1050 vs. 1095 at x hardness

I

Ian Fifelski

Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Messages
528
What is the performance of 1050 tempered to say... 50 hrc hardness vs 1095 or 1084 tempered to the same?

Why, if you want a tough blade, would you choose 1050 rather than 1095? Does the temper temperature have anything to do with it?

Thanks.
 
Heat treating down to lower hardness is not as effective at increasing toughness as reducing the carbon content. Another reason other than the carbides in 1095 is the formation of brittle “plate martensite” due to the high carbon content.
 
Larrin said:
Heat treating down to lower hardness is not as effective at increasing toughness as reducing the carbon content. Another reason other than the carbides in 1095 is the formation of brittle “plate martensite” due to the high carbon content.
Click to expand...
Hey Larrin, would quenching 1095 from 800C or 1475F still be comprised of mainly plate martensite?
I quench 52100 there and notice even with a low temper of 325 or 340 there is still some ductility that I usually don't see in say, 1095. If I take a kitchen knife in 52100, grind the edge to zero and "tip" it. The tip usually bends over instead of chipping off. I've noticed the same HT on say, 1095 or Hitachi white the tip would usually chip off. The 52100 coupons are also extremely difficult to break and very fine grained. I've been curious is this is a problem with retained Austentite or plate vs lathe martensite.
Thanks,
-Trey

---sorry, not trying to hijack thread but cannot resist the urge to ask Larrin
 
Larrin said:
The chromium addition to 52100 shifts the eutectoid to a lower carbon content and makes plate martensite somewhat less likely. Lucky for you there are experimental numbers for carbon in solution for 52100 right here: http://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/03/01/austenitizing-part-2-effects-on-properties/
Click to expand...

Before I say this let me say your site is awesome and I read the entire article and some cite papers attached. Thank you for what you're doing.


What was the state of the steel before austentizing? Most claims seem to be an aust temp of 1475 on normalized/ cycled 52100 should lead to closer to .7%C in solution allowing the higher as quench hardness of 66/67. Your sample showing 1500 having .5% and as of 63 has me curious .
I forge so my steel is usually normalized/cycled and then quenced and slightly spheroidized before hardening.

-Trey
 
comet_sharp said:
Before I say this let me say your site is awesome and I read the entire article and some cite papers attached. Thank you for what you're doing.


What was the state of the steel before austentizing? Most claims seem to be an aust temp of 1475 on normalized/ cycled 52100 should lead to closer to .7%C in solution allowing the higher as quench hardness of 66/67. Your sample showing 1500 having .5% and as of 63 has me curious .
I forge so my steel is usually normalized/cycled and then quenced and slightly spheroidized before hardening.

-Trey
Click to expand...
The thesis where the data came from is here: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/70610/07354787-MIT.pdf?sequence=2

I will look through the experimental procedure later and get back to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top