Snap-On tools and metal used

[_brian_]

The steel alloy isn’t the only thing that matters.
The way the steel is processed from the ray bar, to the finished shape also matters, as does the heat treating process, then the finish that is put on the wrench.
Changing the steel alloy could not only be to produce a “better” finished tool, it might also be used to make fabricating the wrench easier or more consistent.
Alloying elements might be changed to make machining easier.

Yes, I believe I understand all this, although as for the exact process, those I do not. You can have the best ever steel hardened poorly and be worse off than average or poor steel hardened to perfection... all depending on, well, many factors. My assumption here is that we are dealing with brands like Snap-On and Nepros, as just added, and given their status in the market, I believe they at least do things mostly correct. If we would be talking about Harbor Freight using such steel, I would think a bit differently. Given that the brands in question here are best in class, I tend to believe they at least make a proper attempt at doing things properly.

If I owned or consulted for a business to improve efficiencies, I would identify certain things. In this case, if I see (given the actual data from others) that a metal was used that could not justify its cost, it should be replaced with something cheaper. In most cases, it is cheaper to reduce production costs and change marketing than it is to do improper manufacturing and use that as a sales tool. If a product is manufactured with materials that are expensive and the process is not proper, that is internal waste. I would hope that established brands have eliminated such easy things to identify, but I guess it is possible. Snap-On does have poor financials, but it is hard to dig in as they are private, and I do not work for them to have access.

EDIT: RE financial: Just looking at basics, Snap-On drivers get what, 36%? When you compare this to all other retail, this is extremely low. Not to mention the price of the Snap-On tool are extremely high. So corporate is already accounting for the costs of R&D and all that, but even after, they take most. Plus, the driver pays franchise fees and many other costs. The cards are stacked against their sales force, heavily tilted in favor of corporate. Not a GJ topic again, but I mentioned financials, so I wanted to at least make a small statement.

 

[_brian_]

Why? Occam's razor says it's easier to put a name on a feature you already have and try to sell it.

Well, this theory is often misused too, which we in the field cannot discount. The misuse is taking it at only its face value, no interpretation, then trying to apply it. In my realm, that theory plays a small part, being replaced by the concepts of Six Sigma. We get into things like Kaizen, JIT and many others. Old concepts like Occam's razor get transformed into real life things. Not to discount the concept, as it is masterful. but to state that the understanding of it is misused far too often, here as well in my opinion. I am happy to debate this, respectfully, but this is not the platform to do so. You see, philosophical things do not live reality. They guide and help make real decisions, in reality.

 

[Wakefield]

The exact nature of the heat treating and/or quenching process might vary from batch to batch of tools in manufacture or even the position of the particular tool in the quench tank. Also such things as,was the broach exactly on center or was it sloppy,off center. I think everyone has seen a socket or box end wrench "ring spanner" where the wall thickness is obviously more on one side than on another.

 

[_brian_]

Yes, I have seen this for sure. One thing I expect when I pay the high cost of tools from brands like Snap-On is a reduction of this, and when it does happen, it is not as drastic as others. A bit of variance is expected, and there should be a tolerance in the process that should be followed. I would also expect brands like Snap-On to have tighter tolerances, keeping their products more consistent. This also means changing things like dies and such more often, which comes at a cost. Cheaper brands will use the tooling until it is dead dead, but that also expands the acceptable tolerance.

I have seen some cheap tools (I will not mention brands) where I get one that is sloppy and another that is reasonably tight. Like a flip of a coin, will the tolerance be good or bad this time. That *****. All of this to me wraps up together in quality. I doubt any brand will tell us the exact processes used. Some tell us the metals used, etc. Some brands also do not even know things when asked, the true rebranders that use what others developed and call it their own.

My opinion is that a quality brand, whether a manufacturer or not, should provide a consistent product. Well, at least more consistent than others as no process will ever be perfectly on point each and every time. Thus we have the tolerance.

EDIT: I get really annoyed with tools dual marked with SAE and metric sizes. When you add manufacturing tolerance, this becomes increasingly ridiculous. Even a 3/4 to 19mm comparison, which is near exact, can add an additional level of poorly accepted tolerance. If I buy a 19mm, I expect a 19mm, produced to the tolerances of 19mm. I do not expect a 3/4 marked as 19mm. Picky, yes. But I expect what I purchase to be what it is said to be. Sure, when we get to larger sizes, this becomes somewhat intangible.

 

[Wakefield]

When there are metric and common inch (SAE) sizes that are supposed to interchange,I like to at least have whichever is the tightest or smallest.
I notice my(expensive!) set of 6 point (on the box end) combination wrenches in metric lacks/skips 16 mm. but I have a 5/8" size combo with a 6 point box end. 16 mm. and 5/8" are supposed to interchange and the 5/8" is slightly tighter/smaller. So maybe Snap on thought of that intending that those who needed 16 mm. would buy the 5/8" I don't even think they have a 16mm. labeled one (in 6 point box/combo)
The Wright Tool catalog that I have has a dimension chart somewhere near the back that compares metric and inch sizes and attempts to show some that are supposed to be close enough to interchange.
7/8" and a metric size (for 22mm.) are sometimes supposed to be interchangeable but are just outside of Wright's idea of being interchangeable. So sloppy.

The Snap on #1500 catalog has an awful lot of automotive special tools in it,much more than the industrial or consumer tool catalogs I think.

 

[_brian_]

When there are metric and common inch (SAE) sizes that are supposed to interchange,I like to at least have whichever is the tightest or smallest.
I notice my(expensive!) set of 6 point (on the box end) combination wrenches in metric lacks/skips 16 mm. but I have a 5/8" size combo with a 6 point box end. 16 mm. and 5/8" are supposed to interchange and the 5/8" is slightly tighter/smaller. So maybe Snap on thought of that intending that those who needed 16 mm. would buy the 5/8" I don't even think they have a 16mm. labeled one (in 6 point box/combo)
The Wright Tool catalog that I have has a dimension chart somewhere near the back that compares metric and inch sizes and attempts to show some that are supposed to be close enough to interchange.
7/8" and a metric size (for 22mm.) are sometimes supposed to be interchangeable but are just outside of Wright's idea of being interchangeable. So sloppy.

The Snap on #1500 catalog has an awful lot of automotive special tools in it,much more than the industrial or consumer tool catalogs I think.

The Snap-On 1500 catalog is the one I have, and yes, that thing is loaded with stuff.

With Spark plug sockets I had a bear of a time with some brands, I was able to get the 16 and 21mm from Blue-Point, which IA m told are still available, but ate not listed on their web site or in the catalog. I recently ordered the 17mm and 19mm sizes from Silver Eagle, since the sizes are near impossible to find at reasonable prices, so I decided just to get them. What I dont understand is that one of the advantages of a premium tool is tighter tolerance, so the last thing I want is a dual marked tool, as that knowingly expands the tolerance. That said, the brand could simply make a single socket, like 5/8, and have it stamped one batch 5/8 and one batch 16mm. I guess I need to trust that non dual marked are actually made to the specified size and not a "close enough" size. With plugs, the idea to use a 9/16 and 14mm as the same will show you quickly that you should not do this. Also, yes, 19mm and 3/4 are close enough, but I still like having the "size" am looking for, OCD.

I have a set of those spline/ universal drive sockets, however mine are not dual marked. I only purchased the ones I have because they had each set, metric and SAE, with complete sizes of their own. I can also say that using measurements, the standard equivalents are not the same. Otherwise, I would have just scrapped the whole idea. I dont like that drive much anyway, but I do like it 1) for slightly damaged bolts and 2) as a one set for all, when I am asked to "come look at this". Just need to use with extra care and caution. I Cannot even imagine how much worse it would be with a set of dual marked ones.

 

[Marlin]

Yes, I believe I understand all this, although as for the exact process, those I do not. You can have the best ever steel hardened poorly and be worse off than average or poor steel hardened to perfection... all depending on, well, many factors. My assumption here is that we are dealing with brands like Snap-On and Nepros, as just added, and given their status in the market, I believe they at least do things mostly correct. If we would be talking about Harbor Freight using such steel, I would think a bit differently. Given that the brands in question here are best in class, I tend to believe they at least make a proper attempt at doing things properly.

If I owned or consulted for a business to improve efficiencies, I would identify certain things. In this case, if I see (given the actual data from others) that a metal was used that could not justify its cost, it should be replaced with something cheaper. In most cases, it is cheaper to reduce production costs and change marketing than it is to do improper manufacturing and use that as a sales tool. If a product is manufactured with materials that are expensive and the process is not proper, that is internal waste. I would hope that established brands have eliminated such easy things to identify, but I guess it is possible. Snap-On does have poor financials, but it is hard to dig in as they are private, and I do not work for them to have access.

EDIT: RE financial: Just looking at basics, Snap-On drivers get what, 36%? When you compare this to all other retail, this is extremely low. Not to mention the price of the Snap-On tool are extremely high. So corporate is already accounting for the costs of R&D and all that, but even after, they take most. Plus, the driver pays franchise fees and many other costs. The cards are stacked against their sales force, heavily tilted in favor of corporate. Not a GJ topic again, but I mentioned financials, so I wanted to at least make a small statement.

Not private and not "poor financials". They are a consistently good performer.

Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) Stock Price, News, Quote & History - Yahoo Finance

Find the latest Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) stock quote, history, news and other vital information to help you with your stock trading and investing.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[_brian_]

Not private and not "poor financials". They are a consistently good performer.

Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) Stock Price, News, Quote & History - Yahoo Finance

Find the latest Snap-on Incorporated (SNA) stock quote, history, news and other vital information to help you with your stock trading and investing.

finance.yahoo.com

It seems you misunderstood what I mean by "financials". It is ok, that is why I basically stated it is not a GJ topic. Profits for share holders does not mean good financials, nor does stock performance. Are they overall a good investment, yes, they are stable. Now dig into why. Private meaning that they keep a lot of stuff on the hush. Sure, they have their required SEC filing and such, but those are only requirements for investors. That is what forms have a lot of analyst to then look into those filings and try to derive what is behind them. Not a stock I would buy, not for sure not a bad stock, at least in the near future.

While this is way off topic, to give an example, have a look at the stocks of the banks that have failed. Did the stock report show these great problems? Stock was great, then all of a sudden a problem that no one in the bank indicated was there, then the stock was in the crapper. Stock prices are often recitative, rarely ever proactive. As I stated, it is too often a one sided view point, no one looking at all sides, just the one in their interest.

EDIT: If you are really interested in starting to dive in, best to start here: https://www.snapon.com/EN/Investors. Spend times on the annual reports. Look for evaluations on employees, drivers (franchisee owners), etc (if they exist, I Am not sure, it could take more research in order to prepare a proper eval). Chart the salaries reported to get the balance between management and subordinates, the dividend(s) paid, any other sorts of disbursements, etc... then drop the numbers into a quick 3/5/10 year model, etc. This allows you to evaluate the current performance level over time, not allowing them to change things. It goes you a good idea of the current level of efficiency and if it can be maintained with out continual change. Etc, etc.

 

[Marlin]

It seems you misunderstood what I mean by "financials". It is ok, that is why I basically stated it is not a GJ topic. Profits for share holders does not mean good financials, nor does stock performance. Are they overall a good investment, yes, they are stable. Now dig into why. Private meaning that they keep a lot of stuff on the hush. Sure, they have their required SEC filing and such, but those are only requirements for investors. That is what forms have a lot of analyst to then look into those filings and try to derive what is behind them. Not a stock I would buy, not for sure not a bad stock, at least in the near future.

While this is way off topic, to give an example, have a look at the stocks of the banks that have failed. Did the stock report show these great problems? Stock was great, then all of a sudden a problem that no one in the bank indicated was there, then the stock was in the crapper. Stock prices are often recitative, rarely ever proactive. As I stated, it is too often a one sided view point, no one looking at all sides, just the one in their interest.

EDIT: If you are really interested in starting to dive in, best to start here: https://www.snapon.com/EN/Investors. Spend times on the annual reports. Look for evaluations on employees, drivers (franchisee owners), etc (if they exist, I Am not sure, it could take more research in order to prepare a proper eval). Chart the salaries reported to get the balance between management and subordinates, the dividend(s) paid, any other sorts of disbursements, etc... then drop the numbers into a quick 3/5/10 year model, etc. This allows you to evaluate the current performance level over time, not allowing them to change things. It goes you a good idea of the current level of efficiency and if it can be maintained with out continual change. Etc, etc.

Pretty obvious that you meant what you said both regarding "private" and "poor financials". And if you were to research their performance you'd see that they consistently perform better than others in their sector. I have no skin in the game, as I don't work for them and never have but I follow them and several others in the tool and equipment space and know that they have nothing in common with SVB and the likes.

 

[vanapplebomb]

And just so we are clear, 4140 is CrMo or Chromoly steel.

One of the many…

It’s a huge range of materials. CrMo steels can be low carbon (nominal of about 0.18%) 4118, or medium/high carbon (nominal 0.61%) 4161. Popular 4130 and 4140 fall in the middle.

Not to mention all the different heat treats, tempers, carburizations, nitridings…

Point is, simply using a material designation like CrV or CrMo, etc is pretty meaningless. There is a ton more to it than that.

 

[_brian_]

Pretty obvious that you meant what you said both regarding "private" and "poor financials". And if you were to research their performance you'd see that they consistently perform better than others in their sector. I have no skin in the game, as I don't work for them and never have but I follow them and several others in the tool and equipment space and know that they have nothing in common with SVB and the likes.

Pretty obious you have no idea of financials. Maybe spend 8 years in a university and learn that. I wont comment on this further. The facts speak for themselves.

EDIT: I changed "college" to "university" so things are more clear to all geographical areas. I know the term can in some places mean different things.

 

[_brian_]

One of the many…

It’s a huge range of materials. CrMo steels can be low carbon (nominal of about 0.18%) 4118, or medium/high carbon (nominal 0.61%) 4161. Popular 4130 and 4140 fall in the middle.

Not to mention all the different heat treats, tempers, carburizations, nitridings…

Point is, simply using a material designation like CrV or CrMo, etc is pretty meaningless. There is a ton more to it than that.

I have noticed this. That even the statement of a specific metal does not relate 100% to the result. What I wonder is that if a brand uses a more expensive metal alloy, assuming we believe their statement, does that mean anything? Would there be a reason to use such a thing and not follow through to actually make it the better it can be?

 

[neophyte]

I have noticed this. That even the statement of a specific metal does not relate 100% to the result. What I wonder is that if a brand uses a more expensive metal alloy, assuming we believe their statement, does that mean anything? Would there be a reason to use such a thing and not follow through to actually make it the better it can be?

Manufacturers routinely what steel is readily available in the size and type of bar they need.
Large manufacturers can make large steel purchases, and more easily get custom or odd alloys if those alloys might be better for an application.
The cost might be higher than a standard alloy or rod, but with a large enough order the extra cost might be minimal.
Once the order or manufacturer becomes too small, the manufacturer orders whatever can be gotten as standard stock.
If you look at something like cold chisels, some manufacturers use hex bar, and others round, and with older older punches and chisels, square stock was commonly used.
I suspect the manufacturers were just using the shape of bar stock they could get, in the alloy they needed.

 

[vanapplebomb]

I have noticed this. That even the statement of a specific metal does not relate 100% to the result. What I wonder is that if a brand uses a more expensive metal alloy, assuming we believe their statement, does that mean anything? Would there be a reason to use such a thing and not follow through to actually make it the better it can be?

Depends. You can use an expensive alloy and get away with less post-proscessing to achieve the same result as a less expensive alloy with lots of post processing. Doesn’t make one better than the other.

Now you can use a top quality material carburize/case harden, heat treat/temper it, nitride it, etc… and end up with a superb result.

Then again, you can have all those things, not do it correctly, and end up with brittle junk.

The biggest difference between tools is how they post process the forging. That makes or breaks it in the end.

 

[_brian_]

Depends. You can use an expensive alloy and get away with less post-proscessing to achieve the same result as a less expensive alloy with lots of post processing. Doesn’t make one better than the other.

Now you can use a top quality material carburize/case harden, heat treat/temper it, nitride it, etc… and end up with a superb result.

Then again, you can have all those things, not do it correctly, and end up with brittle junk.

The biggest difference between tools is how they post process the forging. That makes or breaks it in the end.

I did not realize that the process what seems to be equal in importance to the metal used. I knew it was an important process, but I did not realize it held so much weight.

Tekton has stated on their site the "myth" of the high importance of metal as it relates to their impact sockets. With that information, I also always wondered why the CrMo socket sets come with such a high price tag, like the Genius Tools, where the CrV set is like 1/2 the price of the CrMo set, same sizes. There are other sites that state that CrMo is the "proper" metal for impact tools... this leaves those like who who are not engineers in a bit of confusion. I research what I can and find information that is not consistent.

What I am gathering from the thread is that I shift my thinking back to how it was years ago. I would walk into a Sears, for example, and but tools never asking or seeing on the tools what metal was used. I just knew what to expect based on the brand.

Manufacturers routinely what steel is readily available in the size and type of bar they need.
Large manufacturers can make large steel purchases, and more easily get custom or odd alloys if those alloys might be better for an application.
The cost might be higher than a standard alloy or rod, but with a large enough order the extra cost might be minimal.
Once the order or manufacturer becomes too small, the manufacturer orders whatever can be gotten as standard stock.
If you look at something like cold chisels, some manufacturers use hex bar, and others round, and with older older punches and chisels, square stock was commonly used.
I suspect the manufacturers were just using the shape of bar stock they could get, in the alloy they needed.

I noticed a similar statement on Tekton's site in research, that they use the metal that is most available at the source of manufacturer of the specific tools.

Thinking back, I dont think the metal used ever was even a topic in anything I dealt with or those I talk to until the cheaper offshore brands came in, all stamped "Chrome Vanadium" on them. That does in fact point to more hype and marketing vs the actual difference it makes, making small things appear to be big things.

 

[dchawk81]

What a boron thread.

 

[vanapplebomb]

I did not realize that the process what seems to be equal in importance to the metal used. I knew it was an important process, but I did not realize it held so much weight.

Post treatments can result in massive changes in material properties. Wear resistance, hardness, ductility, yield strength…

Take 8740 for example. In its annealed state it has a ultimate strength of about 100,000 PSI and a Rockwell hardness of RHB 90. Heat treatment can double the ultimate tensile strength figure to around 200,000 PSI, and it can be hardened to RHC 60 or so… which is a massive change.

 

[neophyte]

I did not realize that the process what seems to be equal in importance to the metal used. I knew it was an important process, but I did not realize it held so much weight.

Tekton has stated on their site the "myth" of the high importance of metal as it relates to their impact sockets. With that information, I also always wondered why the CrMo socket sets come with such a high price tag, like the Genius Tools, where the CrV set is like 1/2 the price of the CrMo set, same sizes. There are other sites that state that CrMo is the "proper" metal for impact tools... this leaves those like who who are not engineers in a bit of confusion. I research what I can and find information that is not consistent.

What I am gathering from the thread is that I shift my thinking back to how it was years ago. I would walk into a Sears, for example, and but tools never asking or seeing on the tools what metal was used. I just knew what to expect based on the brand.


I noticed a similar statement on Tekton's site in research, that they use the metal that is most available at the source of manufacturer of the specific tools.

Thinking back, I dont think the metal used ever was even a topic in anything I dealt with or those I talk to until the cheaper offshore brands came in, all stamped "Chrome Vanadium" on them. That does in fact point to more hype and marketing vs the actual difference it makes, making small things appear to be big things.

There are various attributes that contribute to tool durability, especially with the processing and heat treating.
For instance.
There are manufacturers who have tried laser cutting wrenches out of plates of sheet steel.
While fine for lower torque ultra thin wrenches, the technique resulted in lower strength wrenches, because the grain structure of the steel gets stretched out in a single direction during the rolling process, resulting in the grain running in mostly straight lines, like in a piece of wood, which is non optimal for strength in a tool shaped like a wrench. (Using bar stock works fine for certain other tools like punches and chisels though).
The traditional technique for making wrenches is therefore hot forging a wrench, which tends to align the steel grain structure with the shape of the wrench.
Even hot forging isn’t consistent though.
A red hot bar of steel, or hotter, when exposed to air, will start losing carbon to the air.
This can result in a softer layer of steel on the outside, which I presume might affect deformation on the wrench broaching in use.
The heat treatment is another issue.
In one of the tests of flare wrenches on Youtube, the SK wrenches tested, and the Snap-On wrenches both did well, but when over torqued to an excessive degree, the SK wrenches fractured and broke, whereas the Snap-On wrenches sprung out around the corners and back.
Basically, the alloy and heat treat on the Snap-On wrenches prevented the wrench from destructively failing.

 

[_brian_]

Post treatments can result in massive changes in material properties. Wear resistance, hardness, ductility, yield strength…

Take 8740 for example. In its annealed state it has a ultimate strength of about 100,000 PSI and a Rockwell hardness of RHB 90. Heat treatment can double the ultimate tensile strength figure to around 200,000 PSI, and it can be hardened to RHC 60 or so… which is a massive change.

Could you confirm what I believe this means? The tensile strength is the ability to take stress and flex without breaking, while the RHC is hardness, which more means more prone to shatter. So the change you state above makes the tool more able to take stresses without breaking. Is that at least close enough to get the general idea?

Wanted to again state I am not an engineer, and while Google can answer some questions, it can also provide a lot of wrong and misleading information.

 

[vanapplebomb]

Could you confirm what I believe this means? The tensile strength is the ability to take stress and flex without breaking, while the RHC is hardness, which more means more prone to shatter. So the change you state above makes the tool more able to take stresses without breaking. Is that at least close enough to get the general idea?

Wanted to again state I am not an engineer, and while Google can answer some questions, it can also provide a lot of wrong and misleading information.

Your on the right track. Basically the ultimate tensile strength is a measure of how much force over a given cross section surface area (PSI, or MPa, etc) a material can withstand before it begins to neck down (reduce area) and weaken until catastrophic failure.

RHb and RHc are measurements of hardness. RHb being a softer scale than HRc. Basically it measures hardness near the surface of a material by applying a load to an indented and measuring the depth of the indentation left behind. The harder the material, the less the depth of penetration. Brunel hardnes is similar, accept it measures the diameter of an imprint left behind by a force on a ball bearing. There are other hardness testing standards as well. Many ways to skin the cat.

As you can imagine, the higher the tensile strength of the material, the more force it will take to deform the tool a certain amount. Think of the jaws of an open end wrench. Ever pull had and have the jaws seemingly spread apart and slip on the nut or bolt head?

A tool with low hardness will get beat up fast. Indentation in the jaws of wrenches, wallowed out sockets, etc. A tool with high hardness will not get beat up as fast, and will take a lot more force to do so.

Now, hardness taken to the extreamly can be a bad thing, particularly where impact loads are present, because the higher the hardness, thpicaly, the less ductility… or the ability to the material to spring back after stretching. Instead of springing, it can fracture.

Some ductility can be restored in hardened parts by tempering after the heat treat/hardening process. A small amount of hardness may be lost, but it can greatly increase the ductility, or toughness of the material.

This directly applies to the myth that CrV is unsuitable for impact sockets because it will shatter, and that CrMo is best because it is softer. A lot of this comes from the use of normal chrome plated CrV sockets used with impacts. These sockets are very hard, with not much ductility, and are can crack with modern impact wrenches. However CrV can be a perfectly acceptable impact socket material if tempered to increase ductility post hardening. They can be every bit as tough as CrMo impact sockets with no more tendency to crack. In fact, CrV has superior wear resistance in these sockets when done right. However, it takes more care in heat treating to do so. CrMo naturally possesses more of the desired qualities of impact sockets, so it is a popular choice for manufacturers because it takes less processing post forging than most other materials.

Obviously materials have certain limits. For example, even though 1018 can be hardened to RHc 45-50 which is typical of many tools, it will never have the high yield/tensile strength and wear resistance of other more suitable materials.

Long story short, there is no simple cut and dry rule that tells you the outcome of a tool, simply based on material.

Hope this help!

 

[_brian_]

Your on the right track. Basically the ultimate tensile strength is a measure of how much force over a given cross section surface area (PSI, or MPa, etc) a material can withstand before it begins to neck down (reduce area) and weaken until catastrophic failure.

RHb and RHc are measurements of hardness. RHb being a softer scale than HRc. Basically it measures hardness near the surface of a material by applying a load to an indented and measuring the depth of the indentation left behind. The harder the material, the less the depth of penetration. Brunel hardnes is similar, accept it measures the diameter of an imprint left behind by a force on a ball bearing. There are other hardness testing standards as well. Many ways to skin the cat.

As you can imagine, the higher the tensile strength of the material, the more force it will take to deform the tool a certain amount. Think of the jaws of an open end wrench. Ever pull had and have the jaws seemingly spread apart and slip on the nut or bolt head?

A tool with low hardness will get beat up fast. Indentation in the jaws of wrenches, wallowed out sockets, etc. A tool with high hardness will not get beat up as fast, and will take a lot more force to do so.

Now, hardness taken to the extreamly can be a bad thing, particularly where impact loads are present, because the higher the hardness, thpicaly, the less ductility… or the ability to the material to spring back after stretching. Instead of springing, it can fracture.

Some ductility can be restored in hardened parts by tempering after the heat treat/hardening process. A small amount of hardness may be lost, but it can greatly increase the ductility, or toughness of the material.

This directly applies to the myth that CrV is unsuitable for impact sockets because it will shatter, and that CrMo is best because it is softer. A lot of this comes from the use of normal chrome plated CrV sockets used with impacts. These sockets are very hard, with not much ductility, and are can crack with modern impact wrenches. However CrV can be a perfectly acceptable impact socket material if tempered to increase ductility post hardening. They can be every bit as tough as CrMo impact sockets with no more tendency to crack. In fact, CrV has superior wear resistance in these sockets when done right. However, it takes more care in heat treating to do so. CrMo naturally possesses more of the desired qualities of impact sockets, so it is a popular choice for manufacturers because it takes less processing post forging than most other materials.

Obviously materials have certain limits. For example, even though 1018 can be hardened to RHc 45-50 which is typical of many tools, it will never have the high yield/tensile strength and wear resistance of other more suitable materials.

Long story short, there is no simple cut and dry rule that tells you the outcome of a tool, simply based on material.

Hope this help!

It does, a lot. Thank you for the detailed response. Some of the things you mentioned I will need to look into to fully understand, but overall, I believe I get most of it. It also makes sense now why discussing materials used is sort of irrelevant, as without the rest of the story, it really has no actual meaning. This was my misunderstanding of how much of a part the final tool the processes play in the mix.... seems to be more important than the starting metal.

 

[Marlin]

It does, a lot. Thank you for the detailed response. Some of the things you mentioned I will need to look into to fully understand, but overall, I believe I get most of it. It also makes sense now why discussing materials used is sort of irrelevant, as without the rest of the story, it really has no actual meaning. This was my misunderstanding of how much of a part the final tool the processes play in the mix.... seems to be more important than the starting metal.

I think you are going from one extreme to another. The material used is very relevant, as is processing but neither stand on their own.

 

[_brian_]

I think you are going from one extreme to another. The material used is very relevant, as is processing but neither stand on their own.

Sorry for the late reply. I guess people just beat me down enough that I just sort of gave up. All I wanted was to learn, to understand what and why things are done. In the work I do, all details matter, no matter how small they seem. Here, it seems that trying to discuss what metals are used angers people.

I know a little about a lot, but a lot about a little. I like to learn. Would I spend 5 hours of my time to learn why a certain part of an alloy is used, yes. Why, because I am interested and want to learn. It is worth 5 hours, well no. It is only worth it to someone that wants to enhance their brain with no real tangible gain. I have learned my lesson.

EDIT: To be fair, some people provided some great information that helped me a lot. Others, well... no. Even if someone replies to me with content I do not understand, I am one to look it up so I can understand it, or I ask for help to do so.