What's the difference between W1 and 1095?

Danbo

Danbo

Joined
Nov 28, 1999
Messages
14,985
Seems to me, they're the same thing. Am I wrong? If so, what's the difference? It can't be much, if anything. Maybe the Manganese levels?
 
I had a conversation about this just the other day. Apparently, W1 has to actually meet a standard in analysis to be called W1. Possibly something to do with MILSPEC or something. 1095 is supposed to be the same composition, but doesn't have to test to a standard.

At least, that's what I was told.

So, W1 is just "really clean 1095".

-d
 
W1 is a tool steel, which is much cleaner and held to tighter specs. The stuff in 1095 can vary a lot. W1 is also available in a wide range of carbon content but most is very close to 1%
 
I've also heard pretty much the same thing. After the mill does an analysis of the steel they've made, and are HOPING they succeeded making W1, if it doesn't pass the test, they sell it as 1095.
Basically, 1095 is FAILED W1.
 
I disagree that W-1 is a very clean 1095.

W-1 composition:

Carbon 0.70-1.50 Chromium 0.15 Manganese 0.10-0.40 Molybdenum 0.10 Nickel 0.20 Silicon 0.10-0.40 Tungsten 0.50 Vanadium 0.10

1095 composition:

Carbon 0.90-1.03 Manganese 0.30-0.50 Phosphorus 0.04 Sulfur 0.05

A quick glance shows these to be dissimilar steels. I imagine the thought that W-1 is a very clean form of 1095 probably originates from the lack of sulfur and phosphorus. Sulfur and phosphorus are considered impurities in the steel.

W-1 has a small amount of chromium, which in theory adds some strength. The manganese aids in controlling problems with sulfur impurities. The molybdenum and nickel together add some deep hardening and toughness. The addition of tungsten and vanadium allow the formation tungsten and vanadium carbides.

1095 lacks the chromium, molybdenum, nickel, tungsten and vanadium. It also has the impurity phosphorus and sulfur. This alone makes them two different steels.

The carbon content of the two steels makes them different also. The W-1 has a large tolerance in the amount of carbon it can contain compared to the 1095. This is probably due to the of alloying elements found in the W-1. Looking at the minimum and maximum amount of carbon the W-1 can contain shows that the steel is somewhat of an oddity. It appears that it can be a hypoeutectoid or hypereutectoid steel. The eutectoid point of steel is 0.77% carbon. Being below this number makes it hypoeutectoid, being above makes it hypereutectoid. 1095 is strictly hypereutectoid steel.

Since the W-1 has some alloying it will probably benefit a small amount from a cryogenic quench. The 1095 will not really benefit from a cryogenic quench.

There are many additional things that can be written about possible differences between these two steels and how the addition of the alloying elements affects their characteristics. I gleaned most of what I’ve posted from various papers discussing elements added to steels and Dr. Verhoevens book Metallurgy of Steel for Bladesmiths & Others who Heat Treat and Forge Steel. You can find a link to this and many other informative books published by D. Verhoeven at this web site.

This post is not meant to detract from anyone. It is just as knifemakers we need to be keenly aware of what type of information we are disseminating. We need to eliminate the hype and misinformation that sometimes takes place in our fine craft and back our statements with science and facts.
 
Well said Arthur. I have known the two where similar but also very different. 1095 is a good knife steel but of the two I perfer W2....woops, I mean W1 ;) :D
 
1095 is a good knife steel but of the two I perfer W2....woops, I mean W1
Click to expand...

Since Don slipped W2 in there (that was a slip, wasn't it?? ;) ), aren't W2 and 1086M very similar, also?

Arthur makes a good point about getting the information out there. It is nice to know the subtle differences.
 
canineforge said:
Since Don slipped W2 in there (that was a slip, wasn't it?? ;) ), aren't W2 and 1086M very similar, also?

Arthur makes a good point about getting the information out there. It is nice to know the subtle differences.
Click to expand...

You are very correct Joe, 1086M and W2 are very similar but with most W2 having 1% carbon but can be had with .80-1.50% carbon. 1086M is also a very good knife steel, just hard to find.
 
Arthur,
Where did you get that composition for W1? In all the places I've seen it, the alloys listed are just carbon and manganese.
 
Diehl confuses it even more:

http://www.diehlsteel.com/w1.aspx

Look under "Cold work" steels and check out W2, also.

Added: to further the confusion, I looked in "Tool Steel Simplified" 1978 edition of the 1937 text. In therem the author states that W1 is "1.05%C, 0.2Mn, 0.2Si, Alloys....none".

Confusing stuff.

As a cool aside, I just noticed inside my book on the flyleaf, the owner inscribed his name and phone...."Ben Bowie"! how neat it fell into the hands of a knifemaker!
 
Fitzo, I have found the info on the diehlsteel site, concerning W1, W2 to be inconsistent with everything I've read and is not close to the cert I have on my W2, very confusing. I do feel different mills have their own recipes, close but all a little different.
 
I guess what I was trying to do is show just that, Don. The claims vary all over the place. Some of the suppliers are well outside typical.

I started to say this before, then deleted it out:

The only way to really deal with steels that vary so much is to do like Don Hanson and buy a bunch at one time so you can first off ask for a cert beforehand and then you'll know what you're buying. Knowing what you have, you have enough to work out the optimum HT and learn how to vary it for different working conditions. You can develop a consistent product.

Too many bounce around from one steel to the other forever looking for "supersteel" and never get to optimize any of their procedures. I know more and more makers who are buying in quantity with the intention of working that same batch of known steel for many years. Personally, I like that approach.
 
Here's the results from some samples I had analysed by Matt Doyle.


W1 from Enco:

C 0.848%
Mn 0.39%
P 0.016%
S <0.001%
Si 0.16%
Ni 0.06%
Cr 0.23%
Mo 0.009%


Admiral Steel 1095

C 0.88
Mn 0.35
P 0.007
S 0.001
Si 0.22
Ni 0.02
Cr 0.13
Mo 0.00

Danbo, I asked the same question a while back. Here's that thread:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=383658

Edited to add, I just realized the W1 has an awful lot of phosphorous. Maybe the W1 is failed 1095? :D
 
Phillip Patton said:
Arthur,
Where did you get that composition for W1? In all the places I've seen it, the alloys listed are just carbon and manganese.
Click to expand...

Phillip,

I took my specs from a Spyderco chart that has the compositions of various steels used in the knifemaking industry. It could be incorrect.

I have done some searching on the web and found this site that gives information on the W series of steels.The only thing I could see different than what I posted was tungsten is not included in their chart.

I searched for ASTM A686 on the web. It deals with Tool steels. I was unable to find it posted on the web but I found tons of sites that wanted to sell me all the ASTM standards or wanted fees to allow me to search their sites. Capitalism at work. I probably have the standard at work but I won’t be back to work until next week.

I also ran across this information. It is an informative slide show and a must for knifemakers to browse through.
 
Noob question here... it looks like tool steels are very similar to the 10XX, but with a touch of alloying elements for hardening and toughness. Is this a reasonable assumption, or am I way off base?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top