ATS-34 Steel: Composition and Hardness
ATS-34 is Proterial’s stainless blade-steel grade with published typical chromium and molybdenum values. Its producer page separates delivery hardness from hardening hardness, making it a useful example of why material condition matters. For scissors, connect that specification to the exact maker, model, blade construction and service instructions before drawing performance conclusions.
Read a steel claim as a four-layer record
A grade can be useful evidence, but a finished shear adds maker execution, geometry, condition, and service history. Apply to ATS-34 Steel: Composition and Hardness
- 01 Identify the grade Use a producer or traceable maker designation.
- 02 Name the source layer Separate mill data, maker data, seller copy, and measurement.
- 03 Record execution Heat treatment, geometry, assembly, and finished-blade values stay model-specific.
- 04 Keep the history Condition, use, care, impacts, and service affect the working edge.
Do not inferOne element, HRC value, country adjective, price tier, or steel name cannot rank sharpness, toughness, corrosion resistance, or service life.
Producer specification
Proterial’s ATS-34 material page lists the grade for custom knives and high-quality cutlery tools. The public composition table identifies two elements numerically; the other listed elements are undisclosed.
| Published field | Producer value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Chromium, Cr | 14.00% | Typical composition value |
| Molybdenum, Mo | 4.00% | Typical composition value |
| C, Si, Mn, Ni, W, V, Co | Undisclosed | These cells do not establish zero content |
| Delivery hardness | ≤272 HBW | Delivery-condition value on the Brinell scale |
| Hardening hardness | ≥59 HRC | Producer lower bound on the Rockwell C scale |
The page also gives annealing, quenching and tempering conditions. These describe material processing; they are not instructions for reheating an assembled scissor. The two hardness entries describe different conditions and scales. Neither is a certificate for a particular finished blade.
Reading an ATS-34 scissor listing
Start with the product code, size and handedness. Then separate three kinds of evidence:
- Material identity: the maker explicitly identifies ATS-34 for the blade or blade part concerned.
- Finished-tool specification: the maker supplies that model’s geometry, construction, hardness statement and care instructions.
- Observed performance: a documented trial or test describes how an identified tool behaved under stated conditions.
A listing can establish the first without supplying the other two. Keep the missing fields visible in a comparison rather than completing them from another model. A handle material, coating or welded construction may also need its own entry; the blade-steel name need not describe every part.
Worked example: a producer number and a model number
Suppose a seller repeats Proterial’s ≥59 HRC beside an ATS-34 scissor, while another maker publishes a hardness range for its named finished model. Record the first as a producer material figure and the second as a maker’s model claim. Before using the numbers together, ask what was tested and which production condition each represents. Comparing their magnitudes alone would hide that difference.
Worked example: an incomplete chemistry table
A seller may provide a carbon percentage even though the linked Proterial page does not disclose carbon. Ask for the source and document date of that additional figure. An older specification or a lot certificate may supply useful evidence, but its identity and scope should be recorded. A blank or undisclosed cell is not permission to copy the value from another grade.
ATS-34 and ATS-314
The names are connected historically, but they identify different materials. Yamamura’s ATS-314 account explains that the ATS-314 name came from ATS-34 while its composition differs. See the ATS-314 reference for the developer and producer relationship.
Treat ATS-34, ATS-314 and 154CM as separate material records unless the relevant producers document an equivalence for the intended purpose. Similar names or selected chemistry values do not establish interchangeable processing, identical blade geometry or the same finished-scissor performance.
Choosing and servicing a finished scissor
For precision, point or slide work, compare the maker’s stated blade shape and intended use, then assess the exact tool’s fit and cut during an appropriate trial. Keep an observation record: model, tension setting, test material, technique and symptoms. That record is more useful for a later adjustment or service discussion than a performance score assigned to the alloy name.
Use the model’s care instructions for cleaning, drying, pivot lubrication and storage. If the tool pushes or folds hair, a service assessment should distinguish edge condition from alignment, tension and damage. Ask the service provider to identify the original geometry and the work required; a grade label alone does not determine abrasives, angles or a sharpening timetable.
Sources and further reading
- Proterial: ATS-34, producer composition, material conditions and applications.
- Yamamura: ATS-314, naming relationship and separate material identity.
- Composition guide, reading typical values and undisclosed fields.
- Hardness reference, scales, conditions and finished-tool evidence.
Related: Steel Types • Edge Types • Scissor Maintenance
Published material composition
Proterial ATS-34. Typical producer figures; other listed elements are explicitly undisclosed. Not a heat or lot analysis. Composition source
| Element | Mass % | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| Cr | 14% | typical |
| Mo | 4% | typical |
| C | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
| Si | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
| Mn | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
| Ni | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
| W | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
| V | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
| Co | Not disclosed | undisclosed |
Elements absent from this table are unreported in this source, not zero. These material figures do not identify the chemistry of an individual finished scissor.
Indicative PREN: unavailable. No calculation: N lacks a published point value or two-sided range. Missing values and one-sided limits are not zero. Calculation and limits.
Material names and relationships
- Different materials: ATS-314. Yamamura explicitly distinguishes ATS-314 from ATS-34 despite the related name. Do not transfer composition or hardness between them. Relationship source.
Frequently Asked Questions
4 answers you can open one at a timeWhat composition does Proterial publish for ATS-34?
Its current public table lists typical chromium at 14.00% and molybdenum at 4.00%. The other listed element values, including carbon, are undisclosed; this does not mean their content is zero.
What is the hardness of ATS-34?
Proterial (formerly Hitachi Metals) lists delivery hardness of ≤272 HBW and hardening hardness of ≥59 HRC. These describe different material conditions and scales, not a measured hardness for every finished ATS-34 scissor.
Is ATS-34 the same as ATS-314?
No. Yamamura says the ATS-314 name was derived from ATS-34 but describes the contents as different. Use separate material records and exact-model evidence.
How often should ATS-34 scissors be sharpened?
Use observed cutting condition and the exact maker’s service advice. The material designation does not establish a universal sharpening interval.
Comments & questions
Questions or feedback on this topic? Add a comment below.