1095 Oil and Water

B

Bush Monkey

Guest
1095 Oil, Water, blade geometry and stress risers

I have been quenching 3/16 1095 in Canola and have been unable to break 60Rc on the flats. I know the newer quenchants are miraculous but I like to keep things simple. I have not tried thin mineral oil but I suspect that it is faster than canola but still slower than what is recommended for 1095.

I just quenched three 3/16 Saber beveled blades leaving more at the edge than I normally do and a very gradual transition from ricasso to bevel. I used the fastest quenchant I could find anywhere, it's made up of only 2 elements and it's recommended by the folks who make 1095 - WATER. No pings, no cracks, no problem. I will have these Rockwell tested early this week and report the findings here. The Saber (scandi) bevel makes for a very structurally balanced blade when undergoing the very abrupt water quench. I suspect the water will yield the results (59-61Rc on the flats) I want and that is why it's recommended for 1095 - especially when you are working with thicker stock.

Oil and water don't mix and maybe they are not interchangeable as quenchants for thicker 1095 either. I don't think I can simplify the heat treating process any further but I will keep trying.

Jeff


Some of you may enjoy this: http://www.dfoggknives.com/Metallurgical/METALLURGICAL REPORT.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A great deal has been discussed about 1095 on these boards lately. I had far better luck with brine than oil for quenching 1095 that I obtained from Admiral Steel before I stopped using it.

With a 3/16" spine you may not be able to get it to form martensite in that section. The mass in the spine will cause it to cool too slowly reguarless of the quemchant. You may end up with martensite formation only in the edge area.

Doug
 
Agreed. A good part of the 1095 chronicles across the internet is the result of people deviating from what is specifically prescribed by the "experts" as a quenchant for 1095. It's fine to experiment as long as you realize you are "off the reservation". There is lots of BS out there about everything, including heat treating. BS confuses people.

A great deal has been discussed about 1095 on these boards lately. I had far better luck with brine than oil for quenching 1095 that I obtained from Admiral Steel before I stopped using it.
With a 3/16" spine you may not be able to get it to form martensite in that section. The mass in the spine will cause it to cool too slowly reguarless of the quemchant. You may end up with martensite formation only in the edge area.

Doug
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bush but should you not get 65-66 rc with p-50 or dt-48 out of quench? so i am just wandering why you would want to settle for 59-61.
Are you just trying to stay with the simplest ways/or you dont want to use the other oils . Dont take this wrong i am just asking
what your trying for i am confused? I guess what i am saying is if its to keep simple why not use 1084 instead of 1095? would you not get better results? IMOH
 
Last edited:
Are you using JUST water? If so, I'm curious to see what your rockwell tests show, but you'll likely get even better results by mixing in some salt to form a brine solution. This will reduce the insulating vapor jacket that occurs from just using water, and will allow your steel to cool faster. (Almost TOO fast... so an interrupted quench is often the key to avoiding that dreaded ping)
 
What is the heat you quench at, and why not Parks #50 ? It sounds like something is missing here. Maybe a poor batch of 1095? Who is doing the Rc testing, and are they getting correct readings? If you cannot get 65/67 Rc from a water quench, and your quench heat is at the 1475° range, something is missing from the equation.
 
BTW... this is more a case of semantics than anything, but I was always under the impression that a saber (or sabre) grind included a secondary bevel, whereas a scandi grind did not. In other words, I think these are two different terms for two different grinds.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
I think that a "poor batch" of 1095 is not quite the way to phrase it. It just may have a lower manganese level and thus has an IT curve nose very far to the left requiring a very fast quench to miss it. If you harden it the way that specific alloy requires it will still make a good blade. As to why not Parks #50, Jeff is going to have to speak for that. Just remember that there is more than one way to get the job done.

Doug
 
I apologize for not being more descriptive. I regularly get Rc values of 63-66 at the bevel after quencing in Canola oil. However, I have been unable to bust 60 Rc on the 3/16 flats. I suspect that water will give me a point or two more on the bevel and flats.

There must be a reason that the folks who make 1095 recommend water. There is not much money to be made selling water as a quenchant though.

The Rc testing is being done by an industrial heat treating firm in Ft Worth - the numbers are valid.

AR,

I am sure there is a distinction that can be made between a Scandi bevel and a Saber bevel. I just choose not to make that distiction. I also dislike the term "Scandi".

Thanks for the ideas, guys

Jeff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
....There must be a reason that the folks who make 1095 recommend water....


Is it just the manufacturer specs on the steel that make water quenching recommended, or does the structural balance of the scandi grind have anything to do with it. Are there any other grind styles that would be appropriate for water quenching.

So much to learn, Craig
 
The manufacturers recommend water for 1095. (period) It is my belief that the slab sides of a Saber (commonly known as a scandi) beveled blade make it less prone to fracture when quenched in water. Blade breakage seems to be an area of major concern for makers who shy away from water and gravitate toward space age quenchants. I think most people underestimate just how significant, grind, funky angles and any asymmetric elements of blade design are as a contributing factor to the dreaded "ping".

I will have some numbers early next week. If the numbers are there, why use space age quenchants when tap water is readily available and virtually free?

Is it just the manufacturer specs on the steel that make water quenching recommended, or does the structural balance of the scandi grind have anything to do with it. Are there any other grind styles that would be appropriate for water quenching.

So much to learn, Craig
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The manufacturers recommend water for 1095. (period)...

“Hardening: Heat to 1475F (800C). Quench in water or brine. Oil quench sections under 3/16” (1.588 mm) for hardening… - ASM Heat Treaters Guide

For what it is worth I have rather exhaustive tests results and data showing fast quench oil fully hardening 1095 (no pearlite whatsoever, 65HRC) in cross sections exceeding 1/4". I also have the same easily from water.

To all concerned- as a moderator I would suggest that everybody has the right to quench in any darned thing they want to so long as the results are what they want. If folks don’t want to deal with the stress of water, they don’t have to use it. If they don’t want to spend money on a formulated quenchant they don’t have to use it. Let’s please stick to the data and leave the emotional quenchant invectives and unground axes on other sites.
 
Last edited:
Amen.

“Hardening: Heat to 1475F (800C). Quench in water or brine. Oil quench sections under 3/16” (1.588 mm) for hardening… - ASM Heat Treaters Guide

For what it is worth I have rather exhaustive tests results and data showing fast quench oil fully hardening 1095 (no pearlite whatsoever, 65HRC) in cross sections exceeding 1/4". I also have the same easily from water.

To all concerned- as a moderator I would suggest that everybody has the right to quench in any darned thing they want to so long as the results are what they want. If folks don’t want to deal with the stress of water, they don’t have to use it. If they don’t want to spend money on a formulated quenchant they don’t have to use it. Let’s please stick to the data and leave the, emotional quenchant invectives and unground axes on other sites.
 
One thing that was pointed out to me about the manufacturer's recommendations on heat treating steel is that they're usually not talking about pieces of steel the dimentions of knife blades. So if one departs from what a data sheet shows it could be because they found something that works better for a knife blade than it does for a 1" diameter bar of the same steel. These tests are standardized to pieces of steel of a specific cross section and size with heat treating applied in a specific way to reduce variables between tests on different steels. You can bet that those pieces of steel look nothing like a knife blade. Those process have to be adapted to the job at hand.

Doug
 
OK im getting it now, for me i dont use water cuz i dont do saber grinds. And 2 maybe its not all bad that you were not getting the
flats full hardness,would that not be differential heat treating in essence. Wish i could use water but doing full flats
i never had luck with it. so if you can use water and not break blades good on you,maybe more guys will go to that grind if they
can use water instead IMHO.
 
Yes, that "automatic" differential hardening is another tool for knivemaking but it has more to do with the steel used and thickness than the quenchant. It is characteristic of the simpler steels like the W and 10XX series.

Doug
 
I certainly don't have Mr Cashen's encyclopedia-like knowledge of HT data but I can give my own
experience on this subject. Lots of time trying various quenchants on 40 feet of several thicknesses
of 1095 brought me to these conclusions:
- 1095 does not properly and/or reliably ht in peanut, canola, mineral oil, etc...
- It does properly and reliably ht when quenched in one of the many products
designed for these types of steels. (I use McMaster-Carr 11 second oil and get
results in a very narrow range from 65.5 to 66.6).
- 1 gallon of peanut oil is ~$14 while 1 gallon of 11 sec oil is $18.
$4 for reliable results is a bargain in my book.
- Water with or without salt gave inconsistent results (ie: pinging)
- To stay with the peanut oil I was previously using would necessitate a move
to one of the 10xx steels with a lower carbon content.

Fairly cut and dried results in my opinion. Hope they are of use to someone.

My two cents,
David
 
Last edited:
I certainly don't have Mr Cashen's encyclopedia-like knowledge of HT data but I can give my own
experience on this subject. Lots of time trying various quenchants on 40 feet of several thicknesses
of 1095 brought me to these conclusions:
- 1095 does not properly and/or reliably ht in peanut, canola, mineral oil, etc...
- It does properly and reliably ht when quenched in one of the many products
designed for these types of steels. (I use McMaster-Carr 11 second oil and get
results in a very narrow range from 65.5 to 66.6).
- 1 gallon of peanut oil is ~$14 while 1 gallon of 11 sec oil is $18.
$4 for reliable results is a bargain in my book.
- Water with or without salt gave inconsistent results (ie: pinging)
- To stay with the peanut oil I was previously using would necessitate a move
to one of the 10xx steels with a lower carbon content.

Fairly cut and dried results in my opinion. Hope they are of use to someone. My two cents,
David



Thank you. Were any of your 1095 test pieces just flat stock or blades with grinds other than flat or hollow?

The cost is not a factor and as you report, is negligible. I just have difficulty getting past using high tech quenchants when tap water has promise. Again, I doubt you will get many pings if you quench flat, unbeveled bar stock all day long. The problem (I suspect) is NOT the water, it's the bevels, cust and angles which create an "unbalanced" blade. The pinging is the result of differential heating and cooling rates. The greater the thickness differential, the greater the differential of heating and cooling and the greater the differential of heating of cooling, the greater the ping factor - a direct correlation.

Jeff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Water with or without salt gave inconsistent results (ie: pinging)
David

I'm very new to this and I've only quenched three 1095 blades, using brine for the first two and cold tap water for the third. Temperature of the steel at quench was in the 1475*f range with all three. I used an interrupted quench for all three and I haven't had any problems with pinging so far. I use water or brine 'cause I'm on a budget and can't afford the commercial quenchants.

Have I just been lucky or does the interrupted quench really help alleviate the dreaded pinging? Does the interrupted quench have something to do reducing the stresses within the steel? Maybe due to allowing the temperatures within the steel to equalize before finishing the quench?

Just trying to learn more about whats going on.
 
Thanks David C., that seems like a good sized sampling. It seems to fit in with the link in the first post where the authors used 1095 that is reported as having a carbon content that's quite a bit lower than might be thought.

Take care, Craig
 
Back
Top