1084 vs. 5160 and others

J

John Hoe Handle

Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
22
I took a class and made a knife out of 1084. Seemed straight forward. I got to witness recalascence, and quenching, testing out hardness, and tempering.

Is 5160 similar? I know the differences by definition of 5160 and 1084. I was warned by the bladesmith to not go to 1095 until I got 1084 down.

I have a bunch of old Nicholson files and rasps. Should I treat them as I did 1084?
 
Nicholson files are usually a higher carbon steel than 1084. They are sometimes similar 1095 or W1.

For files I would only use them if they were in poor shape. If the file is in poor shape and you know you won't/can't use it for its intended purpose, then just go for it.
 
1084 is the eutectoid, and it is the simplest steel to learn on. It is a very good knife steel, and many smiths continue to use it for all their knives.

5160 is the next best learning steel. It is hypo-eutectoid with a bit of chromium. This makes it deeper hardening than 1084. That means it will harden easier all the way through the blade. 1084 can be a bit fast if you don't have a good quenchant. Many folks describe 5160 as being a forgiving steel. This is because it isn't as finicky as some other steels about exact temperatures in forging and HT.

1095, 52100, and W1-W2 are hyper-eutectoid steels. They need more exact temperatures and faster quenchants. They also need a controlled soak of 5-10 minutes in HT. These steels are best saved for more advanced skills and equipment.
 
I have 96" of 1084 and I figured after I gone thru that, I might be ready to advance up to something else.

Thanks stacy, that was exactly what I was looking for.
 
I've made several knives from Nicholson files and heat treated as 1084. Seemed to work real well. My old timer farmer buddy won't trade the one I gave him for nothing. He says it's his absolute favorite knife. If you use them, I'd suggest anneal them first. I personally made a log fire threw them in and left them there till morning when the coals cooled off slowly. Not ideal in the slightest, but worked for me.
 
1080/1084 is prone to grain growth. Lower forging temps should be used. 5160, because of it's alloy additions is less likely to have grain growth during forging.

I noticed two failures on "Forged in Fire" recently because they were in a hurry and made damascus from 1084 at too high a temperature. Causing grain growth and the edge chipped out badly on one and the blade broke in half on the other. If they would have used 5160 instead, the outcome would have been better.

Hoss
 
DevinT said:
1080/1084 is prone to grain growth. Lower forging temps should be used. 5160, because of it's alloy additions is less likely to have grain growth during forging.

I noticed two failures on "Forged in Fire" recently because they were in a hurry and made damascus from 1084 at too high a temperature. Causing grain growth and the edge chipped out badly on one and the blade broke in half on the other. If they would have used 5160 instead, the outcome would have been better.

Hoss
Click to expand...

I caught that also. You never hear any mention of normalizing or heat cycle for grain refinement on the show?.
 
Don Hanson III said:
I caught that also. You never hear any mention of normalizing or heat cycle for grain refinement on the show?.
Click to expand...

There have been a couple contestants who have done some cycling in the forge. Recently even iirc. I can't remember what exactly they said about it but it was very generalized and not a very good explanation of what he was doing or why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top