Call for Charpy toughness samples

rodriguez7 said:
Ha, you never know! So it looks like it tested pretty good. And that’s at 61 rc. At 58 it should jump quite a bit according to Zapps chart. And this was all with low temper?
Click to expand...
1925F, cryo, 300F temper.
 
rodriguez7 said:
Ha, you never know! So it looks like it tested pretty good. And that’s at 61 rc. At 58 it should jump quite a bit according to Zapps chart. And this was all with low temper?
Click to expand...

I did one sample to start as there were questions regarding viability of low temper. I have samples coming up that should go down to Rc58, iirc. I tried to push it above Rc62, but the results got really inconsistent.
 
Willie71 said:
I did one sample to start as there were questions regarding viability of low temper. I have samples coming up that should go down to Rc58, iirc. I tried to push it above Rc62, but the results got really inconsistent.
Click to expand...
To me that’s actually really impressive! I’ve been tempering at 400, and ending up with 59-60. I’m guessing there will be a significant bump in toughness!
 
rodriguez7 said:
To me that’s actually really impressive! I’ve been tempering at 400, and ending up with 59-60. I’m guessing there will be a significant bump in toughness!
Click to expand...

I think I did 1925f, cryo, and 400 temper. I’d have to look at my list. I think this steel will be the toughest steel tested at lower hardness.
 
Willie71 said:
I think I did 1925f, cryo, and 400 temper. I’d have to look at my list. I think this steel will be the toughest steel tested at lower hardness.
Click to expand...
Ok let me know. 300F was written on the bags.
 
Larrin said:
Ok let me know. 300F was written on the bags.
Click to expand...

I think I did another sample later. This one was the 300f, as another Smith was looking for a protocol to get to Rc61/62. Once I tested the 300f temper, I didn’t walk it up. There’s a few more samples coming up.

Edit: I looked it up. I did z-tuff at 1900f, 1975f, and 2050f, cryo, and 400f tempers.
 
Last edited:
I’m really looking forward to the V4e/4v to compare to z-wear and A2. I thought 3v would have been tougher given the low hardness.

There are higher hardness 3v samples coming up.
 
Last edited:
So, is 8670 still the king of the hill? Second is Ztuff? Can’t say for sure with those graphics. Do you have exact numbers for each steel, Larrin Larrin ?
 
hugofeynman said:
So, is 8670 still the king of the hill? Second is Ztuff? Can’t say for sure with those graphics. Do you have exact numbers for each steel, Larrin Larrin ?
Click to expand...
8670 is still the highest, though at those toughness levels I’m not sure I can be confident one is better than another within a few ft-lbs.
 
Larrin said:
8670 is still the highest, though at those toughness levels I’m not sure I can be confident one is better than another within a few ft-lbs.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure both steels will be much tougher yet at Rc58-60. It’ll be interesting to see how 15n20, 80crv2 and L6 compare. It looks like 3v is very tough, but not in the same league as z-tuff and 8670.
 
At 58, I guarantee ztuff will beat the others out, no sure by how much. But I’m guessing it’ll be the toughest tested so far. 8670 is impressive for an ingot cheap steel! I would use it more if it the slightest rust resistance! But so far, ztuff is my favorite! But I tend to favor the tougher steels over the high wear steels!
 
Willie71 said:
I guess this answers the question of whether our home ovens are good enough for these steels. :cool::thumbsup:
Click to expand...

2rh43ki.jpg
 
Larrin said:
8670 is still the highest, though at those toughness levels I’m not sure I can be confident one is better than another within a few ft-lbs.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. 8670 is an economy steel with very basic heat treat, while Z-Tuff requires a much more complicated heat treatment besides costing 3 times as much as 8670. Except for the advertising benefit of saying Z-Tuff, 8670 seems to be the best value(for the specific project I have in mind.)
the old sailor
 
Last edited:
scott.livesey said:
Very interesting. 8670 is an economy steel with very basic heat treat, while Z-Tuff requires a much more complicated heat treatment besides costing 3 times as much as 8670. Except for the advertising benefit of saying Z-Tuff, 8670 seems to be the best value.
the old sailor
Click to expand...
The main benefit in my opinion, with ztuff over 8670, is rust resistance, and wear resistance, plate quench vs oil. But I don’t think much more is involved in the heat treat. Some foil, and higher austenizing temps. But ztuff is like 4 times as expensive. And in the end I think ztuff will be the better steel, and tougher at the right hardness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top