KingMC
The Pun-isher
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11,600
You make me laugh
-
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.
Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?
- Thread starter RX-79G
- Start date
- Status
You make me laugh
What, did your god whisper this truth in your ear? Post a link, man.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 537
Well heck. Personally, I like these kind of threads. I can tell you what happens on other websites. There comes a consensus based on older posters biases, experiences etc. and based on number of posts and consensus of a very few members, plus past threads the replies will be limited to...20 or so and then the thread will be shut down as "asked and answered", debunked(?) and the go to answer, "you're an idiot".
Pretty much all discussions begin with some type of bias. I'm kinda happy this thread hasn't been shut down. The OP seems like he has a pretty good knowledge of steels. As far as "Production Knives" and their costs I would probably defer to Forty Two Blades as far as what is actually marketable and cost effective.
As far as my opinion(whatever it's worth). Buy what you like. Occasionally there is a poll offered here, something like, "What is your favorite knife steel" And 1095 always wins. That's gotta be worth something. I'm pretty sure a majority of members here are not entirely ignorant of knives and knife steel. As a matter of fact(opinion?) I'd say the members here are more educated on knives than 99% of the general population.
Pretty much all discussions begin with some type of bias. I'm kinda happy this thread hasn't been shut down. The OP seems like he has a pretty good knowledge of steels. As far as "Production Knives" and their costs I would probably defer to Forty Two Blades as far as what is actually marketable and cost effective.
As far as my opinion(whatever it's worth). Buy what you like. Occasionally there is a poll offered here, something like, "What is your favorite knife steel" And 1095 always wins. That's gotta be worth something. I'm pretty sure a majority of members here are not entirely ignorant of knives and knife steel. As a matter of fact(opinion?) I'd say the members here are more educated on knives than 99% of the general population.
Is that what whispered in your ear?
Or are you saying because they chose inexpensive 1095 for the machete, it must be the toughest carbon steel???
All carbon steels are "tough" compared to most stainless steels, but in the good, better, best categorization, 1095 is good. For a less expensive steel, 5160 is much, much tougher. 52100 is like 5160, but gets harder.
Look, you haven't offered a single reason for your beliefs in this entire thread. The ability to sound imperious is not a replacement for being able to demonstrate knowledge or reason.
KingMC
The Pun-isher
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11,600
You mustve forgotten what I was referring to.
Yes it is, anybody who has used the 18in Ontario (and there are many) can tell you it is incredibly tough. Your argument of it being the weakest carbon steel is hilarious
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 25,970
At high hardness he's right. 1095 is brittle compared to many other steels when run hard. There are lots of very tough 1095 blades out there, but they're all done at lower hardness to prevent them from being brittle. This is one of the reasons I often tell folks that even though Condor uses 1075 for their blades there won't be a significant perceptible difference between it and 1095 at its given hardness range. Although with careful testing you could, of course, measure some differences, it wouldn't be much.
Thank you. I thought I was trapped in a Kafka novel.
KingMC
The Pun-isher
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11,600
I owned an Ontario 18in machete for as long as I had the need, one one camping trip I batoned it through a 10" round, me holding 1 end and my brother using a 10lb log to bash on the other end. It bent at a 20° angle in the middle and twisted laterally as well as it made it's way through the round and around the knots, yet it survived without nary a scratch. We proceeded to do that 20 more times and yet it was still just as straight as before and still was sharp enough to make a feather stick.
We did this again on a different trip but in sub-freezing temperatures, it survived without a dent.
You want my beliefs? I believe you only care about numbers and don't actually have any real life experience dictating your thoughts, until you get some you're just some number-crunching know-it-all who only cares about being 'technically right' instead of actually knowing anything valuable.
You can't learn anything of value from one anecdotal experience. If your machete was made of 52100, it would have held up just as well at higher hardness. But you don't have a 52100 machete to compare it with, so you've decided you have the finest machete on earth from your sample size of one (1).
I don't understand why you fail to see the problem with that. Or why you think 42 and I are lying to you. Or any of the other reference materials you have chosen not to read.
KingMC
The Pun-isher
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11,600
My personal experiences can't prove anything, but your number-crunching without any personal experiences can?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 25,970
Ontario's machetes are thick and while run at low hardness for what 1095 is capable of achieving, they're nearly too hard for a machete. When I do modifications on them (I've done many in the past) I have to be extra careful when cutting them down to size because of it. My usual method when cutting down machete blades is to go most of the way through the blade with a cutoff wheel and then lock the "waste" end in a vise and snap off the piece. When I try that method with Ontario machetes they snap well more than an inch lower than the deeply scored line.
BluntCut MetalWorks
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 3,462
Lath martensite and grain size are 2 key variables behind toughness. Free iron is plain ductile (very narrow elastic zone => low yield point, so ain't tough) however if iron is well intersperse through out the matrix, which would help increase impact load.
Regardless of carbide type & size, it doesn't help with edge stability. Contiguous lath martensite lattice is much more stable than martensite with carbide inclusion because interface between martensite and carbide is weaker than pure lattice. Instability is proportional to carbide size.
With good ht, you can produce fine(sub 300nm dia) cementite/fe3c for 1095/52100/W2/so-on. 1095/52100/W2 (from Aldo) general produce around 3% carbide volume, so it's similar to 3V (2.7-3%cv), Aeb-L (2%-3%), except the latters have more alloying elements. 3V carbide size is actually quite large ~2-4um, so particle count is actually lower than finer carbide aebl/1095/52100/w2.
CrxCy / VC / WC / NbC / MoxCy have lower friability (i.e. stronger) than Fe3C (cementite), that's why other carbides are more wear resistant.
Quenching isn't a violent steel internal transformation, if you know why & how to produce orderly transformation. What you hear from quenching could be just steel thermal contraction (dimensional) from symphony of bazillion crystals. Otoh, if aust matrix is already in high dislocation/distressed - yeah quenching is probably will end up violent - crystals & grains crashing onto-each-other + probably crack interfaces between particles and matrix.
Regardless of carbide type & size, it doesn't help with edge stability. Contiguous lath martensite lattice is much more stable than martensite with carbide inclusion because interface between martensite and carbide is weaker than pure lattice. Instability is proportional to carbide size.
With good ht, you can produce fine(sub 300nm dia) cementite/fe3c for 1095/52100/W2/so-on. 1095/52100/W2 (from Aldo) general produce around 3% carbide volume, so it's similar to 3V (2.7-3%cv), Aeb-L (2%-3%), except the latters have more alloying elements. 3V carbide size is actually quite large ~2-4um, so particle count is actually lower than finer carbide aebl/1095/52100/w2.
CrxCy / VC / WC / NbC / MoxCy have lower friability (i.e. stronger) than Fe3C (cementite), that's why other carbides are more wear resistant.
Quenching isn't a violent steel internal transformation, if you know why & how to produce orderly transformation. What you hear from quenching could be just steel thermal contraction (dimensional) from symphony of bazillion crystals. Otoh, if aust matrix is already in high dislocation/distressed - yeah quenching is probably will end up violent - crystals & grains crashing onto-each-other + probably crack interfaces between particles and matrix.
I didn't find it lacking. Like many people, I've used different knives outside and got excellent results with both basic and higher end steels. I just got better results when using the nicer steels, which isn't that surprising because that's why there ARE better steels in the first place.
KingMC
The Pun-isher
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 11,600
So what is the point of this thread, then? 1095 is good, other steels are worse or better respectively. Everybody knows this already. You only seem intent on proving everybody's opinions either false or irrelevant.
I had thought dimensional stability during quenching was part of the appeal of medium quench steels like O1. If the steel is changing shape rapidly due to the thermal shock of brine or fast quench oil, does that not increase the likelihood of internal stresses?
I realize a lot of that comes out during tempering, but I did think that slower quench steels survived quenching more often.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 537
Ummmmmm.......Yes?
Who here doesn't know there are "better" steels than 1095? Theoretically...numbers wise...chemistry.....practically(maybe. maybe not.)
Many things to discuss and only one post to do it in.
First, people use 1095 and buy 1095 in expensive blades often enough that makers think it's worth it to keep using it. Its no more complicated than that. Knife nuts buy it, so knife makers/manufacturers make it. There are some aesthetic things like hamons and such that, while not unique to 1095, are easy enough to do repeatably that it is a feature of that steel. Then there's the brand name phenomenon. When buying TOPS and some other more expensive knives in 1095, you're paying for the name, not the steel. There were also some knives posted where the price was clearly irrelevant to the steel and was almost solely determined by the skill of the maker and appearance.
I must admit that I have wondered from a makers perspective why 1095 was used. It has very low hardenability (see above as a feature in some cases), and can be somewhat cantankerous to work with. On the other hand, it has a huge range of properties, ranging from small detail cutters all the way to large choppers with just one steel, and varying the heat treatment.
I for one would choose a large workhorse chopper in 1095 over one in 3V. The wear resistance doesn't help when those knives typically dull from things wear resistance won't overcome. Now, a large 3V toy, that's another story. But I wouldn't be cutting roots and firewood with that.
The grain size of 1095 will be slightly larger, perhaps overlapping, than the alloys with small amounts of alloying elements in them, such as 1095CrV. The elements there are for hardenability (Cr) and carbides and solution elements (V) to pin grain boundaries during heat treating. This prevents excess grain growth should temperatures be a little less controlled than ideal, which happens. The same goes for W2 (V), 80CrV2 and similar alloys. The elements are primarily there to deal with heat treating issues (make it easier), and can offer some performance benefits. However, in a blind test on 2 blades of 2 of those steels, in hand testing, the differences would be extremely difficult to tell. When one discusses grain size, the processing of the steels must be considered, as it can take a steel from an ASTM size 8 to 15 with heat treatment alone, in simple steels, though that processing typically adds cost and is mostly the realm of individual makers for knives.
Whether 1095 is tougher than 52100 and other low alloy steels mentioned in the initial post is almost solely determined by heat treatment particulars. 52100 has the benefit of Cr for easier hardening (less drastic quench), but also has a larger carbide volume, slightly, which reduces toughness. Carbide volume, and a host of other things, can be altered over a huge range with heat treatment. ESEEs 1095 is tough enough to withstand full swings into rocks without cracking. I've seen 52100 do the same. Lowering the carbon content (80CrV2) increases toughness, but adding carbide formers (Cr, V) increases carbide volume. Were one to test a variety of makers steels in a variety of those low alloys listed (W2, 1095, O1, 52100, 1095Crv), a trend might come out of it, but I think it likely the differences, while there, would be so small that the values for different steels would bounce around each other until a LARGE sample was done and a reliable average could be reached. 52100 is like 5160 only so far as both are chromium based low alloy steels; beyond that, it gets to be pretty different. Moving into the 52100 range of low alloy steels and up will start to show better wear resistance. Whether that makes them better steels for knives depends on what the knives are intended to do and how they are used. As I said above, I'd take a big dirty job kinda chopper in 1095 over 3V, but I'd choose 5160 or something similar if not limited to just those choices.
Virtually all steels have some Si in them left over from steel making, even if it's not listed. Many steels have aluminum too, but it's almost never listed, as it's not added to the steel to make it do it's job, its just added to make steel. If you dig hard enough, sometimes you'll find tin, copper, calcium, and a whole host of other tramp elements. They can be an influence, but they're not listed by the steel makers because they're not always added on purpose. A lot of steel is recycled now, and that has become an influence as well as leftover elements from steel making.
First, people use 1095 and buy 1095 in expensive blades often enough that makers think it's worth it to keep using it. Its no more complicated than that. Knife nuts buy it, so knife makers/manufacturers make it. There are some aesthetic things like hamons and such that, while not unique to 1095, are easy enough to do repeatably that it is a feature of that steel. Then there's the brand name phenomenon. When buying TOPS and some other more expensive knives in 1095, you're paying for the name, not the steel. There were also some knives posted where the price was clearly irrelevant to the steel and was almost solely determined by the skill of the maker and appearance.
I must admit that I have wondered from a makers perspective why 1095 was used. It has very low hardenability (see above as a feature in some cases), and can be somewhat cantankerous to work with. On the other hand, it has a huge range of properties, ranging from small detail cutters all the way to large choppers with just one steel, and varying the heat treatment.
I for one would choose a large workhorse chopper in 1095 over one in 3V. The wear resistance doesn't help when those knives typically dull from things wear resistance won't overcome. Now, a large 3V toy, that's another story. But I wouldn't be cutting roots and firewood with that.
The grain size of 1095 will be slightly larger, perhaps overlapping, than the alloys with small amounts of alloying elements in them, such as 1095CrV. The elements there are for hardenability (Cr) and carbides and solution elements (V) to pin grain boundaries during heat treating. This prevents excess grain growth should temperatures be a little less controlled than ideal, which happens. The same goes for W2 (V), 80CrV2 and similar alloys. The elements are primarily there to deal with heat treating issues (make it easier), and can offer some performance benefits. However, in a blind test on 2 blades of 2 of those steels, in hand testing, the differences would be extremely difficult to tell. When one discusses grain size, the processing of the steels must be considered, as it can take a steel from an ASTM size 8 to 15 with heat treatment alone, in simple steels, though that processing typically adds cost and is mostly the realm of individual makers for knives.
Whether 1095 is tougher than 52100 and other low alloy steels mentioned in the initial post is almost solely determined by heat treatment particulars. 52100 has the benefit of Cr for easier hardening (less drastic quench), but also has a larger carbide volume, slightly, which reduces toughness. Carbide volume, and a host of other things, can be altered over a huge range with heat treatment. ESEEs 1095 is tough enough to withstand full swings into rocks without cracking. I've seen 52100 do the same. Lowering the carbon content (80CrV2) increases toughness, but adding carbide formers (Cr, V) increases carbide volume. Were one to test a variety of makers steels in a variety of those low alloys listed (W2, 1095, O1, 52100, 1095Crv), a trend might come out of it, but I think it likely the differences, while there, would be so small that the values for different steels would bounce around each other until a LARGE sample was done and a reliable average could be reached. 52100 is like 5160 only so far as both are chromium based low alloy steels; beyond that, it gets to be pretty different. Moving into the 52100 range of low alloy steels and up will start to show better wear resistance. Whether that makes them better steels for knives depends on what the knives are intended to do and how they are used. As I said above, I'd take a big dirty job kinda chopper in 1095 over 3V, but I'd choose 5160 or something similar if not limited to just those choices.
Virtually all steels have some Si in them left over from steel making, even if it's not listed. Many steels have aluminum too, but it's almost never listed, as it's not added to the steel to make it do it's job, its just added to make steel. If you dig hard enough, sometimes you'll find tin, copper, calcium, and a whole host of other tramp elements. They can be an influence, but they're not listed by the steel makers because they're not always added on purpose. A lot of steel is recycled now, and that has become an influence as well as leftover elements from steel making.
Last edited:
- Status