause there are lots of steels are tougher than 1095, but indeed 1095 is tougher than most of stainless cutlery steels.
Second: 1095 is a good choice that making knives and choppers , 1095 tough enough for those application , but not tough for making swords.
Third: if you have enough time to looke at internet , there are lots of fail and break knives that made of 1095 steel , those accidents need right toughts to analysis . 1095 is a low ends cutlery steel ， and it is produced by the traditional metallurgy process, or ingot-casting and forging rolls. Inevitablely there are probabilistic of defects in blanks , such as tiny gaps that can not see by nuked eyes. And every links on knife making industry that can make the knife inferior . Not only HT , but also rolling and milling and sharpening are influence performance of a knife !
Forth： when every thing did right , 1095 knives are easy to sharpen and hold an resonable edge and tough enough for use and the knife costs you not too much , what is your complain on that ?
dingy
so , i will drop my two cents here :
First:1095 contains about 1% carbon , and you can not tell it as a tough steel, cause there are lots of steels are tougher than 1095, but indeed 1095 is tougher than most of stainless cutlery steels.
Second: 1095 is a good choice that making knives and choppers , 1095 tough enough for those application , but not tough for making swords.
Third: if you have enough time to looke at internet , there are lots of fail and break knives that made of 1095 steel , those accidents need right toughts to analysis . 1095 is a low ends cutlery steel ， and it is produced by the traditional metallurgy process, or ingot-casting and forging rolls. Inevitablely there are probabilistic of defects in blanks , such as tiny gaps that can not see by nuked eyes. And every links on knife making industry that can make the knife inferior . Not only HT , but also rolling and milling and sharpening are influence performance of a knife !
Forth： when every thing did right , 1095 knives are easy to sharpen and hold an resonable edge and tough enough for use and the knife costs you not too much , what is your complain on that ?
dingy
Last edited:
jdm61
itinerant metal pounder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 47,357
Whose "well known heat treat reputation" are you referring to and what do you consider "optimum hardness" for 1095? Oh, and 3V is not stainless.
jdm61
itinerant metal pounder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 47,357
That chart does not include CPM154. it is quite interesting to see how much toughness that steel gains though use of the PM process compared to regular 154CM which is listed on this chart. IIRC, the abrasion resistance stays he same, but the toughness exceeds that of S35VN. which is a bit higher than S30V. Also, the apparent difference between the toughness levels for 3V on the two charts that have been posted is likely due to hardness. IIRC, this chart is showing the toughness for 3V at 58Rc where is is around 2.5 times as tough as A2 at 60Rc. That gap closes when you take the 3V up to 60Rc using the "factory spec' teeming instructions.
I was hoping the "most" part prevented it from being too sweeping. I wish someone could find a temper/impact strength chart for the 10xx steels. I keep looking. But generally, it certainly looks like this:
This is a good general primer about steel properties, alloying ingredients, toughness, wear resistance, etc.
https://www.crucible.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html
Interesting,none of these types of charts show RC.3v for example toughness changes night and day from 58 to 62 RC.
They need to show RC of each steel and make better charts.
From the listed stats,think Barkriver Senegal is chippy...just from listed RC and knowing how A2 acts?
They need to show RC of each steel and make better charts.
From the listed stats,think Barkriver Senegal is chippy...just from listed RC and knowing how A2 acts?