History and Properties of 52100

Larrin I have the “carbide refining” article, but if you have another you recommend, please do send it. Samuraistuart@yahoo.com

I do want to reiterate that Kevin has always been adamant about the prior microstructure of 52100 when using the low temp protocol. If the steel was especially “heavily” or “coarse” spheroidize annealed, the low temp hardening was not hot enough and thus resulting in something like 63HRC max post quench. He was the one brought in to figure out how to heat treat Aldo’s 52100 and it turned out that the heavy annealing the 52100 received was the culprit. It required a MUCH higher heat to harden “as received”.

He even mentions on his website when heat treating 52100 to use 1475-1550, but what temp you use is based upon the carbide structure prior to hardening.

My understanding, in my layman way of saying it, after the normalizing (and then cycling), the carbon is now freed from the chromium bond and is now ready to be put into solution. 1475f PLUS the soak puts about .7%-.8% in solution thus resulting in maximum as quenched hardness. If you just used 1475f and NO soak, it would not be enough carbon in solution for maximum post quenched hardness. And if the soak was too long (how long I don’t know) the result would be like using too high of a temp (too much carbon in solution, higher RA, and generally undesirable plate martensite).

I also don’t care to name drop and throw names around, but this particular heat treatment for 52100 has been thoroughly discussed on the “inter webs” for quite some time now, so I am sure Kevin doesn’t mind. It has been cussed and discussed on just about every single knife forum out there.

And for any interested in what many of us are doing in recipe form for 52100:

1. Normalize 1650f (I actually use 1700f and soak for 20 minutes). Air cool only

2. Thermal cycle 3 times 1500f, air cool all 3 cycles or quench on last cycle especially if it’s lower than the hardening temp (I quench from 1440f on last cycle for a martensitic structure rather than pearlite after reading some of Larrins articles)

3. Austenitize 1475f, 10-15 minute soak

4. Quench in 80f Parks 50, ~66-67HRC

5. 2 (or 3) 2 hour tempers 375f, ~63HRC
 
Last edited:
This is anecdotal, but I think that Mr. Cashen might have started looking into 52100 in part to "debunk" some things that folks had been claiming. he had previously used some humorous "visual aids" in some of his presentations at hammer ins to make fun of some claims. What he may have ended up discovering are some of the things that the aforementioned "big time maker" had figured out if we are talking about the same guy who has the initials BK. Those 52100 kitchen knives will pass the ABS JS performance test and spring back to straight after the 90 degree bend test.
No. Using 1475f and a good 10-15 minute soak, quenching in parks 50, gives me as quenched 66+, and 400f tempers is still 62-63. I’ve never tempered a knife wanting 59. All of that after normalizing and cycling.

I’ve been using that heat treatment for 52100 after extensive talks with Kevin. One thing I appreciated about his help was he talked me through “why” and not just “how”. Giving recipes is not his style. He teaches you through it. Or at least “did”. His online presence has taken a back seat to some serious knife/sword making and metallurgical research. Not to mention his DVDs. The next DVD is supposed to be about 52100, and I can’t wait for it (although he had been very free with his help on 52100).

I can think of another maker, big time maker, who uses the 1475f hardening temp for his Uber expensive 52100 kitchen knives. Of course that doesn’t make it right, but it works.

The whole point of using 1475f is that is where the maximum as quenched hardness seems to lie, with the lowest amount of RA and lowest amount of plate martensite. These are properties you would want for any blade.

When I first started 52100 I did the “industry standard” 1550f. It was soaked for 10 minutes but quenched in 130f canola (no sub zero quench). That knife never held an edge worth squat. It compared almost exactly like a 1095 blade I had sent to Peters who used 1575f (fifteen seventy five) plus cryo. That edge, like the high temp 52100, wouldn’t hold worth squat.

Quench speed and soak time may play an extremely vital role with this alloy. The pearlite nose is only 3 seconds. 52100, although it has 1.5%Cr only has 0.3% Mn. Compare to O1 that has a 10 second PN, if memory serves.
 
Indeed we are talking about the same maker, Jim. But if I understand your comment correctly, KC wasn’t debunking any claims made by BK. Rather KC was simply showing why the heat treatment BK was using worked so well. I have read your reply correctly, no?
 
Along with the metallurgical portions, I enjoy the historical sections of Larrin's articles.

There was recently a discussion on Facebook that touched on the origin of the designation "52100", which piqued my curiosity. I dug up some primary sources from the SAE, and I thought some of you might enjoy them too.

It appears that in 1919, the SAE Iron & Steel Division decided to replace 5295 with 52100 as part of their seventh report [1].

5295, in turn, was introduced as 52-95 in the third report (1912) [2], and dashes were removed in the fifth report (1913-1914) [3]. It was a bearing steel from the beginning - the third report says of 51- and 52- series chromium steels, "the use of this type of steel is restricted almost entirely to ball and roller bearings." [2]

The third report was also the introduction of the two-digit series prefix [2]; in the first and second reports (1911), only two-digit codes were used, numbered 1-23 (including cast iron). No chromium steels were listed [4]. This is not to say that chromium steels did not exist yet, but merely that the SAE specifications did not exist yet.

[3] SAE Bulletin v5-6 (1913-1914) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00031403a;view=1up;seq=638

[1] SAE Journal c1 v4 (1919) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.42517057;view=1up;seq=454

[4] SAE Transactions v6 (1911) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010782301;view=1up;seq=78

[2] SAE Transactions v7 (1912) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924058349105;view=1up;seq=75
 
Along with the metallurgical portions, I enjoy the historical sections of Larrin's articles.

There was recently a discussion on Facebook that touched on the origin of the designation "52100", which piqued my curiosity. I dug up some primary sources from the SAE, and I thought some of you might enjoy them too.

It appears that in 1919, the SAE Iron & Steel Division decided to replace 5295 with 52100 as part of their seventh report [1].

5295, in turn, was introduced as 52-95 in the third report (1912) [2], and dashes were removed in the fifth report (1913-1914) [3]. It was a bearing steel from the beginning - the third report says of 51- and 52- series chromium steels, "the use of this type of steel is restricted almost entirely to ball and roller bearings." [2]

The third report was also the introduction of the two-digit series prefix [2]; in the first and second reports (1911), only two-digit codes were used, numbered 1-23 (including cast iron). No chromium steels were listed [4]. This is not to say that chromium steels did not exist yet, but merely that the SAE specifications did not exist yet.

[3] SAE Bulletin v5-6 (1913-1914) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00031403a;view=1up;seq=638

[1] SAE Journal c1 v4 (1919) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.42517057;view=1up;seq=454

[4] SAE Transactions v6 (1911) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010782301;view=1up;seq=78

[2] SAE Transactions v7 (1912) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924058349105;view=1up;seq=75
Nice sleuthing! I will have to add the date that it was named 52100 to the article.
 
Back
Top