52100 in place of 80CRV2 for tomahawk?

Park Swan

Park Swan

Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
712
Hi BF, I'm a relatively new maker but I have been working on a ton of different hawk designs for a while. I am an axe user, and I wanted something a little less tactical and a little more useful for wood processing than thick-edged tactical tomahawks. When I started designing and prototyping about five years ago, I was using 5160, a no-brainer for price and toughness, ease of heat treat, etc. I hadn't heard of 80CRV2 then, but now that NJSB has been pushing the stuff it has made its way into the hands of many capable makers of high impact blades. I finally got my first designs completed and quoted for a small run of waterjet cut blanks, and NJSB is out of wide enough stock of BOTH 80CRV2 and 5160, and they don't know when they'll be back in stock.
I have searched the forums and read endlessly on different steels and heat treats, and I can't seem to find any reason why 52100 wouldn't perform about as well on a full tang hawk as 80CRV2. Am I missing something? Should I go ahead and get my batch started with 52100? I will be sending the hawks to Peter's so the intricacies of the heat treating process don't come much into play here. Since the hawks will be for backpacking type wood processing chores and not smashing bricks, I'd like to keep the RC around 58 hopefully. Is that realistic? Thanks in advance.
 
For a tomahawk professionally ht (i.e. Peters) to 58rc, there are 'mostly' cons for using steels with more than 0.8%C. Chopping is pushcut with high impact/impulse, hence carbide is a liability for edge/blade. 'Mostly' because one can use fine spheroidize to refine grain however I don't think the user would able to tell a different anyway. Alternative to 5160 & 80CrV2, my suggestion:

1060; 1075; 8670; could compromise for NJSB's excellent 1084 (almost 0.88%C).

To be clear - 52100; 1095; W2; A2 would be fine for tomahawk at 58rc but with minor loss of impact toughness <= lol, I don't think the user could tell/experience a diff anyway. No point to take a chance at botch-ht (even via professional) when suggested simple steels (partial list) are better fit and w/o extra (carbon) risks.
 
Thanks! I don't suppose there would be any advantages to using 52100... except that it's available right now
 
NJSB 1084 is avail. So as 8670 via AKS.

Instead of (if you must) using 52100, use NJSB W2 instead. By default (by composition) W2 produces finer grain. fine grain = higher strength & better toughness. I doubt Peters HT performs grain refinement for 52100, another reason for using W2.

58RC is a low bar to jump over but you never know, military may mistaken and launch your tomahawk ... aha extra toughness low carbon steels is mission critical :p

btw - I use W2 & 52100 for small & large choppers. No production, just R&D.

wildernessknife&tool said:
Thanks! I don't suppose there would be any advantages to using 52100... except that it's available right now
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is too funny I am working on the same project and ran into the same issue not being able to get 80CRV2 I was also thinking of 52100 but have never used it. Not familiar with W2 either.
 
Since your sending out for heat treat, I'd stick with the lower alloys, like W2, 1075, standard 1084, ect. Personally for me, I normally use either 5160 or 1084 for a forge welded bit on a 1018 or wrought iron body. Of the two, 5160 is got a bit more toughness. Between 52100 and 5160, heat treated myself, thermal cycled, ect., 5160 comes out on top toughness wise, but 52100 holds an edge longer. 52100 is very tough, but 5160 from my testing showed about 30% tougher, with about the same reduction in edge holding. This is testing done on knife blades, an axe or hawk has a thicker geometry. This is with my heat treat, I don't know the people your sending it to, but doing your own lets you play around and test and find out the best way to get the most out of your steel. You could lower the hardness of 52100 and increase the toughness, but what's the point, it'd be like going grocery shopping in Ferrari with a detuned engine. 52100 would make an excellent axe or hawk, but it might chip if you decide to start cutting nails or chopping your way through a car door. Of course so would most other steels, 5160 would likely deform or blunt.

I have yet to try 80CRV2, but have heard good things about it and have a bar to try. I've heard it described as 52100 light, or enhanced 1084. We'll see when I get time to make a test blade from it.
 
Something to look into is that 52100 can be heat treated for industrial applications with larger carbides. That is a disadvantage in a knife, but I remember someone quoting Kevin Cashen on the toughness of the industrial heat treat. Might be worth e-mailing Kevin or asking your heat treater about this.
 
Will52100 said:
Since your sending out for heat treat, I'd stick with the lower alloys, like W2, 1075, standard 1084, ect. Personally for me, I normally use either 5160 or 1084 for a forge welded bit on a 1018 or wrought iron body. Of the two, 5160 is got a bit more toughness. Between 52100 and 5160, heat treated myself, thermal cycled, ect., 5160 comes out on top toughness wise, but 52100 holds an edge longer. 52100 is very tough, but 5160 from my testing showed about 30% tougher, with about the same reduction in edge holding. This is testing done on knife blades, an axe or hawk has a thicker geometry. This is with my heat treat, I don't know the people your sending it to, but doing your own lets you play around and test and find out the best way to get the most out of your steel. You could lower the hardness of 52100 and increase the toughness, but what's the point, it'd be like going grocery shopping in Ferrari with a detuned engine. 52100 would make an excellent axe or hawk, but it might chip if you decide to start cutting nails or chopping your way through a car door. Of course so would most other steels, 5160 would likely deform or blunt.

I have yet to try 80CRV2, but have heard good things about it and have a bar to try. I've heard it described as 52100 light, or enhanced 1084. We'll see when I get time to make a test blade from it.
Click to expand...

It could be considered L6 light as well. 80CRV2 is in the L2 spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top