A Steel Chart

GreySteel

GreySteel

Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
135
Does anyone know how to get, or have a chart of different steels? Listing there strengths amd which is stronger, steels like AUS8, 1095, 420 etc...? Does anyone know of a link maybe or a good resourse?
 
Is there a steel chart that is made for those of us without a chemistry degree?

example headings:

Type

Price

Corrosion resistance

Edge holding

Typical hardness

Made in
 
scotchleaf said:
Is there a steel chart that is made for those of us without a chemistry degree?

example headings:

Type

Price

Corrosion resistance

Edge holding

Typical hardness

Made in
Click to expand...
I don't think A.G. Russell's chart is so complicated. I don't think it's terribly demanding of knife enthusiasts to understand what the major minerals in an alloy, such as iron, carbon, chromium, etc. contribute to the resulting steel.
 
You are right: I should have said "just starting out in knives" instead of "without a chemistry degree"
 
Awesome stuff guys, thank you for all the links, I need to know what Nickel, etc.. contribute to a blade, I think Chromium I believe is not to make the steel so brittle, I am probably wrong, but I need help on some of the metals also and what they contribute to a blade, so these links are freaking awesome, thank you guys.
 
I don't think anyone but a metallurgist can get much from a chemical makeup chart. There is a lot more to composition than just "chromium adds corrosion resistance." Everything is a balance, and the composition doesn't tell you much about microstructure, processing, quality control, etc.
 
I tell you what, looking at the AG Russel Steel Chart, 440a, b, and c have alot of Carbon in it, but I guess it is weakned hardness wise by the amount of Chromium but not as brittle? Am I right? Also would you guys agree that the AG Russell Chart is prety much dead on? Very helpful links, thank you everyone!!!
 
Also,sorry for the double post but, 1050 Carbon is tougher then 1095 but not as sharp or hard? Better then 1095 for a sword, I thought 1095 was better all around?
 
1050 and 1095 are sometimes hardened to the same hardness, around 57 to 58 HRc. In this case, 1050 will be quite a bit tougher, and 1095 will be quite a bit more wear resistant. Sharpness should be the same. You cant leave out the processing of the steel. If you really want to get into it, get the abridged Metals Handbook from the American Society of Metals. It has information on nearly any class of steel you can think of. The unabridged one covers every class, but is several volumes. Some charts are better than others, and there are a few that are downright awful. The Steel Faq on here is a good place to start. Also try http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/reviews.html. Its a little tech heavy, but the basic info is still good. If you really want to jump in with both feet, read this volume:http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2004/Bain.Alloying/ecbain.html.

Keep in mind, once you leave the plain carbon steels, (10xx), most steels were designed to do something specific, or do it better than others at the expense of other properties. Stainless steel will sacrifice some strength for corrosion resistance. This kinda throws a monkey wrench into the "better all around" arguement.
 
Last edited:
I love the crucible steel charts because they have all the information I want, basic composition, usual hrc, relative corrosion and wear resistance and relative edge holding.
 
GreySteel said:
Also,sorry for the double post but, 1050 Carbon is tougher then 1095 but not as sharp or hard? Better then 1095 for a sword, I thought 1095 was better all around?
Click to expand...

Most of the denizens of BF are knife folks, rather than sword folks.
1050 is good for impacts (as one would want in a sword or throwing knife)
1095 is good for edge retention (as one would want for most knife uses.)
1085 is inbetween. Tougher than 1095, more edge retension than 1050 (A good choice for large chopping knives that are still used for cutting.)

There are no poor steels, just ones that are poor choices for specific uses. With me2's permission, I will expand his statement to say that every steel composition is designed to give a specific set of properties. There is no steel composition that maximizes all properties in one single alloy. To increase one, you typically have to give a bit on another.

When folks ask what steel they should be looking at for a blade, the standard response is "What do you going to do with the blade?"
 
me2 said:
1050 and 1095 are sometimes hardened to the same hardness, around 57 to 58 HRc. In this case, 1050 will be quite a bit tougher, and 1095 will be quite a bit more wear resistant. Sharpness should be the same. You cant leave out the processing of the steel. If you really want to get into it, get the abridged Metals Handbook from the American Society of Metals. It has information on nearly any class of steel you can think of. The unabridged one covers every class, but is several volumes. Some charts are better than others, and there are a few that are downright awful. The Steel Faq on here is a good place to start. Also try http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/reviews.html. Its a little tech heavy, but the basic info is still good. If you really want to jump in with both feet, read this volume:http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2004/Bain.Alloying/ecbain.html.

Keep in mind, once you leave the plain carbon steels, (10xx), most steels were designed to do something specific, or do it better than others at the expense of other properties. Stainless steel will sacrifice some strength for corrosion resistance. This kinda throws a monkey wrench into the "better all around" arguement.
Click to expand...
Can you give me a link to show me what books you are exactly talking about. for the Abridge and unabridge books so I know I am looking and possibly buying the right one? EDITED: Wait I think I found the volumes, wow theres alot is this correct? Also what about the Metals Handbook by J.R. Davis, made in 1998?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_g...=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=ASM+Handbook
 
Last edited:
The one we used for quick reference was the Metals Handbook Desktop version. It is a very condensed version of the other 13+ volumes, but it gives you a place to start without looking at a stack of books as tall as you. The volumes on iron alloys, stainless steels, and tool materials are the most applicable to knives, although there is overlap between them, and the tool materials will cover things knifemakers only dream of using, such as cemented carbides, cemented oxides, SiAlON, diamond coatings, diamond materials, diamond like materials and a whole bunch of other stuff. Any college or community college with a technical library will have some of them. In case you didnt notice, the prices are typically $150-$250. A library will allow you to peruse them without laying out a lot of cash to find a book doesnt have what you want. The basic iron and steels volume covers tool steels, and that one may be the most applicable single volume for knives. That was the one in which I saw the chart on W-1 or W-2 tool steel outperforming D-2 for certain applications, until resharpening had removed the hardened portion of the shallow hardening W steels. As has been mentioned before, superior performance is application specific. Also keep in mind that these books are written for industrial applications. Steels listed for paper knives, film slitters, woodworking tools, razor blades, shears, and generally knife like applications are most suitable for knives as well, in my opinion.

Knarfeng, if I expand my envelope for that statement to include "same performance at a cheaper price" then yes, I agree completely. There is an awful lot of material science that goes on for the sake of saving 20 cents per pound and getting the same application performance from the raw material. Not every new development is something thats never been done before, but it may be done now for half price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top