Thoughts on Sleipner over Niolox??

R

Rasmus80

Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
511
I remember a thread where you Gianni expressed, that you would prefer Sleipner over Niolox.

Any thoughts as to why that might be?

I have an M3, and to me Niolox performs great!

Are the reasons related to practicality in production or related to performance?
 
Both have proved excellent steels. Niolox, good ability to hold the edge, more resistant to corrosion. Sleipner, excellent ability to hold the edge by secondary hardening. Both generate, if properly hardened, fine grain. They have a good resilience. The Sleipner, in both trials that the use by the holders did not give corrosion problems. Therefore, given the choice, the Sleipner is more "complete".
 
Thanks for the insight!

As mentioned, the M3 in Niolox performs perfectly for me, so I'm good.

But I do see en M7 in Sleipner steel in my future...
 
molletta said:
Both have proved excellent steels. Niolox, good ability to hold the edge, more resistant to corrosion. Sleipner, excellent ability to hold the edge by secondary hardening. Both generate, if properly hardened, fine grain. They have a good resilience. The Sleipner, in both trials that the use by the holders did not give corrosion problems. Therefore, given the choice, the Sleipner is more "complete".
Click to expand...

Molletta - have you tried Sleipner without secondary hardening, only low tempering (less than 250°)?
Is it inferior in terms of toughness and edge holding?
 
In tempering some steel have a secondary precipitation of carbides.
Secondary carbides which precipitate few during quenching and more during the first tempering are responsible attitude to cutting of those steels.
The primary carbides formed during solidification of the steel. In hardening these partly dissolve.

Sorry for my bad english. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top