80CRV2 Prototype Test Blade

You have such a way with words, I respect that:p

On a side not, someone asked my why I put a swedge on a knife once and I told them it made it more stabby:D
Rick Marchand said:
I worked out a final blade design for the 80CRV2 test knife. I apologize if my wording becomes too technical for the layperson to understand.

My first thoughts were toward something choppy and pry'y...
IMG_0025-8.jpg


Then my tastes matured into a design that was more slashy and stabby...
IMG_0026-5.jpg


I think this is the way to go... more to come..
Click to expand...
 
Hesparus said:
Your final design reminds me a lot of the CRKT "shinbu"
Click to expand...

I really like the Shobu Zukuri (scalpel-tip) blades -- very elegant flow.

I'm working on grinding/polishing the yakote on a wakizashi I forged with Howard Clark. It's a major PITA to get right, especially with Howard's 1084V -- lot of time with EDM stones... I'm tempted to go Rick's route :D
 
I made some coupons for heat treating.

IMG_0032-6.jpg


Yes, I don't have number stamps.... humour me.

Group A (Pcs 1 & 2)
- 3 decreasing heat normalize cycles. 1600F,1500F,1400F
- Quench at 1500F in Houghton Quench K
- 3 temper cycles at 425F
(leave pc 1 "as hardened")

Group B (Pcs 3 & 4)
- 3 decreasing heat normalize cycles. 1600F,1500F,1400F, Quenching the second (1500F) cycle.
- Subcritical anneal from 1300F. Held for 1hr.
- Heat to 1500F, hold for 10-15 minutes, quench in HQK.
- 3 temper cycles at 425, water quench after each.
(leave pc 4 "as hardened")

Wildcard (Pc 5)
- 3 decreasing heat normalize cycles. 1600F,1500F,1400F.
- 2 decreasing heat quenches. 1525F,1490F.
- Subcritical anneal from 1300F. Held for 1hr.
- Heat to 1475F for 45mins, quench in HQK.
- 3 temper cycles at 425F, water quench after each.
 
Last edited:
Okay... for those bladesmiths who know way more than I do... am I just getting unnecessarily complicated with the heat treats?
 
Can't find a TTT chart but I think I'm in the ballpark..... though I'm probably complicating things a bit, with all my added steps. Ahhhh, its fun.
 
NickWheeler said:
I'm confused with all this talk about "heat treating" must be French or something. :confused: :eek: :foot:
Click to expand...

Sorry Nick....... we are talking about the "heat to non-magnetic and dip in motor oil" step, bud. You may know it as the "make-it-harder by quinchin' " proceedure.:thumbup:


Rick
 
Thanks Lazlo but look at the chemical breakdown... very different alloying content.

L2 (for this TTT chart) = .45,.70,1.00,.20
80CrV2 (from Aldo) = .80,.40,.50,.20

That is why I don't fully go with the L2 comparisson.... there is so much variation in batches. I would rather work from the actual numbers than the name.

My thoughts (however primitive they are) on how the alloying effects the heat treat schedule:
Carbon - .80% = Closer to eutectoid transformation heat (not as hot as hypoeutectoid 5160)
Vanadium - .20% = Grain refinment and stability for a longer soak.
Manganese - .40% = Needs longer soak
Chromium - .50% = Needs longer soak

So I think the best bet is a longer soak time at a moderate austenitizing heat range. In my "wildcard" scenario, I'm hoping that after the pre-HT regime (involving multiple quenches and subcritical anneal), I can soak at a lower temperature for longer, to make sure everything is in solution without any grain growth.

This is all still new to me, though..... so a lot of it is half-educated wishful thinking.:p
 
Last edited:
lazlo said:
Rick,

Copied this out of my 1977 Atlas of Isothermal:

L2.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure how much that chart is gonna help Rick, as what he's using has almost twice the carbon.

Whoops; looks like Rick beat me to the punch. ;) :)
 
It's still well within the AISI L2 spec. Maybe find a more modern L2 TTT diagram?

"AISI L2 is a Low-Alloy Special-Purpose Tool Steel grade Tool Steel.

It is composed of 0.45-1.00% Carbon (C), 0.10-0.90% Manganese (Mn), 0.50% Silicon (Si), 0.70-1.20% Chromium (Cr), 0.25% Molybdenum (Mo), 0.10-0.30% Vanadium (V), 0.25% Copper (Cu), 0.03% Phosphorus (P), 0.03% Sulfur (S), and the base metal Iron (Fe)."

Which brings up a good question -- there's a wide variation in W2 and L6 as well. So when you look at the Atlas charts, can you assume that L6 from LaSalle (for example) will heat treat the same as Carpenter's L6?

By the same fashion, W2 ranges from .7% to 1.3% carbon. So can you just use the standard W2 TTT diagram?
 
Last edited:
Actually Rick, I notice that first link I posted (on the first page) has specific heat treating directions for 80CrV2 (sorry for the large image):

80CrV2.png
 
Last edited:
lazlo said:
Actually Rick, I notice that first link I posted (on the first page) has specific heat treating directions for 80CrV2 (sorry for the large image):
Click to expand...

I did see that Lazlo and used it to help make my choices.... the composition on that sheet is much closer to what I have.:thumbup:


Great question on composition variance... I know the Carbon content greatly affects the austenitizing temps and the difference in a bit of alloying (ex. added Moly) can alter heat treating approaches and results.
 
I don't know specific heat treat advice for this alloy - but I know I like your design and execution so far ;-)

Also, the loose specs on the L2 reminds me of specs for A36 or rebar : the ends justify the means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top