Why Does Everyone Think 1095 is Tough?

J

James Starr

Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
78
I know that chromium makes steel brittle, and so carbon steel does tend to have an advantage in toughness, but my experience with 1095 is that it is not a tough steel at all! TOPS does a fantastic job with 1095, but that's primarily due to their "differential" heat treat, which is tantamount to blue backing their blades, leaving the cutting edge hard for edge retention while leaving the spine softer and more elastic. I love TOPS and would not hesitate to buy any of their knives. In fact, I chose 1095 for my BOB over 154CM because I have absolute confidence in their heat treatment. I also have an El Chete in 1095 which I use hard without a bit of concern. I do not dislike 1095 at all. I actually really like it for a lot of applications, but it just isn't a tough steel! I actually bought a Condor when they switched to 1095 and snapped the blade in half batonning a smallish oak branch the day after it arrived. Before you ask, yes I do have an axe! And, no, I didn't seek warranty replacement because I realize I should not have batonning hardwood with a $60 knife, so my bad. My point is that I have never found 1095 to be particularly tough, yet every graph shows 1095 to have excellent toughness. I can baton with my N690 scandivex all day without a chip and minimal rolling, and all the charts say it has very marginal toughness at a similar 60ish hardness. Am I wrong or are the charts wrong? Am I just having bad experience with 1095? Is there something I'm missing, or have others had similar experience with 1095?
 
"I baton, therefore I am...."


People think 1095 is a very tough steel because they don't know any better.

They don't know the toughness numbers.



Or because some one else said it, and they repeat it.

1095 is very low on the toughness scale, even compared to 1084...

When even 440c has significant higher charpy test results.
 
Last edited:
There’s some variables that can effect toughness. I’m not familiar with that particular knife so I can’t say what the problem is but I’d have to say buttoning is the main problem. Especially if it is a thin slicer that’s run a bit harder. The thickness, blade grind and heat treatment will definitely make a difference in toughness. I know there are many u tube vids that have all kinds of wacky tests on knifes of every kind and most of them don’t have anything to do with actual knife use. If you want to chop wood get an axe or a bow saw for limbs. Save your knife for cutting and slicing.
 
James Starr said:
every graph shows 1095 to have excellent toughness.

("SNIP")Am I wrong or are the charts wrong? Am I just having bad experience with 1095? Is there something I'm missing, or have others had similar experience with 1095?
Click to expand...

What chart shows 1095 to have "excellent toughness"?

Seems to be near the bottom of most charts I have seen.

10ft lbs or so.(as low as 5 ft lbs at higher hardness)
1084 is about 25 ft lbs.


Even D2 is higher than that 1095
 
Lesknife said:
There’s some variables that can effect toughness. I’m not familiar with that particular knife so I can’t say what the problem is but I’d have to say buttoning is the main problem. Especially if it is a thin slicer that’s run a bit harder. The thickness, blade grind and heat treatment will definitely make a difference in toughness. I know there are many u tube vids that have all kinds of wacky tests on knifes of every kind and most of them don’t have anything to do with actual knife use. If you want to chop wood get an axe or a bow saw for limbs. Save your knife for cutting and slicing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was referring to the innate toughness of the steel. I understand that blade geometry is important to the application. I should have mentioned that both knives had similar blade geometry, 4" scandi grinds with 5 mil spines. The primary difference was the steel. I was trying to point out that the steels seem to perform differently. And I did say that I do have an axe. I don't actually baton a lot, but I like to think that a bushcraft knife can withstand hard use without snapping in half, so I do like to see if a hard use knife can withstand hard use. If I baton, it is generally to split wood more accurately for carving without splitting in ways I don't want. A knife is generally better for that than a wedge or an axe in my experience, so I do like a knife that can baton if I want it to. Regardless, I only mention batonning to compare the mechanical properties of the steel, and even N690 outperforms 1095 in toughness in my experience, and N690 is not regarded as a tough steel while 1095 generally is. But thanks for the reply.
 
Last edited:
Bigfattyt said:
What chart shows 1095 to have "excellent toughness"?

Seems to be near the bottom of most charts I have seen.

10ft lbs or so.(as low as 5 ft lbs at higher hardness)
1084 is about 25 ft lbs.


Even D2 is higher than that 1095
Click to expand...
I'm probably looking at the wrong charts. I'm no metallurgist, but one chart that comes to mind is the blade steel guide at bladehq. That chart lists the toughness of 1095 as 7/10, N690 as 4/10, and D2 as 6/10. It feels like a lot of people think 1095 is tough to the point that the general consensus seems to be that 1095 is a tough steel. You are clearly much better informed than most, but I'm surprised that you haven't noticed that a lot of people regard 1095 as one of the tougher blade options. We must run in different circles. Anyway, here's the link: https://www.bladehq.com/cat--Best-Knife-Steel-Guide--3368 for you to check out. As for D2, I would love to love it. I'm pretty sure my grandpa killed nazis with it. But my experience with D2 is that it's only slightly tougher than glass and 1095. I am actually a big fan of N690, however the blades I own in N690 are fairly high end, so I wouldn't be surprised if the heat treatment is simply very good. Even 1095 impresses me if it's touched by TOPS.
 
James Starr said:
Yeah, yeah... I know! I only mentioned batonning to compare the toughness between steels in similar style knives. I don't want to make this about batonning. But thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

Well, using batonning to compare steels toughness isn't a good judge of a blade. Neither is blade hq, their charts are laughable. Go to knife steel nerds. Larrin is a metalurgist and his work is exceptional.
 
ontario switched to 1075 from 1095 except their military knives due to breakage, while back.

if going to baton you can still break 5160 or 1075.
used as a knife ive found 1095 good enough.
 
jbmonkey said:
ontario switched to 1075 from 1095 except their military knives due to breakage, while back.

if going to baton you can still break 5160 or 1075.
used as a knife ive found 1095 good enough.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I didn't mean to imply that 1095 isn't a good steel. I just don't understand why it seems to be regarded as a tough steel. I like 1095. I just don't find it particularly tough. I suspect it is mostly because people regard carbon steel as tough and also because TOPS does a fantastic job with their differential heat treatment.
 
Good grief. I almost didn't mention batonning because I was afraid this thread would turn into a debate about batonning... I get it. This is about the mechanical properties of 1095, not about how I should use my knife. Thanks for the replies, really, but can we please just forget I mentioned batonning?
 
DMG said:
My Esee 4 in 1095 has proved to be extremely tough.
Click to expand...
Cool. I have nothing but good things about Ease knives. I even know one of their knife designers, but I have never owned one because I generally prefer scandi knives for my fixed blade applications. I use a folding knife (Gerber Gator 154CM) in my kill kit when I'm hunting. I generally use fixed blades for woodwork, and flat grinds dig in funny for me. I wish Esse would offer a blade in scandi. If they do, I will buy it for sure. But I'm glad you've had good experiences with 1095 from Esse. I have had good experience with 1095 from TOPS, so I know that 1095 can work for hard tasks with the right treatment. I have experienced some pretty serious chipping with my el chete, but it's a chopper, so I would expect that with any steel that holds a reasonable edge. I'm actually surprised the blade hasn't broken or bent, but I have a lot more confidence with it than I probably should. Thanks for the reply.
 
To answer your question of "why people think 1095 has good toughness," it's likely marketing.

Lots of companies (not just knife companies) state 1095 has "good toughness" but never actually define what good toughness is or have the data to show relative toughness to other steels.

Without the data, debating over whether 1095 is tough or not is really kinda moot. Anectodal evidence usually isn't reliable to go off of.

Additionally you can get some better toughness numbers with heat treat, as well (think austempering). Though, again, we would need some form of data to go off.
 
Spears said:
To answer your question of "why people think 1095 has good toughness," it's likely marketing.

Lots of companies (not just knife companies) state 1095 has "good toughness" but never actually define what good toughness is or have the data to show relative toughness to other steels.

Without the data, debating over whether 1095 is tough or not is really kinda moot. Anectodal evidence usually isn't reliable to go off of.

Additionally you can get some better toughness numbers with heat treat, as well (think austempering). Though, again, we would need some form of data to go off.
Click to expand...
Yup. Good point about marketing. TOPS obviously markets their knives as hard use outdoor products, and they back that up by using differential heat treatment, but I wouldn't be surprised if they temper it down to a lower than recommended hrc as well. I don't recall marketing claims that 1095 steel is tough, but it doesn't surprise me. It's a bit self fulfilling isn't it? I mean, if people want 1095, knife makers will give it to them, even if it means tempering it down to 1084 levels. At that point, why not just use 1084? Probably because people want 1095. I'm sure the data is out there on the steel. I'm not privy to it, but a couple users have already posted some chirpy data on this thread, so it's not really moot. Thanks for the reply.
 
Last edited:
soc_monki said:
Click to expand...
This guy thinks batoning is abusive but then chops and stabs with his knife? He also thinks that the knife is his primary survival tool even though he seems to favor his saw for the heavy lifting. I also wonder why he’d bother to make a wedge when you can split the wood without it. Or why he’s using a wedge that thick. Mostly, I wonder why he’d opt for expending MORE time and energy using a technique that even he struggles with trying to disprove another technique that he has a knife fully capable of doing. Why would you carry that knife if not to have batoning on the menu... Too many people on YouTube trying to teach stuff they don’t understand.

Batoning to split wood like that isn’t abusive and not really all that stressful on the knife. It’s also not damaging to the edge either as the edge is typically untouched by the wood after the initial couple of taps. You can do it with a thin mora. The only people arguing the baton vs. no baton are people who can’t realize there’s more then one way to skin a cat or what their equipment is capable of.

As to the topic at hand, 1095 is cheap and tough enough for most things. I wouldn’t choose it for an edc where I encounter cardboard but for the woods you really don’t need something super tough if the heat treat and geometry are right. And that’s for me who knows about steel. To the vast majority of the people out there, 1095 may be the best steel they’ve ever tried and because it does what they need it’s therefore the best. I think it’s a perspective thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top