1084 steel knife

[cedarfluteman]

When using 1084 steel if I profile a knife out before I use the stock removal on the knife would it make a better knife if I was to forge the edge down instead of using all stock removal?
And does 1084 steel make a better knife than using a file for knife steel? Assuming it's a good quality file.

[Ray Rogers]

There is no way to use stock removal before you profile the knife so the first question can't really be answered. Stock removal and forging are both simply methods for shaping a blade, neither is better than the other for 1084 or any other steel. Once the blade is shaped by forging it must be further refined by stock removal so, when you're done, you're at the same place you would be if you had done the whole thing by stock removal (but you might have had more fun forging). Now that the blade is shaped you can heat treat it and that is what will determine if your blade is great or merely good or a complete failure. The heat treat is what counts, how the blade got shaped is only a preference.

Yes, 1084 makes a better knife than a file if for no other reason than you know what you have with 1084 and with a file you're guessing. Good files are made from 1095 or some Swedish alternative to 1095 so except for the fact that such steels are a bit more difficult to heat treat properly they are pretty much identical to 1084, just a percent more carbon....

[Doug Lester]

Ok, you just open a can of worms here. There has long been a arguement as to whether or not one system makes a "better" knife than the other. What many/most people loose track of is that all knives are created with forging and stock removal. What is differnet between the two is when those processes are done.

All steel gets rolled out into bars either round or flat at the foundry. That is forging. That also leads me to question the opinion by a nationally known smith that forging a knife from a round or thick flat bar makes a superior knife to one that is forges from flat bar only as thick as the desired blade or at least only slightly more thick because all flat bar is forges from thicker bars somewhere. I'm going to have to see several people reproduce these results before I buy into that one. I also quenstion the results from another smith that claims that forged 52100 is better than just stock removal. Flat bar steel is ariving in the knife maker's shop preforged.

It has also been argued by knowlegable smiths that forging bends the lines of grain in the steel instead of cutting through them. Other knowlegable knife makers, some of them smiths, say that it makes no difference because steel doesn't have lines of grain in the same way wood does. Though there are lines if grain in a fasion.

Remember also that a knifesmith forges out a blade to 60-90% of the finished shape and then has to resort to stock removal. Grinding is grinding.

As to your second question, again it is impossible to say unless you know what steel you're talking about. If the steel is 1095 then it might be a little harder to heat treat than 1084. It will also produce more carbides, in this case cementite, both within and without the pearlite and the plates of cementite within the pearlite will be thicker. This will results in a more wear resistant blade of equal harness However, the 1084 with more ferrite to cementite in the pearlite will be tougher.

Now if the steel is W1 then it might well be the equivalent of the 1084 or the 1095 or even something in between. W1 is classified by physical properties more than carbon content and the amount of carbon can vary between melts. W2 is also sometimes used in at least the older files and it adds some vanadium into the mix which would produce carbides of vanadium as well as cementite to increase the wear resistance over 1095 and W1 due to carbide formation as opposed to martensite formation.

If you think this is getting confusing, wait until you really get into metallurgy. Hope this helps.

Doug

[cedarfluteman]

Originally Posted by Doug Lester

Ok, you just open a can of worms here. There has long been a arguement as to whether or not one system makes a "better" knife than the other. What many/most people loose track of is that all knives are created with forging and stock removal. What is differnet between the two is when those processes are done.

All steel gets rolled out into bars either round or flat at the foundry. That is forging. That also leads me to question the opinion by a nationally known smith that forging a knife from a round or thick flat bar makes a superior knife to one that is forges from flat bar only as thick as the desired blade or at least only slightly more thick because all flat bar is forges from thicker bars somewhere. I'm going to have to see several people reproduce these results before I buy into that one. I also quenstion the results from another smith that claims that forged 52100 is better than just stock removal. Flat bar steel is ariving in the knife maker's shop preforged.

It has also been argued by knowlegable smiths that forging bends the lines of grain in the steel instead of cutting through them. Other knowlegable knife makers, some of them smiths, say that it makes no difference because steel doesn't have lines of grain in the same way wood does. Though there are lines if grain in a fasion.

Remember also that a knifesmith forges out a blade to 60-90% of the finished shape and then has to resort to stock removal. Grinding is grinding.

As to your second question, again it is impossible to say unless you know what steel you're talking about. If the steel is 1095 then it might be a little harder to heat treat than 1084. It will also produce more carbides, in this case cementite, both within and without the pearlite and the plates of cementite within the pearlite will be thicker. This will results in a more wear resistant blade of equal harness However, the 1084 with more ferrite to cementite in the pearlite will be tougher.

Now if the steel is W1 then it might well be the equivalent of the 1084 or the 1095 or even something in between. W1 is classified by physical properties more than carbon content and the amount of carbon can vary between melts. W2 is also sometimes used in at least the older files and it adds some vanadium into the mix which would produce carbides of vanadium as well as cementite to increase the wear resistance over 1095 and W1 due to carbide formation as opposed to martensite formation.

If you think this is getting confusing, wait until you really get into metallurgy. Hope this helps.

Doug

Thanks for the reply, but
Definitely over my head at this point in time.

[Ed Tipton]

Cedarfluteman...By definition, stock removal means you are shaping the metal by removing all excess metal from the blank and leaving only the knife. In forging, we are taking a fixed amount of steel, and to the greatest extent possible, we are reforming it without removing any of the material. We simply re-form whatever metal is there by using heat and either hammering or using pressure to change the shape and configuration of the steel to make it into whatever it is we want it to be.
Eventually, at some point in the process, all knives....even forged knives.... will have to be ground to some extent in order to provide the final finish and to sharpen them to a useful edge.
Generally speaking, knives that are made by the stock removal process will undergo more grinding and thus will have a greater loss of material. The forging process where the steel is heated and repeatedly pounded upon does help to refine the grain structure of the steel, and if all things are created equal (seldom the case), should produce a better knife, but even slight differences in the heat treatment can make considerable differences in the end product....so it is possible to end up with a good knife or a bad knife with either process depending upon the HT.
Doug's point that all steel is forged when delivered is true, however, the forging that is done by the bladesmith with his hammer while at his anvil and while shaping and forming his blade is a further refinement of this forging process and is done with more control and direction than simply coming off of a hot rolling mill. The bladesmith directs his hammer blows in such a way as to form and shape and refine the metal to his specific will with his specific intent in mind.....so in my mind....I don't consider these two "forgings" to be the same.

[WBE]

That is simply uninformed BS! The heat will make changes in the grain, but the results of pounding it does nothing to refine it more than it is. The ONLY way grain can be refined is by proper heat cycling. Anything you have done with the hammer to refine the steel, is undone when you take the steel through a proper HT process, and there is no middle ground on this. If anything, the roller forging at the mill is much more precise and superior to someone beating the steel with a hammer.

[Doug Lester]

WBE, I think you have used some unfortunate phrases here. There's sort of a personal agreement here that we don't label others opinions as "uninformed BS". I think that it's one of the strong points of this board that we can dissagree here without being dissagreable.

My appologies to the management if I have overstepped my bounds by attempting to moderate this board.

Doug

[Ray Rogers]

WBE,

Lighten up! I happen to agree with the information in your statement but let's find more diplomatic ways to make our point. History has shown us this is a hot point topic and I think it needs more discussion but we need to make sure the dialog doesn't escalate to some level beyond civil discourse ....

[WBE]

You are both correct. I was a tad harsh, and offer my apologies to the board and to Mr. Tipton, but suggest that perhaps he do a bit more study on basic metallurgy before making such statements to be offered as fact rather than just his belief.

[Ray Rogers]

I don't consider myself to be much of a metallurgist but I have been reading about heat treating and forging for a almost two decades. The argument that forged blades are better has been kicked around in magazines and forums for a very long time and the pros and cons of the arguments have changed over the years as metallurgical knowledge improved. For instance, the theory that 'edge packing' was responsible for the high performance of forged blades has been thoroughly discredited as has several other concepts that were once accepted as obvious truths about forged blades.

It has become my opinion (that's *opinion*) over time that there can be a difference in the forged vs the stock removal blade but that difference has a source that is misunderstood. Most assume that when a forged blade exhibits exemplary performance that it is by virtue of the fact that the blade was forged - after all, we are all enamored of Vulcan's siren call. I believe that the small advantage in superiority that a forged blade may be able to demonstrate comes from the advanced knowledge of heat treatment that the advanced smiths - I offer Ed Caffrey as an example - have acquired and the additional control over subtleties of heat treating that a forge or salt pots can offer over a heat treat oven if you know and understand those subtleties. My premise is that if the heat treatment is done exactly the same way the blades will perform the same (assuming identical physical characteristics). Further, since heat treatment is a terribly difficult proposition in a forge it might be worth considering that for the average bladesmith there is a reasonable chance that his blades will perform no better and perhaps not as well as a similar blade from a stock removal maker with a more controlled HT in an oven.

In the end, whoever does the better heat treatment will produce the better blade. Simply smacking the steel into shape with a hammer does not in itself guarantee a superior product even if it is more fun ....

[WBE]

Originally Posted by Ray Rogers

I don't consider myself to be much of a metallurgist but I have been reading about heat treating and forging for a almost two decades. The argument that forged blades are better has been kicked around in magazines and forums for a very long time and the pros and cons of the arguments have changed over the years as metallurgical knowledge improved. For instance, the theory that 'edge packing' was responsible for the high performance of forged blades has been thoroughly discredited as has several other concepts that were once accepted as obvious truths about forged blades.

It has become my opinion (that's *opinion*) over time that there can be a difference in the forged vs the stock removal blade but that difference has a source that is misunderstood. Most assume that when a forged blade exhibits exemplary performance that it is by virtue of the fact that the blade was forged - after all, we are all enamored of Vulcan's siren call. I believe that the small advantage in superiority that a forged blade may be able to demonstrate comes from the advanced knowledge of heat treatment that the advanced smiths - I offer Ed Caffrey as an example - have acquired and the additional control over subtleties of heat treating that a forge or salt pots can offer over a heat treat oven if you know and understand those subtleties. My premise is that if the heat treatment is done exactly the same way the blades will perform the same (assuming identical physical characteristics). Further, since heat treatment is a terribly difficult proposition in a forge it might be worth considering that for the average bladesmith there is a reasonable chance that his blades will perform no better and perhaps not as well as a similar blade from a stock removal maker with a more controlled HT in an oven.

In the end, whoever does the better heat treatment will produce the better blade. Simply smacking the steel into shape with a hammer does not in itself guarantee a superior product even if it is more fun ....

Exactly!!

[graveyard]

cedarfluteman i can only tell as a novist muself if you deside to stockremoval (cut theshape out ) find someone to normalize & heath trearh these ore componys to help google knife heath treathing normalizeing & annealing its a good start

[Ed Tipton]

WBE....I doubt that if we were to sit down and discuss the subject, that you would consider me to be un-informed. I will plead guilty to possibly having been mis-informed on some things at some point, and, as has already been mentioned, this subject carries the title of "controversial". I like to thnk I am open minded, and, I readily admit that I certainly don't know it all....but as we learn...we all form our own opinions and beliefs. My statements were not offered so much as a statement of fact as they were an opinion....but I do know there are others on this forum who share the same opinion. If I ever decide to write a book on the subject, I'll be sure and get all the facts straight before I put them into print.
On the subject of forging, I do wonder why , if there is no benefit to be derived from forging other than the "fun" of doing it, then why does industry place such a high value on specifying that certain items must be forged, and must be identified as such...items such as crane hooks etc. I am quite certain that they do not make such specifications just so the foundry people can enjoy their workday.
As I stated in my earlier posting, I am very much aware of the value of competent heat treatment, and also the liabilities of poorly executed HT. It IS my opinion that more than anything else, it is the HT that determines the quality of the blade, but I continue to believe that in the virtues of the forged blade.

[Ray Rogers]

Ed,

That question about why industry specifies forged parts is very compelling and I think there is a simple explanation for that. The most important requirement that an industrial part be forged is simply so that there is a guarantee that the part is not cast. Obviously, a cast crane hook is a disaster waiting to happen.

Secondly, a forged part is assured of having a certain grain structure - basically, the grain runs lengthwise through the part and that gives the part more strength. It is my understanding - and completely up for discussion - that it isn't the act of forging that causes this grain structure to occur but the attendant heat that goes with it. Stock removal blades also exhibit this longitudinal structure after the heat treat is completed even if the original bar stock did not (or so I've read).....

[Ed Tipton]

Ray...For the sake of argument...you stated that the grain runs longitudinally in a FORGED part, due to the attendant heat, and that is why you believe industry specifies forged over a cast steel part. However, a cast steel part is also subjected to heat as is a forged part, so if the grain structure is due to the attendant heat, then why shouldn't a cast hook be adequate?
I continue to believe the act of forging contributes to the properties of the steel. If it did not, I see no reason as to why anything should ever be forged...ever. Just apply heat as needed.
Perhaps there will come a day when the chemists, alchemists, and metallurgists will all get their heads together and come up with something that will work like that. Maybe they already have for all I know. But in my little corner of this world, I still think forging has it's place.