Your opinion: D2 or 1095 for a woods utility fixed blade?

G

gustavosal

Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
63
I'm thinking specifically of the Ontario RAT 3 and TAK 1 offerings. Which would be your choice of steel, and why?

Thanks!

Gus
 
The RAT-5 and TAK-1 are more comparable, or similar. However, if you're sure you've narrowed it down to the TAK and RAT-3, then the only question I can see left unanswered is your sharpening skill.

If your sharpening skills are good, then probably the D2. If not, then the 1095 would be easier for you to sharpen and would give you a sharper edge (in my experience). The D2 is difficult to get a fine, razor sharp edge on, but it will keep whatever edge you can give it a skosh longer than the scary sharp 1095.

I feel reasonably confident as a beginning sharpener that I can get my 1095 blade razor sharp, but no matter how I try, I cannot get my D2 knives quite as sharp.

Whichever one you get, unless you have other blades in the same steels, you will never know the difference. Pick the one that best fits your budget and don;t look back. The differences are, in my opinion, best left to the scientists and those in this forum who are "true experts" with steels.
 
Thanks, Stret... oh wait, you got that part taken care of.

I see the RAT-5 and TAK-1 as more comparable, too, but is there a RAT-5 in D2? I thought it was only in 1095 at this point.

In any case, your advice on sharpening skill is well taken. Thanks!

Gus
 
I'm a D2 fan for sure, but it's really hard to go wrong with either of the knives you mention.
 
StretchNM provided a response that I would echo. I own the TAK-1 in 1095, don't have the RAT-5 or RAT-3. You can get 1095 crazy sharp and it is a dream to sharpen. Up till last weekend I had never held the RAT-3 in my hands. I was quite surprised by the size, as it is much smaller than pictures of it reveal. The RAT-5 is not offered in D2 at this time. The TAK-1 makes for a great field utility knife at a reasonable price point.
 
I love d-2 but I definitely get a better edge on 1095. I have 3 RAT-3's in d-2 and just had my dealer order me one in 1095. I am hoping I get a little better comparison in that case.
 
1095 definitely!

I own knives made from both steels. D2 is a bear to re-sharpen, especially if you're out & about in the Great Outdoors. 1095 is far easier to re-sharpen out in the Field.
 
Monocrom said:
1095 definitely!

I own knives made from both steels. D2 is a bear to re-sharpen, especially if you're out & about in the Great Outdoors. 1095 is far easier to re-sharpen out in the Field.
Click to expand...

agreed. For a knife you will have out for days i would go 1095. but in a 3 inch blade D2 is nice too. Over 5 inches i would definatly go 1095:thumbup:
 
jarlaxle said:
agreed. For a knife you will have out for days i would go 1095. but in a 3 inch blade D2 is nice too. Over 5 inches i would definatly go 1095:thumbup:
Click to expand...

Now, this is something I didn;t consider..... length of blade helping to determine type of steel. Why would a longer blade be more advantageous in 1095? Is it because you would use it with more gusto and D2 might be troublesome....possibly prone to chipping? I mean, that's the only thing I can think of and only because I thought maybe I read something about D2's carbides being larger and prone to flaking....or something.
 
StretchNM said:
Now, this is something I didn;t consider..... length of blade helping to determine type of steel. Why would a longer blade be more advantageous in 1095?
Click to expand...

Well for me, it's not really about the lenght but more about the use:


I would use the Rat-3 as an EDC and the longer as a wood blade/chopper.

So I would like something easier to sharpen for the chopper that I could clean and apply oil on it.

But I would like something that stays sharp longer with a better corrosion resistance for EDC. When my day is over and I'm at home, I have the time to correctly sharpen a knife. When in the wood, I want it done fast.

I just think carbon steel like 1095 suits better for hcopping/batoning and D2 is better for small cutting tasks.
 
Wow, thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I think the TAK-1 in 1095 is the ticket, then. And I like the RAT-3 in D2 idea from cybrok... hmmmm. Have to see how far I can get with that plan.

Thanks again!

Gus
 
I only have one blade in D2 but several in 1095.That 1095 just really takes on a great look when it develops a patina.My vote goes to 1095 for a large knife.
 
StretchNM said:
Now, this is something I didn;t consider..... length of blade helping to determine type of steel. Why would a longer blade be more advantageous in 1095? Is it because you would use it with more gusto and D2 might be troublesome....possibly prone to chipping? I mean, that's the only thing I can think of and only because I thought maybe I read something about D2's carbides being larger and prone to flaking....or something.
Click to expand...

D2 is not exactly a tough steel, when compared with any HC steel. On a longer blade leverage allow to apply greater torque, and you are more likely to baton an chop with it which necessitates greater toughness (both impact and ductile toughness). So bladelength and more importantly, intended use (which is partly determined by bladelength) is extremely important in determining bladesteel. Maybe Possum will chime in here and will tell you what he things of stainless steels on big choppers :).

So, yes, I also immediately checked bladelength. On a dedicated woodcrafting blade I would also rather have a toolsteel than stainless steel, even if it is only 4" but I don't think it makes too much of a difference in the models you are looking at from a toughness point of view and edgeholding is most certainly better on the D2 model. I never consider "resharpenability". Even if you take only the Doublestuff with you as field sharpener D2 should not be a problem if you don't let it get too dull. Reprofiling is most certainly a bigger chore though.
 
Y'know, I think we've hit on an ideal wilderness knife combo, here - a large blade in 1095 (basic alloy content, readily sharpenable carbon steel) and a smaller blade in D2 (higher alloy content, good edge-holding "semi-stainless").

As a rule, carbon steels are far tougher than stainless steels. In the wilderness, this translates into better chopping blades which are less prone to chipping or snapping. High-alloy blades, such as D2, are more rust resistant than straight carbon steels. In my experience with D2, namely, my Benchmade Griptilian, it's tougher to fully sharpen, but it holds an edge incredibly well. However, it does chip if used on hard surfaces, such as throwing a spark with my firesteel.

All of this to say, I don't carry large, go-to field knives made of stainless steel - if the blade is 5" or bigger, as someone else mentioned, I opt for carbon. For a smaller knife, though, D2 makes sense. So I suppose my post is to say that I like the ideas posited - I've learned and am validating y'alls's conslusions :)
 
StretchNM said:
Now, this is something I didn;t consider..... length of blade helping to determine type of steel. Why would a longer blade be more advantageous in 1095? Is it because you would use it with more gusto and D2 might be troublesome....possibly prone to chipping? I mean, that's the only thing I can think of and only because I thought maybe I read something about D2's carbides being larger and prone to flaking....or something.
Click to expand...

Carbon steel has much more lateral strength, so when using a larger blade i like it to be able to bend and retake it's shape. Also D2 being so hard tends to chip easier:thumbup: :o
 
I've had 1095 chip on me on 2 small blades... so my belief in 1095
as a tough steel has been shaken a bit.
Also, see Cliff Stamps work on 1095... it varies a lot by knife/brand.

Personally, I don't like either in a large knife that I plan on chopping with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top