Why do people like 1095 for pricier knives?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, I'm assuming the point of this thread is that it is your belief that all the knife manufacturers who use (lowly, inferior, cheap) 1095 should step their game up and use an alloyed steel?
 
AntDog said:
So, I'm assuming the point of this thread is that it is your belief that all the knife manufacturers who use (lowly, inferior, cheap) 1095 should step their game up and use an alloyed steel?
Click to expand...

No, I have said repeatedly that 1095 is an excellent budget steel, entirely appropriate to a range of less expensive knives.

It is the "pricier" (title) knives that should step up their game, but for that to happen people would have to come to understand that carbon, iron and Rowen doesn't create a magical substance that exceeds the performance of the steels specifically created to replace it.


I think the analogy to 440A is right on the money. A very decent steel to make less expensive knives, but not hard to improve upon.
 
Yes, you're right....

A more expensive steel should be used like O1

These 1095 blades are terrible knives.

6715183035_a63385e09a_z.jpg
 
Clearly an expensive knife such as that one (and this one) deserves a better steel than 1095. Don't those knifemakers know that a better steel should be used?

photo_zps5066b24a.jpg
 
Neither of those are "Art knives".

Just because they're artistically made doesn't mean they're art knives.

And by attacking a steel, you attack all those who use the steel as a basis.
 
I never said it wasn't tough. Just that 1095 is tougher. I still think that. Part of the reason for that is that it can be differentially heat treated easier.

You still haven't told anyone why one alloy is "Better" than the other one.

And if you qoute me. Please qoute me properly instead of trolling by swapping the pictures. I'd do you that courtesy I'd expect the same from you.
 
It's not actually. You're telling everyone who makes knives in that steel that they're cheaping out.

And this thread was pretty stupid to begin with.
 
LX_Emergency said:
I never said it wasn't tough. Just that 1095 is tougher. I still think that. Part of the reason for that is that it can be differentially heat treated easier.

You still haven't told anyone why one alloy is "Better" than the other one.

And if you qoute me. Please qoute me properly instead of trolling by swapping the pictures. I'd do you that courtesy I'd expect the same from you.
Click to expand...
I already answered that in post 118, which was a repetition of previous posts.
RX-79G said:
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.
Click to expand...


Look, you're in the knife making business, so I don't know why you want to go down this rabbit hole:
Differential heat treating is not what knife makers and metallurgists mean when they use the term "tough". It is not used to describe how the whole blade handles being used in a Cold Steel video, but the way steel reacts to impacts that cause plastic deformation. Tougher steels distort less, absorbing damage with minimal structural damage. For a blade, this means that the edge isn't going to chip or bend as much as a less tough steel would when pushed past its elastic limit.

Earlier you said "all steels are tough". Compared to peanut butter and champagne flutes, but toughness is something that is measurable and used to differentiate the qualities of different steels and treatments. It is a variable, similar to how hardness is a variable. The glass hard file that breaks when dropped on concrete is not "tough". That's why you have to at least temper a file to make a good knife out of it. Generally, toughness goes along with smaller grain, less carbon and alloying. 1095 would not be described any of those. 1060 is tough.


I'm thinking you didn't get my "better" statement earlier because you really don't know a lot about the material science side of steel.


Just curious - when you get those old files made from 1095 or W1, do you just guess how to heat treat them? Or are they marked what kind of steel they are, and the carbon levels?
 
LX_Emergency said:
Another personal attack. How creative.

And just because I wanted to know who I was talking too...yeah. That makes me a complete stalker....you mean besides the fact that you called me a baby and then quickly edited your post.
Click to expand...

Common, you just need to be tougher. Like all steels are.
 
I keep seeing this thread pop into view, simply amazing! My question is to the OP; which knife steels have you made blades with & why? Have you used some of the more expensive steels (154, 3V, SV110, SV90, etc.) to make your own creations? Have you used 1095 to make a more pedestrian blade & had good results from the HT process? Since the original question seems to criticize any maker who chooses the older & less exotic steels, why do you choose the steels you do in your work?

I can understand the original intent in the question, but in asking it seems to me that it completely evades the question about design, workmanship & a maker's preferences in any steel choice. The steel is just one part of the knife, the labor, creativity & work involved make the knife, not the steel.

OK guys, back to the snarky comments (since no one else has used this yet, let me be the first, Your mother wears army boots!).
 
LX_Emergency said:
Yes, you're right....

A more expensive steel should be used like O1

These 1095 blades are terrible knives.

6715183035_a63385e09a_z.jpg
Click to expand...

If that's a terrible knife I would be glad to take it off your hands for $100.....:rolleyes:
 
noseoil said:
I keep seeing this thread pop into view, simply amazing! My question is to the OP; which knife steels have you made blades with & why? Have you used some of the more expensive steels (154, 3V, SV110, SV90, etc.) to make your own creations? Have you used 1095 to make a more pedestrian blade & had good results from the HT process? Since the original question seems to criticize any maker who chooses the older & less exotic steels, why do you choose the steels you do in your work?

I can understand the original intent in the question, but in asking it seems to me that it completely evades the question about design, workmanship & a maker's preferences in any steel choice. The steel is just one part of the knife, the labor, creativity & work involved make the knife, not the steel.

OK guys, back to the snarky comments (since no one else has used this yet, let me be the first, Your mother wears army boots!).
Click to expand...

I've made knives from 1095, 15N20/1084 pattern welded and O1. I don't claim to be an expert knifemaker, just someone that got really interested in why the fine differences between alloys and heat treatments exist.


In answer to your other question, I'm not hammering custom makers who craft individual knives out of ANY steel. I wouldn't consider any nice handmade knife "pricey" due to the amount of individual effort that goes into them. My intent was to discuss production knives, and I apologize for not making that clear instead of just using examples of them.

Also, I am recommending older, less exotic steels. W2 is not exactly new, or exotic. I keep mentioning this and other low alloy steels, not the steels you list. Many of the steels I'm talking about are only marginally more expensive than 1095, but perform better for the tasks you'd prefer a high carbon steel for. I think you might have missed that in all the yada yada.
 
RX-79G said:
I've made knives from 1095, 15N20/1084 pattern welded and O1. I don't claim to be an expert knifemaker, just someone that got really interested in why the fine differences between alloys and heat treatments exist.


In answer to your other question, I'm not hammering custom makers who craft individual knives out of ANY steel. I wouldn't consider any nice handmade knife "pricey" due to the amount of individual effort that goes into them. My intent was to discuss production knives, and I apologize for not making that clear instead of just using examples of them.

Also, I am recommending older, less exotic steels. W2 is not exactly new, or exotic. I keep mentioning this and other low alloy steels, not the steels you list. Many of the steels I'm talking about are only marginally more expensive than 1095, but perform better for the tasks you'd prefer a high carbon steel for. I think you might have missed that in all the yada yada.
Click to expand...

Now this makes more sense, and to your point I think some manufactures use 1095 partly out of tradition. Also keep in mind that if there is only a slim margin on a product that may dictate which steel is used.
 
By the way, I have one 1095 field knife. It works just fine. My four other 3V knives blow it away. They only cost approximately $35-$50 more. Personally, I don't care because I'm cost averse in such cases. Oh yea, 3V requires 1/20 the maintenance 1095 does. That's a maintenance/time cost. Time, there is a cost you won't hear the 1095 protectionists point out.
 
Let's narrow scope of this discussion to bang/buck choice of heat treated steel among $100+ sub 5" blade knives. Intended usage covers kitchen to light hardwood chopping duties. Good ht 60rc with edge geometry: 0.015" behind edge thick, 15dps, 750nm apex radius. All other aspects of the knife are the same.

A quick look at cost in simplistic view

Retail raw steel cost is cheap per knife. Buy in bulk/tonage would cost less than 1/2 retail.

Aldo .125 thick x 1.5" x 48" WxL

1095 - 17.59 ($4/blade)
52100 - 20.10
80CrV2 - 20.69
A2 - 29.31
W2 - 29.33
D2 - 43.89
O1 - 53.99
3V - 78.63 (so 3V blank is most expensive in this list - $16/blade)

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

Industry std ht is easy and not expensive, perhaps $10/blade to ht 10+ blades batch.

Post ht grind & finishing - A2 & D2 & 3V cost more because of higher wear resistant (note - nominally 3V has around 2.8 to 3% of carbide volume, which is slightly less than A2 5%, while D2 is 14+% CV). OK, then D2 could cost extra $20/blade.

Adding extra cost, generously the most costly steel is $40 premium over 1095.

Performance for intended tasks with given geometry
A WAG ;)

D2 probably DQ due to poor impact toughness.

3V & A2 are could be top performers (top wear & corrosion resistant as well) for a little extra $. <= bottom line answer to OP, I guess.

O1 material cost more than 52100 & W2 but w/o marginal perform gain, hence eliminated.

W2 is about $2 premium over 1095 and it has additional grain refinement elements. Look like a highest B/B gain. <= bottom line answer to OP, I guess.

52100 is $1-2 premium over 1095 (25cents material and grind). Not sure a slight corrosion resistant worth extra $.

80CrV2 has lower wear resistant; fine grain and tougher. However extra toughness is wasted in context of intended usage.

Metallurgy

Fine spheroidize cementite(Fe3C) is not brittle. 3V 400F tempered has quite a bit of sub 250nm precipitated cementite.

One can refine grain of hypereutectoid steels using non-dissolved fine cementites. applicable to low Cr steels such as 1095; 52100; Hitachi white&blue #1,#2; etc..

BCMW/my HT :D

HT low Cr steels to 64-67rc for indented tasks (above) at edge geometry (above). They are great B/B.

btw - keep in mind, edge retention in pushcuts & chops usage is mostly depend on steel matrix strength & toughness. Wear resistant (from high carbide volume) could speed up edge degradation in this type of usage, especially from chopping impacts.

I'll be busy...

OxJIHKB.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top