Thread: 1095 Steel

i appreciate hearing simple words like, go with the 1080, you wont regret it..

would anything else be considered simpler to heattreat than 1080?
w1, w2 a2?

I think the 1080 would probably be the most forgiving. It's lower carbon content (it's still a "high carbon" steel) allows the carbon to get into solution more rapidly than the other steels mentioned. (Which means less soak time is needed at the hardening temperature.)

W1 and W2 heat treat at similar temperatures, but the Heat Treater's Guide shows them needing to be Austenitized (held at temperature, aka soak time) for 10 to 30 minutes, depending on thickness. That's difficult to do in a coal forge, but more manageable in a gas forge or kiln. Even though they are considered water hardening steels, I would quench them in a fast quenching oil.

A2 is an air hardening steel, which needs to be Austenitized for 20 to 45 minutes.

All of these steels will make a decent knife. Your equipment and experience should dictate which you use. I will post the heat treating specs from the Heat Treater's Guide below.

Perhaps someone would like to comment on this.....

What is the size of the piece of steel used in the tests?
From what I have read in the past it is 1" thick!

The argument I have heard is that for 1095 & 1080 steel the soak times are mostly irrelevant since we are dealing with an edge that is 1/16"-1/8" thick and the austentizing occurs very rapidly at that thickness.

My understanding is that length of soak time necessary is dependant on the carbon and alloy contents of the steel. The higher the carbon content and/or the more alloys (such as vanadium) the longer you need to soak the steel to get all of the carbon into solution. 1084, being very close to the eutectoid (.83 percent carbon) should go into solution rapidly. 1095, with its somewhat higher carbon content would need a bit more time. Check Kevin Cashen's post in this "How the hell do you heat treat 1095?!" post on BladeForums for more info.

As for the thickness of the steel, I'm not sure how relevant that is for heating, as you don't start counting your soak time until the steel is heated evenly throughout. However, I can see it causing problems during quenching.

If your starting out doing your own heat treat then 1095 is not where you want to be.Requires an exspensive heat treat oil to get proper hardness.A better starting point would be 0-1 or even 5160 as both are much easier to heat treat.

I'm not so sure Mark. 1095 does not have the chromium and tungsten that O-1 does. They are both similar in carbon content. The chromium and tungsten will induce a difference in carbides going into solution that the plain carbon steel will not. You should soak the O-1 a little longer just to be safe.

I'd argue that 1095 is as-forgiving as O-1 and requires no special treatment.

Randy: you're correct for the most part, the industrial world that developed the data points for the heat treatment curves used industrial sized and shaped bits of steel. Definitely not razor or knife shaped. There are some differences based on section thickness and geometry that will change how a steel behaves in the quench, but for the most part the numbers are pretty good. The details, and any differences are subtle, and will become evident to the observer who has the hot piece in his or her hand.

There is not only the problem of thoroughly soaking the steel based on section thickness, but conversely, the problem of cooling rate when bringing the steel temperature down in the quench. If you notice on the W-1 ITD you have about two seconds to complete the quench to give the maxium amount of martensite. Not something to dawdle with from fire to quench tank. And then your quenchant has to be fast enough to pull the heat from the object quenched. Lots to think about.

Keep the steels simple in the beginning until your shop rituals improve. It hurts less to break cheaper stuff than to spend money on expensive steel while your learning curve is steep.

Originally Posted by ChrisMeyer

My understanding is that length of soak time necessary is dependant on the carbon and alloy contents of the steel. The higher the carbon content and/or the more alloys (such as vanadium) the longer you need to soak the steel to get all of the carbon into solution. 1084, being very close to the eutectoid (.83 percent carbon) should go into solution rapidly. 1095, with its somewhat higher carbon content would need a bit more time. Check Kevin Cashen's post in this "How the hell do you heat treat 1095?!" post on BladeForums for more info.

As for the thickness of the steel, I'm not sure how relevant that is for heating, as you don't start counting your soak time until the steel is heated evenly throughout. However, I can see it causing problems during quenching.

Chris... thanks for the link! I have not been to BF for some time. Cashen is always a good read.
Cashen did acknowledge the differences in steel thickness regarding both the soak time and also the equipment used. The example was salt baths versus propane/coal.

It is noticeable that no one talks about heat treating according to the needs of the straight razor user.

Those needs are, IMHO
1. The ability of the average user to hone the razor without major frustration/time investment. This argues for a HRC of 58-60. When you go higher then your talking a noticeable increase in honing time/difficulty. This is something we really need to avoid as it is the major cause of guys giving up on straight razors.

2. The comfort, shaving feel of the edge. Thus far the assumption has been that the finest grained steel results in the "best" edge. No one has shown this to be true. It may very well be that the grind of the razor has much more to do with this than grain size of the steel.

Note. The assumption is that the higher the carbon content the better. Again, no one has shown that this translates into an excellent shaving edge. If that were true than all blades would be made from slightly decarbed cast iron.

To me , the first 2 are major requirements I am trying to meet in straight razors that I make.

One other notion that I take issue with is the idea that a blade needs to have the same hardness on the edge, spine and tang. Why? In one test at Mike Blues on a razor blank from Herder The edge was 59 and the spine was 54. This was a blank from before WWII. Did they know something about razors or not? My focus will be on the 1/4" above the edge.

Cashen, in that thread, was largely focusing on grain refinement/soaking/. He only briefly mentioned decarb but acknowledged its importance. In a prior post Mike Blue stated the need to test, test, test to home in on a process that gives a desired result. Cashen said the same.

Cashen, Mike Blue, Mete, the Heat Treaters Guide and others are all giving us their best but we have to experiment/test/refine until we get to our goal.

The shave test is the only test.

Just my $.02,

1095 is used by many bladesmiths to make knives. It's a fairly simple, low alloy, high carbon steel. Many companies that make files make them out of 1095. The heat treating is straightforward and the quench is brine. My source for this info was the guy who ran a company in Worcester that made industrial knives out of 1095 and from whom I brokered 50,000 lbs. of the stuff. I kept a few pieces for my own blade work.

1095 needs a fast oil like parks for the quench and the brine quench is risky. Youll lose some blades to cracking.With 0-1 you can easily get under the pearlite nose with an oil quench.Id still say for staring out 0-1 is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Howard

1095 is used by many bladesmiths to make knives. It's a fairly simple, low alloy, high carbon steel. Many companies that make files make them out of 1095. The heat treating is straightforward and the quench is brine. ...

I can live with that. 1095 from Uddeholm is my favorite. Very low hardenability that quenches in plain old canola oil or water. For files, I'd agree, brine would be ideal, given the purpose of the tool and the section thickness of a file.

No problem with beginners sticking to forgiving steels. It's not the steel, but the confidence in it and your routines that will make more difference in the end.