|
Post by feral on Dec 7, 2013 22:41:48 GMT
I had planned to use 5160 because that's what's used in my Tinker pearce blades, but Albion uses 1075 which makes me immediately assume it's superior. My questions: Is it harder to work? Harder to heat treat? What advantages might it hold over 5160? and is 1095 inferior?
|
|
|
Post by feral on Dec 7, 2013 22:48:04 GMT
Well, on a second look the squire line albions are 1075 and the mark swords are 5160. So is 5160 better? 1075 is more expensive from the vendor I'm thinking of buying from.
Blargh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 13:12:10 GMT
Info copied from Albion Europes site:
"All blades are made of 6150 steel except for the Museum Line Svante Nilsson Sture Sword which is made of 1075 steel"; this is no mistake, they use 6150 which is superior to 5160 (their info not mine; i cant get a nail into the wall with a hammer... :oops: Just know how to hack with my swords :twisted: !!!)
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Dec 8, 2013 13:58:48 GMT
And how is 6150 superior to 5160, 5160 has a higher carbon contend. 6150 just has vanadium added. Of cousre they are going to say 6150 is superior. 5160 is considered high carbon steel, 6150 is a medium carbon steel like 1050.
Either 1075 or 5160 will serve you well I use both. They are easier to heat treat than 1095. 1095 is not a good beginners steel. But if you have the right equipment 1095 will serve you well too.
|
|
|
Post by tabiris on Dec 8, 2013 16:32:19 GMT
6150 is super tough. it's a good sword steel, though more difficult to work with than 5160. However, I do know that 6150, when marquenched, has its toughness raised by 95% compared to a simply oil quenched piece of the same steel. So maybe that's why they say it's superior? I'm not sure how 5160 reacts to marquenching, though...
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by feral on Dec 8, 2013 16:54:43 GMT
Thanks guys! I was getting my info from viking-shield.com who have the Albion squire line listed as 1075 and the Albion Mark line listed as 5160. I suppose it must be a typo.
Also a friend of mine makes custom knives and he says 1095 in addition to being more difficult to heat treat can also be brittle in longer blades.
I think I'll just stick with 5160 as originally planned.
Thanks again for your input, gentlemen!
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Dec 8, 2013 17:24:46 GMT
Good choice fairly easy to work very tuff. Will air harden some.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Dec 8, 2013 19:59:26 GMT
None of those steels is superior or inferior to the others. I've heat treated 5160, 1075, and 1095 and didn't find one to be more difficult than the others, though that could vary depending on your equipment. Plain carbon steels are often considered easier to heat treat, in which case 1075 would be the choice. Also, 1075 can be made to show a hamon fairly easily while 5160 is difficult or impossible, depending on who you ask. 5160 tends to be cheaper and easily available because it's widely used in automotive leaf springs. This also makes it fairly easy to send out to a heat treater who does leaf springs in batches to have it done for you on a larger scale than someone doing single pieces.
Rule of thumb (not necessarily accurate, depends on heat treatment, etc): Lower carbon content is tougher but less edge holding, higher carbon is less tough but better edge holding. So if you're bashing swords around or sparring, 1050, 1060, 5160 might be better. Cutting a lot of light to medium targets, 1095 could be the better choice. All around sword use 1075 might be preferred. I've recently been using 80CrV2, which I've been quite happy with.
I was told by my steel supplier that he will not be carrying 5160 anymore because the steel has been too inconsistent in composition, which can cause problems in getting consistent heat treatment results. I suspect that the same reason 5160 is more plentiful and cheaper may also result in a greater variance in composition.
There are no super steels and while some steels are better than others for specific purposes, there isn't one all around better sword steel. Any of the steels mentioned will make a very good sword provided it is well shaped and properly heat treated. If I made half a dozen identical swords and heat treated them all to the same hardness, you wouldn't likely be able to tell them apart in general use or appearance.
If you plan on doing more blades in the future, pick one steel and stick with it until you can get good consistent results before switching to another steel.
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Dec 8, 2013 20:14:31 GMT
If you're thinking of doing a stock removal blade then BB's tutorial is something you'll definitely want to check out (in case you didn't already see it: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=653
|
|
|
Post by feral on Dec 8, 2013 20:19:39 GMT
I've read it over and over actually.
I'm wondering, is it feasible for me to try to grind in a fuller with a 4.5 inch angle grinder?
AND for a stock removal blade is 3/16" thick enough or should I stick with 1/4"?
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Dec 8, 2013 20:42:47 GMT
3/16ths for a 1 handed sword, youl want 1/4 inch with good distal taer for a 2 hander.
|
|
|
Post by moredhel on Dec 8, 2013 21:44:17 GMT
yeah you can do a fuller with an angle grinder. i do all of mine with a 4.5" grinder holding it vertically. just draw out your line and practice a few times before. can also try clamping down another bar to run the grinder against. i would also use 1/4"
|
|
avery
Senior Forumite
Manufacturer/Vendor
Posts: 1,530
|
Post by avery on Dec 8, 2013 23:40:26 GMT
Agreed on the angle grinder; I built a jig to use for fullering. It sits on shaft, edgeways and is attached to a roller bearing. It had a crescent semprini cut in to raise and lower the grinder. I just clamped the blade in place and roll the grinder back and forth. I always meant to make it so it would do a compound angle, but just never got around to it. Ended up trading the jig for some lumber.
Wonder woman project?
|
|
|
Post by feral on Dec 9, 2013 2:34:55 GMT
Potentially yes, otherwise viking project. How do I build a jig like that? And what's a crescent semprini?
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Dec 9, 2013 8:55:09 GMT
That largely comes down to your blade design but I'd stick with 1/4" (6mm) in any case (if it's a sword). Depending on how thick your blade's gonna be at the base, you just need 6mm to work with. If you put the base thickness at 5mm or even 4.5mm (which is getting rather thin) and start with stock that is just that thick, you'll run into problems. Grinding flaws can't be fixed since there's no material left. I personally like to grind thick and take it down by hand with files and a sanding block. Takes a long time but nothing gets you clean lines and flat bevels like that. When I lay out a sword design and decide on the final distal taper stats, I add 1mm-1.5mm to each number. This gives the the thickness where I finish grinding and take it by hand from there.
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Dec 10, 2013 21:53:50 GMT
Avery's jig is a good idea and I was thinking of suggesting something like it. Better have been some good wood you traded it for!
If you wanted simpler you could make a static-mount. Basically clamp that angle grinder to a fixed piece of steel, say an "L" shaped thingy or the like, then clamp/bolt that to a table. Add a fence along the table and then line up your squared length of steel stock and pass it under the grinder. To change the depth of cut you can add to the table height by shimming under the steel blank - raising the steel towards the grinder and deepening the cut.
|
|
|
Post by leofontenla on Oct 15, 2021 19:15:07 GMT
Ninguno de esos aceros es superior o inferior a los demás. He tratado con calor 5160, 1075 y 1095 y no encontré ninguno más difícil que los demás, aunque eso podría variar según su equipo. Los aceros al carbono simples a menudo se consideran más fáciles de tratar térmicamente, en cuyo caso 1075 sería la opción. Además, se puede hacer que 1075 muestre un hamon con bastante facilidad, mientras que 5160 es difícil o imposible, dependiendo de a quién le preguntes. 5160 tiende a ser más barato y de fácil disponibilidad porque se usa ampliamente en ballestas de automóviles. Esto también hace que sea bastante fácil enviarlo a un tratador de calor que hace resortes de hojas en lotes para que lo haga por usted en una escala más grande que alguien que hace piezas individuales.Regla de oro (no necesariamente precisa, depende del tratamiento térmico, etc.): un contenido de carbono más bajo es más resistente pero menos agarre de los bordes, el carbono más alto es menos resistente pero mejor agarre los bordes. Entonces, si estás golpeando espadas o entrenando, 1050, 1060, 5160 podrían ser mejores. Al reducir una gran cantidad de objetivos livianos a medianos, 1095 podría ser la mejor opción. Se puede preferir el uso de espada 1075 en todas partes. Recientemente he estado usando 80CrV2, con el que estoy bastante contento. Mi proveedor de acero me dijo que ya no transportará 5160 porque el acero ha sido demasiado inconsistente en su composición, lo que puede causar problemas para obtener resultados consistentes en el tratamiento térmico. Sospecho que la misma razón por la que 5160 es más abundante y más barato también puede resultar en una mayor variación en la composición.No hay súper aceros y, si bien algunos aceros son mejores que otros para fines específicos, no hay uno que sea mejor para espadas. Cualquiera de los aceros mencionados será una muy buena espada siempre que esté bien formada y debidamente tratada térmicamente. Si hiciera media docena de espadas idénticas y las tratara con calor a todas con la misma dureza, es probable que no puedas distinguirlas en el uso general o en la apariencia. Si planea hacer más hojas en el futuro, elija un acero y quédese con él hasta que pueda obtener buenos resultados consistentes antes de cambiar a otro acero. what good concepts !!!!
|
|