1095 and O1

[WBE]

Non-magnetic is 1414?. If you take the 1095 too much beyond 1500?, you are risking a little grain growth that may not be enough to hurt, but you will get some. 1095 responds better with a short soak at 1475?. How will you guage the temp of that blade in a campfire? You said that you wanted to do it right, but if that were true, you would not be using a campfire, and I assume, color to gauge the temp. It will be impossible for you to do 01 right in a campfire. That ain't gunna happen. You have chosen, perhaps, the two worst possible carbon steels to work with as a beginner with no real equipment. You are full of spirit, I find that admirable, but short of knowledge on this, and you ain't gunna get a good hardness on 1095 with vege oil and a campfire, without a lot of pure luck. I would suggest you scrap this project, get some 1075, 1080/84 steel, do some serious research, and then go at it again, and I don't mean research by reading the $50.00 knife shop book. That thing is worthless as far as heat treating. That is one of the most bogus pieces of print one can find on that subject. I mean read what metallurgists makers recommend, and why. That said, you can get a pretty decent, usable blade from 1075, 1080/84 steel with campfire primitive methods, but not so much with your lack of knowledge with either of the steels you chose. You chose those steels because you have seen that many good knifemakers use them, and they seem very popular, but these people usually have the knowledge and equipment to make them work properly. You don't. I don't mean to seem harsh, but facts, are facts. Work within your means, and then look into advancing beyond. Your spirit is strong, but, no pun intended, temper it to a level you can handle. Learn, then advance.

[Eli Jensen]

Well I appreciate your honesty, and you may very well be right. But other facts are that I've already ordered the steel and cannot afford to just order more, so I might as well give it a go.

The way I see it, if you started with all the best equipment and all the best instruction, you might as well buy a knife cause I don't see the fun in that. 4/5ths of the fun for me is figuring it out on my own. I learned woodworking on my own, handlemaking, knife profiling, now knife grinding, and hopefully heat treating soon all on my own. My philosophy is to learn to do something right, you have to do it wrong first. Trial and error. Most of what I do is error, but all that error cranks out some pretty neat right stuff sometimes. Also, what did people do for heat treating before fancy ovens were invented? If anyone in the world can learn to do this by primitive means, so can I.

As to why I ordered 1095 . . . it was all Jantz had. As to 01, its all Texas Knife had. Other than air hardened that is.

As far as research goes, I agree it is very important. But I think at a point I can benefit more from taking a go at it.

In three weeks I'll have the time to head down south where its warm enough to do this at night, and I'll let ya'll know how it goes.

[son_of_bluegras]

I started with the 1095 from Jantz. The biggest difference with my initial set-up and what is being proposed is I built a forge from a bar-b-que grill. I burned homemade charcoal in it. The only reading I did prior was some stuff on-line and the heat treating part of "Metallurgy Theory and Practice". It took a half dozen blades to get decent results and by the time I'd done a dozen blades I was getting better knives than I ever bought (I no, I didn't buy cheap junk).
It is very doable as proposed with 1095. I don't get where everyone says it isn't a "beginners steel" as it is what I began with. I've since tried 1075 and it isn't any easier that 1095 in my opinion.
Maybe I was just lucky. Maybe the man saying it can't be done shouldn't interfere with the man doing it.

ron

[Eli Jensen]

Know what, I think I like you ron

How did you modify the grill? If I ever find one at a thrift, which I've seen from time to time, I might have to get one, two reasons:

1) Elevated work space

2) Consistent conditions for future use

How is using a grill any different than a controlled coals burning on the ground?

I think the word campfire is maybe making me look like a caveman doing this or something. I am not planning on throwing a bunch of logs on a fire, drinking beer with the pals, and oh yeah lets make some metal glow! That would be fun, but maybe later. I've already gone out and gotten the shovel and grate for making the trench under the fire for air flow.

How do you make the charcoal?

Maybe I'll make a small, extra blade to send to you to get a second opinion on my success. Don't hold your breath though cause I'm taking 19 credits this semester and working so three weeks is a HOPEFUL time to try this out.

Oh PS I also want to get this down so I can make arrowheads. Before this I was into fletching and bow making. Texas knife wanted full price for heat treating every arrowhead, even at 1" - 1-1/2" each. Thats like $60 a dozen! You can buy premo arrows for that much

[WBE]

You like Ron because he's telling you what you want to hear. One doesn't have to start with the best equipment, but when equipment is lacking, you need to match your steel to your abilities. Ron, the reason you don't understand why the experts consider 1095 and 01 to not be beginners steel is lack of knowledge about them, and what is going on in the steel, and what should be happening, and what should not be happening, when you are heat treating it. Let me guess. You think 1075 was as easy to HT as 1095, because they both got hard enough to skate a file. The file doesn't work well with testing 1095. An inadequate quench medium will leave 1095 with soft and hard spots that the file will not detect, and gives you an edge that allows the carbon which will be in tiny clumps, to separate from the soft iron as you cut. This is on a microscopic level. 1095 should never be heated over 1500? for the quench, with 1475? being more ideal, and the quench has to cool it from that temp to under 900? in .8 of one second, or the solution of carbon and iron you created from your heat will begin separating back into clumps, rather than being locked into a homogeneous bond. Only brine will accomplish this completely. Even the best commercial oil will not completetly do this, but comes close enough giving very little separation. For you two, assuming you do not want to buy commercial quench oil, warm canola oil is about the best you can do without risk of cracking the blade in brine. The 10xx steels lower in carbon than 1095 contain enough manganese to control this problem of separation, and allow for a much higher rate of real success in the HT using oils. 1095 has very little manganese. So little as to be almost non-existant. That is why 1095 is not for beginners with minimal equipment, and minimal knowledge. Just trying to enlighten you a bit, and save you some trouble. Been there and done that myself with both those steels.

[Eli Jensen]

So are you saying I should use brine or should I use oil?

No I like Ron because he's optimistic. I appreciated your bluntness, but this is my situation and I cannot change it for a while. Thought about looking into a ceramics kiln but dont have the $600, even though I know that would be a deal. So at the end of the day, I have the steel, I have the means for the fire, and I have the quenching medium, so I might as well give it a go.

Again, what did people do before the fancy ovens were invented?

[WBE]

For the 1095, I would suggest about 2 gallons of canola oil at about 125?. Go in point first, this reduces warp, then immediately move the blade fore and aft. Be prepared for the oil to ignite. It will go out as soon as things cool a bit. Take the blade out after maybe 45 seconds to a minute, then temper very soon. 425? or 450? if you want it to sharpen easier. Before all this, normalize. Since you are grinding rather than forging, take the blade up to a good 1500? or even a tad more. Hold a few seconds, to a minute, then let it cool. Take it up again to about between non-magnetic and 1500?, let it cool. Again at just non-magnetic and cool. Then do the heat treat. The high first normalize temp with a short soak, is to allow uneven grain sizes to all become more even in size even though they will likely be a tad large. Pros will heat to around 1600? for this, but I'm thinking maybe you need to stay as simple as possible. The other two heats, or you can do three more, reduce the grain size in steps, while also stress relieving. If you have a piece of scrap 1095, you can do a practice run on the hardening. After you quench, break the piece and see what the grain looks like. It should be silky smooth. If you can see individual grains without magnification, you over heated for the quench. Before high temp ovens, depending on how far you want to go back, smiths used lower carbon steels, and could get away with very simple HT methods. When carbon content gets at or over .85% carbon, things can get complicated. Iron will only absorb into solution, .85%. If of higher carbon content, you have carbon left over, and have to do something with it, or it will clump up in spots and do no extra good. Soaking at quench temp disperses the extra cabon out evenly where it is able to help in the edge holding ability. That is why a soak at 1475? is better than 1500? with no soak. 19th c. knife steels were most often similar to 1070/75, give or take a tad. Some 18th c. knives have been found to be just wrought iron. You can bend them with your hands, but they beat having nothing if you need a cutting tool.

[son_of_bluegras]

WBE,

You may very well be right. I may not understand what is happening. I'm not a metallurgist. I've never said I am and never meant to imply I am. So allow me to make this a long post as I try to explain my understanding and someone can enlighten me where I'm wrong.
First where my knowledge comes from. I don't recall where I've read or heard everything, I read a lot and think about what I read. When I don't understand, I try to find someone to ask or something else to read. The first text I picked up was "Metallurgy Theory and Practice", I believe the author is Dell Allen. I bought a used copy and read the sections on heat treating, carbon steel, non-ferrous alloys and a few other bits. I skipped the parts on stainless steels and some other parts. I've read and discussed metallurgy on this and other fora online. The other fora include iforgeiron.com, sword forum international, bladesmith's forum and others. I've bought used copies of tomes on tool making and metallurgy as well as blacksmithing. There has been a smattering of scientific papers thrown into the mix as well.
Now for what I think I know.
The textbook composition of 1095 is C - 0.90-1.03%, Mn 0.30-0.50%, P 0.04% max, S 0.05%. With the use of recycled steel today there is probably minor amounts of other elements in commonly available steel.
The textbook heat treat temperature for 1095 is 1470-1475 F depending on who your are reading. That is the Acm temperature while the Ac1 temperature is 1380-1390 F. What that means is that the steel starts to convert to austenite at 1380 or so and exist as a mix of austenite and cementite until around 1470 F is reached at which point it is fully austenite. Above Acm grain growth can occur and grain growth is dependent on temperature, time and alloying elements. With temperature and alloying elements having a greater effect than time.
In order to form martensite instead of pearlite or bainite, the cooling rate must be sufficiently fast. To miss creating pearlite, the temperature needs to drop below 750-900 F in under 0.5-0.9 seconds (I've seen these numbers reported different places). Your numbers of 900 F in under 0.8 second is what I've read most commonly. Martensite starts forming around 425 F and finishes somewhere between -150 and 20 F. Yes I've run across that complete range in different texts. From the paper "Metallurgy of Steel for Bladesmiths & Others who Heat Treat and Forge Steel" by Verhoeven the Mf point is dependent on the rate of cooling. This is why I don't think it is a bad thing to cryo 1095, it is a little extra insurance that the retained austenite is converted to martensite.
As to your statement that 1095 should never be heated above 1500...Why not? You don't explain. The only reason I know of (provided you don't go so hot as to burn or melt the steel) is grain growth. And I agree large grain is bad for a knife but how much of an issue is it? I've read that some industries take (or maybe took) 1% plain carbon steels to 1600 F or so to austenize the steel. They could do this because the time held at temperature was short. The short times kept grain growth from being an issue. The same applies here. If you exceed 1500 you don't run into problem until the steel has been at that temperature for some time. So the question becomes how long is safe? From my understanding a few minutes. When we are talking about primitive heat treating, the temperature of the fire is likely above 1600 and even with careful watching, the temperature of the blade is likely to go above 1500 for a few seconds. So long as the time is kept to a minimum, maybe 15 seconds or less, how much grain growth is there? I've busted blades I've heat treated and compared them to a busted file. I have the capability to magnify 20X and have examined the two samples. To my eye, I can't see a difference.
On the other hand what happens if you don't reach Acm? You quench a mix of austenite and cementite. If you've normalized a couple of times, the cementite grains are probably really small and evenly dispersed. There is likely enough carbon dissolved in the iron matrix to allow for sufficient hardening of the blade. But I think with the cementite grains, it is probable better to take the blade just a bit hot for a few seconds to minimize the risk of incomplete carbon dissolution even though there is a risk of grain growth.
As for quench media. You're statement that only brine is fast enough is an overgeneralization to the point is could be considered false. For thin cross sections, like knife blades, luke-warm oil (120-150 F) is fast enough to miss the pearlite nose. From my reading oil is fast enough for cross sections up to 3/16 inch thick. Also I have read studies that vegetable based oils are faster at cooling from elevated temperatures than petroleum based oils. That means vegetable based oils are better suited to quenching than petroleum oils. What you get from commercial oils is additives to reduce flashing, additives to increase longevity of the oil and consistency. By consistency I mean what you buy today will (or should) be the same as you buy 10 years from now. You pay good money to get that consistency. With vegetable oil bought from the grocery store you may not get exactly the same results buying 2 separate containers of the same stuff at the same time from the same manufacturer. For industry the consistency is a requirement. For a guy making himself a few knifes, not so much. And there are, today some commercial vegetable based quenchants.
I am really confused when you talk about "clumping" and "separation". Could you explain that using the technical jargon please? I don't know if you mean the carbon will precipitate out as graphite or if it will form grains of cementite or something else?
Also how long of a soak do you think is necessary for the carbon to become equally distributed? Verhoeven talks about it taking on the order of milliseconds to seconds unless there are sufficient amounts of alloying elements that slow the migration of carbon down.
Also when you speak of "hard and soft spots" on a "microscopic level" could you go into more depth? Are you meaning bits of cementite in a ferrite matrix (or maybe martensite matrix) and just how is this detrimental to a knife blade? Or do you think the result will be some mix of pearlite and either bainite or martensite (or both)?

As for how I test. Yes I do "skate a file". I do that straight from the quench as the first test. Sometimes I don't get to the quench fast enough. But that isn't the only test. Once I sharpen the edge I cut with it. I cut stuff that is very abrasive, stuff that is very hard on an edge and stuff that requires a very fine edge. Materials I commonly cut are cardboard, paper, newsprint, wood (various species depending on what is on hand), old garden hoses, hair (shaving) cloth, copper and sometimes other stuff. I've even drug the edge through soil and along concrete to see how well it holds up. Maybe I don't get everything 1095 has to offer. Maybe Cpt-Jens won't either. I do get a knife that cuts better and holds that finer edge longer than what I've bought.
I don't have the equipment for spectrographic analysis, or a hardness tester, or any of that sort of metallurgical testing. I don't have the money to have blades tested. Maybe you do. Maybe If I had these sorts of test done I'd agree that 1095 isn't a "backyard blacksmith" steel. But unless you are willing to do those tests (or someone else is) gratis, I have to go on what I experience. And in my experience 1095 is quite well suited to beginners and backyard blacksmiths.

I'm sure in this post, I've missed a few points I meant to put in, but this give us a point to proceed from.

ron

[son_of_bluegras]

A solid forge is very simple. In it's most basic for it is just a hole in the ground with some way to add air. Everything else is for the connivence of the smith. What I did was to take one of the round Weber grills. I drilled a hole in the side large enough for a pipe. Use black iron or stainless. Don't use galvanized pipe. The zinc fumes that come off of galvanized are bad for your health. You need to like the forge with something that is fire proof. I used wood ashes and we burn wood for heat in the winter and that is something abundantly available. You could use the cheapest clay-based kitty litter you can find or you can dig up some dirt. There is a cavity in the lining and the pipe runs into the cavity. You'll need to supply some air source. I was given a hand crank blower. You could use a hair dryer (no heat).
Search for "wash tub forge", "lively style forge", "55 gallon drum forge", "break drum forge" or "primitive forge".
If you haven't already check out iforgeiron.com

The easiest way to make charcoal is to start a wood fire (don't use treated, painted, etc wood) let it burn a while then put it out. You can get complicated with indirect methods, retorts and what-not.
Again search "making charcoal". You'll get enough results to kill a year just reading.

Don't bother sending me a blade. You'll want to test several to destruction to evaluate how you are progressing. That will eat up what little money you have available for this venture. Once you get to the point you think you are doing ok, give knives to people you know to evaluate. The reason you should give them to people you know is that 1-you can tell them not to do stupid stuff with the knifes and 2-you can go back in 6 months or a year and examine how each knife has held up.

ron

[WBE]

Most of what you have there sounds about right for salts or oven treating. The separation I was talking about is that if the quench does not cool fast enough, the austenite solution quickly reverts to a mix of pearlite and carbon, which will give a false reading with a file test. Were you to test with a Rockwell tester you would find hard and soft spots. 1600? will grow grain fairly quick. As you noted, the ideal quench range is around 1475? but with a soak. The soak can be from 5 to 10 minutes, under a controlled heat. With controlled heat, salt bath preffered 1600? with a soak is a good temp for the first step in normalizing, as you get grain growth, but the grain will equalize in size. Then you reduce the grain size with further lower heats in normalizing. When you say oil, the only oil that will come close to doing the job is Parks #50. Canola runs a close enough third to make a usable blade, but should not be thought of as an equal to the Parks. Motor oil is not even in the running. Grain growth is an issue because it weakens the steel, but it doesn't seem that you are having a problem there. After normalizing, there is just no reason to risk formation of larger grain. I never had grain growth problems either, but did have more pearlite formation than I thought because of the sorry quench I was using. Whatever results you are getting would be improved with parks oil, but it would seem you are at least doing OK. I had very good results also, but always with very thin blades. The thicker ones. not so much. I had mine tested by a friend at Timken Bearings. He no longer has access to the HT Dept. Even my good blades read 30+ Rc at the spine. That should have been a tip off. The edge was not Rc'ed, but performed OK. Probably some did, some, maybe not all. I am still haunted by those made in the early ninties. But so far no complaints except for my own I carried a while. It was around 59/60 Rc, by hardness testing files, but did not hold an edge long, as I discovered while slicing meat on a wood table. The wood soon wore it dull, while others working at the table kept on going, some using cheap carbon kitchen knives. I then decided if I was going to be selling knives, I would buy the necessary equipment to do the heat treat right. At that time I changed to 01, bought an oven, and the correct oil for the 01. It all paid for itself within months. You seem to be well informed on the HT, process and terminology, but have not quite put everything together. You don't have to concentrate so much on the terms, charts, ect. but mainly on the crucial areas for whatever steel you work with. Most of what I know came from Kevin Cashens research, and there are few more knowledgable on knife steels. Don't just get all the terms and charts in your mind, as much as an understanding of the basic physics of the steel formula you want to use. Learn about what is in the steel, what it contributes, and what it takes to make it happen. Hell, you know as much, or more than me, but you need to arrange that knowledge into the proper context, which is acuall doing. I don't do well with charts, but for 1095, and 01, I know temps, times, and consequences of most variations in these. Heat control, heat levels, speed of quench, and why, is more important than charts. Charts and hi-tech terminology bore me to death. CPT-JENS, is a blind man without even a cane. He is young, impetuous, and impatient. He will out grow all that in time, but I thought maybe I could speed that up. I still stand by 1095, and 01 are not beginners steels. He could use 1080, and not screw it up, unless on purpose.

[Eli Jensen]

WBE, I appreciate your advice, but such things as "CPT-JENS, is a blind man without even a cane. He is young, impetuous, and impatient. " are simply not necessary.

I will agree with you on the point that if a knife is to be sold, the heat treat should be done right. I make other knives for that. Air hardened steels like ATS34 and A2 that I send to Texas Knife. That way whoever buys them pays the HT fee. But for myself, its getting too pricey.

I've heard that O1 is a very forgiving steel, and I think 1095 as well. Worst comes to worst, I know a knife maker 30 miles south that uses only O1 and has an oven. I can maybe persuade him to do a few.

But back to point 1, I think trying to figure things out on my own with what I have is not impatient. I would call it adventurous. Now 3 years ago when I first learned that steel can be hardened, going out right away and quenching red hot mild steel in motor oil. THAT would have been young, impetuous, and impatient.

Perhaps I will try brine. Or try both. Do thicker or thinner blades crack easier in brine? I only really have one knife thats 3/16" from 1095, one 3/16" of O1, and the rest are 3/32" and 1/16" (however many smaller knives and arrowheads you can get out of 2"x18"). The extra 3/16" 1095 I think will be a throwing knife, in which case it is perfectly alright if the heat treat is sub par, so as long as it's tempered properly (same deal with arrowheads).

[son_of_bluegras]

I've learned the technical terms and how to interpret the charts because one thing I learned in college (biology with more chemistry, physics and math than I needed, didn't understand all of it but I tried) is that unless you are using the same language and that language is precise enough you cannot effectively communicate.
I don't sell what I've made. If I did, I'd either get the equipment or send occasional samples out to ensure I was getting what I wanted.
I don't recall where I read it, nor have I been able to find it tonight, but in one of the forums I read a link was posted to a university paper that tested various quench media. Vegetable based quench oils came out faster than petroleum based quench oils. One of the graphs showed canola to be faster than petroleum quench oils at high temperatures where it is most critical and slower at lower temperatures. I don't remember all of the quenchants used. If you have information that Parks is faster, please either post, email or point me in that direction.
I was able to find, on google books, a sample of proceedings of an ASM heat treating convention. The page talks of canola based quench that states it is faster from 1300 to 1100 F, slower from 900 to 250 F and with a nearly non-existant vapor phase. I know canola base quench isn't the same as canola oil. But I'm not that good at searching and haven't found the paper that shows how well canola oil works.

http://books.google.com/books?id=io9...quench&f=false

If the link works that is the google books page.

When you say "austenite solution quickly reverts to a mix of pearlite and carbon", by carbon do you mean graphite? From my reading, at carbon concentrations of less than 2 %, the excess carbon (above 0.77%) form carbides with one of the carbide forming elements in the alloy. For 1095 the primary carbide former is the iron and you get iron carbide.

I'll agree 1095 is a challenge to get to the quench fast enough to be cooled in time. I also have on blade that passed the file test but won't hold an edge. I wondered when I quenched it because I thought it took a fraction of a second longer to get to the oil. Just felt wrong when I did it. But I don't see it as more of a challenge than 1075.

ron

[Eli Jensen]

So my understanding is that the greatest challenge aside from not overheating the steel is getting the knife from the coals to the quench in .4-.9 seconds?

Heres what I just thought of. I'm thinking something like a coffee can, a metal one. Hoping for something deeper though. Bury it as close to the coal pit as possible without obviously overheating the oil. Thats the best set up I can think of. I'm looking for some tongs but my main plan is to get steel wire and loop it through a tang hole, that way when I quick pull on the wire, it self positions itself vertically for the drop. Pull, drop. Quickest way I can think. Criticism?

[WBE]

It is not the time getting to the quench that is critical. Yes, you want to move as fast as is practical, but it is the time in which the quench itself cools the steel that is critical. Your blade did not hold an edge for the same reason mine did'nt. Your quench oil was too slow in cooling. I mean't to say martensite and not carbon as mentioned above. I had a long day. If the 1095 does not drop in temp from the chosen quench heat to below 900? in under a second, the steel solution begins to break down forming pearlite. How much pearlite is formed depends on just how slow the oil is in cooling the piece. Brine nails it, but there is a definate risk of cracking the thin blade. Parks #50 oil is close to brine in cooling speed. The tests I have read all show just over 1 second, 1.2, 1.3. Even at that speed a very small amount of pearlite is formed, but is a trade off for being able to extract a whole blade back out of the quench, rather than possibly just pieces from a brine quench. Canola oil has been shown to be just behind the Parks oil. Not the best, but allowing you to get a viable usuable blade. The problem with Parks, is price, and is sold in 5 gal cans minimum. Also, as far as I know, Parks is a vegetable based oil. cpt-jens, the wire should work, but you will not be able to move the blade easily, which would allow even faster cooling. My tongs are just a large pair of electricians plyers with steel conduit fitted over the grips for length. If you're brave enough to use brine. Dissolve 1 26 oz. container of sea salt in 2 gallons of distilled water, or probably well water. Too much salt will slow it down to where you might as well use oil. Warm to body heat or a tad more. Leave your edge area on the blade at no less than 1/16", or thicker. Depending on how much grinding you want to do on a hardened blade. The thicker, the better. Plunge the blade in point first and start moving it fore and aft. You can take it out soon after the sizzling stops, and you think it cool enough to handle. This is very important. Temper immediately. Have your kitchen range pre-heated, and governed with an oven thermometer. Do not trust the oven dial. 1095 has a nasty habit of cracking just sitting around after quenching. Especially when brine quenched.
excess carbon above .84/85%, not .77, does form carbides, but if not given sufficient time to disperse the carbon evenly, the steel will try to form clusters of these carbides, and not contribute to the edge holding potential. The eutectic of steel is .84/85 carbon. Below is hypoeutectic, above is hypereutectic. In a hypereutectic, you want the carbon homogenized with the iron, and the excess carbides dispersed as evenly as possible. This is done by soaking the austenite solution, then locking it all in place with the quench. All steels benefit from a soak. Some just require longer than others. With 1095, 10 minutes is not too long, if the heat is not much over 1475?. If at 1500?, probably 2 to 5, but you will get better carbon dispersion at the lower heat with longer time. Grain growth is a product more of heat than time. But you will not be able to soak with a controlled heat in a campfire, or a forge lacking a baffle and temp guage. cpt-jens can get a usable blade with care, but lose the motor oil. It is about as poor a quench oil as there is, and it stinks with toxic vapors. cpt-jens, I apologize for the comments, but far too many beginners, much like you, think that anyone can get a piece of steel, shape it out, then HT it in a campfire, quench in motor oil, and get good results. Fact is, with care, and a little more knowledge, they most often could, IF, they used the right steel for their primitive equipment. If you were using 1075/1080, you would have a good chance of getting good enough results with what you have. Simple steels, for simple methods is the key. 1095 is a sort of a paradox. It is a simple steel in make up, but very demanding in HT. 01 is a complicated simple alloyed steel. If it cannot be soaked for 15/30 minutes at the austenitinizing heat, you are just wasting time and money. Beyond that, 01 is forgiving. It is not real picky about the cooling speed of the quench oil, but it can be cooled too fast. Whereas 1095 needs a fast sub-second quench medium, 01 does well at a 10 to 12 second cooling, and you go a tad bit slower or faster, and still get good results.

[Eli Jensen]

Ok so here presents a new problem. How soon after quench does the steel need to be tempered? Unfortunetly I live next to the fire dept inside city limits. I can get the quenched steel to an oven in 20-30 minutes at the fastest, however I suspect that you are going to say that is too slow!