Why Use Carbon Steel?

Like Scott, I absolutely LOVE 115W8 (1.2442) and it's sister steel 110WCrV5 (1.2519). I recently ordered about 12 feet of the .090" stuff Achim had. German Blue steel, if you will. The 115W8 should take a better differential hardening line than 1.2519, as it is a little more shallow hardening. Holds a great edge at high hardness. I have a petty made for myself from 1.2519, I use it constantly, and the edge retention is very good. Excellent steels for high hardness, thin geometry, low edge angles.

index_zps6hcvzlzg.png
 
Last edited:
samuraistuart said:
Like Scott, I absolutely LOVE 115W8 (1.2442) and it's sister steel 110WCrV5 (1.2519). I recently ordered about 12 feet of the .090" stuff Achim had. German Blue steel, if you will. The 115W8 should take a better differential hardening line than 1.2519, as it is a little more shallow hardening. Holds a great edge at high hardness. I have a petty made for myself from 1.2519, I use it constantly, and the edge retention is very good. Excellent steels for high hardness, thin geometry, low edge angles.

index_zps6hcvzlzg.png
Click to expand...

How does it compare to cruforge v performance wise? I know you have used both.
 
Yeah, it welds just fine. Getting to move afterwards is the fun part. :eek:
 
I was going mention that. :D You are accustomed to "moving" big thick pieces of O1, so 115W8 damascus is not a real problem for you. For those some of us not used to steel with a fair amount of tungsten, we tried that by hand early on and ended up with tendonitis. :eek:
erik markman said:
Beat the crap out of it with a BigBlu, Joe.
Click to expand...
 
Warren, I find them too hard to distinguish. They're all 1.1% carbon (CFV 1.05%), with basically the same carbide set up (.75% V is equal to about 3% Tungsten due to atomic weight). Since the carbide volume is pretty close, and the carbide size is pretty close, and carbide hardness pretty close...hard to tell the difference in real world use. Even hand sanding, they are all a bit harder than your basic 1095, I think CFV being a little bit harder to finish than 115W8 and 1.2519. I've only made a few knives out of each....so take that for what it's worth.
 
In my limited experience with 115W8 and more expensive experience with CFV, both at 61-62, the Cru Forge is harder to hand sand. Both get pretty darn sharp even with less than ideal sharpening gear. I made a sujiihiki out of 115W8 and it would cut you if you thought about it too hard.
samuraistuart said:
Warren, I find them too hard to distinguish. They're all 1.1% carbon (CFV 1.05%), with basically the same carbide set up (.75% V is equal to about 3% Tungsten due to atomic weight). Since the carbide volume is pretty close, and the carbide size is pretty close, and carbide hardness pretty close...hard to tell the difference in real world use. Even hand sanding, they are all a bit harder than your basic 1095, I think CFV being a little bit harder to finish than 115W8 and 1.2519. I've only made a few knives out of each....so take that for what it's worth.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top