a model for cutting ability

Cliff Stamp said:
The grindability is low due to the high volume of carbides and as well in general the large aus-grain with standard heat treatments, both of which lower the surface finish. In comparison, W2 has a very low carbide volume, high grindability and very fine aus-grain. Nice blade steel.

-Cliff
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Even a ham fisted newbie like me can get a very nice edge on a W2 blade that seesm to take a beating pretty well.:D Unfortunatly, it is getting hard to find. I bought about 235 pounds of the stuff from Don Hanson and still have aound 215-220 left, so I am set for a while. But if I up my production or want to do this knife making gig more more than a few years, I am going to have to find some more:eek:
 
The Japanese use those steels extensively. What carbon content is the W2 you are using?

-Cliff
 
Cliff Stamp said:
The Japanese use those steels extensively. What carbon content is the W2 you are using?

-Cliff
Click to expand...

1.00 percent carbon along with .24 of vanadium with realtively low manganese content, which seems about perfect. Much more carbon and you might not be able to get the stuff to harden in fast oil. One of the US steel distributors lists their W2 (not sure if they actually have it or just list it in their steel chart) as having .86C and .24V, but their W2 as 1.00C and 1.00V with a tiny bit of Tungsten added. Strange.
 
I think the Japanese often favor a higher carbon content. Have you compared that with 1095? I would suspect more favorable performance from the W2 due to issues with grain refinement mainly.

-Cliff
 
cds4byu said:
I have pdf copies of these articles, and would be happy to email them to you. Copyright laws prohibit me from posting them.
Click to expand...

could you email those to me, please? I'm no good at physics, but I muddle through stuff with enough free time :)
 
Cliff Stamp said:
I think the Japanese often favor a higher carbon content. Have you compared that with 1095? I would suspect more favorable performance from the W2 due to issues with grain refinement mainly.

-Cliff
Click to expand...
I have been told that on of the issues with current stocks of 1095 is that the quality control sometimes isn't there. There are a number of smiths who use W1 instead of 1095. I have heard a number of folks refer to W1 as "clean" 1095. The vanadium in the W2 not only helps with the grain size, but those little vanadium carbides are as hard as woodpecker lips. Most of the folks that I have been getting advice from temper down to around 60-61which is a couple of points harder than most blades made from 52100 or 5160 and the stuff is still easy to sharpen.
 
Carl, You hit the nail right on the head. How you can stay so polite when not one question is answered is quite amazing. I hope you continue to participate!
Bruce
 
jdm61 said:
Most of the folks that I have been getting advice from temper down to around 60-61which is a couple of points harder than most blades made from 52100 or 5160 and the stuff is still easy to sharpen.
Click to expand...

Yes, with a fnie grain size and very small carbide volume such steels sharpen very nicely, almost no burr formation. I have a couple of such knives, 1095, O1, etc. .

-Cliff
 
I also have a few very hard blades, a 1095 at full hard and an M2 also at full hard, and both are very very thinly ground. I’m very impressed with the edge holding of the M2, and not so much with the 1095. The 1095 holds a good edge but not half as good as the M2. How this fits in this model is beyond me. I think it is interesting, and may go against the carbide theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top