1095 vs 5160

Ed, I've seen several of your posts on these two steels, favoring 5160. My question is, how do these two steels compare in wear resistance and toughness if they're both properly forged and triple quenched?

If both are properly forged and multiple quenched, there is no question.... 5160 would win hands down. The experiments that I have done indicate that 1095 draws no benifit from more than one quench. The small amount of chromium in 5160 and 52100 is what (IMO) makes the multiple quench work so well with these two steels.
If you were to single quench both, the 1095 would hold a better edge, simply because of the additional carbon content, but 5160 would, without a doubt, be the tougher of the two.
Some of the standards that I place on blades might be a bit different than others. Some folks are hung up on edge holding, others stain resistance, and still other like toughness. I personally am not concerned with stain resistance, but absolutley demand that a blade
1. Hold an edge
2. Be easy for the customer to resharpen
3. Be tough and resilent

I COULD make 5160 and 52100 blades that would hold an edge better than what I currently produce, however, they would be very difficult for the average user to resharpen, and the edge geometry required to make them as tough as I like, would not lend itself to easy cutting for the user. Basically what I'm saying is that each of us who produce blades must strike a balance of our own desired characteristics in a blade. 5160 or 52100, forged properly, with a multiple quench allows me to build in those characteristics, whereas 1095 does not.
Many have written me in the not too distant past, telling me how they have had varying results in performance with their 1095 blades, and even different results from bar to bar of the same material. I have looked closely into this, and can only surmise that 1095 is not produced to the standards that it once was. The reason I say this comes from looking back at some of the spec sheets I have kept on different steels from when I first started bladesmithing, and comparing them to more recent data sheets. The tolerances by which the steels are produced has widened considerably over the years. Some of the major steel producers now have carbon tolerances as wide as 6-10 points of carbon in the straight carbon steels, whereas 10 years ago those tolerances were within 2-4 points of carbon. This is one possible explaination why folks have had such differing results with 1095. 1084 has not displayed these "swings" in performance results, and judging only by that, I would recommend it before I would 1095.
Due to the fact that 5160 is produced primarily for auto springs, and 52100 for bearing applications, the tolerances have remained tight, which lends itself to our application in the bladesmithing world.

Didn't mean to ramble, but the explaination required it.