Metallurgy

[helwood]

Greetings, I've been going through my library and can't find  close to what I was wondering.   But, if you had x3 Exact Mainsprings one made from W1, one O1, and one 6150  could you tell the difference in performance?  Just curious.  Thanks for thoughts.
Hank

[jerrywh]

I am not a metallurgical engineer but I have consulted with some on a professional level about heat treating springs. Because I use to make springs for gun smiths on a mass level and at first I had a lot of problems. My problems were solved by them years ago. I have used all three of the metals you refereed to.  To answer your question I doubt if you could tell the difference between W1 and .01 steel in a spring of the same dimensions. W1 is a water hardening steel and 01 is a oil hardening steel. And if tempered the same way they both would result very near the same properties.  6150 is different and I call it a fools steel because it is forgiving. It only has about 1/2 the carbon that 01 or 1095 or w1 has and therefore it does not harden very hard. It also has chrome  and manganese in it which makes it tough. Since it does not harden very hard it is sort of fool proof because if it is not tempered quite right it will be somewhat forgiving. In other words a novas might get away with some mistakes in tempering.  if you harden 6150 in the usual manner it will still file somewhat and will make you think it is not hardened completely but just disregard this and proceed with tempering and it will turn ouut OK.   In the end it will be a little mushy feeling compared to the other spring steels. Last I checked L&R was making springs from 6150

[Darrin McDonal]

Hank I know this doesn't exactly answer your question but I wouldn't use any of those. Forged 1084 is what I/we use here at CW Gunsmith & it is excellent!! I would doubt you would notice a big difference in cast springs of those materials. The size shape, bend & thickness is where you'll notice the difference.
Darrin

[Carl Young]

From what I have read, the metallurgical composition of a steel spring should not make much of a difference in elasticity. There is a discussion of this in the American Machinist, Vol. 60, P.50
Carl

[helwood]

Thank you Gentlemen, this is what happens working in the shop by yourself.  You come up with questions  that you go in circles with.
  Again thanks much.        Hank

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

i have made a great number of springs using 1095.  Heat to 1450, quench in brine without stirring or swirling the part.  Temper at 810.  Please realize that the heat treating of steel will not effect the load/deflection property in any way - not at all.  Identical shaped springs tempered at 650 or 750 or 850 will all have an identical load/deflection characteristic.  The only way to make a spring stronger or weaker is to change its physical shape, size, or thickness.

Here is a quote from people who know:

The Iron Age Volume 89 May 9, 1912, page 1151

The stiffness of a piece of steel cannot be increased by alloying nor by heat treatment.  By this I mean that provided the elastic limit is not exceeded, the amount of deflection for a given load cannot be decreased.  However, heat treatment will raise the elastic limit so that a much greater load can be carried without causing a permanent set.  Until the elastic limit is reached all steels, no matter how treated or of what nature, will deflect the same amount under the same load.  However, the poorer grade steel or the un-heattreated one will reach its elastic limit first and will then deflect much more and retain a permanent set.

So, the answer to the first question is there would no difference at all between the three identical springs made from W1 O1, 6150.


Jim

[helwood]

Jim,  Thanks for the information.  I tried looking on the Internet for the book you sourced, The Iron Age Volume 89 May 9, 1912 pg 1151. Couldn't find it. Sounds like it might be a text book.  Is it currently available as reprint?    Thanks for time and help.
                               Hank

[Curtis]

Hank, here is a link to an electronic copy: https://books.google.com/books?id=IxpKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1151&lpg=PA1151&dq=Iron+Age+Volume+89+May+9&source=bl&ots=EnhaAjwrTG&sig=ACfU3U3n2KvhmSkQmyJyOFKO7wmaBb8d8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi57I6FrrXqAhUECc0KHdQqBSsQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Iron%20Age%20Volume%2089%20May%209&f=false

Curtis

[jerrywh]

Guys,

i have made a great number of springs using 1095.  Heat to 1450, quench in brine without stirring or swirling the part.  Temper at 810.  Please realize that the heat treating of steel will not effect the load/deflection property in any way - not at all.  Identical shaped springs tempered at 650 or 750 or 850 will all have an identical load/deflection characteristic.  The only way to make a spring stronger or weaker is to change its physical shape, size, or thickness.

Here is a quote from people who know:
The Iron Age Volume 89 May 9, 1912, page 1151

Should say this is a quote from people who thought they knew in 1912.  I think steel has come a long was in the last 108 years. I doubt if 6150 even existed in 1912  or a hundred other modern steels. Anyway, For the springs made by these folks it won't matter.

[heinz]

I doubt you were wrong Jerry.  The 6150 springs probably tend to be a little thinner in the actual cross-section because it is a bit "softer" under the hammer.  The difference in feel is likely due to the different shape.  So you can save you annual being wrong for another case.

[Dphariss]

Guys,

i have made a great number of springs using 1095.  Heat to 1450, quench in brine without stirring or swirling the part.  Temper at 810.  Please realize that the heat treating of steel will not effect the load/deflection property in any way - not at all.  Identical shaped springs tempered at 650 or 750 or 850 will all have an identical load/deflection characteristic.  The only way to make a spring stronger or weaker is to change its physical shape, size, or thickness.

Here is a quote from people who know:
The Iron Age Volume 89 May 9, 1912, page 1151

Should say this is a quote from people who thought they knew in 1912.  I think steel has come a long was in the last 108 years. I doubt if 6150 even existed in 1912  or a hundred other modern steels. Anyway, For the springs made by these folks it won't matter.

I would have to agree with Jerry here. Compared to the knowledge and testing ability of today they were little above the stone age in the early 20th c. Example, 1903 Springfield receivers were be being heat treated by "eye" at this time and as a result some were overheated and damaged beyond fixing, some failed catastrophically in service. All because the light was too bright at times and parts were quenched at too high a temperature. This said there is a lot to be learned from old books but we have to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff.  Today the alloys can be so tightly controlled that steels are engineered for specific purposes. Some, like the Chrom-Moly series of barrel steels can be and are a times fired when red hot. Before the advent of automatic weapons there was no need of this.
We have a metallurgist who posts here from time to time.
Jerry's comments on 6150 being mushy explains a lot...
Dan

[Jim Kibler]

James Wilson Everett is correct.  His quote from the 1912 text was correct then as it is now.  The idea that hardness or composition effects the strenght of a spring is a common misconception.  It's discussed periodically here, but it's a difficult fact to accept since it in some ways seems counterintuitive. 

Jim

[jerrywh]

James Wilson Everett is correct.  His quote from the 1912 text was correct then as it is now.  The idea that hardness or composition effects the strenght of a spring is a common misconception.  It's discussed periodically here, but it's a difficult fact to accept since it in some ways seems counterintuitive. 

Jim

If this was true a spring made from 1020 would be equal to one made from 1095.  The type of steel definitely has an effect on strength otherwise why not have just one alloy instead of several.
  It is like saying Oak is no stronger than pine.  Why is it that different lock makers use different alloys??   I would agree that a spring made from 1075 would have little or no difference from a spring made from 1095 or 01. if they were the same in dimensions.The difference would be negligible. I doubt if this debate is of much interest to the members of this forum except that a spring made from 6150 by them is more forgiving as far as the hardening and tempering method is concerned. By the way Jim, What steel do you use to make the main springs in your new lock?
   https://www.meadmetals.com/blog/common-uses-for-spring-steel

[Bob Roller]

If I were going to make more locks I would like to try 6150 to see what it does
using my stone age way of doing things.
Bob Roller

[Jim Kibler]

jerry,

I'll try to paraphrase what the text was saying.  As long as you don't exceed the yield point (the point at which the spring will not return the the original shape when unloaded) the strength isn't dependent on the metal composition (grade) or hardness.  So as long as one is working in the elastic region (the area a spring works) the stiffness of the spring isn't dependent on material, but solely on shape.

1020 steel can't be hardned sufficiently such that the yield point is not exceeded.  This is why 1020 will not work for a mainspring.  Anything above .35% carbon or so will harden enough (40-45 HRC) that the yield point won't be exceeded with forces subjected by a mainspring.  The stiffness of a spring from this material would be the same as one made from 1095.

Hope this makes sense.

Jim

[Randall Steffy]

Good stuff guys. I for one, greatly appreciate the discussion of this matter.

[jerrywh]

I am impressed by this discussion on this forum because on most forums and in most discussions the debate soon turn into a contest of egos and becomes a matter of who is correct instead of what is correct.  I respect everybody's opinion on this. It was a good debate. Thanks.J.H.

[helwood]

Greetings,
I thank you all for responding to my question.
                   Hank

[Bob Roller]

James Wilson Everett is correct.  His quote from the 1912 text was correct then as it is now.  The idea that hardness or composition effects the strenght of a spring is a common misconception.  It's discussed periodically here, but it's a difficult fact to accept since it in some ways seems counterintuitive. 

Jim

Some of those 1903's blew up and I think there was/is a serial# range for these but I
forget what it was.Also I am NOT trying to start a discussion on semi modern breech
loaders.

Bob Roller