Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

[Aleous]

People like 1095 for pricier knives because it is a "good enough" steel in a very nice package(i.e. design, fit, finish, handle, sheath, origin, warranty). And by good enough I mean it is a very popular and well tested steel that is generally universally liked by those who use it(sans the people who don't know how to take care of their knives and let them turn into rust buckets).

Not everyone takes the steel itself or the steel's price into such high importance that they would reject a knife in a nice package just because it's not made of a more "superior" steel. I personally enjoy 1095 steel in more affordable fixed blades, for me the steel is "good enough" and the whole package is "good enough" for me as well so I find no meaning in spending more on such a knife. Although I do have 2 swords in 1095 and one was custom and I ended up paying premium prices because they were more art pieces than anything.

I would say I don't understand why people would spend so much on a smaller fixed blade in 1095 but then I go ahead and think I have done the same on a 5160 blade and it is simply because as someone as eloquently put it, I "liked" it and feel comfortable with it. That and 5160 choppers are bad@$$.

 

[Mecha]

One snide comment and drug into the tarpit.

 

[DeadboxHero]

Then let me state this another way:

Given what steel knobs knife fans are, why is 1095 spared the grumbling every other low end steel gets when used in a higher end knife?



I can appreciate that Ritter in 1095 works fine. So do all those other nicer knives made of less expensive steel that receive the commentary 1095 does not. Al Mar makes a great product, and any discussion of Al Mar seems to come around to a complaint that they only use AUS-8. Stepping up from AUS-8 appears to be a lot more expensive to go to a notably better stainless than it is to go from 10xx to low alloy, but that doesn't come up, either.


I don't think I would have ever considered this question had the members of this forum, in particular, not obsessively dissected and discussed every other steel choice companies make.

1095 is sparred because it is the "de facto"knife steel

It's tough, cheap, easy to sharpen.

People generally have a difficult time sharpening

The soft 1095 makes it easy for everyone to enjoy a sharp knife

Stainless is more difficult to sharpen for the average dude.

People complain about it all the time.









As for Al Mar,

AL Mar had a time when they were the only company offering one hand opening lightweight carry.

Once everyone caught on they failed to change

People simlpy got the same "features" for a lower price with other companies.

It wasn't just the steel.


It's never just the steel.

Knives are more then raw material

The steel is One component of many.

 

[WalterDavis]

The reason that 1095 gets held above the fray is that it is a good knife steel. It holds an edge under both impact and wear-type uses, it's easy to sharpen, and it's can take a fine or toothy edge. It is fairly cheap as a raw material and relatively easy to machine or forge, which makes it affordable and familiar to most knife enthusiasts.
If a guy isn't a knifeaholic, or is but is on a tight budget, why would he spend good money on a nice knife with an unfamiliar steel? Maybe that touted wear resistance makes a knife harder to sharpen, or unsuited to his normal sharpening tools. Maybe those few alloying elements mean that something slipped up in heat-treat and now your chopper is gonna become a chipper. Maybe a guy just wants to use his knife and not bench-race it

 

[Alfazulu]

I understand both sides of this. First, I think what the OP fails to realize (despite it being repeated ad nauseum) is that most people buying these 1095 knives are buying them because of what they are and aren't too worried about the steel. They like the look, the features, the name, the "coolness", and whatever else, and since they don't have a steel option, they are just happy with all the other stuff.

On the other hand, I see the point that people tend to get "steel snobby" about other types of knives. If we were talking $100 folders, people would be expecting something other than a basic steel. People would likely whine about the basic steel in that case. For some reason they don't with 1095. Sure, it may be a "a fine steel", or a "good enough" steel as many have said here, but it's still a basic steel.

Maybe one of the major contributing factors is that we're talking about outdoors fixed blades here, not folders. These knives have much more need for balanced toughness/wear resistance than EDC folders. Given that frame of reference, perhaps that moves 1095 from a basic steel to a good steel in terms of meeting the desired needs.

 

[AntDog]

Taken at the post title's face value, the short answer is: they don't.

The longer answer gets more complicated, and has to take into account the OPs feelings toward 1095, and what he personally considers "pricey". It's all relative.

 

[LX_Emergency]

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.

This is massively false. There's no such thing as a free lunch. And if you mess with the alloy it'll have impact. You add ingredients and the cost of heat treating goes up (I know this thread touts that 1095 is easy to heat treat....it's actually not easy to heat treat WELL. For that even lower carbon containing alloys need to be used like 1070, 80CrV2 or 1084 or similar)

The small jump from 1084 to 1095 (only 0.11% carbon) means that soak times are added in the heat treat leading to extra cost and time for well done 1095.
Then you start adding more elements, leading to extra soak times, or cooldown times or different quench methods. All of which builds up to cost.

Then because you added extra your tool costs start to increase because the steel you're now using is more wear resistant. I know knifemakers say treat belts like they're free....but they're not. And high end tooling (cnc and milling bits) are even more expensive. If you have to replace those a few months earlier than projected that leads to a LOT of costs.

Point is....if you change small things to the chemistry...big changes will happen. A little bit extra Cr or C or V or W leads to a completely different steel with completely different characteristics.

 

[shqxk]

What the deal with XXX steel is not worth YYY price..??? There are so many thing to do with the price of the knife than just the material used...

Jerry Fisk Bowie are made of 5160 and there are sold for thousands dollar.

 

[RX-79G]

This is massively false. There's no such thing as a free lunch. And if you mess with the alloy it'll have impact. You add ingredients and the cost of heat treating goes up (I know this thread touts that 1095 is easy to heat treat....it's actually not easy to heat treat WELL. For that even lower carbon containing alloys need to be used like 1070, 80CrV2 or 1084 or similar)

The small jump from 1084 to 1095 (only 0.11% carbon) means that soak times are added in the heat treat leading to extra cost and time for well done 1095.
Then you start adding more elements, leading to extra soak times, or cooldown times or different quench methods. All of which builds up to cost.

Then because you added extra your tool costs start to increase because the steel you're now using is more wear resistant. I know knifemakers say treat belts like they're free....but they're not. And high end tooling (cnc and milling bits) are even more expensive. If you have to replace those a few months earlier than projected that leads to a LOT of costs.

Point is....if you change small things to the chemistry...big changes will happen. A little bit extra Cr or C or V or W leads to a completely different steel with completely different characteristics.

Perhaps it would be better if you actually cited an example of what you're talking about that applied directly to the examples we've been talking about.

We're definitely not talking about the difference between eutectoid 1084 and hypereutectoid 1095. We are talking about comparing the treatment and grinding of 1095 to other 1% carbon steels.

Here's the heat treat information for 1095:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/1095.html

W2:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/w2.html

52100:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/52100.html

And O1:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/o1.html

As you can see, all four steels have similar quench temps, require the use of temperature controlled ovens and either medium or fast quench oils.

So this isn't theoretical - these are exactly the kind of steels I've been talking about. Please relate how W2 is going to be more expensive to grind or heat treat. Not that it could be more expensive, but how it is actually more expensive. Percentage of extra belt wear, hold time cost, whatever you want.

Alloying ingredients in these small amounts do not automatically make the steel harder to work with, and medium quench steels use less expensive quenchant than 1095 requires.

 

[trevitrace]

Night, Boris.

 

[LX_Emergency]

Perhaps it would be better if you actually cited an example of what you're talking about that applied directly to the examples we've been talking about.

We're definitely not talking about the difference between eutectoid 1084 and hypereutectoid 1095. We are talking about comparing the treatment and grinding of 1095 to other 1% carbon steels.

Here's the heat treat information for 1095:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/1095.html

W2:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/w2.html

52100:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/52100.html

And O1:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/o1.html

As you can see, all four steels have similar quench temps, require the use of temperature controlled ovens and either medium or fast quench oils.

So this isn't theoretical - these are exactly the kind of steels I've been talking about. Please relate how W2 is going to be more expensive to grind or heat treat. Not that it could be more expensive, but how it is actually more expensive. Percentage of extra belt wear, hold time cost, whatever you want.

Alloying ingredients in these small amounts do not automatically make the steel harder to work with, and medium quench steels use less expensive quenchant than 1095 requires.

I will if you explain how those steels are actually better. Because you're still arguing about how your opinion is fact.

None of those steels are "Better" they're just different.

My point wasn't about 1095 specifically. It was about how minute traces of elements actually truly change the makeup of the steel.

You keep arguing about how adding elements makes the steel better. But it DOESN'T. It just makes it different.

Once again...better for what?

Yes, 52100 is slightly better at edgeholding perhaps.

However 1095 is generally tougher etc.

You keep saying stuff like better and nicer. But unless you quantify that, those terms mean nothing.

My example of 1084 -1095 was simply an example of how adding a minute bit of carbon changes the makeup of the steel radically. I'm no metallurgist and I don't pretend to be one on the internet. But changing other elements will also drastically change the way the steel works and needs to be worked with.

There might not be a cost in $$$ but there MIGHT be a cost in toughness, or corrosion resistance, or grain size or, or, or, or.

There's always a cost. Sorry if I didn't convery that properly in my previous post.

 

[AntDog]

Perhaps it would be better if you actually cited an example of what you're talking about that applied directly to the examples we've been talking about.

We're definitely not talking about the difference between eutectoid 1084 and hypereutectoid 1095. We are talking about comparing the treatment and grinding of 1095 to other 1% carbon steels.

Here's the heat treat information for 1095:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/1095.html

W2:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/w2.html

52100:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/52100.html

And O1:
http://www.cashenblades.com/steel/o1.html

As you can see, all four steels have similar quench temps, require the use of temperature controlled ovens and either medium or fast quench oils.

So this isn't theoretical - these are exactly the kind of steels I've been talking about. Please relate how W2 is going to be more expensive to grind or heat treat. Not that it could be more expensive, but how it is actually more expensive. Percentage of extra belt wear, hold time cost, whatever you want.

Alloying ingredients in these small amounts do not automatically make the steel harder to work with, and medium quench steels use less expensive quenchant than 1095 requires.

So, you are directly disproving or arguing against your OP?

 

[AntDog]

I will if you explain how those steels are actually better. Because you're still arguing about how your opinion is fact.

None of those steels are "Better" they're just different.

You keep arguing about how adding elements makes the steel better. But it DOESN'T. It just makes it different.

You keep saying stuff like better and nicer. But unless you quantify that, those terms mean nothing.

There ya go. What he said, the reader's digest version.

 

[gadgetgeek]

AlfaZulu, I think its more than just the factors you mention, but you are close. I thing 1095 is a good enough steel that its lower cost allows for more effort to be spent on other places, like ergonomics, design, handle material and fit, sheath, and still have a knife that has good value. And I think that to a steel guy, that value is even more apparent. take for example my ESEE-3, not that expensive, but a very well thought out sheath that is very adaptable, hand fitted g10 scales (which given their production methods actually takes more effort than some other knives) a coating that sticks very well, and rarely chips away, but wears nicely. So I end up with a knife that is probably 70% those other factors in cost, but that means a really effective knife. To the average guy, he sees that 1095 is a cheap-ish steel, and looks at a Kabar, figuring its cheaper whats the big deal, not seeing the factors that lead to the added cost.

If someone was offering a folder in 1095 for 100USD, and it had hand-fitted scales, had very tight tolerances and looked gorgeous..... they'd sell, just not to the tacticool crowd.

 

[RX-79G]

I will if you explain how those steels are actually better. Because you're still arguing about how your opinion is fact.

None of those steels are "Better" they're just different.

My point wasn't about 1095 specifically. It was about how minute traces of elements actually truly change the makeup of the steel.

You keep arguing about how adding elements makes the steel better. But it DOESN'T. It just makes it different.

Once again...better for what?

Yes, 52100 is slightly better at edgeholding perhaps.

However 1095 is generally tougher etc.

You keep saying stuff like better and nicer. But unless you quantify that, those terms mean nothing.

My example of 1084 -1095 was simply an example of how adding a minute bit of carbon changes the makeup of the steel radically. I'm no metallurgist and I don't pretend to be one on the internet. But changing other elements will also drastically change the way the steel works and needs to be worked with.

There might not be a cost in $$$ but there MIGHT be a cost in toughness, or corrosion resistance, or grain size or, or, or, or.

There's always a cost. Sorry if I didn't convery that properly in my previous post.

1095 isn't tougher, more edge stable or wear resistant than any of those steels. I frankly have no idea where you would get such an idea.

The only trade off between 1095 and low alloy steels is cost. The alloying elements refine the grain and carbides to physically improve the steel's structure in a way that carbon cannot by itself.



This isn't your kids we're talking about, where you have to love them all equally. O1 and 52100 have trade offs between them because of what elements they do or do not include, but there isn't a metallurgical advantage in a cemetite-only carbide forming steel like 1095 over them. The advantage to 1095 is cost, and only cost.

It is like comparing engine performance and trying to say that a carburetor is superior in performance than fuel injection. But it doesn't make more power, run more efficiently or accelerate faster. It is just old tech that we replaced with stuff that works better.

 

[LX_Emergency]

1095 isn't tougher, more edge stable or wear resistant than any of those steels. I frankly have no idea where you would get such an idea.

The only trade off between 1095 and low alloy steels is cost. The alloying elements refine the grain and carbides to physically improve the steel's structure in a way that carbon cannot by itself.

Actually, while 52100 is very tough (as all steels are) it's rarely used in big choppers. Simply because it's known that other steels (like 1095) are tougher (when heat treated appropriatly)

One of the MAIN downsides to adding elements to a steel's structure IS decreased toughness. There are a few exceptions. But in general that's true.

But you're still going to ignore the main point aren't you? You won't quantify better or nicer.

I'm done with this. You keep focusing on nitpicky details. Yet your main point was flawed from the start.

Since you won't clearly state what makes something "Better" you can keep saying that people aren't disproving your point.

It's impossible to disprove a point if the point was never clearly made in the first place.

 

[RX-79G]

So, you are directly disproving or arguing against your OP?

How so? I'm pointing out that the processing of these steels is roughly the same as 1095, not automatically more complex or expensive just because they have a little chrome or silicon in them.

What did you think I was saying?

 

[RX-79G]

Actually, while 52100 is very tough (as all steels are) it's rarely used in big choppers. Simply because it's known that other steels (like 1095) are tougher (when heat treated appropriatly)

One of the MAIN downsides to adding elements to a steel's structure IS decreased toughness. There are a few exceptions. But in general that's true.

But you're still going to ignore the main point aren't you? You won't quantify better or nicer.

I'm done with this. You keep focusing on nitpicky details. Yet your main point was flawed from the start.

Since you won't clearly state what makes something "Better" you can keep saying that people aren't disproving your point.

It's impossible to disprove a point if the point was never clearly made in the first place.

Show me a chart that shows that 1095 is tougher than 52100. It isn't, and I don't know where you are pulling this from.

Choppers use 1095 because it is cheap steel and big knives use a lot of it. That doesn't mean it is the best steel to use.


And I have clearly stated more than once that low alloy steels have better toughness, edge stability, hardenability and wear resistance than 1095. All of the factors in cutting are improved by alloying.

 

[AntDog]

How so? I'm pointing out that the processing of these steels is roughly the same as 1095, not automatically more complex or expensive just because they have a little chrome or silicon in them.

What did you think I was saying?

I thought you were saying, all things considered, that the quenching medium was more expensive for 1095. Which adds to the cost of using it. Just like you said. Correct?

 

[RX-79G]

I thought you were saying, all things considered, that the quenching medium was more expensive for 1095. Which adds to the cost of using it. Just like you said. Correct?

I don't see how it does.

While 1095 quenchant may be pricier, the steel itself is cheaper. I was speaking to the automatic assumption that the adoption of an alloy steel automatically raises all processing costs. But that isn't necessarily so. Some costs might stay the same, some go up, some go down. There are steel alloys made specifically to be easier to grind and machine than regular steels - you can't say those are going to wear belts faster.

I very much doubt that either W2 or 50100b would cost any more to grind and treat than 1095. The cost just comes from the steel mill.