1095 vs. file steel...

file steel compositon

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

A search revealed that old files are likely W2 while new ones are 1095. There is a substantial difference in composition between these two steels. The properties of W2 suggest it would make a more durable chisel, and surely a more durable file. It is more heavily alloyed and 50% more carbon, for better or worse, than 1095.

It would be trivial to determine which steel a file is made of with equipment common to steel vendors and some machine shops and recyclers.

That said, If I was making chisels I would pick a steel with optimum performance as a chisel, so long as I could fabricate it. It is not clear how it "feels" when hacksawing has any relevance.

My experience...

David Weaver

...and this is just an assumption, is that a steel that is very "Dry" feeling when sawn, and doesn't have a lot of slickness is one that makes for almost no wire edge retention and fantastic chisel performance in use.

I didn't go "re-look up" w2 steel, but I looked through the Ws earlier and saw that W1 has an enormous range. It seems that as the # gets higher (e.g., W7) the range is narrower.

This whole "dry" feeling thing is a combination of sharpening and use, and it could just that my association of one to the other (great sharpening, great use - due to the dry less stringy feeling filing and sawing) is due to a small sample size.

It's possible to make a lot of less "dry" feeling steels have better behavior by keeping the hardness high so that they can't deflect or generate a wire edge as easily, and wire edge gazing was flung off of my radar in many cases by the buffer wheel in the middle of that two level cabinet that I made earlier this year (that's where I got stuffed up with the incannel gouge and determined that I'd deburr the bevel back some and buff it and just take whatever crappy performance would result, only to find that it slicked off huge amounts of end grain with far less effort than any of my flat chisels).

The real issue here is that if I'm going to make chisels, I want to make them with the stuff that really makes them the nicest to use across the board. The chisels made from old files have just been wonderful, but one has to find a file that's somewhat close in thickness and proportion to what the final chisel will be as hammering the sides inward to try to make the tang taller (no reason to go into detail here, it has to do with trying to taper the tang from wider at the top of the chisel blade to narrower but taller and square at the bolster) sometimes doesn't work as well as I'd like.

For anyone who has worked brass, I'd go so far to say that the difference between the two in filing is not quite as drastic as free machining brass vs. cartridge brass, but it's like that. The 1095 is stringy and likes to gouge itself with pinning and trailing shavings whereas the particles in the annealed files don't seem to have such a rubbery conviction.

Re: My experience...

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Playing the devils advocate here, what about 1095 would suggest that it should make a good chisel? I would predict the knife community has studied 1095 to death and there will be a vast body of experience relevant to chisels, with little of it favorable.

Fundamentally, the best chisel performance will be one that retains toughness at high hardness. That ain't 1095. This combination of steel properties coupled with a functional shape and handle I would argue is 99.9% of what makes the best chisel, if that is your goal. Wire edge behavior during sharpening is not going to be of much interest to most users.

However, if the driver here is your satisfaction fabricating the product then the criteria weighting change.

The solution to your raw material dilemma seems straightforward. Get the file steel analyzed. Literature suggests if it is a modern file it is 1095. If virgin whatever it is doesn't behave the same, then you have discovered the act of making a file and annealing it is what leads to the fabrication behavior you seek.

1095 vs. fill in the blank...

David Weaver

I'm not sure what would make a better typical knife than 1095. 52100 wouldn't be it (though it's probably more stable for a knife maker and easier to harden ideally due to the added manganese).

As steels go toward more alloyed, they get some wear resistance, but I'm not much interested in that for chisels. I'm interested in the ability of the steel to hold a fine edge and not fail through anything other than wear.

What's the best commercial steel that I've ever seen for that? Yasuki white (doesn't matter if it's white 2 or white 1). It's almost completely devoid of everything but iron and carbon.

As far as other things knife folks may like (hammering a knife through a nail to prove the edge toughness, etc), we don't really care about that - that ability to be stronger up the bevel usually comes at the expense of the edge.

Razors are the other route to go down to examine what works best. I've had about 200 straight razors, and I've seen attempts through different eras to introduce a new and better steel, but each time I get one of the specialty razors, they are subpar in terms of maintaining a clean edge to simple silver steel drill rod. The silver steel rod sold now typically is 1.1% carbon and has a small amount of chromium, manganese and silicon.

Newer razors aren't quite as good as older razors in terms of steel properties. I don't know for sure if that's alloy related or if the current makers have switched to something more common ( a lower carbon CV variety, for example). I recall years ago on an english forum seeing that the original silver steel rod had some nickel in it.

Because of what I'm doing, the alloying elements may not really help (chromium wouldn't - it's more likely to migrate to the edges of the grains - it's not really intended to be forged around critical or just below). I also have a fairly controlled quench setup compared to a fast industrial process, and thus also don't need help from manganese to give forgiveness in transition when quenching. That may actually be a negative for me as the annealed hardness is better softer since I'm working by hand.

Whatever the case may be, the files have a more dry and different feel. The knives (that I've made) have a feel that O1 doesn't, and the bleeding edge is tougher.

The only other thing that I've encountered that seems similar is older cast steel and japanese white steel.

As far as hardness, I probably don't need more than 62 for any practical purpose. 1095 should be fine in chisels at 62 hardness if it's on spec for carbon. Toughness and bendability would only be an issue for beginners - i'm not looking to make a chisel that's ideal for beginners.

George mentioned to me that resurgence in skillful knife making has made 1095 popular in bar steel again in the last couple of decades. I guess there just isn't much drive for the similar steels that are a bit higher in carbon without much else, because I can't find them at retail (like W112, etc). W2 and others have too wide of a spec for carbon for me to take a risk on them unless a retailer vouches that theirs is a specific amount (e.g., the spec for W2 is 0.8-1.5% - you have to go to something like W7 to get the range set to something very narrow).

Knife suppliers also seem to prefer steel a little under 0.2", and I'm looking for 1/4 inch, so I'll keep looking. It's not a huge deal to hunt for used files on ebay once or twice a week -I just wish I could find a go-to large flat file that's 0.25" thick. Once I find one of those, then I'll be able to search for it by stamp.

For example, the heller HR 12 is a fantastic starting point for 1 1/8" chisels or narrower - lots of thickness to allow for hammering and have a substantial tang, and the steel is wonderful.

At any rate, I haven't seen much that knife people prefer (in wester knife making) that is similar to White #2 (whereas W112 is awfully close), and I haven't seen anything that knife people like that would make a better chisel than white 1 or white 2.

Re: My experience...

Oskar

Thanks for playing that particular advocate Bill, makes for a good discussion.

Not having any experience in chisel making, I like Davids approach of "old files seem to make a good chisel, I tried this and it works". And you are asking all the right questions.

Good thread!

questions are good...

David Weaver

..questions and trying to find the right answer rather than the wishy washy center is the only way I can learn.

I understand what bill is saying - 1095 at one point was written off as a steel that was too tricky to get dead on and better off at lower hardness. One of the reasons 5160 is popular with knife guys is because someone can swing a knife like a golf club and not get in trouble...

....but all of the butcher knives that are out there in older patterns are still 1095 (because the butchers probably care a whole lot more about the edge being keen).

And with that are some folks like Joe Calton who are driving 1095 to high hardness and thin bevels for edge chasing type knives (which a lot of vintage kitchen patterns really are - thinner bevels, and not tolerant of breaking ice or cutting chopsticks sideways). Actually, I recall my mother breaking a vintage wood handled riveted knife trying to break apart an ice block with it. She broke the tip off - and had no idea she was testing for the ABS folks at the time.

What calton does for knives is kind of where folks chasing an ideal chisel would go - not looking for something that can be stuck between two doors and leaned on, but something that will hold a fine edge going straight in. Suddenly, the forums are alive with talk about how much can be done with things like 440c and 1095 if the smith working with them is really good (this isn't a surprise).

I suspect 1095 can be made to be a really fantastic chisel and since I've only finsihed one so far and sent it to steve, maybe the things I like about files better make no difference in using the chisel (the chisel I sent steve definitely doesn't hold a wire edge much or anything like that).

I've got two more slabs of annealed and hammered 1095 now to slice into chisels and I'll keep and try a few and see what they're like.

And perhaps what I think is really pure steel in files is really more "dry" feeling due to the addition of some alloying elements. Bill is right, if I was intensely interested, I could find someone with an XRF and take a few different chisels and find out everything but carbon really easily. I could guess at carbon as it's not really that critical - even 1095 will hold up well at the hardness I like. Would just love to get the same steel that's in files in bar stock.

Re: questions are good...

Steve Voigt

Bill wrote: Literature suggests if it is a modern file it is 1095. If virgin whatever it is doesn't behave the same, then you have discovered the act of making a file and annealing it is what leads to the fabrication behavior you seek.

I think Bill is right here. Unless you are annealing the files by dropping their temperature something like 50 degrees an hour for 16 hours, you are not annealing them the way a manufacturer would, and you are not going to lower the hardness by as much as they would. So, you are likely working material that is somewhat harder than virgin 1095, which means it will also be a little more brittle, thus "drier" feeling and less likely to gall or load up when filed or sawed.

one complication....

David Weaver

...so, I have annealed bar 1095, and obviously, the files are all hardened.

I've worked the bar 1095 without heating and worked it after hammering and annealing it (it's not getting a high temperature rest like it would in industrial process - though if ever there was anything where you could do that in open atmosphere, it's 1095).

When I heat the 1095, the last heat, I leave it in the forge and brick the forge shut so that it cools really slowly. It's about an hour and a half before you can touch it (which is surprising to me, that it would stay that warm in the forge).

I have to admit that before I did it this way, I'm not sure I could tell a difference either. I just filed another 1095 chisel, this one hammered and cooled very slowly like mentioned above, and it feels kind of the same either way.

The iciness or slickness that I'm talking about with the saw is less about sliding on hardness and more about a different property in the metal. The cutting speed is about the same with the hacksaw, but the feel is a little different.

This is not nearly the same as filing XHP, which is very slick and files slowly even as fresh bar stock. The chromium in it dulls hacksaws and files faster and the feel is completely different. On the spectrum of annealed, the files feel more dry, the 1095 is a little bit less dry feeling, and O1 is a little bit more greasy feeling than 1095 - I'd say the 1095 is halfway between, but I don't know why.

The first time I filed steel, I may not have noticed this. One would immediately notice xhp, even with little experience.

What I may be wrong about is that this matters - I'll get three or four of these 1095 chisels made and compare them to the heller file chisels and see if they behave any differently sharpening and chiseling. If they don't, then what they feel like hack sawing and filing may be no matter.

IT could very well be that the entire difference in feel is the level of carbon. I just never was able to get a hold of any commercial bar stock in 1.2% carbon except for three layer pre-lam white steel (hitachi knife stock - and I've not used it yet).

This whole process of using files would be ideal for a flea market traveler (I'm not that person, but I know of a shop back home that's loaded with "worthless" (rusted, worn out) large files for $5 to $8 each and suddenly i'm not scoffing as much about them. On ebay where anything of size starts to cost $10-$15, the value proposition on two or three files is ruined right away (1095 is a lot less expensive).

So early in the process here that I'm just going by feel. but rough sizing five 1095 blanks and filing shape and bevels on two leaves me feeling something similar each time.

Another experiment will be a hammered file and hammered 1095 vs. not of each -I think it'll probably burst my bubble about the hammering being useful for anything other than shaping as long as the files are heated a couple of times and kept at high temperature for a period long enough for them to reorganize a little bit.

George mentioned to me last week that he tried to temper a file way way back to make a lathe tool decades ago and it still snapped and flew. Someone will break one of my chisels at some point, and hopefully we can get a picture of the break to see if I'm getting away from this kind of brittleness.

Re: one complication....

Steve Voigt

Sure, it's possible it could be the carbon content, or some combo of that an the annealing method. Hard to say.

Interesting comment about George and his file. I have made several specialty floats from old files--I temper them blue and then just grind the teeth off and file new ones. It is not a pleasant task to file float teeth in steel that hard, but it works in a pinch.