Niolox + question

RuaridhHunter

RuaridhHunter

Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
39
Hi guys! I was wondering if anyone out there has experience in heat treating Niolox +? I've been testing stainless steels to sell along side o1. So the stock I've been trying to heat treat is 4.5mm thick and I'm using stainless foil wrap and using a plate quench setup consisting of two large aluminium plates bolted to a vertical woodworking vice. I'm also using compressed air. My issue is that I can't harden this stuff past 59 hrC. I've now tried various recipes all within the manufacturers specs and one that I was given by the steel stockists that was outside of the specs but they'd had good luck with. Everything brings it to 59 hrC.

The manufacturers say that this steel can also be oil quenched but I'd really rather not if at all avoidable.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!

Ruaridh J Hunter
 
Thanks for the response. One of the reasons I went for this steel is that it doesn't require a cryo treatment. Apparently it would give an extra 1 or 2 points but it sould be 62-67 as quenched.
 
Most any stainless doesn't "need" cryo and Niolox doesn't need it any more or any less than anything else. The cryo sure helps though. You haven't told us what temperatures and hold times you've tried.
 
Larrin said:
Most any stainless doesn't "need" cryo and Niolox doesn't need it any more or any less than anything else. The cryo sure helps though. You haven't told us what temperatures and hold times you've tried.
Click to expand...
Sorry I should've been clearer. According to the manufacturer, cryo isn't supposed to be required for this steel in order to obtain an after quench hardness of 62-67.
As for temps I hadn't included them because I just wanted to see if anyone had actually had any experience with this steel first as I've not seen much online about it. I thought that if I included them, and said I did xyz, that I might get a bunch of replies saying "okay try xyz slightly differently" without having actually tried it themselves. Like when I've seen people posting about cpm3v heat treatments, they get loads of good advice as it's a pretty well established steel and lots of makers have really dialed it in.

Have you used Noilox +?

Cheers for your reply.
 
RuaridhHunter said:
Sorry I should've been clearer. According to the manufacturer, cryo isn't supposed to be required for this steel in order to obtain an after quench hardness of 62-67.
As for temps I hadn't included them because I just wanted to see if anyone had actually had any experience with this steel first as I've not seen much online about it. I thought that if I included them, and said I did xyz, that I might get a bunch of replies saying "okay try xyz slightly differently" without having actually tried it themselves. Like when I've seen people posting about cpm3v heat treatments, they get loads of good advice as it's a pretty well established steel and lots of makers have really dialed it in.

Have you used Noilox +?

Cheers for your reply.
Click to expand...
You're definitely not going to get 67 Rc, cryo or not. I don't know where that is coming from. However, I realized now that your title was not "Niolox and question" but "Niolox+ question" referring to what GFS/Lohmann is calling their version of Becut steel. It should not be called Niolox+, in my opinion, because it is not Niolox and that just confuses everyone. I have heat treated Niolox but cannot help you with Niolox+. Here are the datasheets for everyone else:
http://www.lohmann-stahl.de/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/1.4197.pdf
https://www.gfsknifesupplies.com/Portals/0/Documents/Knives/BECUT-Datasheet.pdf
 
Larrin said:
You're definitely not going to get 67 Rc, cryo or not. I don't know where that is coming from. However, I realized now that your title was not "Niolox and question" but "Niolox+ question" referring to what GFS/Lohmann is calling their version of Becut steel. It should not be called Niolox+, in my opinion, because it is not Niolox and that just confuses everyone. I have heat treated Niolox but cannot help you with Niolox+. Here are the datasheets for everyone else:
http://www.lohmann-stahl.de/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/1.4197.pdf
https://www.gfsknifesupplies.com/Portals/0/Documents/Knives/BECUT-Datasheet.pdf
Click to expand...
Ah I see! Sorry I see the confusion with the plus symbol now and it hadn't even occurred to me! As for the name I just assumed that it was the next iteration of Niolox so I guess I also got caught with that one. Okay again thanks for your replies. I'm stumped with this one.
 
Larrin said:
You're definitely not going to get 67 Rc, cryo or not. I don't know where that is coming from. However, I realized now that your title was not "Niolox and question" but "Niolox+ question" referring to what GFS/Lohmann is calling their version of Becut steel. It should not be called Niolox+, in my opinion, because it is not Niolox and that just confuses everyone. I have heat treated Niolox but cannot help you with Niolox+. Here are the datasheets for everyone else:
http://www.lohmann-stahl.de/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/1.4197.pdf
https://www.gfsknifesupplies.com/Portals/0/Documents/Knives/BECUT-Datasheet.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! Didn't realize Lohmanns Niolox+/4197 had the same composition as Becut. :thumbsup:
 
Are you measuring with mill scale still in place? It will reduce your values.

Have you tempered? I was getting low hardness readings after quench with Elmax (58/59 - cant remember exactly), the Uddenholm tech guy said don't worry, just do the temper and then measure - after temper it was 61/62 - exactly what I was aiming at.

Are you measuring correctly, if you have a warp in the steel and put concave side down (on a wide anvil) on the tester you could get a low reading. Spot anvil can be better.
 
According to the data sheets Larrin posted, you're hitting max, or nearly so, depending on your specifics.
 
Mike Read said:
Are you measuring with mill scale still in place? It will reduce your values.

Have you tempered? I was getting low hardness readings after quench with Elmax (58/59 - cant remember exactly), the Uddenholm tech guy said don't worry, just do the temper and then measure - after temper it was 61/62 - exactly what I was aiming at.

Are you measuring correctly, if you have a warp in the steel and put concave side down (on a wide anvil) on the tester you could get a low reading. Spot anvil can be better.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply! No I always sand off millscale before testing for this very reason.
I haven't done any tempering yet as I wasnt reaching the hardness I thought I could expect. So your post temper hardness was actually harder than your post quench?! I wonder how that works. I actually never finished some elmax blades because of the same problem. Huh. I'll be sure to give it a bash and report back.
No I use perfectly flat stock and it remained so in the press. I always check before continuing after quenching.

Thanks again, really interesting.
 
tkroenlein said:
According to the data sheets Larrin posted, you're hitting max, or nearly so, depending on your specifics.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's the same sheet I got with the steel. I don't feel like 3 points under is hitting max or nearly so. More so because GFS have told me that they're getting 60 hrC after their temper cycle and I'm only at 59 after quench. Someone else has posted that I should try tempering and see what happens so I'll report back.

Cheers for your reply.
 
Stromberg Knives said:
I believe you'll find the answers to your temper questions here: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/04/23/what-happens-during-tempering-of-steel/
Click to expand...
I thought that there wasn't anything new to me there until I got to the part about cementite carbides and the possible hardness spike at low temperature tempering. That was really interesting and helpful thank you! I've been making o1 knives for years and after the initial 'dialing in' I've been really pleased with my results. These last couple of stainless attempts have been really bumming me out though.

Cheers.
 
RuaridhHunter said:
Yeah it's the same sheet I got with the steel. I don't feel like 3 points under is hitting max or nearly so. More so because GFS have told me that they're getting 60 hrC after their temper cycle and I'm only at 59 after quench. Someone else has posted that I should try tempering and see what happens so I'll report back.

Cheers for your reply.
Click to expand...
The BESTAR data sheet shows it topped at ~59HRC.

I'm sure you want it to do better, but it may not.
 
tkroenlein said:
The BESTAR data sheet shows it topped at ~59HRC.

I'm sure you want it to do better, but it may not.
Click to expand...
Sorry you said "according to the data sheets larrin posted" and so that's what I was referring to. I haven't seen the BESTAR sheet. Yes I would like it to do better and it may not, but I'd just like to get what I'm told has already been achieved.
 
RuaridhHunter said:
Sorry you said "according to the data sheets larrin posted" and so that's what I was referring to. I haven't seen the BESTAR sheet. Yes I would like it to do better and it may not, but I'd just like to get what I'm told has already been achieved.
Click to expand...
There are two links posted in his reply.
 
tkroenlein said:
There are two links posted in his reply.
Click to expand...
Ah so there are, I thought it was just the one I already had. I wonder why there's a discrepancy between the two if they're the same composition? I mean the bestar one shows a 0.55 silicon that the bestar one doesn't?
 
FredyCro said:
This is also of interest to me as I was planing on using Becut for the upcoming kith (HT outsourced). Please share your results.
Here is another topic on it https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/becut-vs-other-steels.1562024/
Click to expand...
No problem buddy. I had a really interesting pm last night that is not in alignment with the data sheets, but I have tried it today and I was sitting at 62 hrc after the first temper cycle even though my quench hardness was 59. It's just gone back in for another 2 hours so I'll let you know what I find. He was spot on with the readings I'd get even though it didn't seem to make sense to me. Really interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top