How thick is the face of my Peter Wright?

[DocsMachine]

I have a 140-pound pre-1910 Peter Wright anvil that's seen better days.

The face is badly scarred and all the edges are badly chipped and cratered. My original plan was to weld it up with hardfacing, but I think for the moment, I'd like to just pass it under the mill and take a minimum amount off. That'll be quicker, for the moment, and after all, if I'll be rewelding anyway, that small bit of extra metal won't be missed.

Anyway, I'm wondering how thick the "face" plate of a Peter Wright is. I can't see any trace of a parting line on mine- too much rust, scale, dents, flaking and hammer damage.

Looking around, one source "thought" it was only 1/2", another says it could be an inch or more. Anyone know for sure?

Doc.

[irnsrgn]

not very thick, 3/8 to 1/2 maximum, if you take a sanding disc or grinder and just grind enough to clean up one edge in a small place the line between the wrought and steel should be evident.

And for your anvils sake please don't use hardfacing rod to repair it, it will look like a doilly with a different color crocheted around the edge. Use a high manganese hardfacing underlay rod, you can put it on any thickness without worrying about underbead cracking and it has anticrushing characteristics the same as the original face.

The early peter wrights had the face put on as 3 seperate pieces.

[HWooldridge]

PW's did not have thick faces as compared to a few other makers. My 250 was chipped and battered before I fixed it and the face plate was 3/8".

[DocsMachine]

As for the hardfacing, I plan on going by a how-to written by Robb Gunter, that I downloaded off of Anvilfire. This procedure was recommended to me by some here and on other boards.

The only thing I'm worried about is the article mentions some specific Stoody rods that aren't available anymore. They've been replaced by other rods, and I'm trying to find info on what rods of other brands or other Stoody products, match up and will perform the same.

The article mentions an "underlayment" rod that'll supposedly give 45 Rockwell as welded, then a surfacing rod that'll give 50-52 Rockwell.

My local shop only carries one Stoody rod, and it's a number not referenced to either of the numbers given in the article, so I don't know if I have the "underlayment" type or the "facing" type.

Color of the weld is irrelevant, as I plan on building up the entire face- and possibly the step and horn as well. But I want to do it right the first time, so I'm doing my research first.

However, in the meantime, I'd like to use the xxxxxx thing, so I figured I'd shave it down a touch so I at least have a reasonably flat and smooth working surface. Won't help the corners- you can see here how badly chipped and rounded they are- but it'll be a start.

Thanks for the help. I plan on taking pictures and doing a full write-up on the reweld. I'll let you know how it comes out.

Doc.

[Glenn]

You may want to look at the following Blueprints:

BP0101 Anvil Repair
BP0249 Graphic Anvil Abuse

[DocsMachine]

Saw those too, but thank you.

Again, the rods they mention don't easily cross-reference with anything I have available or can get locally- at least, without ordering a minimum of fifty pounds at anywhere from six to nine dollars a pound.

I've been trying to find hard data- pardon the pun- on the various manufacturers' rods, but it's proving difficult to get firm, current data. Stoody's site is "under construction" and largely bereft of actual information.

Basically, I need a chart that says Rod A from Manufacturer B is the same or equivalent to Rod C from Manufacturer D.

Doc.

[irnsrgn]

Doc if you have a Rail Road in your part of the country, check with the RR crew that build up frogs or switches, they use a high manganese rod for that. High manganese is what you need for its anti crushing characteristics and it work hardens, you don't need something hard and brittle but something tough and lasting.

[Jura T]

Would Wearshield Mangjet(e) work for repairs:
http://content.lincolnelectric.com/en/pdfs/products/literature/WearshieldMangjet(e).pdf

It work hardens up to 47 HRC. Is that too soft?

[D.Bernard]

Doc, I just went to Stoody website and found both the 2110 and 1105 rods recommended by R. Gunther for anvil repair. My local welding supply doesn't carry them either but order them for me taking 3 to 5 days to arrive. They are all that our local group has used in repair of a dozen or so anvils at my shop with no failures exept one - did not slow cool in below freezing weather, had 5 or 6 hairline cracks where edges of anvil were built up, ground them out, reheated, welded up and THEN slow cooled. Anvil still getting beat on daily with no ill effects after 3 yrs. I'd use the Stoody - Just my 2 cents.

[ThomasPowers]

Warning on milling anvils! Many anvils do *NOT* have the face parallel to the base and you can eat up a lot of the face "truing" it to a base. (The production process didn't produce parallel faces to start with!)

It is suggested you turn it upside down and mill the base parallel to the face then flip it over and mill the face the absolute minimum necessary.

[DocsMachine]

Bernard- As I thought, all the useful data was in the PDFs on Stoody's site. I didn't have a reader, and their "products" section just said "coming soon".

The stuff the local shop carries is Stoody 31, which is, according to them, the most popular all-around hardfacing for 'dozer teeth and the like. The specs according to the PDFs aren't bad, except it "cross checks"- IE, micro cracks- as the welds cool.

The 2110 and 1105 say they don't.

Also, Robb's article has them backwards- he says the 2110 gives HRC 45 and the 1105 gives HRC 50-52. Stoody's documentation says the 2110 gives HRC 48-53 over carbon steel, or 50-55 over manganese steel, while the 1105 gives HRC 38-42 over mild steel. And says it isn't recommended for over manganese steels- the 2110 is a high manganese alloy.

Now, I don't have to do much "repair" to my anvil. I need to build up some corners, but it's not like I have to essentially replace the entire existing hard face with weld metal.

I'm assuming, from Robb's article, I'd want to get the corners built up with the 2110, then "butter" the entire face, and newly-built corners, with a uniform layer or two of the 1105.

Except that, if we accept Stoody's data off the PDFs, the 1105 has only "moderate" impact resistance (the 2110 is rated at "excellent") and only HRC 38-42 (again, the 2110 says 48-53 over carbon steel, which I assume the face of a century-old Peter Wright will be, or 50-55 over manganese steel.)

Needless to say, I'm confused. Any insight anyone can offer? What am I overlooking here?

Doc.

[HWooldridge]

I commented over on the Home Shop site.

[DocsMachine]

Spotted that. Thought I was the only one making the "crossover". Thanks!

Okay, how about some empirical testing?

I have ten pounds of Stoody 31, and ten each of the 2110 and 1105 on the way. Any one of which should be more than sufficient for the refacing, and plenty if using a little of both.

So I'm thinking of taking a chunk of old truck leaf spring (I have plenty) and going through the steps in Robb's article. IE, preheat to 400, and weld a bit with each of the rods seperately, then stacked in various configurations.

I know the temps will be a bit different with a thin chunk of leaf vs. a 140-lb anvil, but if I'm careful, especially with the cool-down (bury in kitty litter?) the results should be pretty close. (I'm assuming using the spring to get a high-carbon base metal.)

I don't have access to a Rockwell tester (will once school starts back up though) but I can still use the old tried and true methods of smacking test strips with a sharp punch, or running a file over it, etc.

And, of course, beating the bejeebers out of it with a hammer.

Any thoughts?

Doc.

[HWooldridge]

I think that's as good a test as you can formulate without a lot of cost and trouble. However, a flat spring surface is a different substrate than a corner or edge knocked off an anvil - both in composition and architecture. i.e., an anvil edge with chunk gone will not react like the spring.

Have you posted pics yet of the existing anvil face? Might be worth study by a few folks before pouring the juice to it.

[irnsrgn]

I guess the 30 or so Anvils I have repaired are all done wrong, should I send them messages that my method is no good and they should stop using them after they have been using them from 5 to 20 years cause they will fail and chip and break. Just curious.

And MG rods come in 10 lb packages.

[DocsMachine]

If you have a complaint, sir, then voice it.

If you're upset that I'm not leaping up to utilize your detailed advice ("use high-manganese rod") please understand that I intend to fix this anvil correctly, or at least as correctly as I can. I wish to do this only once, and to do it right the first time. Simply telling me to use a "high manganese rod" is just reiterating what Robb's article has already stated- except that we know now that said article isn't quite entirely correct.

I've also had several people say to use the slightly softer rod alone, others said to lay the "softer" rod and cap it with the harder, and still others say to use the hard rod alone.

It took me a very long time to find a good anvil- they're rare as promises kept by politicians up here- and I don't wish to do a half-a** repair.

I'm a very competent weldor, and I have no qualms with the actual application, but I've never used hardfacing before, even for excavators, let alone anvil faces. Please excuse me if I wish to get as much data as possible before I light off a rod and just hope it works.

As for a photo of the anvil itself, here's one I already have online, see attached photo:

This is as I got it, the white spots are snow after I first brought it in. The can is merely a size reference.

There's a shallow "crater" aft of the hardy and just to the side of the pritchel hole, about the diameter of a half-dollar and an eighth-inch deep. Looks like the steel spalled there by a particularly nasty hit- or series thereof.

Right in the center of the working face- about where the rectangular spot of snow is on the top- is a low spot, just over a eighth inch lower than the rest. A straightedge touches at the front edge, and starts hitting again at the hardy. Milling it flat is unwise, as the steel face would likely be down to less than 1/4" thick in places, and still wouldn't address the badly rounded edges.

The hardy hole itself is essentially recessed, with the four edges heavily rounded and chipped.

The opposite edge of the face is actually worse than the near side shown- chipped and flaked all the way down to where the wrought iron presumably starts.

The step is badly cratered, it's obvious it had a lot of use as a chisel table. The horn isn't bad, a bit blunted at the tip, but only minor pits and dents, no major damage.

The existing face is badly pitted and flaked, but very hard with excellent rebound. If at all possible, I want to keep as much of the hardness, rebound and "ring" as possible.

Doc.

[irnsrgn]

No complaints, just hate to see someone put hardfacing on a good anvil, hardfacing is usually an extremely hard one pass process with the ever present chance it is gonna peel off and has a bad habit of underbead cracking and many small cracks crosswise of the bead. I found a rod many years ago that was excellent for anvil repair but they quit making it. So I shopped around got many samples and did some research by the actual welding up and then using and abusing the repair on an old anvil. The one that seemed to work the best was the MG740, it is expensive but well worth the price and it comes in 10 lb containers which was a big plus. A little bit of manganese gives good anticrushing qualities.

Here is the url where you can check out the data sheet, just click on products then on wear facing the info is in Adobe reader format. you also might want to check out tool steels.

Index

I don't blame you for being fussy about the anvil, I am fussy about mine also. I started welding 50+ years ago and my motto was always if you can't fix it right, don't fix it. My customers didn't appreciate me saying no, but I still have a good reputation, that if I do it its done right the first time.

As I mentioned before I have done 30 or so anvil repairs and no complaints yet, and am just trying to help.

good luck with the Anvil Repair.

Jr.

[HWooldridge]

The low spot in the middle is likely a natural sink from a lot of work in one area. The spall behind the hardy is probably exactly what you diagnosed.

I don't know what type of equipment you have access to but if it were my anvil, I would:

1. Sandblast the whole thing to see if there are any hidden cracks or other damage plus it also cleans the surface thoroughly in preparation for welding.
2. Put a small framing square against the face and sides to determine how much is missing (you probably already realize this but you'll have to go farther out to get enough material to grind back to a square corner).
3. If #2 is not much to fill, I'd probably take a big right angle grinder to it. Much of the anvil might be a good candidate for nice big radiused edges. Sharp edges are bad on an anvil for a number of reasons so even if built up, it will need dressing.
4. Anything I couldn't live with would be built up. I would use the MIG first and get a good bond to the anvil face (after a preheat). I might use a build-up rod on top of the MIG weld but only one pass.

Like Jr said, hardfacing rods are typically intended for one pass on mild or low alloy steel to help with abrasion resistance. I used to build chisel plows for a few of the local farmers and I made the blades from mild steel with one pass of hardface on the leading edge. I have also seen repairs on high carbon factory-made chisels, which were broken clean away at the chill line. You are welding on a high carbon substrate so I would stay away from that type of rod. Just my 2 pence...FWIW

[evfreek]

Hi Irnsrgn. Thank you for sharing your experience with us. The voice of experience is always helpful, because it tells us details which no amount of theorizing can fortell. I have a question. A while back, I tried the 1" ball bearing test on a bunch of anvils. The interesting one was on two anvils in an old historical smithy. One anvil had 90% rebound, and the other had 70%. On closer examination, there were telltale ground down weld beads on the one with 70%. Checking more carefully showed higher (80%) rebound on the unwelded parts of the face. Have you noticed any differences in rebound (or any customers)? I realize that you can't move very much metal by just bouncing a ball bearing around, but it is an interesting test.

[HWooldridge]

This anvil was in such bad shape (250 lb PW) that I welded a new 3/4" thick plate on top made from annealed spring steel. Pritchel drilled and hardy hogged out by drill and finished with hand files. This was attached with 6011 from the center out after raising it off the surface with 3/8" mild steel rod so I could get down into the root (note how tall the face is above the table). I then heated the whole thing in a specially made forge and quenched it with a column of water. This was a WHOLE bunch of work but it has been my main "battle" anvil for over 20 years. It would have been easier and cheaper to buy a new one but like you said, big clean ones were and still are real scarce.

PS - The stain on top is oil with a little dot of grease on it. I should have cleaned it before the picture but the photo was intended to be of the stand.

[bruce wilcock]

the anvil dosnt look that bad , all the hanging end will dress up and give you a sq edge and the rest will radius off thats all it needs ,we have a small wright anvil mutch the same size ,the one we have is ,as new, it was unsold stock , and the face is crowned and the edges have big radiuses nearly back to the hardy hole ,a flat face with sharp edges is a reletively new thing ,,we are rough on anvils and knock lumps out of them often ,and use bigger anvils ,so it has stay'd under a bench for over 30 years with me and my father never used it before,

[irnsrgn]

evfreek, I have no idea where the ball bearing thing got started, I have seen reference to it often. To my understanding of the bouncing effect of a ball bearing, all it means is that the surface it is dropped on has enough mass and is solid enough that the bearing will bounce. I don't pay much attention to the b b test. Most anvils I have used do not ring either. My idea of a good test for an anvil, is use it and if it works ok, its a good anvil. I do like a nice anvil face with the first 2 inches or so behind the step rounded some and the real sharp edges broke a bit (the sharp edges touched with a flap wheel). Most old anvils I have seen, have a crown to the first third or half of the face from the step back (the edges slope down from the center a bit) as this was thought to help with the drawing out process. In the old way of thinking having an anvil with the edges broken off, chipped etc, one look at the sad shape of a smiths anvil by customers, would have given the customer the impression that if the smith is willing to use a shoddy anvil to work on, he did not have enough pride in his work and so would put out shoddy work and would usually go to another smith to have their work done. Remember I am Old School Trained.

Back to the original question, does the height a ball bearing bounces effect the usfulness of the anvil? To me my repaired anvils (just some of the edges), I see no ill effects to their usage.

[DocsMachine]

The ball bearing "test" is simply a way to test hammer rebound. We all know that cast irons tend to absorb vibration and impact energy (which is a large part in why it's used for the main structure of machine tools) and the harder the surface gets, the better the rebound and "ring".

We used to do it with a hammer, but a ball bearing is somewhat more portable, less likely to damage the face (if it turns out to be a soft iron anvil) and gives a better reaction.

And yes, a hard steel ball off a hard steel surface will bounce better than a rubber ball- less energy is absorbed in the flexing of the body of the ball.

It's not entirely voodoo. It may not be scientific or really even quantifiable, but it's functional and simple enough- the more the ball bounces back, the harder the surface, all else being equal.

If a welded/repaired section shows measurably less bounce, then you can be virtually assured that that section is somewhat softer than the rest. You may not be able to translate that information into any real data (IE, a Rockwell or Brinell number) but the comparative value is still very useful.

I'm roughly guessing my anvil has a face somewhat north of 50 Rockwell C, and I want any repair I do to match or slightly beat that. (Of course, hopefully without cracking, or being so hard it chips under even light blows, etc.)

Doc.

[ThomasPowers]

Actually the ball bearing bounce test mimics an earlier test tool for determining the hardness of metals that was replaced by the brinell and rockwell indentation testers.

Scleroscope: Definition: An instrument for measuring impact resilience by dropping a ram with a flattened cone tip from a specified height onto the specimen, then noting the height of rebound. (Scleroscope)

Since bounce is what we are interested in rather than ring it should make a decent test.

[Jmercier]

Talking with a fellow at the new england blacksmith's meet this weekend who has done beautiful repair work on many anvils which have seen years and years of work done on them after the repairs, he recommended just using 11018 rod and doing it slowly and carefully, back filling his beads an inch at a time, instead of running continuous welds.

I'm not a welder, so i'm just saying what he said works best for him with many many many anvil repairs under his belt.