MEMBER ITEMS FOR SALE
Custom Knives | Other Knives | General Items
-------------------------------------------
New Posts | New PhotosAll Photos



Go Back   The Knife Network Forums : Knife Making Discussions > Custom Knife Discussion Boards > Knife Making Discussions > The Newbies Arena

The Newbies Arena Are you new to knife making? Here is all the help you will need.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 05-19-2009, 05:00 PM
DiamondG Knives's Avatar
DiamondG Knives DiamondG Knives is offline
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dardanelle, Arkansas
Posts: 2,101
Send a message via Yahoo to DiamondG Knives
Dave,
Another suggestion you might try is to heat the handle/ ricasso first, letting the heat travel 3/4 up then turn around. The thicker mass being a heat sink will expose your tip to a lot of heat while coming up to critical. But I agree with above on annealing being critical.

Another thought would be the Fowler torch technique.

Good Luck and God Bless

Mike


__________________
"I cherish the Hammer of Thor, but I praise the hand of God"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-19-2009, 07:00 PM
Shankmaker's Avatar
Shankmaker Shankmaker is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by WBE
I think you will quickly fall in love with 1080/84. Do not look at it as an inferior steel because the carbon is a tad lower. Much of 1095 is acually closer to 1090, and sometimes less. Well HT'd 1095 only beats 1080/84 by hair or two in performance, and is just so much more forgiving in the HT. 1080/84 is also deeper hardening than 1095 due to having more manganese. As far as 01, it's my favorite steel, but is impossible to HT correctly without a controled heat source such as an oven, salts, or a propane forge arrangement with a heat control, and decarb protection is advised. 01 requires 20 minute soaks to come into a full solution with good carbon distribution. Ovens are great, but you also should aim for 5 gallons of commercial oil to go with it. You will likely choke at the price of it, but it will outperform, and outlast most, if not all, of the grocery store oils.
I was curious when you say one steel outperforms the other just exactly what your talking about? All I have used is 1080 . I would like to know what Im missing out on in the performance area.


__________________
Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.

Check out my website.
www.crystalcreekknives.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-19-2009, 07:28 PM
Andrew Garrett's Avatar
Andrew Garrett Andrew Garrett is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 3,584
1095 ground to 120g with 1/16" at the edge...
Simple atmospheric forge...
No normalization...
Heat to non-magnetic, magnet check, back in the fire for a few seconds...
Ninja-like speed to the olive/veg oil quench (preheated with a scrap to warm, not hot)...
Wire brush and papertowell wipedown...
Tests in low 60s every time (62-63 high / 60-61 low) (I know, it will go to 64)...
Temper for one hour in a preheated oven at 450*...
Final rockwell of 58ish everytime
Never cracked a blade with this method
This WAS my rookie steel and I've always found it very easy to work.
In fact, I HT 1080 and 1084 and carbon damascus the same way, and get similar results.
Maybe I'm just lucky...


__________________
Andy Garrett
https://www.facebook.com/GarrettKnives?ref=hl
Charter Member - Kansas Custom Knifemaker's Association
www.kansasknives.org

"Drawing your knife from its sheath and using it in the presence of others should be an event complete with oos, ahhs, and questions."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-20-2009, 07:18 AM
WBE WBE is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 484
Shank, 1095 has a little more abrasion resistance due to the extra carbon, but is not enough better than 1080/84 to warrant the risks and hassles of using it unless you have the right stuff to HT it.
Andy, I used 1095 for a number of years myself, and I never cracked one either, but I did experience too many hits, and misses on the performance end of it. I was using a thinned petroleum mix at the time. Later on I was able send blades, or samples to a friend who had a friend who could Rockwell them. He was getting mixed readings from one area to another in the steel, and then I started researching. From what I found, I was getting martensitic pearlite rather than good solid martensite, and although some came out decent, others did not do as well, at least by my expectations. I never had a customer complain. All seemed very happy with my blades, but I wasn't. Ideally, you should be getting 64/65 Rc after quench, but it would seem that you are getting close enough for a good blade, and if they perform to your standards, nothing more can be said. Your quench is no doubt a little better than mine was, although not quite as good as it might be.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-20-2009, 08:20 AM
Andrew Garrett's Avatar
Andrew Garrett Andrew Garrett is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 3,584
WBE,
This isn't the only thread where I've had this discussion recently, and the comments I've recieved on this subject over the years have been similar.

To my mind, 58RC down from anything higher is..., well..., 58RC, right? I mean, that is the general target for carbon steel utility knives if what I read around here is true.

Could I be getting better edge retention? Perhaps--but I have no complaints.

Yet, for me, I try to keep things in perspective--It's a hobby. If I was limiting myself to making only knives that perform at the absolute 'cutting edge' of technology (pun intended), I'd use CPM 154 or S30V, HT with my Paragon KM-24 exclusively, and be done with it. Prices would double and that would be that.

As it is, I have a very cost effective way to make very good knives with 1095 that sell at prices people will pay and make great gifts. However, I do think I'll try some Parks quench oil in the interest of going the extra mile. If I start cracking blades, I'll return to the old tried and true method. Heck, I might even try a salt water quench.

Let no one say I was set in my ways.

For the record, when I test on my benchtop Rockwell tester, I test at no less than three places along the edge and as many as a half dozen places over all. I'm always worried I'll crack it while testing after the quench. It may be hard pearlite and not completely martensite, but the hardness tester doesn't know the difference.


__________________
Andy Garrett
https://www.facebook.com/GarrettKnives?ref=hl
Charter Member - Kansas Custom Knifemaker's Association
www.kansasknives.org

"Drawing your knife from its sheath and using it in the presence of others should be an event complete with oos, ahhs, and questions."
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-20-2009, 08:25 AM
Andrew Garrett's Avatar
Andrew Garrett Andrew Garrett is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 3,584
Here's a scientific question:

Wouldn't cooler oil be equal in quenching speed to warmer water? Shouldn't there be some compensation there--perhaps an equation?

Viscosity X Tempurature = Quench speed (or something like that)


__________________
Andy Garrett
https://www.facebook.com/GarrettKnives?ref=hl
Charter Member - Kansas Custom Knifemaker's Association
www.kansasknives.org

"Drawing your knife from its sheath and using it in the presence of others should be an event complete with oos, ahhs, and questions."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-20-2009, 10:28 AM
WBE WBE is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 484
As long as things are working for you to your satisfaction, and your customers', your doing fine. As to warm water equal of cool oil. I would say no. Cool oil will have a longer lasting vapor jacket. Warm oil cools faster than cool oil because of this. In the case of 1095, you have less than one second, about .8 of a second, to drop the temp from 1475?/1500? to under 900, to miss getting some amount of pearlite transformation. I am not very experienced in water quenching, but I would assume water would act similar to oil in warm vs cool. With 1095, brine would be the best quench to get the fullest martensite, but comes with a much increased chance of cracking over oil. Brine is faster than plain water, but the salt clings to the blade very evenly, forming a barrier to the water, breaks up the vapor faster, and allows the water to cool the steel much more evenly than plain water. Even cooling is as important as speed in cooling. Plain water is very uneven in it's cooling effect on hot steel. Most blades crack and warp due to uneven cooling more than other influences. I can't give you all the answers as to why 58 Rc may not is be as good as long as it is 58 Rc, only that tempered martensite is much stronger than tempered martensitic pearlite. If for example, if 58 Rc was the only goal, then why not find a heat, and quench that would give you 58 Rc in the quench. No need to temper. The reason, as I understand it, is that you will have carbon collected in the grain boundaries, and some in layers mixed with the pearlite, and some as it should be, which makes the steel weaker, and more prone to break, or crack in use, and would not hold as good an edge, because of this unused carbon, even though it would read out 58 Rc. In essence, you could turn 1095 into 1060, as far as usable carbon. The rest is lurking in your grain boundaries waiting on the opportunity to cause your blade to crack when it gets stressed enough. That's my basic understanding, but you will have to ask someone smarter than me for better details. I am not questioning your method. You seem to be getting something that works well enough, but just that the potential to make it even better is there, but only if you were to feel a need to do so. You are doing better than I did with that steel, and I do not think you have been lucky. You just have a better process than I did, that gets you closer to your goals. My results were just too mixed, and I blame most of it on the goop quench I used. Now I do find it odd that you don't normalize, or heat cycle before you HT. You said you grind, but even that stresses steel. You don't have any problems with warp? Just something I would suggest to you to try. A few heat cycles under non-magnetic around 1300?, before heating to quench, will reduce the grain size, and refine it to be more even. This will also spheroidize the carbon though, not a bad thing, but will make it necessary to soak a tad longer at quench heat in order to dissolve it thoroughly. I don't know for sure, but you could even pick up another point in Rc.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-20-2009, 02:05 PM
dbalfa's Avatar
dbalfa dbalfa is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 363
This may have gotten lost somewhere in this thread but - how long should one soak 1095 at 1450-1500?

and what does everyong think about Veterinarian grade Mineral Oil as a quenchant for 1095? I say vet grade simply because of the consistency one can get (and quantities).


__________________
Dennis

"..good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from poor judgement.." -Gary McMahan, a cowboy poet and good dancer.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/p...24112090995576
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-20-2009, 05:11 PM
WBE WBE is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 484
All steels benefit from a soak. Some more than others, some have to soak longer than others. With 1095, 5, to 10 minutes. Remember grain growth is more sensitive to temp than time. You want at least 1475?/ to 1500? to get a good solution. 10 minutes will do no harm, but 5 would probably be enough unless you have done grain reduction, spheroidizing heat cycling, which you really should do. Then I'd go 10 minutes to be sure of a good solution. I described this to Mr. Garret, but here it is again. If you forged the blade, start out taking it up to around 1550?. As soon as it reaches temp, remove it and air cool it to room temp. Then cycle it. If you ground it, you can simply give it 3 heats at around 1300?, cooling completely down between heats. This reduces grain size, removes stresses, and causes the carbon to form into tiny spheres. These spheres take a little more time to dissolve into solution than a lamelar structure does, so 10/15 minutes should easily do the job. First taking it up to 1550? as mentioned will do no harm even if only ground, and may possibly add to the quality of carbon distribution. With 1095, your enemies are lack of enough manganese, causing a need for a very fast quench, and the extra carbon that will not go into solution. The lack of manganese, we cannot change, but the even distribution of the extra carbon we can deal with by the soak, and fast quench. Vet grade mineral oil, as I have been told, will do a pretty good job of fast quenching 1095, but not as good as commercial oil. Probably close enough to meet your needs though. I have heard that canola oil is about the same, some say better, but I really don't know. Even commercial oil will not get the fullest martensite possible, but comes in second only to brine, which comes with a risk factor for cracking the steel. I think you will find the mineral oil satisfactory, but I can't promise it. All in all, I'd go with 1084 steel, or buy some Parks #50 quenchant, but mainly because knifemaking is my profession, and not just a hobby. I feel that I need to give my customers the best I can, even if only a little better. If only for myself, I might try the mineral oil, or canola. If you have an oven, I would strongly suggest you try 01. It has the carbon of 1095, plus chrome, vanadium, and tugsten, all of which add to fine grain, high abrasion resistance, requires a slower oil, and is easier to get great results. But you must have heat control in order to get it to it's best. It is much more expensive, but much easier to work with.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-20-2009, 05:39 PM
Andrew Garrett's Avatar
Andrew Garrett Andrew Garrett is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 3,584
Very educational stuff! Thank you.

My issue with soaking the steel is that I use an atmospheric forge for this process--essentially the blowtorch technique with a mounted torch and heat chamber.

To maintain proper color without overheating, I'd be going in and out of the fire every second or two for ten minutes in order to keep it at the desired temp range. That's a long time to make a mistake.

Allow me also to edit something I wrote above. My edge thickness is not 1/16" when I go to the quench as I mentioned earlier. It's actually a wee bit thicker than that. That may be why I don't have a warping or breaking issue with no normalizing (something I will also play with as I experiment with Parks and Brine).


__________________
Andy Garrett
https://www.facebook.com/GarrettKnives?ref=hl
Charter Member - Kansas Custom Knifemaker's Association
www.kansasknives.org

"Drawing your knife from its sheath and using it in the presence of others should be an event complete with oos, ahhs, and questions."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-20-2009, 05:42 PM
dbalfa's Avatar
dbalfa dbalfa is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 363
O1 is a favorite of mine already but 440C is catching up- I hope to graduate to 154cm or S30V when I grow up.
I do have an electric furnace and love it! I just bought some 1095 for the huey of it and am considering using it or trading it off.... I might take it to Atlanta and see if someone would trade for a couple sticks of 440C maybe. At any rate, looks like you've provided the appropriate information and for that I thank you You may just tempt me to give it a try....


__________________
Dennis

"..good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from poor judgement.." -Gary McMahan, a cowboy poet and good dancer.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/p...24112090995576
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-20-2009, 05:43 PM
Andrew Garrett's Avatar
Andrew Garrett Andrew Garrett is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 3,584
Where does one buy Parks #50 anyway. Web search was fruitless.


__________________
Andy Garrett
https://www.facebook.com/GarrettKnives?ref=hl
Charter Member - Kansas Custom Knifemaker's Association
www.kansasknives.org

"Drawing your knife from its sheath and using it in the presence of others should be an event complete with oos, ahhs, and questions."
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-20-2009, 05:50 PM
WBE WBE is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 484
info@flyingsteel.com I warn you, it is not cheap, and at the moment the only source I know, without buying a 55 gal. drum of it.

Last edited by WBE; 05-20-2009 at 05:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-20-2009, 08:18 PM
Wade Holloway Wade Holloway is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Runaway Bay, Texas
Posts: 664
Patrick Lemee' on bladeforum forsale section handles it all of the time. I think the price is somewhere around 125 dollars for 5 gallons of it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-21-2009, 07:35 AM
WBE WBE is offline
Skilled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 484
Flying steel is Patrick. I think you are right about the price, but I'm not sure. It may be higher now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blade, forge, knife, knives, switchblade


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.




KNIFENETWORK.COM
Copyright © 2000
? CKK Industries, Inc. ? All Rights Reserved
Powered by ...

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The Knife Network : All Rights Reserved