Clearly, 1095 is perfectly capable of making a quality knife. The same could be said of 1070. 1095 is a very inexpensive steel, containing little more than iron, carbon and manganese. It contains enough carbon to make it hypereutectoid, so it will form simple carbides. But it does not have any of the minor alloying ingredients that raise the edge stability, toughness and edge retention that even low alloy steels like 1095CV, 52100, O1, C100, 80CrV2 and W2 contain. 1095 is such an inexpensive steel to buy and HT that Ontario still sells very large 1095 Old Hickory butcher knives for less than $20.
1095 has a certain allure - it has been used in famous military knives, and performed admirably.
It also has the allure of being associated with a number of knives that actually don't use 1095. I have heard 1095 touted as being associated with Mora, Cold Steel Bushman and Becker/KaBar. I'm sure there are others. C100, SK-5 and 1095CV are not 1095.
I think there are also folks that admire the simplicity of 1095, and in a complex world the basic nature of 1095 suits the desire for a straightforward outdoors tool. Instead of debating between A2 and O1, 1095 is viewed as a default.
There is also some discussion of 1095 heat treat. Some folks talk about the HT as if it requires great care or a special recipe. This really isn't the case - unlike steels like D2 and 52100, there is really just one right way to do 1095. It isn't secret and it isn't difficult for a professional to perform.
I have nothing against 1095. All steels excel at something, and 1095 excels at making a tough, sharp knife for relatively little expense. I just don't personally understand why anyone would choose a knife made of 1095 if they are spending into the tool steel price range unless there simply is no other choice to get the features they desire.
I realize this is a controversial viewpoint, but keep in mind that nothing I've written is factually inaccurate. The boys over on the blademakers subforum would not disagree about the relatively simplicity and low cost of grinding and heat treating 1095. It is a very good steel, and there are better.
Please post your thoughts.
1095 has a certain allure - it has been used in famous military knives, and performed admirably.
It also has the allure of being associated with a number of knives that actually don't use 1095. I have heard 1095 touted as being associated with Mora, Cold Steel Bushman and Becker/KaBar. I'm sure there are others. C100, SK-5 and 1095CV are not 1095.
I think there are also folks that admire the simplicity of 1095, and in a complex world the basic nature of 1095 suits the desire for a straightforward outdoors tool. Instead of debating between A2 and O1, 1095 is viewed as a default.
There is also some discussion of 1095 heat treat. Some folks talk about the HT as if it requires great care or a special recipe. This really isn't the case - unlike steels like D2 and 52100, there is really just one right way to do 1095. It isn't secret and it isn't difficult for a professional to perform.
I have nothing against 1095. All steels excel at something, and 1095 excels at making a tough, sharp knife for relatively little expense. I just don't personally understand why anyone would choose a knife made of 1095 if they are spending into the tool steel price range unless there simply is no other choice to get the features they desire.
I realize this is a controversial viewpoint, but keep in mind that nothing I've written is factually inaccurate. The boys over on the blademakers subforum would not disagree about the relatively simplicity and low cost of grinding and heat treating 1095. It is a very good steel, and there are better.
Please post your thoughts.
