D2 Blade With Cracks

B

buendia

Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
83
lOOK AT THE MAKRO PICTURES OF A BLADE OF D2/60-61(?)HRC. tHE LENGTH OF THE CRACKS IS ABOUT 2 MM (HEAD OF A MATCH). tHERE ARE A FEW OF THEM ON MY POOR KNIFE. WHEN YOU CUT AN OFFICE PAPER, YOU CATCH THE FIBERS WITH THESE SMALL CHIPS - THE SOUND IT MAKES REALLY SUCKS. WHEN YOU CUT MEAT IT`S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY - YOU DON`T FEEL THE CRACKS AT ALL. iT JUST GOES THROUGH.

WHAT BOTHERS ME ARE NOT THE CRACKS, BUT THE QUESTION IN WHAT WAY DID THEY
COME INTO EXISTENCE?
- DOES THEIR PRESENCE INDICATE GREATER HARDNESS?

:confused:



http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/georgix/BLADE/ostri02.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/georgix/BLADE/ostri03.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/georgix/BLADE/ostri04.jpg
 
I forgot to add that the blade on the pictures is not really sharp - you can see the traces of my first, short attempt of sharpening. I sharpened it later on sandpaper (up to 1200grit) and it looks different now.
 
You sure that is D2? Because I have never seen D2 pitted out like that. I lost a D2 hunter in the woods for two months and found it later and it never looked anywhere near that and in fact survived it with very little surface rusting and permanent pits. I've had bar stock of D2 in my humid frequently flooded shed for a number of years and it still looks fine with very little evidence of corrosion.

One thing that stands out to me in those pics is how eaten up the blade is. It looks weakened all over. Its hard to place blame on a maker or even the steel when it is all pitted out like that. Those are deep nasty pits like you see in steels like A2 and O1, 1095 and other high carbon blades that have been neglected over time.

Show us a pic of the whole knife.

STR
 
The patina on the blade is due to ferric chloride treatment - I like it, because it really gives the impression of old and used knife. A shape of this knife is based on an archeological find - I think the end of bronze era. I don`t know how it was heat treated, because I `m not the maker. I was told it should be 60-61HRC, but it was not measured. Here`s a pic:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/georgix/BLADE/000aaa-1.jpg
 
Have you asked the maker anything about it? He/she may be able to shed some light on the HT process.
 
Are you sure that blade wasn't forged? From the appearance of the blade, it looks to have been forged close to shape with very little grinding. Either that or was heat treated with no protection with stainless foil. Decarb out the ying yang. Possibly not tempered properly and hardened with to thin of an edge.
Until you know how it was heat treated, your guess is as good as anybody here.
Scott
 
Scott is going where I was. The knife looks like it was forged too cold (from ? kind of steel),ground too thin at the edge,hardened in a regular forge and quench (without oxygen exclusion),lightly sanded,heavily etched,and shipped off as an historic reproduction.Several of the makers in India (and other places) do this exact process.
I'm not saying that it is a fake,or a bad knife.Just that there is little to go on ,and a lot to wonder about.
Stacy
 
I was told that it was not forged. The shape was cut with water beam, followed by stock removal. I think the cause of the cracks lies in heat treatment. The knife was custom made and the maker says that heat treatment was done according to standard procedure to achieve hardness 60-61 HRC. He has no idea how could it happen. I decided to keep the knife and in compensation I obtained a nickel chrome steel (30NC11 - french name, with 19191 - sth close to 1095) damaskus blade and some Macassar for the handle. Here are some pics:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/georgix/BLADE/cepelnikla.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/georgix/BLADE/cepelniklb.jpg
 
i was going to say overheat no foil too fast a quench
but thats just a guess on my part
butch
had to add i like the blade other then the cracks in it that sucks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top