I talked to Aldo about this steel and bought some myself. I have not used any yet. He told me that the heat treat is essentially the same as 5160. While I trust Aldo, I always will conduct my own tests. I will start at 350 degrees as the draw temperature and test. Once I settle on where it performs best, I will use that as my benchmark. In fact, with any unknown steel, I will start at 350 and test. Since I have never use it before, I will consider it unknown.

80CrV2 is some of the finest grained and toughest steels I've ever used. It is unusually difficult to break 'as quenched' coupons with no tempering to look at the grain.

I've tried tempering down to 300 F. but ended up walking back up to about 350F. or so. For me, with my methods 350-375F. is in the right neighborhood for tempering, be it fine slicers or large heavy blades.

This stuff can take a real beating, even with small thin edges.

For austenitizing, I like to go about 1485-1515F. ( I usually shoot for about 1500F.) with an 8 min or so soak.

Thank you both for the information. Sounds like I should treat it like 5160, but be sure to test and adjust as I go.

These are my temps for 5160:

Normalize: 1600 and cool in still air

Thermal Cycling: 1500 (3 min soak) with air cool, 1300 and leave in the forge overnight to cool slowly.

Grind

Stress Relieving 1250-1300F (soak for a few minutes) and cool to black

Harden: 1500-1525 F, soak for 10 minutes, quench in medium speed oil

Temper: Two two-hour cycles from 350F-400F (I need to experiment more with this)

Any advice on getting the most out of its potential to have fine grain? Maybe a quench during thermal cycling? Or is that overkill?

Steve

I love the 80crv2 I have even gotten it to hammon... I have found the heat treat is pretty much the same as 5160 but the temper ranges are a bit higher, I have been varying from 400-475 triple tempering seems to make a big difference.

MP

In the March 2015 issue of Blade magazine, Joe Szilaski writes about how he heat treated 80CrV2 to make 2000 cuts on 3/8" manila rope. You might want to check it out.

Dale

I guess I don't see how 80CrV2 (1.2235) is "like 5160", on steroids or not. Lower chrome, a lot lower manganese, has vanadium, and a lot more carbon. Has different austenizing temp., different as-quenched hardness range, different tempering schedule. 80CrV2 is a saw, frame-saw, slitting-tool steel.

If I were messing with it, I'd treat it more like (not "same as") 1080 than 5160.

Mike

Mike,

To treat this steel "like 5160" is just getting in the ball park. The original poster was wanting a reference with which to begin his testing. The ABS teaches us to perform our own independent tests to make sure that our eye, equipment, and skill level achieve the best results. Only with testing and trying new steels will we each be able to really understand the ways in which the alloys affect the outcome and performance. In this way he can better tailor a custom knife to meet the needs of his customer as well as grow in knowledge.

If you have experience that is specific to 80CRV2, I would like to hear it since that is really the question. Also I'd like to hear more about the intended industrial applications of the steel. Thanks

Along with the “steel of the month club” phenomenon, I have also noticed how new trendy names seem to really capture people’s attention… 75-X7Z, AE67…CRV… CPM… etc… Even some rather old familiar steels are getting a new lease on life as all the rage simply by getting a new name. No, 80CRV2 is not 5160 renamed, but I get a chuckle out of it every time I hear the 5160 comparison because Aldo jokingly told me he started offering it as a 5160 alternative as a favor to me, because of my attitude about that alloy. It is not that I don’t like 5160, or that it is a bad steel, but I believe that it is so highly overrated that it is overused for the wrong applications more than any other steel, and much of the praised that is heaped on it is just not realistic.

Instead 80CRV2 appears to be a variation of a classic that I used a long time ago, and is indeed an excellent steel, and I do believe that it could indeed replace 5160 in many applications with better results. Normalizing at around 1625F should work, it should be friendly to spheroidizing operations but I would avoid lamellar anneals if you value your tooling. Austenitizing temps are nuanced with this one for our purposes. You can make this steel actually perform (or outperform) like 5160 by choosing lower austenitizing temps and allowing carbon in excess of .6% to stay in carbide form, or you can go for higher heats and get much better edge retention than 5160 could. This gives you a range from 1500F to 1575F to work with. In forging and heat treating the vanadium (the V2 part) will stabilize the grain boundaries and make it a little more foolproof for grain size. Use a medium speed oil, i.e. Parks AAA, HotoQuench-G, McMaster Carr, Chevron quench etc… but not Parks #50.

|quoted:

Mike,

If you have experience that is specific to 80CRV2, I would like to hear it since that is really the question. Also I'd like to hear more about the intended industrial applications of the steel. Thanks

I don't have any experience with 80CrV2 (1.2235).

When I saw the thread I thought I would look into it's chemistry simply to see what it was. When I finally found manufacturer/supplier information, most of it was very marginal (not at all as informative as ASM Heat Treaters Guide would be), but the information available seemed to me to be different than the Guide's information on 5160.

For me, answering questions about steel has to start in the professional world of producers, suppliers, and materials information organizations. I simply don't have the base knowledge or experiential knowledge to do otherwise.

I wish I had said I would treat 80CrV2 like "slow 1080" (higher hardenability 1080), but I didn't.

Mike

Looking at the general chemistry of 80CrV2 (1.2235), would anyone consider this a good steel for use in damascus? I worry about the chrome content, though I don't know if the range level (.30 to .70) warrants that.

Sorry for necroposting this thread, but I wanted to clear up a misconception that could cause considerable grief for some folks if it is not cleared up. The "80" in 80CrV2 does indeed stand for .80% carbon, and 1080 also has .80% Carbon but that is where any similarity completely ends. Along with the "80" there is also the "CrV" this small but very powerful addition makes 80CrV2 an entirely different alloy from any 10XX series steel. 10XX are in the carbon steel group while 80CrV2 falls deeply within the alloy steel range and is actually a new incarnation of a familiar tool steel. They are not sister steels, or even first cousins, not the same family at all, but almost different species. 80CrV2 is not 1080 on steroids, but a different alloy altogether.

I really like this steel.

The only thing I can add is that I was told that a sub critical normalization adds toughness.

Not that its really needed.

This steel compared to the 10XX steels I usually use is tough, real tough!

I have noticed one thing and have had it confirmed by others who also use it.

It has a deep decarb in heat treatment.

When I take a file to it after heat treat and temper the file cuts for a long long time and then skates like its glass.

I heat treat in a kiln and that may be the issue.

But that experience made me doubt that I had hardened it the first few times I used it.

I want to resurrect this thread.

A couple of years have passed and some further testing by different folks has taken place on this steel. I've used it some and have been happy with it. But I was using Parks 50 to quench. The result was very good but I am reading that the steel is meant to quench in medium speed oil. I would like to see or hear actual comparisons from those who have done both. Medium speed and fast quench.

Also, I would like to see if there have been any more comparison testing between the quenching temperatures and their individual performances. In other words how does this steel perform when quenched at 1480F as compared to being quenched at 1540F?

The variables could be endless but I'd like to keep them limited reasonably to those two major things. The oils and the quench temperatures.

This is to gather real testing results by you guys to compare with what I have found and what I anticipate to find as I do further testing. My purpose for this is to give this steel a fair chance to perform at it's full potential. Thanks

I've played with the steel a bit. I found that the lower quench temps required a lower tempering temperature. A blade quenched at about 1475 would perform will around 350 degrees. A blade quenched at the higher range, say above 1500 would need closer to a 400 degree temper. I also noted a loss of toughness at the higher quench temp but possibly greater abrasion resistance. It's been awhile since I messed with it but I plan to do more with this steel in the future. I quenched in Parks 50...I'm curious why this isn't recommended?

The reason for the caution against using Parks #50 can be summed up in one word- "chromium:. Parks #50 was designed to replace water in quench speed, would you want to quench 5160, 52100, O-1 or L6 in water? Many folks would say that they have quenched chromium alloyed steels in P#50 with "no problems", in other words- they have been lucky. But there will, understandably, be increased risks of distortion and cracking. If anybody has had these problems with Parks #50 without taking extra measures to avoid it, like low agitation or oil temperature etc..., well there is your answer. When quenching basic steels that need water speeds, I have yet to ever crack a blade in P#50 regardless of agitation rate or oil temperature, not so with chromium bearing steels. Too often I have encountered the idea among many makers that is if a little is good, a whole bunch must be great, but there really aren't too many benefits, especially in light of the possible drawbacks, to quench faster than is necessary to achieve full hardness in a given alloy.