Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've seen 1095 bar stock for as little as $4.00 for a 1-1/2"x1/8"x12" bar. This steel is common and it has been around since the 1930s. It's easily machinable from what I can tell. I've seen YouTube videos of hobbyists using hand-held belt sanders clamped by a vice to shape the steel. I doubt they were using ceramic belts, probably off-the-shelf Home Depot belts. Heat treatment and tempering? Again, I've seen guys using a blow torch. That's probably extreme DIY, but the point is that's all it took.

I suspect 1095 is still being used because it has a long history, grandpa knew how to use it, it's easy to machine, and it's inexpensive. All that equals a low cost knife. There is nothing special about his steel, it has no advantage except its incumbency and up-front low cost and low cost of production.

I was researching D3 tool steel the other day. That steel has a complicated heat-treatment and tempering procedure. A user would need to be experienced to actually do the heat treatment correctly, let alone achieve fantastic results time after time. 1095? Not so much, novices are doing it in their garages.
 
RX-79G said:
And I'll save you the rest of your objections - there are no two knives made by different companies that are identical - totally preventing any sort of perfect comparison of dollar to value between them.
Click to expand...

Great. So there is no point to this endless arguing.

RX-79G said:
If you feel this means you've "won", please enjoy your victory with my compliments.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

trevitrace said:
This is pre-Boris Boris, right?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Mecha said:
Most of the price of a pricey knife isn't the steel's cost, it's all the work that goes into it (including complicated heat treatments for some of those complex alloys). No reason a great steel like 1095 shouldn't be turned into a really nice knife with a price that reflects the work it takes to make it.
Click to expand...

^This. And all the "extras". So damn simple.
 
There's truth in the old saying "you get what you pay for" but people often make the mistake of equating more money with higher quality. The more dollars you have to spend on a product, the more you're able to allocate those dollars towards various features and their corresponding benefits. Some of those features may be in the form of upgraded materials, such as fancier steels, handle material, sheath materials, etc., while some of those features may be based around processes, like improved fit and finish, heat treatment, or more complex/involved machining, or the features may be based in intangibles or aesthetics, such as ornamentation and decorative elements, famous designer cachet, country of origin, and the fundamental quality or appropriateness of the design itself.

Now, I can easily spend more money on things that don't materially improve performance. Benjamin Franklin was right when he said "There never was a good knife made of bad steel" but I like to add that he forgot to mention that many a bad knife is made of good steel, and many an exceptional knife is made of "good enough" steel. When looking at the value of a design, steel is only one of the aspects I look at, and I look at it in two stages by relative priority. First and foremost I look at the overall form factor of the piece because the fundamental design is the foundation on which all else is laid. Then I look at the general steel class to make sure it's an appropriate choice for the design and its intended context of use. Then I look at things like the sheath, fit/finish, finer aspects of the design, fastener types used, locking mechanism, etc. etc. with the specific steel used being one of the very last things that I look at. If the price paid for the whole seems fair, then I'm happy. So it's very possible to make an excellent knife in a "pricier" model that still uses simple 1095 and is a fair value because of all of the other important factors that contribute to price.
 
Like ANY of you guys are going to go into deep woods for days and break your knife because it was only "X" steel, but "Y" steel would have saved it.....

1095 is a good knife steel. So are the others.

Not to take sides here but, IMO, CroVan is not 1095. With all of the examples of extremely minute additions of different elements creating a totally different steel, you can't single out CroVan and say it's the same as 1095. If the addition of .0004% of element "Y" turns steel "Z" into new steel "A", then CroVan isn't 1095 either.

Who'd have thunk there were so many ways to get lost in minutia with such base things as knives.... :applause:
 
I prefer something a bit more corrosion resistant than 1095. Another thing to keep in mind is the knife maker's skill working with a particular steel and more importantly, his heat treat protocol.

If the maker doesn't work with a steel you like, it may not be the best idea to ask him to make something in that steel.

I look at the steel, shape, grinds, heat treat, and let the maker play to their strengths.
 
EChoil said:
Like ANY of you guys are going to go into deep woods for days and break your knife because it was only "X" steel, but "Y" steel would have saved it.....

1095 is a good knife steel. So are the others.

Not to take sides here but, IMO, CroVan is not 1095. With all of the examples of extremely minute additions of different elements creating a totally different steel, you can't single out CroVan and say it's the same as 1095. If the addition of .0004% of element "Y" turns steel "Z" into new steel "A", then CroVan isn't 1095 either.

Who'd have thunk there were so many ways to get lost in minutia with such base things as knives.... :applause:
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether they're different. Obviously they are. The question is whether there is any materials data showing superiority of one of them in testing.
 
I feel that 1095 offers eazy field maintenance and repair that is part of the reason I like it but prefer 5160 and 1095CV over it.
 
Some makers choose 1095 because it is such a good steel for blades

Shiva Ki makes awesome blade in 1095


k01b.jpg
 
Let's talk about "nicer".

The common statement is that there are no bad steels, and I agree with that. All steels have their sweet spot - a combination of factors that make that steel the right choice for that knife. And the factors that we talk about for knife steels are cost, hardenability, strength edge stability, toughness, wear resistance and corrosion resistance.

Prior to alloy steels, the only ingredients to play with was carbon and iron. You could adjust the balance of those two to make the steel tough (extra iron) or hard (extra carbon). If you add enough carbon, you could form carbides in the steel, which increase the wear resistance at the sacrifice of toughness, because the steel is less uniform.


Alloying elements allow the production of microstructures in the steel that aren't possible by simply manipulating the carbon content. In the case case of hypereutectoid (like 1095 or O1) steels - the carbide formers - elements like vanadium cause the carbides that form to take a structure that makes the steel less brittle (tougher) than the cemetite carbide that simple carbon steels make.

The alloying ingredients - when talking about low alloy steels - almost offer a something-for-nothing situation - the steel can now have the best qualities of 1095 with fewer of its tradeoffs. Those tiny amounts of silicon, boron, nickel, vandadium, etc will allow the final product to wear like 1095 but have toughness properties of a lower carbon steel.


The reason this isn't a something-for-nothing situation is that vanadium and silicon cost money. "CroVan" steel costs more to make and (sometimes) treat than 1095. But that is the only real downside. Unlike simply adding and subtracting carbon, low-alloy steels can perform the same or better than 1095 in every category of comparison. For the same hardness, more toughness. Same hardness, more wear resistance.


This really seems to offend people, because people have an emotional attachment to 1095 that they do not have with steels like 440A or AUS-4. To say "that's okay steel, but you could do better" about these lower end stainless alloys is commonplace, but saying the same thing about 1095 for the exact same reasons is offensive.

1095 is a great high hardness steel for producing lower cost knives. It is a downgrade from low alloy steels if you can't describe the knife as coming from the bargain end of the spectrum. Is that at $100? $130? That's up to anyone to decide. I wouldn't buy a $100 440A folder for the same reason I wouldn't buy a slightly expensive 1095 knife when there are better alloys of steel being used by the competition.

The most important part of the knife is the blade. Crazy, right?
 
Last edited:
The thread would only really make sense if most knives were offered in multiple steel choices.
If I had a choice between 1095, CPM 3V, 5160, etc. for the exact same knife that I wanted to get, then the steel choice would be a bigger factor.
But when I wanted a TOPS SXB, 1095 was the steel it's offered in (differentially heat-treated though, so that's cool :)).
Thus, to get the knife I wanted to get, I bought the knife I wanted to get.

If there was a Junglas in both 1095 and CPM 3V and it was only $50 more for the better steel, I'd take that.
But I wouldn't buy a knife that wasn't the Junglas when I wanted a Junglas due to the steel choice.
 
I hear you. But if you do feel like your Junglas purchase would be a better value with better steel, then you could at least voice that to the manufacturer. There are other ways besides voting with dollars.
 
RX-79G said:
I hear you. But if you do feel like your Junglas purchase would be a better value with better steel, then you could at least voice that to the manufacturer. There are other ways besides voting with dollars.
Click to expand...

I could certainly send an e-mail their way expressing a desire for more steel choices.
I do like having the choice of more steels in the same knife design...that is a good thing.
Just not a very common thing.

The Junglas has certainly held up to major use and even some abuse though.
Still going strong. :thumbup:
 
stabman said:
I could certainly send an e-mail their way expressing a desire for more steel choices.
I do like having the choice of more steels in the same knife design...that is a good thing.
Just not a very common thing.

The Junglas has certainly held up to major use and even some abuse though.
Still going strong. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I love my Junglas too. It would cost a heck of a lot more if it were in 3v with everything else being the same (made and backed up by rowen). That is the basic problem with this thread. It is not so neat and tidy to compare these things and come to a definitive answer the OP seems to be looking for. The basis to the OP is why pay so much for 1095. Well it is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. And then comes all the arguing.......
 
craytab said:
I love my Junglas too. It would cost a heck of a lot more if it were in 3v with everything else being the same (made and backed up by rowen). That is the basic problem with this thread. It is not so neat and tidy to compare these things and come to a definitive answer the OP seems to be looking for. The basis to the OP is why pay so much for 1095. Well it is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. And then comes all the arguing.......
Click to expand...

Admittedly, without the arguing it would be a boring place. :D
It has to be kept within certain limits, but some arguing keeps us posting in these threads.
 
RX-79G said:
Let's talk about "nicer".

The common statement is that there are no bad steels, and I agree with that. All steels have their sweet spot - a combination of factors that make that steel the right choice for that knife. And the factors that we talk about for knife steels are cost, hardenability, strength edge stability, toughness, wear resistance and corrosion resistance.

Prior to alloy steels, the only ingredients to play with was carbon and iron. You could adjust the balance of those two to make the steel tough (extra iron) or hard (extra carbon). If you add enough carbon, you could form carbides in the steel, which increase the wear resistance at the sacrifice of toughness, because the steel is less uniform.


Alloying elements allow the production of microstructures in the steel that aren't possible by simply manipulating the carbon content. In the case case of hypereutectoid (like 1095 or O1) steels - the carbide formers - elements like vanadium cause the carbides that form to take a structure that makes the steel less brittle (tougher) than the cemetite carbide that simple carbon steels make.

The alloying ingredients - when talking about low alloy steels - almost offer a something-for-nothing situation - the steel can now have the best qualities of 1095 with fewer of its tradeoffs. Those tiny amounts of silicon, boron, nickel, vandadium, etc will allow the final product to wear like 1095 but have toughness properties of a lower carbon steel.


The reason this isn't a something-for-nothing situation is that vanadium and silicon cost money. "CroVan" steel costs more to make and (sometimes) treat than 1095. But that is the only real downside. Unlike simply adding and subtracting carbon, low-alloy steels can perform the same or better than 1095 in every category of comparison. For the same hardness, more toughness. Same hardness, more wear resistance.


This really seems to offend people, because people have an emotional attachment to 1095 that they do not have with steels like 440A or AUS-4. To say "that's okay steel, but you could do better" about these lower end stainless alloys is commonplace, but saying the same thing about 1095 for the exact same reasons is offensive.

1095 is a great high hardness steel for producing lower cost knives. It is a downgrade from low alloy steels if you can't describe the knife as coming from the bargain end of the spectrum. Is that at $100? $130? That's up to anyone to decide. I wouldn't buy a $100 440A folder for the same reason I wouldn't buy a slightly expensive 1095 knife when there are better alloys of steel being used by the competition.

The most important part of the knife is the blade. Crazy, right?
Click to expand...

Idk man I feel like your obsessing over the ingredients more then how there prepared.

Your completely ignoring the other factors that contribute to the added cost of these 1095 knives
 
DeadboxHero said:
Idk man I feel like your obsessing over the ingredients more then how there prepared.

Your completely ignoring the other factors that contribute to the added cost of these 1095 knives
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. A bar of retail 1095 is maybe 20% cheaper than a low alloy alternative. The heat treatment is not terribly different, so the net cost increase for a good knife maker to go from a cheap steel to a slightly better steel is negligible.

People understand this perfectly when they say "that $25 CRKT AUS-6 knife is cool, but I would happily spend an extra $10 if they had used AUS-8". And they say that all the time about other steels.

Steel improvements can be had for nothing more than the raw materials costs. Even if you pass those on to the distributor, retailer and consumer the net change in price on $100 isn't going to be the 20% material cost, but more like 5% because the blade material costs are only a fraction of the total cost of producing a blade, handle, sheath, box and warranty.

So you saying that I'm obsessing seems kind of crazy because this appears to be the only cheap alloy that no one is obsessing about. Why shouldn't people take the same view of 1095 as every other alloy that is low cost?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top