5160? Please read!!!!

herlihy433@yahoo.com

herlihy433@yahoo.com

Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
42
Ive been forging and making knives for about two years with O1,W1, and 1095. I hand forge my tang out first with my high heat to move the steal, then forge the profile and distal taper at a little lower temperture, then I finish my bevels with my lowest heat a faint red. I normilize once a little bit above non magnetic by removing the blade out of the forge and let it sit in still air until room temp. I heat the blade to just non magnetic, take it out of the forge and into vermiculite untill it cools to room temp to anneal. I then grind and hand finish to 220 grit. I normalize once, anneal once, and then harden once (full or edge quench) at 1475 F in 2 gallons of vet. grade mineral oil at 135 F. I test the edge with a new file and it slides across the blade like glass! Now I try a piece of 5160 with the same procedure only I normialize 3 times. Then I harden 3 times at 1525 F with an edge quench. Next I test with a file and it bits the steel. So I sharpen it fairly easy untill it shaves hair but the blade does not retain its edge when i cut leather,wood, and cardboard. I compare a Randall model 8 knife (55-57 rc) by sliding across the stone and the 5160 is deffently softer.THIS IS ALL WITHOUT A TEMPER TREATMENT! This is my 5th blade from this steel, all with the same results, so I figured I got the wrong steel from the supplier. I called them and told them my procedures and how the steel reacted.They told me that my order must have got mixed up and they would send me the right steel. No problem, right? Ill just get a new order in of the real 5160,and ill be on my merry way. But I wanted to test this 1" X 1/4" X 30" flat bar a little more. I decided to harden the steel and hit it with a hammer at different heats. I only recieved a small churp of a chip at the sharp corner of the band saw cut, the size of a BB. Next I bent a piece of the flat bar in a U shape. I hardend the bend and drawed a straw blue color with a torch.I flexed back and forth and it does have a spring like quality.
Im worried that IM doing something wrong and this is 5160. My high heats are around 1800 F and progressively work to lower heats, so I dont think its grain growth. After I grind I use my paragon oven for my last set of heat treats.
I dont know what I could be doing wrong. All the other steels Ive done have been no problem, Ive treated 01,1095,w1,d2,a2,440c,and cpms30v with fantastic results. If this is 5160, could this steel be my unicorn and keep me from reaching my dream of one day being a Journeyman smith and eventually a Master. I understand that I can take the JS test With other steels but all the research of elements in steel Ive done points to 5160, not to mention most people have passed with 5160. Im hoping that Im just worring about nothing, I got bad steel, and will be recieving good 5160 shortly What do you think? Please comment.......Sean
 
I must say i use 5160 a lot and have had this happen. I use to use vet grade mineral oil but have switched to Parks AAA. so lest see, how do you harden it. you must take it past non mag and let it sit there for 7-10 min then quench in a med oil. i had problem once because i was not soaking it long enough at a high enough heat.
 
Non magnetic has very little to do with austentizing temperature, they are 2 different phenomena, all steels that are magnetic go non-magnetic at about 1413 f, most steels have austentizing temps 50-100 degrees higher, some steels even higher. I've had good luck with a 20 minute soak at 1485 by my kiln PID setting

-Page
 
From your process descriptions it sounds like you have done what more than a few other smiths (including yours truly at one point) have done- you had a good thing going based upon common sense and in your concern for doing even better you fell victim to more than a few modern bladesmithing tall tales.

5160 is a hypoeutectoid (please see the sticky on the 3 steel types) steel requiring a proper heat with some time to get all of that extra ferrite (iron) saturated with that smaller amount of carbon. 5160 is not only hypoeutectoid but it also has chromium that will tend to "borrow" even more of the limited carbon and will need to have some pried from its grip with, once again, proper heat.

Heat 5160 from 1500F - 1525F and try to give it a a little time at temp. With elementary skills to control grain size you can dispense with all the low temp this and repeated that, as it is much more important to nail the correct temperature. Forge at proper recommended temperatures rather that the dull red hocus pocus for all but your finishing heats where you are straightening and smoothing things out. I heard a blacksmiths term for this final operation which explains it best- "hammer polishing" which describes it best since most of its benefits are on the outside as opposed to the far fetched claims of the inside.

Fix the inside with several post forging normalizing heats, not because you are doing any magic number of heats, but each has its own function based upon temperature. The first heat should be completely even and well above "critical" to normalize or equalize grain size, forget about what size that is as long as it is even. But also on this heat you will evenly dissolve and distribute the carbon. On the next heat you only need go to critical for the purpose of making your even grain size much smaller, and on the last heat you go well below critical to soften and set up seeds for fine grains in the final heat to harden.

It sounds to me like all of your heat and reheating may have resulted in decarb and loss of hardness. Take into account your heat source and compensate for it. The less control you have over atmosphere the more you need to compensate for decarb. at the end of forging be certain to leave perhaps .005" - .010" for removal on the grinder and be aware of this issue for the final heat for the quench (and a good reason to do it correctly one time).

Another thing to consider is heating to 1525F and doing an edge quench. I am not a proponent of the edge quench technique and have little reason to do it in my shop so I cannot do much trouble shooting for you, but I can say that 50F more heat in the body of the blade in a 1/2" puddle of oil could very well be over the limit of proper heat extraction. I will not comment one way or another on your quenchant choices as that direction of conversation rarely produces constructive results, but will allow you to do more experimenting and determine your direction. I will say, however, that if the JS test is your goal, a properly formulated quenchant that would results in full hardness may not be your best route. Knives that are strong and hold a lasting edge benefit from total hardening via complete martensite conversion, but blade that are meant to bend and not have an edge crack, while only having to do some rope and two 2x4's are good with lots of fine pearlite in the mix. I had old black sludge and Parks #50 to choose from in my classes at the AR school, we used the sludge to produce the test blades and the Parks #50 to make make the good using knives.

If the ABS Journeyman and Mastersmith testing is your goal please consider 1075, 1080, or 1084. These are the easiest and least demanding of any steels on the market. I have been a MS for 15 years and have been teaching the ABS course on how to pass that test for over 2/3 of those years, I am not the final word on the topic but I do know a little bit about it and the concept that most of the blades that have passed are 5160 is a rather misleading proclamation based on the fallacy of questionable cause. The fact that many blades made from 5160 have passed the test is much more attributable to the fact that more people are steered toward that steel, but it does not offer any evidence that this is the best steel for the task. If 75% of people were told to use O1 for the tests, a larger percentage of O1 blades would naturally make it after a lot of agonizing trial and error, despite the fact that it would be one of the worst steels for the task. There are plenty of people who have used other steels for this tests with very good results and I would be willing to guess that if one were to trace the percentages of blades passed broken down by steel type category instead of overall, you would find that simple 10XX have the highest percentage of success. They always did in my classes.
 
Last edited:
Mr Cashen Ive often wonderd, if most people are using 5160 than of coarse more people will pass with 5160. Ive read many articals and have found only a couple where people have mentioned the use of other steels durring a JS test. Now, it could be simply because alot of smiths are not give that paticular info. for one reson or another. I will try other steels now, but theres no way im going to stop at this 5160 problem.I will also try to soking the 5160 in the oven more,maybe 10 min. I have so many questions about steel, and when I go to the "Introduction to Bladesmithing" class, Im sure alot of questions will be answerd. Every Thing I have learnd has been from books,dvds, or the inernet. I have never even seen another bladesmith (face to face) working at this wonderful art. So alot of my work has been trial and error. I will give all of this information great consideration and when I hit this 5160 nail on the head (and I will ), I will not be close minded to other steels, when practicing my testing.
 
you might try getting some 5160 from Kelly Cupples. I have used his steel many times and always had great results. My methods are veryclose to what you are doing. Additionally if you will send me a small piece of the steel you are having problems with, the current steel not the new stuff, I will forge and harden it and send it back or email my findings.
 
Bill Burke said:
you might try getting some 5160 from Kelly Cupples. I have used his steel many times and always had great results. My methods are veryclose to what you are doing. Additionally if you will send me a small piece of the steel you are having problems with, the current steel not the new stuff, I will forge and harden it and send it back or email my findings.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: +1 on getting it from Kelly Cupples. Great guy to deal with and his 5160 is good stuff.
 
I second that, I use Kelly's 5160 and like it, but my favorite steel is 1075.It works well, is less tricky than 1095, and makes a superb blade. Good luck in your endevors.

Dave
 
Keep in mind that there are two separate schools of thought regarding heat treating of 5160 and, to a lesser extent, 52100. Both sides have ABS mastersmiths as their proponents, with Kevin Cashen being a proponent of textbook, industry standard heat treating, and Ed Fowler and Ed Caffrey going the triple quench, low temp. forging route. I've never heard of any problems with performance from either side. I've never heard of any side-by-side comparison of the two different schools of thought. All this is to say, regardless of who says what, the science behind heat treating these particular steels (and most others) is not settled. The variables in heat treating that can have a major effect on the finished blades are almost endless. The best advice is to test, test, test, until you find what works well in your shop.


Todd
 
I agree with Kevin Cashen that the problems might be associated with carbon loss in the steel. When I read the first post all I could think is holy #$%@ that is a lot of heat cycles for one blade. Of course if you were given the wrong steel to begin with....that is a possibility.
 
Last edited:
Hey Sean,

Kelly Cupples is available through email, octihunter@charter.net. Just ask for his current steel list.

You might also check in with Ray Kirk, http://www.rakerknives.com/Steelprices.htm.

Do you have any known 5160 on hand? If you do you might want to heat a piece of it along side a piece of this steel, quench them both at the same temp (HOT...maybe even in water or brine) then hammer/snap them in two to see if they act similarly.

Whatever you do, let us know what you figure out.

All the best, Phil
 
I wonder if they gave you something like 4130??? What about a brine quench? I recently bought 300lbs of annealed 5160, and It shatters on the anvil after quenching in used motor oil. Another test I do is take a good center punch, and if it leaves a mark then it didn't get fully hard. Of coarse sending a peice away for hardness testing, and alloy composition would be a good start. Actualy a before and after forging sample would be interesting to see how much of what your loosing.
 
Todd Robbins said:
Keep in mind that there are two separate schools of thought regarding heat treating of 5160 and, to a lesser extent, 52100. Both sides have ABS mastersmiths as their proponents, with Kevin Cashen being a proponent of textbook, industry standard heat treating, and Ed Fowler and Ed Caffrey going the triple quench, low temp. forging route. I've never heard of any problems with performance from either side. I've never heard of any side-by-side comparison of the two different schools of thought. All this is to say, regardless of who says what, the science behind heat treating these particular steels (and most others) is not settled. The variables in heat treating that can have a major effect on the finished blades are almost endless. The best advice is to test, test, test, until you find what works well in your shop.


Todd
Click to expand...

Very diplomatic,:thumbup: I hope I can do as well with this reply. The point of differing approaches is true with these two positions being but a couple in a multitude rather than two exclusive parties ruling the craft. Yes, of these two, both have ABS Mastersmiths practitioners, but one is also accepted by virtually every other steel working field outside of bladesmithing. And there are a very great number of smiths working very well with principles well established in industry, they just don’t get the same ink others do since the real facts are rather boring to many in comparison.

My approach is hardly textbook, and I only point this out because the term is sometimes used by other sides in a way as to imply that it is not grounded in practical applications but merely blind following of industry standards. I have spent my entire life testing the application of proven industrial methods in bladesmithing, and adjusting them to suit our specific needs. I have also gone to lengths greater than many of my peers to examine and verify those results with tools truly capable of that analysis.

But I would like to say that in all of these multitudes of approaches I just can’t see Ed Caffrey as the opposition. Mr. Caffrey and I may do a few things differently but we have enjoyed many pleasant conversations, and I am certain that we agree on far more things than what we could find to disagree on.

I have not only heard of, but have seen, problems with performance from both of these approaches when they were not applied appropriately to the defined goals and tools at hand. Quite often attempting advanced industrial practices with forges and lack of atmosphere control leads to very undesirable results, while this very thread is just one example where frustration has resulted from factors arising from the other methods. And indeed within the bladesmithing community the science is not settled despite it being well settled in the rest of the industrial and scientific world, but then we discuss this on a forum where it cannot even be settled as to whether science itself is legitimate and not a dirty word.

Of course it is just human nature that either side will see themselves as having the most credible position, but allow me to lay out some points for those of us taking the position I espouse. Ask about the methodology of most who follow the train of thought represented by my input here and you will get a detailed description of exactly what we do and how it works, instead of romantic prose about the mysteries of our craft or anecdotes of homespun tests conveniently fitted to our beliefs. I for one am always willing to go into any detail required to explain exactly what a recommended process does, down to the atomic level if needed, and I believe we deserve to be given some credit for that.
 
Last edited:
I think maybe thats where my knowledge is lacking,I know what i have to do to get a result in steel but not How,Or even Why. I Think That,the knowledge of that "Atomic level" is what truly makes a bladesmith skilled at his art.
 
Well, Ive Forged a 10" blade out of This 5160 steel again, it has been normilized and is being annealled as we speak.Tomorrow I will harden it and give detail of the results.
 
I was certainly not suggesting that you were in opposition to either Ed Caffrey, or Ed Fowler, or any of the miriad of other bladesmiths that don't precisely follow the steel industry's recommended heat treating in any way other than that you prefer to do things differently from one another, and that neither method or it's derivatives has been proven to provide better performance than the other. While I (and many others) would like to see the issue put to rest, I don't see that happening. All it would take would be two very similar blades being heat treated with the best heat treat from each school of thought, ground exactly the same, and tested for performance. I don't thing it would take overly long to produce a blade satisfactorily for the "industry standard" school, but it would be labor and time intensive to forge a blade in the "triple-triple-triple" school from the larger stock recommended and multiple thermal cycles. Then the entire knife world could know which side was more engaged in hype than substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top