JDM 5160 control shaft steel results, New steel, no more hunting for it

Deveraux said:
Dan, Ed and I finished grinding the 2 blades last night and I started performing the edge flexing on them. I worked on them until after 11pm and decided to wait and finish the testing later. Unfortunately it will be a few days before I can get back to them because I have to attend a funeral in CO. I will say that one of the blades did very well withstanding 15 edge flexes before chipping. We will give you a detailed report as soon as we can get back to them. Butch
Click to expand...

great
I was looking through the last blade mag
at the tests Ed did on mutable heats and the higher up was like 17 flexes
so this JDM 5160 work is good news so far at the very least to me.. :)
to conpair to the 52100 :)

sorry to hear about the reason you'll be gone,,funerals are a bummer ,
I wish the best for the grieving..

edited: adding some test results
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351717 :)
 
edited the first post to add some results fron ED's testing trying to keep it collected on the first post..
 
The gist I got from Ed Fowler was that JDM5160 is very good - it "comes to within 20% of 52100 in terms of performance". However, it is easier to forge and much more tolerant to overheating, shortened cooling cycles and other abuse than 52100 and is therefore better suited to training seminars than 52100.

Therefore I still plan to work up to 52100, but only after some practice. I have a big bar of your 5160 lovingly forged down to hammerable size on the little giant by Butch, and when that is gone I plan to order another, despite the prohibitive cost of postage across the seas.
 
Thanks Dan

looking at the last Blade mag results of Ed's tests with 52100
with the extra heats and by the test results.

I believed by the looks of things with the lesser amount of work (heat cycles) on the
JDM 5160 the results would be closer than 80% of that of the 52100.
.tic for tac I'm talking about..
heat for heat,
it would be an interesting test..5160 verse 52100 heat for heat, :)

yes the shipping to Hong Kong is not cheap for sure....
 
Dan:
Your 5160 steel received the exact same thermal cycles as our 52100, with the exception of a lower tempering temp, 350 f., for the 5160. 52100 is still the winner, but there are a lot of variables involved. The steel you sent was well developed when we got it, clean, uniform and no faults that we have seen so far. I would not hesitate to recomend it to makers or those who want a fine blade.
 
just made 2 bars today from the 5160 I got from you Dan....looking forward to the final results...

(thanks Tom!)
 
for the stock grinders and forgers
Ed Fowler by e-mail said:
.Hello Dan:
I have been thinking about working down some of your JDM5160, using all we have learned about low temp forging and the following thermal cycles prior to grinding and heat treat.
We have achieved some great knives following practices used on our 52100 on your steel.

I believe that if the stock removal guys would grind some knives out of it and apply the proper heat treat they could achieve some knives that would out perform most of the other knives out there
Click to expand...
see this link
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3023191#post3023191

Daniel Koster said:
just made 2 bars today from the 5160 I got from you Dan....looking forward to the final results...

(thanks Tom!)
Click to expand...

Dan Have you come up with a blade yet? :)
 
Dan, all of these blades, with the exception of 3, are of the JD5160. I wanted to forge them more or less during the same time (both the 52100 and 5160), so I could get a better feel of the differences. Don't have a whole lot to tell you yet, except that my forge temp registered about 1750-1800F. The 5160 does move better and is easier on the press (I judge this by noise of the pump only, possibly not the best, but it's a comparision none the less). For some reason, the pressed out bar of the 5160 was much shinier, brighter, slick than the bar of 52100. This may not make a bit of difference at all. Seemed as though there was less scaling of the 5160, although trying to count pieces of scale isn't very scientific unless it's weighted, and I didn't have the equipment for that. I normalized all blades 3 times using my Evenheat set at 1600, then put it in vermiculite for the heck of it, instead of leaving it out to air cool. I wasn't actually trying to "anneal", just normalize. The 5160 seemed to grind easier, but was probably a toss-up. Now, I didn't break any bars open and look at the grain (if I can see anything that small), maybe next time. The 52100 blades were all in the 40's the next day, and the 5160's were in the high 30's. I've never had my Rockwell meter calibrated since I got it used, so really I'm not sure about the readings. One little blade, instead of putting in the vermiculite, I went ahead and edge quenched for fun. The file test was very positive, and RW showed 54 on the edge and39 on the spine. (again a non-calibrated unit).
I have more to do over the next few days, and will keep notes of futher progress. For the time being I'd like to say that to me, the 5160 was easier to work, and squeezed like a marshmellow when hit with about 40,000psi. The 52100 strained the press more, didn't press as far each time, but was still pretty close. These two steels are going to be my primary steels, so I'm trying to learn as much as I can about each(for damascus I'm using mostly 01 and L6 now). I like them both, but I am pleased that I'm not having any trouble (so far) working with the 52100, I really like that stuff. Wish I could go to Ed's for a week, not in the cards though.
standard.jpg
 
Thanks Robert for the update. :)
on the edge quench
was it before the temper?
if your (new) file is skating I'd say the calb. is off for sure..it should be in the 60's I'd say..

I'll reply to your e-mail i just a sec.. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top