80CRV2.... Checking it out

80CrV2 was sold for years by Alpha Knife Supply as 1080+. my best results were preheat furnace to 1500F, put blade in furnace for 5 minutes or so(enough time to heat thru), quench in warm oil. with carbon a 0.8%, it is eutectoid and does not need super involved heat treat. did some tests and found two 15 minute tempers at 375F with cold water quench in between gave Rc62-63. only surprise is cost, while not high, it is still more expensive than AEB-L at AKS.
 
I've not updated this thread, but thought I should. As things stand right now, based on the testing I've done to this point, I'm confident that 80CRV2 is going to replace 5160 in my shop. It will take me a few more to get it all "tweaked" to my satisfaction, but just the fact that I'm yet to find an inclusion in any 80CRV2 compared to repeatedly finding them in 5160, along with the super fine geometry I can put on 80CRV2, and have it hold up as it does, makes me like it.

Thanks for this information Ed. I was thinking about this thread a few days ago and wasn't able to dig it up. Like others, I'm anxiously awaiting to see the results of your testing on this steel. I'm specifically interested in how Blade #1 stacked up against the rest of the field. Although 1084 is my current focus, I've been thinking a lot about buying some 80CRV2 next spring and spending a year or two running it through the ringer for a performance test blade.
 
80CrV2 was sold for years by Alpha Knife Supply as 1080+. my best results were preheat furnace to 1500F, put blade in furnace for 5 minutes or so(enough time to heat thru), quench in warm oil. with carbon a 0.8%, it is eutectoid and does not need super involved heat treat. did some tests and found two 15 minute tempers at 375F with cold water quench in between gave Rc62-63. only surprise is cost, while not high, it is still more expensive than AEB-L at AKS.
Scott, how thick a blade are you working with? Also, what is the reason for short temper times. Thanks.
 
i was working with 1/16 and 3/32 material. here is the reference on shorter temper times.
http://www.hypefreeblades.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=640&p=5335&hilit=80crv2#p5335
Roman Landes » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:42 am

800°C with a holding time of around 5-8 minutes does not create retained austenite in a 0,8C steel.
It will create fine austenite ad thus fine martensite after oil quench in an section smaller or equal to 5mm max.
so the only thing you need to do is to temper the virgin martensite after the quench.
This would be finished after a few minutes in a preconditioned cline.
But, I would make the few minutes a half an h. to be sure all, even the thicker crossections, have reached the tempering temp. of 180-200°C.

The thing to watch with a plain carbon steel like 1080 is the grain growth, since it has nothing in it to prevent grain growth at higher temps or longer soak times.
So prolonged soak times or high aus temps will need to be watched.

I used 2 15 minute quenches and had good results.
 
i was working with 1/16 and 3/32 material. here is the reference on shorter temper times.
http://www.hypefreeblades.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=640&p=5335&hilit=80crv2#p5335
Roman Landes » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:42 am




800°C with a holding time of around 5-8 minutes does not create retained austenite in a 0,8C steel.
It will create fine austenite ad thus fine martensite after oil quench in an section smaller or equal to 5mm max.
so the only thing you need to do is to temper the virgin martensite after the quench.
This would be finished after a few minutes in a preconditioned cline.
But, I would make the few minutes a half an h. to be sure all, even the thicker crossections, have reached the tempering temp. of 180-200°C.

The thing to watch with a plain carbon steel like 1080 is the grain growth, since it has nothing in it to prevent grain growth at higher temps or longer soak times.
So prolonged soak times or high aus temps will need to be watched.

I used 2 15 minute quenches and had good results.

Great link! Thanks Scott.
 
I used 2 15 minute quenches and had good results.

Scott - that's a really good link for HT'ing info for 1080 and 80CrV2 - gives good explanation of the "why" of HT'ing. I've always found it interesting when the manuf (HT info from AKS) shows almost 100⁰F higher temperature than does our experts on hypefreeblades (which is a GREAT site).

Now, in the quote above from your post where you say "2 15 minute quenches"...... do you mean "tempering" cycles?

Ken H>
 
yes....he meant two 15 minute tempers. He says it in his previous post. I use Scott's O1 recipe...works great. I would trust any recipe he gives as he is scientific in approach and tests his results....
 
80CrV2 was sold for years by Alpha Knife Supply as 1080+. my best results were preheat furnace to 1500F, put blade in furnace for 5 minutes or so(enough time to heat thru), quench in warm oil. with carbon a 0.8%, it is eutectoid and does not need super involved heat treat. did some tests and found two 15 minute tempers at 375F with cold water quench in between gave Rc62-63. only surprise is cost, while not high, it is still more expensive than AEB-L at AKS.
What warm oil are your using, parks 50 or 11 second...?
Thanks
 
So far I've tested with mineral oil, pre-heated to 130F, and Parks 50 at room temp. Personally, I'm liking Parks 50 for quenching this steel.
 
Ed did you ever break these test knives to check grain and decide on a heat treat recipe?

I did, and totally forgot to update this thread! I've learned that anything beyond about a 5 min soak exhibits unacceptable grain size (at least for me). I did another series of test blades using Parks 50 quench, in both full and edge quenches, and tempered 3X 2 hours...... which worked great. I have pretty much decided that 80CRV2 is replacing 5160 in my shop.... although my reasons for switching have less to do with performance improvements, and more to do with "cleanliness" of the steel. That being said, the most impressive thing to me about 80CRV2 versus 5160 is the ability to grind a very thin geometry, and still have it "hold up".
 
The only difference that I consider notable between soaked and non-soaked is the grain. And that was between blades that I allowed to soak 5 min or less, versus those allowed to go beyond 5 mins. I found that if I soak 80CRV2 beween 3-5 mins all works well, but beyond 5 mins, I get diminishing returns.

Further evidence to me that this current trend of over "soaking" steels is simply out of control.
 
The only difference that I consider notable between soaked and non-soaked is the grain. And that was between blades that I allowed to soak 5 min or less, versus those allowed to go beyond 5 mins. I found that if I soak 80CRV2 beween 3-5 mins all works well, but beyond 5 mins, I get diminishing returns.

Further evidence to me that this current trend of over "soaking" steels is simply out of control.
Ed, what temperature are you using? all my work has been at 800C/1475F, soak of 5 minutes for 3/32" stock.
 
Scott: I started with the low end of the recommended austinizing temp 1545F, and went a bit up and down from there...... some test pieces were done at 1500F and those didn't harden as well as those done at 1545F....... I then went to 1550F, 1575F, and finally to the upper end of the recommended austinizing temp range (1615F). (each experiment was with fresh forged/ground blades) Out of all the test batches I did, I liked the overall results the best at 1550F/tempering at 415F. That's the reference temp I should have mentioned in my previous post about grain. What I've come to appreciate most about 80CRV2 is it's ability to "hold up" with a very fine geometry when I've used 1550F and a temper at 415F. In the forging environment, this steel also responds very well to thermal cycling.

The first test batch I tempered at 400F, but they came out at Rc 60-61, and were somewhat difficult to resharpen (for me), which means clients would likely be frustrated with it at Rc 60-61. I was genuinely surprised that I was able to retain the characteristics I wanted, but gain easier sharpening when I bumped the hardness down to 58-59. I'll reserve final judgement until I build myself a blade, and take it through a Montana hunting season, but I'm already convinced it's a viable replacement in my shop for 5160.....especially since I'm yet to find any inclusions, which is the main reason I was seeking to replace 5160.
 
Back
Top