Another of my odd steel questions

Black cat

Well-Known Member
I'm going to make a steel order soon... Really trying to keep costs to a minimum.
I noticed Aldos 1095 is less expensive than his 1084.

I always considered 1095 slightly superior, you can get a decent hamon with it.
Although it seems to require some skill (HT control) to really get the best of it.
Why would would 1084 cost more?
 
The only accurate answer to that question is the answer Aldo has. My guess.....1084 was not available much of anywhere not that long ago. To my understanding, Aldo brought that steel back into availability when he had a German steel foundry create it for him some few years back. Same with W2...it was all but impossible to find it in bar stock until he had the German company make it. 1095 was/is more available. I think it's just a supply issue. Or lack thereof, to be more precise.

1095 does give a better hamon because the Manganese is very low, which in turn requires a fast quench. Plus, 1095 needs a soak at a tight temperature window, whereas the 1084 is more forgiving in temp, and does not "need" an extended soak.
 
and just to throw more into the mix, AKS 1080+ is another alternative to 1095, like 1084 it is easier to heat treat, also available in thinner sections than 1084.
 
Interesting I never would have guessed that, but availablity makes sense.
AKS 1080+ you say? I'll have to have a look at that!
 
I'll throw in my 2 cents concerning 1095..... it does not get used in my shop. Now, the caveat to that is IF Aldo is having the 1095 produced, rather then reselling it, I would go for it. If it's the typical 1095 that's produced and he is reselling it.... no way.

Here's the reason. A few years ago, I got a rash of calls and emails from individuals who could not get 1095 to harden. Being the type of person I am, I did some investigating. What I found was appalling. It seems that in order to produce 1095 more cheaply, producers widened out the specs of the Manganese on 1095. Prior to the change, the manganese range in 1095 was .3-.5...... the producers basically made that spec .2-.7. The upper end of that scale isn't an issue, but the lower end creates a serious problem for Knifemakers.

Basically if you end up with bars of 1095 that are on the low end, you have less then ONE SECOND on the time/temp curve to harden it..... what that means is in general, in order for a simple carbon steel to fully harden, it must be cooled at a rate that takes it from its austinizing temp, to 400 degrees or less, in 6 seconds or less. With 1095 that has less then .3 manganese, you have ONE second OR less to do that..... physically impossible for the average knifemaker. Does the possibility exist that you will never experience this? Certainly. But for me, I simple am not willing to take the risk of putting all the time and effort into creating a blade, and then have the possibility that I cannot harden it. For those reasons 1095 has no place in my shop, and I will not use it.

The part that floors me is that the "old" specs are still what everybody uses to advertise their 1095, and many people continue to be confounded when they can't get 1095 to harden. When I asked my contacts at the steel producers about that, the response was "We don't care. For MOST people who use 1095, it's a non-issue." Chalk one up for capitalism, and the little guys getting hosed.
 
I can speak from recent experience with Aldo's 1095. I bought a 12"x48" sheet and all the blades fully hardened, checked with Rockwell tester. That being said, I'm not that crazy about 1095 now, not sure I'll use it anymore. My problem with it is when you do not want a hamon, you sort of end up with harder and softer zones that can show in your finishing.
 
Back
Top