52100 vs 1095

P

PatrickKnight

Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,949
Ok so here goes im trying to gather some info on 52100 as my next fixed purchase will likely be in this steel. The reason I put 1095 in the topic title is that is the steel I am most used to using. My most used fixed is my ESEE-3 in 1095. So im trying to gather how 52100 will compare to the 1095 I am used to using. All I have been able to gather is that 52100 will hold its edge longer but that is about all I could find.

These are the areas im trying to compare these two steels in:
Corosion resistance
Edge holding
Ease of sharpening
Lateral strength

From a previous topic I found that 1095 possesses impact toughness ~30 J/cm^2 at 58 Rc but I cant seem to find any data like this for 52100. My mind seems to work better with numbers than someone simply saying 52100 is tougher, so any info would be awesome.


Thank you in advance for your help guys.
 
Corosion resistance 1095 > 52100
Edge holding 52100 > 1095
Ease of sharpening 1095 will be a little easier to sharpen, but both are pretty easy
Lateral strength not sure

Basically with 52100 you'll get noticeable edge holding gains and slightly less corrosion resistance, both are very tough and easy to sharpen.
 
52100 will be better in every category. You won't be able to tell the difference in corrosion resistance, since the chromium is in 52100 to increase wear resistance. For those 2 steels, the edge geometry will be much more critical. Even if the geometry is exactly the same it would be tough to tell a difference.

Michaelm466, where did you get the information that 52100 has worse corrosion resistance than 1095?
 
No, it's not. But 52100 is one of my favorite carbon steels. And in the hands of a master heat-treater (the name Jerry Busse comes to mind), it will run circles around 1095 in most performance categories including edge-holding, toughness and lateral strength.

If you want to try a 52100 knife with roughly the same geometry as your ESEE-3, Patrick, I'd recommend you pick up a Swamp Rat Rodent 3. You can buy one from the Swamp Rat Company Store: http://shop.swampratknives.com/.
 
Last edited:
Well, the low alloy steels, like 52100, provide improvement over the plain carbon steels in terms of mechanical properties. They are not always better in price, but that wasnt one of the categories. Which of the above list does 1095 outperform 52100?
 
Im pretty sure after doing some more reading that 1095 is better in the corosion restiance and ease of sharpening catagories with 52100 edging it out in strength and edge holding (it has a good bit better edge holding).

The blade in question is a RMD so it will have a great ht on it. I love it when a maker just does wonders with steels. Much like the Swamp does with 52100 and Rowen does with 1095.
 
I can't say enough good things about the RMD. I own two of them myself. Buy it. You won't be disappointed.
 
Lets see if I can eleborate a little more. 52100 can be tougher, though that depends on heat treatment. It has greater wear resistance and should hold an edge longer. It has greater wear resistance so it should take longer to sharpen. However, as above, with these 2 steels, the difference is not that big, and if you're comparing knives with different edge geometries, that will have much more influence than the steel type. Even if the knives were identically ground, 52100 might take 25 passes to sharpen and 1095 20 passes. Yes, thats 25% more passes, but it's still only 5 passes. If you decide to rebevel your knive, then you'll see the difference, but that's typically something only done once or twice.

In addition to that, there are a few threads around here of head to head ease of sharpening comparisons, and the harder, more wear resistant steel actually is easier to sharpen. I'll see if I can find one. I think Gator did one. In any case, unless you have a lot of trouble sharpening, it's not an issue you'll notice. It's not like we're comparing 1095 and S90V.

I'm still trying to figure out the issue with corrosion resistance. Neither is stainless by any stretch. Both will patina very quickly, and both will turn that ugly orange if left wet and unattended. 52100 has a little Chromium, but it's not there to provide corrosion resistance, though even a little will under proper circumstances. It would take some pretty careful lab testing to tell the difference between these 2, and then the advantage would go to 52100, given normal conditions.

If corrosion is an issue, you could go with 13c26, 440A, or 440C. These are stainless and will do quite well, and all have the potential to be more wear resistant and hold an edge longer than either 52100 or 1095.
 
Well I will start doing a lot of research on 440C when the ESEE stainless line comes out in mid 2013 as thats the steel they will be using. I know it has high wear resistance and corrosion resistance but am unsure of its lateral strength.
 
52100 is harder to anneal and heat treat, but that shouldn't be an issue with any production company that has a process established. 52100 is faster to austemper, so you can get extra toughness at the cost of some of the minimal wear resistance it has. As me2 said, neither of these steels compares to anything with significant alloy content. It isn't like we are comparing to 3/4V, Vanadis, M4, Cruwear, etc. They are close enough, and close enough to 50100B, 1095CV, W2, or O1 that you'd be hard pressed to differentiate between them.
 
52100 is tougher and holds an edge longer. Both steels have poor corrosion resistance, but that is not an issue if the blades are properly cared for...
 
As a user, I might not be able to tell a difference. As a maker, I'd choose 52100 as often as I could get it. End users don't often think about it, but some of the best reasons for makers to use certain steels is some steels make knife making easier. As a user, I'd choose 52100 over 1095 whenever it was a choice, whether I could tell a real difference or not, but that's just me.
 
me2 said:
52100 will be better in every category. You won't be able to tell the difference in corrosion resistance, since the chromium is in 52100 to increase wear resistance. For those 2 steels, the edge geometry will be much more critical. Even if the geometry is exactly the same it would be tough to tell a difference.

Michaelm466, where did you get the information that 52100 has worse corrosion resistance than 1095?
Click to expand...

Just my own personal experience with a Scrapper 5 and ESEE Junglas, both my dad's blades and both had some patches of coating missing from use, both kept in tool shed outside (He lived in Oregon about 20ft from the river) when I sharpened them up for him the Scrapper 5 had orange rust spots (not too deep though only took about 5-10 minutes to clean up) on the blade while the Junglas had a very heavy/dark patina but no orange rust besides inside the handle screw heads (though this is probably due to the salty sweat getting in there and not getting cleaned out). Although the spots on the Scrapper 5 I buffed out and brought to a high polish and the next time I checked them (6 months or so later) they had no signs of rust. Neither had corrosion on the edge because he used them at least a couple times a week processing wood for the wood stove or clearing out briars from the property.

I currently live out in Utah (second driest state in the country) and I have only had rust problems on an A2 knife, although I have 3 knives in 1095 and 4 in 52100 (only the one in A2).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top