W2 edge retention and corrosion resistance?

N

noob93

Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
433
Hi guys I posted this thread in general discussion with no luck so now I'm here. just wondering how w2 would compare to 1095 for edge retention and corrosion resistance. I love hamons and I know this steel can make for a good one.
 
Don is the expert here on W2. I use it a lot, but I'm much newer at this. The vanadium in W2 will give you better wear resistance and better edge stability. I get 10-20% better wear resistance with W2. Corrosion resistance. No real difference I can tell.
 
Have a choice ? get W-2. The vanadium also minimizes grain growth problems.
 
I'm no expert, but W2 has noticeably better edge retention over 1095 & W1.

Neither have any corrosion resistance. That's up to the care of the user.
 
+1 on what Don said. I don't know who said that W2 does not have enough V to cause any increase in wear resistance, but in my limited experience, that is not true. .
 
Don Hanson III said:
I'm no expert, but W2 has noticeably better edge retention over 1095 & W1.

Neither have any corrosion resistance. That's up to the care of the user.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info I know you use a lot of w2 and make some stellar blades btw. So edge retention would be closer to 01?
 
noob93 said:
Thanks for the info I know you use a lot of w2 and make some stellar blades btw. So edge retention would be closer to 01?
Click to expand...
The W2 I'm using has better edge retention than 01. It really shines with a very thin edge at high Rc hardness! :)
 
Don Hanson III said:
The W2 I'm using has better edge retention than 01. It really shines with a very thin edge at high Rc hardness! :)
Click to expand...

Okay so like even at 62 or 63 it sounds like a thin edge say 30 inclusive with a nice thin grind, will cut very well. I guess my question would be then how brittle is it at that hardness?
 
W2 is more equivalent to 52100 than O1, in my experience. W2 and 52100 can be ground thinner, and hold the edge longer than O1.
 
noob93 said:
Okay so like even at 62 or 63 it sounds like a thin edge say 30 inclusive with a nice thin grind, will cut very well. I guess my question would be then how brittle is it at that hardness?
Click to expand...

What Warren said above & at 62-63 Rc a very thin edge on W2 is super tough, not too brittle.
 
Don Hanson III said:
What Warren said above & at 62-63 Rc a very thin edge on W2 is super tough, not too brittle.
Click to expand...

Awesome man thank you for the information it sounds like I'm gonna enjoy this steel quite a bit. Love 1095 at 60 so it sounds like w2 at 62 or 63 will be a real treat and at a low edge angle at that.
 
Bill Moran once said that W2 was almost as tough as 5160,but held an edge a lot longer. Remember that probably said that before folks generally discovered the improvements from using lower temperature for austenizing on steels like W2 and52100.
 
Make sure you get the exact specs of the batch of W2 steel. The AISI specification for W2 is very broad in terms of carbon content - 0.85 to 1.5 which creates a lot of subjective experiences when it comes to this steel.

Conflict breeds creativity
 
We have the specs on any W2 we can get because there are only two sources that i know of.
Tehemton said:
Make sure you get the exact specs of the batch of W2 steel. The AISI specification for W2 is very broad in terms of carbon content - 0.85 to 1.5 which creates a lot of subjective experiences when it comes to this steel.

Conflict breeds creativity
Click to expand...
 
jdm61 said:
We have the specs on any W2 we can get because there are only two sources that i know of.
Click to expand...
Oh cool.. Then W2 is pretty much an obvious choice over 1095 simply because of all the carbide formers which gives excellent wear resistance. 1095 has very little in terms of wear resistance since it's just a simple steel.. And edge stability will be a lot better too in W2.

Conflict breeds creativity
 
Anyone have any values for the relative carbide volume of 1095 vs W2? Both will have some, but I wonder how much more, if any, W2 has?
 
me2 said:
Anyone have any values for the relative carbide volume of 1095 vs W2? Both will have some, but I wonder how much more, if any, W2 has?
Click to expand...
W2 has about 0.15 to 0.2 of tungsten, vanadium, chromium and molybdenum which are all excellent carbide formers. 1095 has practically no carbides and has very little in terms of abrasion resistance..

Conflict breeds creativity
 
Tehemton said:
W2 has about 0.15 to 0.2 of tungsten, vanadium, chromium and molybdenum which are all excellent carbide formers. 1095 has practically no carbides and has very little in terms of abrasion resistance..

Conflict breeds creativity
Click to expand...

Cemetite is a carbide. All the carbon in 1095 over .8% should be forming iron carbides, which is why 1095 has more wear resistance than 1080.
 
RX-79G said:
Cemetite is a carbide. All the carbon in 1095 over .8% should be forming iron carbides, which is why 1095 has more wear resistance than 1080.
Click to expand...

Iron carbides are relatively not as hard as compared to the other four, and they sum up to about .8% too depending on the batch for example vanadium carbide is a 9.5 on the mohs scale with diamond being 10 and hardened steel comes at around 7. And when I said it has practically no carbide formers, I meant I comparison.. I apologize if it was a bit misleading

Conflict breeds creativity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top