I made this and thought I would share

tkroenlein said:
I'm really only jumping in here because we moved right past discussing ht source discrepancies to it's wrong to assigning responsibility to Chris Railey to debunk a steel mill's ht recommendations that are advertised and tested by a trusted steel retailer.
Click to expand...
I take slight issue with just this part.

That isn't what happened. In post #5 Doug politely said he he questioned some things.

Chris responded, seeming annoyed that he was questioned.

Then I politely offered constructive criticism because Chris himself said there was controversial/conflicting info and Chris took all the info down and took off.

He presented technical info. Yes, he should be responsible for that, especially when he admitted some of it conflicted. Any of us should be responsible for what we post.

I would have liked to see him stick around and address some of the questions and discrepancies and maybe we could have worked them out together and all learned something.
 
Heat treat recipes, data, suggestions, etc., should come with a caveat emptor-buyer beware. Especially for knifemakers. There are often discussed, refuted, and argued data on all of it. If this is anyone's first time reading discussion on 8670 and AKS's data, rest assured this is not the first time around the horn for it. And as @J. Doyle pointed out, that is acknowledged on the page above where I screen capped. My purpose in responding to @Doug Lester 's post the way I did was to communicate that I believe it's folly to assume one data source is right, and one is wrong. Both are valid for the purpose of understanding, and neither is definitive.

I, too, wish that Chris would hang around. There are valid modifications to the numbers that he has collected from various sources, the AKS numbers, specifically.
 
or, one could simply do as Ed Caffery recommended some time ago and that is : experiment with different vendors steel, ht it till you get the results you want/need, then buy as much as you can afford, thereby minimizing any odd results that occur. Just sayin. I don't think any one should get in a snit over it, there are too many variables involved for a single definitive answer. Just my opinion and worth every penny ya paid for it.
 
Thanks for listing the ASM's tempering chart. If you look at it you will notice that tempering at 100° will give you an as quenched hardness, which will depend on austenizing temperature and rate of cooling and, by the was, Knife Nerds listed Parks 50 as the quenchant except for one instance where the steel was austenized at a higher temperature and then they used Parks AAA. That said, tempering at a temperature that I could get out of the hot water tap isn't going to do much, except for transferring the heat better than an oven, which I doubt could run at 100°.

One thing to consider is that 8670 may not have been intended to be used at an HRc in the low 60's but in the high 50's as the alloy was designed to give high toughness over strength and wear resistance. If I wanted a blade with high strength, hardness, and wear resistance I think that I would look at 80CrV2, 52100, 1095, or something along those lines. I would save the 8670 for when I was looking for more toughness and ease of sharpening.

Doug
 
Ok, you peeked my interest on that alloy. I just ordered a bar from AKS and will make a cleaver/camp knife like Tod Cutler advertises on his site. I just have to get up off my butt and get my forge set back up after having been cleaned out of almost all my tools. I'll see what canola oil will do before ordering Parks 50.

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top