Why 1095?

L

littleknife

Joined
Nov 29, 2000
Messages
1,926
I like traditional slipjoints, especially the stockman patterns. After reading a lot and searching both here on BFC and the net I recently bought two stockmans with 1095 steel. I did not expect that they would stay shiny but I definitely expected better edgeholding/wear resistance and greater sharpness. Besides of the ease of sharpening (which nowadays with the availability of excellent sharpening systems is not a question anyway) what are the advantages of 1095 compared to regular stainless steels e.g. 420HC or 440A or AUS-8? I am talking EDC and users knives and not collector items. If 1095 is not better than the above mentioned stainless why some companies charge quite large amounts for 1095 knives (again I am talking production traditional slipjoints with delrin/bone/common wood handles). I know, part of the answer is because there is a demand. But is it only a hype, a non-critically accepted tradition or something else in performance what I am lacking to feel? In the past I have used (and abused) only stainless pocketknives and I had no specific complaints. The stainless feature seems to be very practical. A lot of well-known knife people also state in their books that average stainless is as good if not better than the average non-stainless. For comparison in Europe stainless pocketknives are preferred over the regular non-stainless ones, maybe because the fast-food industry with its plastic "cutlery" is still not so prevalent. I feel that 1095 steel in otherwise average pocketknives selling for $ 40-100 is quite inappropriate.
Any critical imput will be greatly appreciated.
littleknife
 
Here's my thoughts on this:

1095 is better than the stainless steels you mentioned with respect to edge holding, toughness, and the quality of the edge it can take. Those stainless steels are better for corrosion resistance, obviously.

As to why some people say that the average stainless is as good or better than an average carbon steel, it is tough to understand exactly what this blanket statement means. But I suspect that they are talkign about the "average" user. My grandfather uses a little folding knife that has a file that folds in the handle too. He never sharpens the thing. It scrapes his nails and opens his mail just fine for him. He wouldn't notice the difference between a 420 stockman or a 1095 stockman -- he also wouldn't care. You and I probably would notice the difference.

Heat treat also makes a big difference in the story. Well treated AUS-8 will out perform poorly heat treated 1095.

Carbon Steel stockmans may cost more than 420 stockmans because of the cost of materials, the cost of tooling, the cost of heat treat, etc. I don't know the specifics on that though. E-mail Will Fennel from Camillus (go to the Camillus forum here): I bet he could tell you why the price difference exists. He could probably tell you more about the steels you mentioned too.

------------------
"Come What May..."
 
I would prefer a 1095 blade to Any of the steels you mentioned (440A, 420HC, AUS8). The reason is simple. Edge performance. A properly heat-treated 1095 blade will get sharper, and hold an edge much longer than any of those stainless steels. It will also be easier to sharpen.

I disagree strongly with your statement that the 'average' stainless steel is as good if not better than the average 'stainless' steel. Other than remaining shinier longer, Many carbon steels heat-treated for use as knife blades will outperform most stainless steels when evauluated for toughness, edge holding, and ease of resharpening.

If you want a knife to cut, carbon (low chromium) steels are best. If you Must have a knife that will not change color or you work around salt water, then stainless steels start to make more sense.

1095 has 0.95% Carbon, allowing for a very hard, but still resilient blade. 440A has only 0.6% carbon and will need a very good heat-treatment to come close to 1095's potential. The other steels you mention are also lower in carbon content.

1095 is a simple tool steel which can be made into simply outstanding knife blades. If cutting is really what you want your knife to do, go with carbon steel. And actually the demand for production carbon steel folders is very low. Most of that type of knife are made with realtively low end cutlery steels. The carbon steel versions may cost more Because the demand is lower. It is less cost effective to make them. I wish there were More carbon steel slipjoint knives available, at any cost.

Paracelsus
 
My personal experience seems different than yours. I find 1095 to get distinctly sharper than basic 420 or 440 type stainless steel. I'm not sure that I've really noticed improved edge holding with 1095. I have seen improved toughness from 1095, but that isn't something I worry about too much with a slip joint pocket knife.

I wouldn't spend a premium to get 1095 in a pocket knife. I would spend a little more to get one made from AUS-8 instead of 440 or 420 alloys. I'd pick one with Sandvic 12C27 over the 440 or 420 alloys, but I wouldn't expect to pay a premium. I've got no real complaints about my SAK blade, but I'd pay more to switch to VG-10 or BG42.

For a camp or field knife that I expected to abuse I would go for 1095 over the cheaper stainless alloys.
 
littleknife;
The key to the whole question in "PROPERLY HEAT TREATED".
1095 is not a stainless steel but instead it is a "tool steel". You might see 1095 used in a tool and die shop but not 440A, 420HC or a lot of the other "knife steels". Some tool and die work used 440C though.
If you want a good folding knife that is made from 1095, steel then you will have to pay for the heat treating which could cause the cost to be higher then say one of the "stainless" ones that are not so well heat treated.
1095 is good steel if you are not concerned about rusting (a little PM will keep this to a minimum) if it is properly heat treated then is should hold and take an edge very well.

------------------
Ron,
Bremerton, Washington
0071.gif
 
Thanks for the imputs. I admit that probably I am not able to sharpen very well (hope this will change).
But as Jeff Clark stated too I did not notice 1095 to be more wear resistant.
And as he mentioned for regular use pocketknives toughness is probably not a great concern.
Nowadays ease of sharpening is not a question either.
I am not sure that heat treating of 1095 for traditional pocketknives (I am not talking differential heat treating of fixed blades) is more expensive than say of 420HC.
So far the only practical advantage of 1095 over regular stainless stockman knives I was convinced is the sharper edge.
Still I think the prices of average traditional pocketknives made of 1095 are inflated.
Paracelsus says that it is the low demand which causes the higher prices. Is it so simple? Am I missing some specific advantage of this steel for the purpose discussed?
 
How many carbon steel folders do you see on the market? FEW! Low demand is there, for sure.

------------------
"Come What May..."
 
Originally posted by littleknife:
Thanks for the imputs. I admit that probably I am not able to sharpen very well (hope this will change).
But as Jeff Clark stated too I did not notice 1095 to be more wear resistant.

Maybe the traditional slip joint manufacturers heat treat the blade relatively soft?


Nowadays ease of sharpening is not a question either.

For me it's easy to "cut" the stainless steel with diamond hones or ceramic rods,but it's much more difficult to remove the burr form stainless blades(ATS-34/55,440A) than from my carbon blades(my woodwork tools).Therefore,I feel carbon steel is much
easier to sharpen.


[This message has been edited by lsstaipei (edited 06-09-2001).]

[This message has been edited by lsstaipei (edited 06-09-2001).]
Click to expand...
 
I have a Boker King Kutter which is (I'm informed) 1095. It's now worn down considerably from over a decade of whittling and sharpening, and it holds an edge better than any other slipjoint I have (maybe my Twistmaster in Carbon V is better, but it's a little large for delicate work like carving chains and ball-in-a-cage). I think Boker may harden it to a higher RC than usual. This is GOOD STEEL. Wish I could find another.
 
lsstaipei:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Maybe the traditional slip joint manufacturers heat treat the blade relatively soft?</font>
Click to expand...

Yes, traditionally they are very soft, in the low fifties. One of the reasons people complain about sharpening stainless vs carbon is that there will be a huge difference in sharpening 1095 at ~52 RC as compared to ATS-34 at ~60. Many of the techniques that work very well on the softer carbon blades (steeling, light stropping, soft hones), don't work very well at all on the harder stainless steels and some (butchers steel) can actually damage the edges. Of course, similar techinques would not work well on the high alloy non-stainless steels either - CPM-10V for example.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">it's much more difficult to remove the burr form stainless blades(ATS-34/55,440A) than from my carbon blades(my woodwork tools).</font>
Click to expand...

You would expect this given that the stainless steels you mention have a significant amount of very large Cr carbides probably not well distributed and suffering from segregation, they are also probably sharpened at much higher angles which increases burr formation. Try CPM-420V, from Phil Wilson if you can, it is a very fine grained steel, with a well distributed set of fine vanadium carbides.

In regards to 1095, it is very cheap to buy, easy to machine, and has a simple heat treat. It also has a good reputation so its easy to sell. For a small stockman type blade there are much better steels, M2 for example will hold a thinner edge for a longer period of time both in terms of a crisp shaving edge and even more so in regards to extended aggressive slicing.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 06-11-2001).]
 
I was surprised that Ka Bar were suggesting that 12C27 offered slightly better performance than 1095. How can a good high carbon steel be outclassed by a medium carbon high chromium stain-less steel? At a lower Rc as well 55-57 vs 56-58???

Is that CATRA thing meaningless?

------------------
Wayne.
"To strive to seek to find and not to yield"
Tennyson
Ranger motto

A few useful details on UK laws and some nice reviews!
http://members.aol.com/knivesuk/
Certified steel snob!
 
Wayne :

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How can a good high carbon steel be outclassed by a medium carbon high chromium stain-less steel? At a lower Rc as well 55-57 vs 56-58???</font>
Click to expand...

Becauase "outclassed" is a very broad term so much so that it is meaningless. All steels will outperform generally all others steels in some way. Unless someone is being specific when they say something like the above, it is just hype.

For example 1095 is superior to CPM-10V in terms of base materials cost, machinability, heat treat difficulty, and impact toughness. These all combine to make it a solid choice for an affordable large heavy use blade.

CPM-10V is superior to 1095 in terms of wear resistance, strength, and edge aggression. These all combine to make it a solid choice for a very high performance (cutting ability and edge retention) light use knife.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Is that CATRA thing meaningless?</font>
Click to expand...

It measures the performance of a knife under very controlled conditions. Basically you push a knife through a material and measure the force required. As a knife blunts it needs more force so this quantifies sharpness. You need to be careful as edge geometry will effect the force required and this has nothing to do with sharpness but now you are quantified cutting ability and you can thus produce very misleading results depending on how you present the numbers.

-Cliff

[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 06-12-2001).]
 
there has been one thing overlooked here in regards to the makeup of 1095 that makes it hard to get a proper heat treat and may be why your 1095 stockman doesnt seem to hold a good edge. 1095 0nly has .4 manganese content because of this you have less that 3/4 of a second to get the steel quenched below its critical temp. 1095 is notorius for difficulty in heat treating. A much better and deeper hardening steel is 1084. It has .9 manganese and .84-.9 carbon. Theoretically all you need in simple carbon steels is .6 carbon to get full hardness.

Arthur D. Washburn
ADW Custom Knives
www.adwcustomknives.com
 
Too much information! You guys kill me!


My 1095 blades are easy to sharpen..get really sharp and are tough.

My AUS-8 blades are a little harder to sharpen, get really sharp and hold their edge a bit longer (they fold, but not as much).

I see little difference, actually. I've had more corrosion on the AUS-8, but that might be the way I use the knives, less care on the stain-less.
smile.gif



Steve-O
 
Thank you for the new information. I hope I am not a steel snob. I do consider 1095 a good user steel. My point however is that (I think) it is not as good for multiblade pocketknife purposes as many manufacturers charge for it. Db, I know about the Old Timers, I myself have a medium stockman, a good user. Exactly that is my point: why should these knives cost more than 30-60 $? However please look at the majority of other brands like German Eye brand (Carl Schlieper), Kissing Crane, Henckels, Boker, Bulldog, Moore Maker. They charge 50-100 $ for simple bone handled stockmans (not limited editions!). I think this is much more than these knives actually are worth: they are not highly collectable and only decent, not extraordinary users. They don't have locking mechanisms, don't need state of the art production equipment or consist of expensive materials. But I am probably missing something. That's why I posted my concerns.
 
Art, thank-you very much sir. Now I understand why so many Mastersmiths (e.g. Crowell, Fisk, Massey, etc) forge 1084. I have never seen one made from 1095. I alsways wondered why a steel with slightly lower carbon content was prefered.

Littleknife, if you think something costs too much, don't buy it. There are lots of reasons beyond the blade steel for cost differences (finish, fit, grinds, tolerances, stag embargo, etc). There is also the marketing factor (hype, BS, etc). It is very true that most slipjoint knives are made from low end stainless steels.

I think the companies look at carbon steel blades as a premium material used for a select market, so they charge more, even if the raw steel costs less. Most companies produce very few models in carbon steel versions.

One company is so proud of its 'surgical' steel (an almost meaningless term meaning 'stain resistant') that every advertisement proclaims this in a bold way. The problem is that this 'surgical' steel is a poor quality stainless steel that can not be made to perform as well as a decently heat-treated carbon steel blade. But the general public is so used to the idea of 'stainless steel' that most people think that is normal, and a carbon steel blade is somehow inferior.

So maybe by charging More for something people think should be worth Less will get them to think, and actually buy a carbon steel knife, simply because if it costs more, it Must be better. Right?

Marketing and Pricing are not always based on costs or true value. If you think something costs more than it should, do not buy it.

Paracelsus
 
Cliff makes an important point that few fail to realize and that is each steel has it's strong and weak points. To say one is better than another is nonsense. To say one exceeds the performance of another in some specific parameter is fine. I have people ask me all the time, which of two steels is "better." Obviously, I can't answer it without knowing what "better" means in terms of performance. There are always tradeoffs.

1095 should outperform most any stainless steel (certainly the ones you mention) in every respect other than corrosion resistance. So it would be easy to say that 12C27 or 440A or whatever "blows away" a carbon steel if you're talking about corrosion resistance. That would be true. If you want to suggest that it is better in every respect, that obviously would not be even close to true.

Fashion these days seems to dictate that hardness or edge holding is the critical parameter. Actually many people, including me, consider it a relatively unimportant parameter. What matters really is the suitability of a steel for a particular job. I see people choosing hard steels like ATS-34 for kitchen cutlery or camp knives, as an example and it leaves me scratching my head in wonderment. One day someone will likely introduce an ATS-34 axe at RC 60 and my wonderment will be complete.

Once you get past the hurdle of understanding the purpose of the tool, then steel choices become easier. Take care.



------------------
Fred
Knife Outlet
http://www.knifeoutlet.com
 
One other thought. Very few custom knife makers ever produce multi-blade knives. And slip joints are difficult to do right. An extremely well done multi-blade knife from a custom maker will cost many hundreds of dollars.

Making a knife with more than one blade adds all sorts of difficulty to the construction. Handle a custom multi-blade by someone like Dan Burke or Richard Rogers and you will start to appreciate how difficult it is to make good multi-blade knives.

I have a small Boker carbon steel whittler that I bought for $65 several years ago. It is worth every penny of that price and more. I would not trade it for the stainless steel version for any price.

Paracelsus, thinking aloud
 
Littleknife, they charge that much because they can get that price. Right or wrong most Co.'s sell their product to make money, and the more the better. Base cost to produce a product is a very small part of the pricing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top