Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

[PatrickKnight]

You seem to both understand the problem, and have misread or not read anything I said about it.


1095 is a very good steel. Of high carbon steels, it gets the job done for the least amount of money. An inexpensive steel.

Low alloy steels like 52100 are better (not best), but cost slightly more. They may be a better choice for knives that aren't inexpensive, since they offer a performance upgrade over 10XX steels but aren't particularly expensive as materials or to work with over 1095. A simple upgrade for a mid to upper priced knife.

CPM 3V is one of the very best carbon steels. It costs a lot to both buy and make knives out of. You should knot expect to find it on less expensive knives.


Which of those statements do you object to?

I think you might be surprised at the additional wear on belts and other equipment when using 52100 vs 1095. I might not be a lot for a custom maker making 10 knives a week but for a production company makes hundreds per week I would bet that for a 10-15% increase in steel cost you would end up with around a 30-35 dollar increase in the final knife cost for a 100-120 dollar knife. This takes that same knife that would be right at 100 and puts its at around 130 given all the same materials only the upgrade from 1095 to 52100.

Also aside from corrosion resistance I would put good 52100 vs good 3V any day. Going from 1095 to 52100 should give a fair gain in performance but I honestly think that gap is much less when going from 52100 to 3V.

 

[sirupatespecial]

Don't object to any of those statements. What mass produced manufacturer is selling "pricier" knives in 1095? Do I think Esee is "worth" what they charge? Well I don't own one. There are a whole lot of people who believe they are. I'm not researching it. Maybe you have other companies in mind?

One of my pricier knives I traded for. It is 5160 and was originally bought on the exchange here. Robert Hankins was the maker. Don't know what happened to Mr. Hankins. He seemed to sell everything pretty quickly here. Tough, hard working knife. "Tactical Knife" I guess you'd call it. It's my only "tactical" fixed blade. I like it. Of course 5160 is a lesser steel. Seems to work pretty well on all those Kukuri's though.

Anyway. For "pricier" knives, whatever that means, I don't think most "people" here like it anymore than other steels. Do you have any group of people in mind when you mention "people" in your OP?

 

[Insipid Moniker]

I think you might be surprised at the additional wear on belts and other equipment when using 52100 vs 1095. I might not be a lot for a custom maker making 10 knives a week but for a production company makes hundreds per week I would bet that for a 10-15% increase in steel cost you would end up with around a 30-35 dollar increase in the final knife cost for a 100-120 dollar knife. This takes that same knife that would be right at 100 and puts its at around 130 given all the same materials only the upgrade from 1095 to 52100.

Also aside from corrosion resistance I would put good 52100 vs good 3V any day. Going from 1095 to 52100 should give a fair gain in performance but I honestly think that gap is much less when going from 52100 to 3V.

I'm not sure about that. 52100 gives up a lot of toughness to 3V at the same hardness. Corrosion resistance, too. I'm honestly completely satisfied with either one in the woods, but all other things being equal I'll take the 3V all day long over the 52100.

 

[RX-79G]

I think you might be surprised at the additional wear on belts and other equipment when using 52100 vs 1095. I might not be a lot for a custom maker making 10 knives a week but for a production company makes hundreds per week I would bet that for a 10-15% increase in steel cost you would end up with around a 30-35 dollar increase in the final knife cost for a 100-120 dollar knife. This takes that same knife that would be right at 100 and puts its at around 130 given all the same materials only the upgrade from 1095 to 52100.

Also aside from corrosion resistance I would put good 52100 vs good 3V any day. Going from 1095 to 52100 should give a fair gain in performance but I honestly think that gap is much less when going from 52100 to 3V.

Bluntcut's post #140 addresses belts:

Grind annealed steel is easy over all. Where 1095 & 80CrV2 are easiest => W2 => 52100 => 01 => A2 => 3V => D2.

So your steel choice matters for belt wear, but many of the steels we're talking about aren't bad because of annealing - and it sounds like 80CrV2 is a wash with 1095. I would bet 1095CV/50100b is somewhere around W2, but I've only ground 50100b, so I can't compare.

 

[RX-79G]

Don't object to any of those statements. What mass produced manufacturer is selling "pricier" knives in 1095? Do I think Esee is "worth" what they charge? Well I don't own one. There are a whole lot of people who believe they are. I'm not researching it. Maybe you have other companies in mind?

One of my pricier knives I traded for. It is 5160 and was originally bought on the exchange here. Robert Hankins was the maker. Don't know what happened to Mr. Hankins. He seemed to sell everything pretty quickly here. Tough, hard working knife. "Tactical Knife" I guess you'd call it. It's my only "tactical" fixed blade. I like it. Of course 5160 is a lesser steel. Seems to work pretty well on all those Kukuri's though.

Anyway. For "pricier" knives, whatever that means, I don't think most "people" here like it anymore than other steels. Do you have any group of people in mind when you mention "people" in your OP?

Mostly, people here on the forum who comment on 1095 a lot in reference to ESEE, Tops, Ritter, etc. The Ritter is a particularly good example because it is pretty much a Becker, but costs more.

The reverence for 1095 is strange, to me. 1084, the AEBL of carbon steel, seems a little bit more 'magic'.

 

[jdm61]

W1 is closest to being VERY CLEAN 1095. W2 is that steel with a little bit of vanadium added in the .15-.25% range. It can also have "trace' amount of other desirable alloying/adulterating elements like chromium, silicon and nickel, typically under .1 % and very low levels of the undesirable ones, sulphur and phosphorous. There are those who say the amount of vanadium is so small that it only controls grain growth. I may disagree a tiny bit. I do know that W2 at 62Rc is going to have significantly more abrasion resistance than 1095 at 57 ben without taking into account what the vanadium might do. With that said, what the vanadium does at a minimum do by controlling aus-grain size is make for better fine edge stability. I'm not sure what you mean by W2 not "taking as good a lamination" but there are a number of people who make damascus using W2. The only gripe is that it has only about 40% or so of the manganese of 1084, 108, etc so it doesn't have the internet ability to etch as dark. The optimum "dark" plain carbon steel for damascus is probably O2 as far as etching goes, but we can't get that stuff in the US.

The difference in performance between W1, W2 and 1095 from the same maker with proper equipment and procedure are very little to the point that most people wouldn't ever notice...

I have worked with all of these steel... clay hardening hamon line are pretty much the same but W1 or W2 won't take as good lamination as 1095 because of the vanadium.

"Maximizing the performance of knives through alloy selection" is just laughable... better to say maximizing the performance through heat treatment and education are primary important

 

[jdm61]

3V is strange stuff. My experience is that you get pretty much the same heat buildup grinding it in an annealed state as in a hardened state.

Bluntcut's post #140 addresses belts:



So your steel choice matters for belt wear, but many of the steels we're talking about aren't bad because of annealing - and it sounds like 80CrV2 is a wash with 1095. I would bet 1095CV/50100b is somewhere around W2, but I've only ground 50100b, so I can't compare.

 

[jdm61]

Almost all steels give up toughness compared to 3V. 3V tempered at low temps and cryoed immediately out of the quench can act rather differently than the stuff tempered at high temps. The low temp stuff supposedly has significantly more corrosion resistance and may not experience the degree of drop-off in toughness going from 58 to 60Rc because cryo appears to be more effective at reducing RA than chasing that secondary hardening hump. . With that said, 52100 can be quite tough if austenized below the "saturation point"

I'm not sure about that. 52100 gives up a lot of toughness to 3V at the same hardness. Corrosion resistance, too. I'm honestly completely satisfied with either one in the woods, but all other things being equal I'll take the 3V all day long over the 52100.

 

[craytab]

A couple thoughts. The guy doesn't use his own photos as evidence. He clearly has something against Esee. It is pointless to discuss anything with him. And last, why is anyone still feeding into this thread?

 

[RX-79G]

Almost all steels give up toughness compared to 3V. 3V tempered at low temps and cryoed immediately out of the quench can act rather differently than the stuff tempered at high temps. The low temp stuff supposedly has significantly more corrosion resistance and may not experience the degree of drop-off in toughness going from 58 to 60Rc because cryo appears to be more effective at reducing RA than chasing that secondary hardening hump. . With that said, 52100 can be quite tough if austenized below the "saturation point"

What do you think is the toughest at the same hardness (say, 59 Hrc) - 80CrV2, 1084, 52100 or A2? I've seen some tests suggesting A2 is right in 3V's shadow, while 80CrV2 has been described as the best of L6 and 5160.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Almost all steels give up toughness compared to 3V. 3V tempered at low temps and cryoed immediately out of the quench can act rather differently than the stuff tempered at high temps. The low temp stuff supposedly has significantly more corrosion resistance and may not experience the degree of drop-off in toughness going from 58 to 60Rc because cryo appears to be more effective at reducing RA than chasing that secondary hardening hump. . With that said, 52100 can be quite tough if austenized below the "saturation point"

Yeah, either is far more than adequate for my needs, so I'm honestly pretty delighted with either but, given my experience, I think the performance gap between 52100 and 3V is pretty darn significant.

 

[RX-79G]

A couple thoughts. The guy doesn't use his own photos as evidence. He clearly has something against Esee. It is pointless to discuss anything with him. And last, why is anyone still feeding into this thread?

It wasn't evidence, it was satire.

I don't have anything against ESEE, but people keep saying that because ESEE is more popular than Tops and Ritter.

People who actually know what they're talking about seem to converse with me without issue.

 

[RevDevil]

There is far too much sarcasm, personal jabs, veiled and blatant insults, and it's all just trolling. I think we've all had enough of this garbage. Disagreeing amicably is classier and more mature than the things being written so far. I'll say it again, the next series of posts that go this way will be treated as trolling, no more chances, no more warnings, no more polite requests to stay on topic. Arguing ad nausium and ad infinitum about stupid insignificant things won't go over well. Proceed at your own risk.

 

[KingMC]

*Redacted* Sorry Rev, nvm

 

[RX-79G]

Yeah, either is far more than adequate for my needs, so I'm honestly pretty delighted with either but, given my experience, I think the performance gap between 52100 and 3V is pretty darn significant.

It seems to me that they are achieving things in very different ways - 52100 is 97% iron, 3V is only 86%. No wonder it would be a bit of a gap. The low alloys attempt to nudge the steel in the right direction, while the tool steels have the additives running the show. It isn't hard to imagine an alloy that has iron in it but no longer qualifies as "steel" because of how much the other elements control the final product.

 

[brownshoe]

Don't object to any of those statements. What mass produced manufacturer is selling "pricier" knives in 1095?...

Great Eastern Cutlery has a huge following and the heart of their business is 1095. They put even ivory on 1095 slipjoints...lipstick on a pig IMHO

Their are some rabid "traditionalists" who like patina and rust on knives >$150.

 

[nlewman]

I think I get what you're saying. You want something visceral, personal and ultimately meaningless:

My personal favorite:

When reason fails, we always have anecdotes and emotion.

Did esee replace all of those?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Did esee replace all of those?

All but one. That machete in the last picture is an Ontario.

 

[Danke42]

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.

1095 has a certain allure - it has been used in famous military knives, and performed admirably.

It also has the allure of being associated with a number of knives that actually don't use 1095. I have heard 1095 touted as being associated with Mora, Cold Steel Bushman and Becker/KaBar. I'm sure there are others. C100, SK-5 and 1095CV are not 1095.

I think there are also folks that admire the simplicity of 1095, and in a complex world the basic nature of 1095 suits the desire for a straightforward outdoors tool. Instead of debating between A2 and O1, 1095 is viewed as a default.

There is also some discussion of 1095 heat treat. Some folks talk about the HT as if it requires great care or a special recipe. This really isn't the case - unlike steels like D2 and 52100, there is really just one right way to do 1095. It isn't secret and it isn't difficult for a professional to perform.


I have nothing against 1095. All steels excel at something, and 1095 excels at making a tough, sharp knife for relatively little expense. I just don't personally understand why anyone would choose a knife made of 1095 if they are spending into the tool steel price range unless there simply is no other choice to get the features they desire.


I realize this is a controversial viewpoint, but keep in mind that nothing I've written is factually inaccurate. The boys over on the blademakers subforum would not disagree about the relatively simplicity and low cost of grinding and heat treating 1095. It is a very good steel, and there are better.


Please post your thoughts.

People chose 1095 because it works. It has the right combination of toughness to survive hard use and ease of sharpening to continue that use in the field.

The grade of steel is only a small part of the overall price of the knife and the users chose blades with other features that appeal to them like an effective sheath, comfortable scales, an attractive finish or even a well established customer service network. These are well rounded users with a very good idea of what they need and what they like.

It's a common novice mistake to believe that a more expensive material is somehow better and to set off on a journey akin to climbing a mountain where at the peak there is this "best" knife that once they posses it they will be accepted by the community as an expert.

With time comes the knowledge that using and owning knives is more like a trip down a winding river that lets you explore and discover. It'll come as a surprise but many have a quiver of knives in various steels; tool, high carbon, stainless or more exotic from different brands and intended uses.

It's certainly one persons prerogative to treat knife use as a monomaniacal race to the "best" but proselytizing that all others must follow your path is misguided.

 

[JR88FAN]

I think I get what you're saying. You want something visceral, personal and ultimately meaningless:

My personal favorite:

When reason fails, we always have anecdotes and emotion.

This means zero.

It's steel, it can fail.

Whether is was used beyond it's limits or there was a manufacturing issue with these examples, it happens to everything we make, not just knife steels.

Out of context pictures with no story behind them do not account for a negative, especially when you take into account how many knives out there are made using 1095.