Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

[KingMC]

Because one is a raw material and the other a finished product?

Ok then, let's compare Becker's 1095cv with Rowen's 1095, both as finished products.

 

[RX-79G]

Ok then, let's compare Becker's 1095cv with Rowen's 1095, both as finished products.

Or Carbon V. Or Case CroVan. So, we know that the 50100B is superior as an alloy (because we can all read an engineering textbook okay); what sort of test would you like to reference Rowen producing a superior final product to Kabar, Case or Camillus?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

It's not. You could have looked this up yourself:
http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelgraph.php?nm=c100&hrn=1&gm=0

Silicon. An element that makes alloys tougher.

I have no doubt that in Europe it is the equivalent choice for a basic, inexpensive carbon steel. But it isn't chemically identical.


And Moras are also made of O1 for the laminated blades. They used to be pretty cheap, too, just 5 years ago.

This source states that a Si content of 0.15-.35 is typical for plain and alloy carbon steels. Also, this manufacturer doesn't list Si in the formulation, but states below it that "Silicon - typical range is 0.15% to 0.35% Alternate ranges should be agreed upon between purchaser and supplier."

This makes me question if it is something considered allowable in the specifications of 1095, but not actually considered a required part of the designation.

 

[Fanglekai]

From your opening post in this thread:

Clearly, 1095 is perfectly capable of making a quality knife. The same could be said of 1070. 1095 is a very inexpensive steel, containing little more than iron, carbon and manganese. It contains enough carbon to make it hypereutectoid, so it will form simple carbides. But it does not have any of the minor alloying ingredients that raise the edge stability, toughness and edge retention that even low alloy steels like 1095CV, 52100, O1, C100, 80CrV2 and W2 contain. 1095 is such an inexpensive steel to buy and HT that Ontario still sells very large 1095 Old Hickory butcher knives for less than $20.

Where is the materials data proving your claim?

 

[KingMC]

From your opening post in this thread:



Where is the materials data proving your claim?

He doesn't understand that to raise edge retention you sacrifice toughness, and vice-versa. He sees alloys as better across the board, which they aren't.

He sees numbers, he ignored logic. You aren't going to get any further with him than you've already got.

 

[RX-79G]

Here's threads that talk around the issue:
http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/forum/read.php?5,8886
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/396839-Carbon-V-Steel-vs-1095-Steel
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...owen-ESEE-Ka-Bar-Russell-Green-River-or-other

Dunno where you're going to dig up charpy tests or anything else.

I have a Carbon V blade and some unheat treated Carbon V blanks, if you really want to put this to the test. Just have to find someone who knows the right formula for 50100b heat treat.


Or we could compare Busse SR101 (52100) to Rowen 1095.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Oh hey--look. This source states that Si may be added to low, medium, or high carbon steels within the 10xx designation within specified ranges. Over 1025 states a tolerance range of either 0.10/0.20, or 0.15/0.30

So yeah, I'd say that C100 is chemically identical to 1095. It just has a specified Si content where 1095 may or may not have it and still be given the designation.

 

[RX-79G]

He doesn't understand that to raise edge retention you sacrifice toughness, and vice-versa. He sees alloys as better across the board, which they aren't.

He sees numbers, he ignored logic. You aren't going to get any further with him than you've already got.

The logic is that for a given alloy, you can't raise edge retention without lowering toughness, but alloys allow you to improve both qualities compared to base steel.


By your standard, 3V wouldn't be known for both edge retention and toughness. Yet it is. To a lesser degree, most of the low alloy high carbon steels do the same thing, because 1095 is at a disadvantage having no alloying elements. The best structure it can produce with the extra carbon is cemetite, while the alloys can make smaller, more uniform carbides.


I don't know why that is hard to understand. All steels have a trade off, but 1095 to low-alloy is cost, nothing else. This is just like comparing lead acid to alkaline batteries - the only trade off is price. The alkalines hold more juice because they are made of (dare I say it) better stuff.

 

[KingMC]

Or we could compare Busse SR101 (52100) to Rowen 1095.

Proprietary heat treats on both make them special cases of both steels, unless you're saying that Busse's SR101 performs identical to regular CarbonV, a statement that many-a Busse fan will be glad to refute.

 

[Fanglekai]

Clearly, 1095 is perfectly capable of making a quality knife. The same could be said of 1070. 1095 is a very inexpensive steel, containing little more than iron, carbon and manganese. It contains enough carbon to make it hypereutectoid, so it will form simple carbides. But it does not have any of the minor alloying ingredients that raise the edge stability, toughness and edge retention that even low alloy steels like 1095CV, 52100, O1, C100, 80CrV2 and W2 contain. 1095 is such an inexpensive steel to buy and HT that Ontario still sells very large 1095 Old Hickory butcher knives for less than $20.

Here's threads that talk around the issue:
http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/forum/read.php?5,8886
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/396839-Carbon-V-Steel-vs-1095-Steel
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...owen-ESEE-Ka-Bar-Russell-Green-River-or-other

Dunno where you're going to dig up charpy tests or anything else.

I have a Carbon V blade and some unheat treated Carbon V blanks, if you really want to put this to the test. Just have to find someone who knows the right formula for 50100b heat treat.


Or we could compare Busse SR101 (52100) to Rowen 1095.

You specifically said 1095CV has increased edge stability, toughness, and edge retention over 1095. I perused your links. None showed any testing results. Where is the materials data you are referencing to come to that conclusion?

 

[Mecha]

This source states that a Si content of 0.15-.35 is typical for plain and alloy carbon steels. Also, this manufacturer doesn't list Si in the formulation, but states below it that "Silicon - typical range is 0.15% to 0.35% Alternate ranges should be agreed upon between purchaser and supplier."

This makes me question if it is something considered allowable in the specifications of 1095, but not actually considered a required part of the designation.

Thanks FortyTwo, that's what I was trying to say earlier. That as far as I know, trace amounts of silicon are like a byproduct left over in making steel, although they do affect the mechanical properties, like all the trace elements do. It's not like adding tungsten or chromium as an alloying element. But even the tiny trace elements get weird, such as the fraction of a percentage of niobium added to pretty much all structural steel, which greatly increases it's strength.

Mete! Come save us!

I'm dome with the argument, just think 1095 is totally worth using to make nice/pricey knives as well as cheap knives.

 

[RX-79G]

You specifically said 1095CV has increased edge stability, toughness, and edge retention over 1095. I perused your links. None showed any testing results. Where is the materials data you are referencing to come to that conclusion?

I already said I don't have any testing results. I said the links "talk around" the issue.

Frankly, you guys are the ones making the extraordinary claim: That one competent heat treater can make a simple steel outperform every other competent heat treaters alloy steels. Its an exciting idea, I just don't see where you are getting it from.

Why do you guys think alloy steels exist?

 

[Fanglekai]

I already said I don't have any testing results. I said the links "talk around" the issue.

Frankly, you guys are the ones making the extraordinary claim: That one competent heat treater can make a simple steel outperform every other competent heat treaters alloy steels. Its an exciting idea, I just don't see where you are getting it from.

Why do you guys think alloy steels exist?

I am talking about one specific point. If you can't prove your claim that 1095cv has increased edge stability, toughness and edge retention over 1095, why did you make it?

 

[RX-79G]

Oh hey--look. This source states that Si may be added to low, medium, or high carbon steels within the 10xx designation within specified ranges. Over 1025 states a tolerance range of either 0.10/0.20, or 0.15/0.30

So yeah, I'd say that C100 is chemically identical to 1095. It just has a specified Si content where 1095 may or may not have it and still be given the designation.

Very true. The only problem is, as a knife buyer, you don't know which version of 1095 you're getting. Maybe the C100 designation came about because it removed the guesswork as to what's in the steel?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Thanks FortyTwo, that's what I was trying to say earlier. That as far as I know, trace amounts of silicon are like a byproduct left over in making steel, although they do affect the mechanical properties, like all the trace elements do. It's not like adding tungsten or chromium as an alloying element. But even the tiny trace elements get weird, such as the fraction of a percentage of niobium added to pretty much all structural steel, which greatly increases it's strength.

Mete! Come save us!

I'm dome with the argument, just think 1095 is totally worth using to make nice/pricey knives as well as cheap knives.

Yup! The more digging I do, the more sources state acceptable ranges of Si for 10xx series steels, and for stuff on the upper end of the spectrum the levels stated for C100 fit the bill. The Euro C-series designation is just pickier about stating the level than SAE/AISI, apparently.

 

[RX-79G]

I am talking about one specific point. If you can't prove your claim that 1095cv has increased edge stability, toughness and edge retention over 1095, why did you make it?

Because it is basic material science, not an opinion or internet rumor. Vanadium carbides and chromium carbides are tougher with greater edge stability, when heat treated right. And alloying elements allow the steel to be quenched in a less violent way, resulting in fewer microcracks and internal stressors.

You don't get something for nothing. You can't take the ingredients out of a cake and get the same cake. As I said, the claim that 1095 can match a comparable alloy steel is the improbable claim, not the other way around.

 

[KingMC]

The logic is that for a given alloy, you can't raise edge retention without lowering toughness, but alloys allow you to improve both qualities compared to base steel.

See, that's not true. Adding alloys makes a steel more brittle, which is why the simple carbon steels like 1055 and 1075 are used for chopping and hard-use tools that don't need a razor edge, it's because while they have weak edge retention (compared to fancier alloys) they have a higher toughness. Once you step up to 1095 you get better edge retention compared to 1055 but it's more brittle too, so less toughness. Once you add the CV to 1095 you get even better edge retention for even more brittleness, which means 1095cv is less tough than 1095.

By your standard, 3V wouldn't be known for both edge retention and toughness. Yet it is. To a lesser degree, most of the low alloy high carbon steels do the same thing, because 1095 is at a disadvantage having no alloying elements. The best structure it can produce with the extra carbon is cemetite, while the alloys can make smaller, more uniform carbides.

3V might be known for edge retention in the world of tough steels (like 1095, O1, W2, etc.), but all it takes is an exploration into the world of stainless alloys and you get quite a bit more edge retention for even the simpler alloys, with similar powdered alloys bringing in fantastic edge retention like S30v and S35vn. So why don't those stainless steels outperform 3V? because they're brittle, they sacrificed toughness for edge retention. They hold an edge better than 3V, but you can't beat the crap out of them like you can with 3V. M390 outperforms 3V all day in edge retention, why not just have a camp knife in M390?

I don't know why that is hard to understand. All steels have a trade off, but 1095 to low-alloy is cost, nothing else. This is just like comparing lead acid to alkaline batteries - the only trade off is price. The alkalines hold more juice because they are made of (dare I say it) better stuff.

You make no sense because you're wrong: 1095 is tougher than all your other alloys, but it can't hold an edge because it's a simple carbon steel. You can't just add elements for better performance across the board, it doesn't work that way. Each extra element you add removes from at least 1 aspect of a blade: toughness or edge retention, can't have a steel that holds an edge forever AND you can pry locks apart with AND won't rust. If it existed Busse would already be using it in everything.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Very true. The only problem is, as a knife buyer, you don't know which version of 1095 you're getting. Maybe the C100 designation came about because it removed the guesswork as to what's in the steel?

Regardless, C100 meets the specifications of the 1095 designation. It's sort of a rectangle vs. square circumstance, and for the purposes of this discussion you chose to talk about rectangles rather than squares. All C100 will be 1095, but not all 1095 will be C100, at least by what I'm finding.

 

[RX-79G]

See, that's not true. Adding alloys makes a steel more brittle, which is why the simple carbon steels like 1055 and 1075 are used for chopping and hard-use tools that don't need a razor edge, it's because while they have weak edge retention (compared to fancier alloys) they have a higher toughness. Once you step up to 1095 you get better edge retention compared to 1055 but it's more brittle too, so less toughness. Once you add the CV to 1095 you get even better edge retention for even more brittleness, which means 1095cv is less tough than 1095.





3V might be known for edge retention in the world of tough steels (like 1095, O1, W2, etc.), but all it takes is an exploration into the world of stainless alloys and you get quite a bit more edge retention for even the simpler alloys, with similar powdered alloys bringing in fantastic edge retention like S30v and S35vn. So why don't those stainless steels outperform 3V? because they're brittle, they sacrificed toughness for edge retention. They hold an edge better than 3V, but you can't beat the crap out of them like you can with 3V. M390 outperforms 3V all day in edge retention, why not just have a camp knife in M390?



You make no sense because you're wrong: 1095 is tougher than all your other alloys, but it can't hold an edge because it's a simple carbon steel. You can't just add elements for better performance across the board, it doesn't work that way. Each extra element you add removes from at least 1 aspect of a blade: toughness or edge retention, can't have a steel that holds an edge forever AND you can pry locks apart with AND won't rust. If it existed Busse would already be using it in everything.

Again, 1095 is not know for its toughness. Lower carbon steels are known for toughness and alloyed steels are known for toughness. At a given hardness, 1095 will be less tough than 1070, 52100, A2, S7 or 3V. At that hardness, 52100, A2 and 3V will hold an edge better.


I think you've heard something so often that you've believed it without any reason involved. Hypereutectoid steels sacrifice toughness for edge holding because the edge is full of carbide. 1095 makes a crude carbide. 52100 makes a finer carbide and finer resulting grain. Grain is where toughness comes from in the low alloy and basic steels. 1070 is tough because it doesn't have enough carbon to make any carbides. 1050 is even tougher because there is so little carbon that some spongy free iron is floating in the matrix.


Do you understand what carbides are?

 

[RX-79G]

Regardless, C100 meets the specifications of the 1095 designation. It's sort of a rectangle vs. square circumstance, and for the purposes of this discussion you chose to talk about rectangles rather than squares. All C100 will be 1095, but not all 1095 will be C100, at least by what I'm finding.

That's entirely fair. I was making the point that when you buy a Mora you get Si, because that's what C100 always has. When you buy an ESEE you may or may not Si, because it isn't required in the designation.

I know some folks always buy Aldo's 1095 because it has Si in it.