A Question for Steel Nerds

afishhunter

afishhunter

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
14,354
If SK5 is "roughly equivalent" to 1084/1085, what 10xx is SK2 "roughly equivalent" to? 1095?

For "average" utility knife/box cutter use, is there any practical "real world" difference between SK5 and SK2, aside from the difference in cost?

BING and Google won't answer my questions. :(

Thanks in advance. :)

Edit:
With 1.3% carbon is SK2 more akin to a not stainless 440C, than it is to any of the 10xx steels?
 
Last edited:
It’s not an incredibly common category of steel here in the US. It’s more similar to White #1, 26C3, “silver steel,” or sometimes generically called “cutlery steel.” Or W1 with a high carbon content. 1095 would be the closest very common alloy but with more carbon of course. It is not anything like 440C. The extra carbon brings a bit more wear resistance and hardness than 1095.
 
Larrin said:
It’s not an incredibly common category of steel here in the US. It’s more similar to White #1, 26C3, “silver steel,” or sometimes generically called “cutlery steel.” Or W1 with a high carbon content. 1095 would be the closest very common alloy but with more carbon of course. It is not anything like 440C. The extra carbon brings a bit more wear resistance and hardness than 1095.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Mr. Larrin, Sir. :)

I think "somewhere" along the line, I read that 440C had in the neighborhood of 1.3% carbon. That's the only reason I mentioned it. Sorry.
 
afishhunter said:
Thank you, Mr. Larrin, Sir. :)

I think "somewhere" along the line, I read that 440C had in the neighborhood of 1.3% carbon. That's the only reason I mentioned it. Sorry.
Click to expand...
The midpoint carbon for 440C is 1.05% I believe. However, it’s the 17% Cr that makes the microstructure and properties completely different than a simple steel with 1.3% carbon.
 
It appears the only real world difference between sk5 vs sk2 is 30% more carbon content, (give or take)...

So in theory, all other manufacturing processes (incl. HT) being equal, SK2 will hold an edge a whole lot better, whereas sk5 will be a whole helluva lot tougher... Both are good in their respective classes, so are you doing more slicing or chopping?

Cardboard cutting vs. Log splitting?
 
strategy9 said:
It appears the only real world difference between sk5 vs sk2 is 30% more carbon content, (give or take)...

So in theory, all other manufacturing processes (incl. HT) being equal, SK2 will hold an edge a whole lot better, whereas sk5 will be a whole helluva lot tougher... Both are good in their respective classes, so are you doing more slicing or chopping?

Cardboard cutting vs. Log splitting?
Click to expand...

Probably nothing more severe than opening packages, cutting small amounts of cardboard, (the packages) and sharpening my pencils.

Both SK5 and SK2 are options for my Stanley 10-499 box cutter. Cost is "about" the same. (And, a lot less than ceramic blades.)
I was wondering if SK5 or SK2 would be the "better" blade.
Happily, my days of using any knife in a commercial setting are over. :)
Retirement has at least that benefit going for it. No need to order 100 or more blades ... or even 50 blades at a time any more. :)

I'm tempted to go with the SK2. The package claims a Rockwell of 63. Seems a wee bit high to me for a carbon steel ... but what do I know?
I haven't worked with steel (I was a fabrication welder back in the 1970's) in going on 47-48 years. I didn't do much tempering back then, either.:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top