[TraditionalToolworks]

I am beginning to think my local Praxair is a bunch of dolts...I stopped by there on the way home as I was early enough, was gonna get some 5P+ 6010, but only 5P 6010. The other thing I was wanting was some 309 filler, I have some 312 but 309 is used for a similar use per some of the folks here on WTAT, where you have stainless and another steel you're welding together. It states 309 is for welding stainless to other steels, but doesn't state that for 316, just says it's used for welding low carbon base metal like chrome molly. I hate to have mystery tig filler in my stock.

The tube the dolt sold me is marked both 309/309L and 316L... I didn't notice until I got home.

They only had .045" unless I wanted 50 lbs., so I only got a lb.

I called him back after I got home and noticed it, but the other tube is the same. I suspect this was actually 309 from Madco and a Praxair tag placed on it, but was curious if there is any way to identify it? Since the filler is so small it's not stamped with the filler type...

To complicate things even more, the Washington Alloy label has info for 308, 309 and 316.

Maybe I could test welding stainless to some steel? Would 316 weld in that situation?

[Spartan]

I imagine it would be nearly impossibly to reliably discern the difference between 309 and 316 rods using means readily available to us. However, I have noticed that 316 rods tend to be a bit duller in appearance as compared to 309 and 308 rods which both tend to be quite shiny. Perhaps because of the composition?? This observation is across several brands and sizes, but of course it may just be some sort of coincidence. But perhaps it can help just a bit...

[Spartan]

Thinking more about it...

Perhaps you could weigh the individual rods, establish an average, and compare that to rods of known composition. If you have a scale that is accurate enough, which are quite common these days.

I've never attempted such a thing, but imagine that it could be done.

[Oscar]

I imagine it would be nearly impossibly to reliably discern the difference between 309 and 316 rods using means readily available to us.

I know how to attack the problem. And I'm confident enough to say it would be pretty reliable. Using readily available means.

[Spartan]

I imagine it would be nearly impossibly to reliably discern the difference between 309 and 316 rods using means readily available to us.

I know how to attack the problem. And I'm confident enough to say it would be pretty reliable. Using readily available means.

Some sort of acid test??

Please do share. I enjoy problem solving such as this.

[TraditionalToolworks]

I have noticed that 316 rods tend to be a bit duller in appearance as compared to 309 and 308 rods which both tend to be quite shiny.

These are pretty shiny, and I have some 308 I can compare them to in regard to shininess (not to be confused with hineyness).

I have a scale that I think is accurate enough to weigh them, which I use for weighing grains of powder.

I'm inclined to believe that they had a 309/309L label on them first and when Praxair acquired Madco they added the Praxair 316L label in their incompetence during inventory.

I did find out today that it's only $49.80 to exchange my 125 cf bottle for 100% argon. I thought it was like almost $70 in the past with Madco.

[BugHunter]

I know how to attack the problem. And I'm confident enough to say it would be pretty reliable. Using readily available means.

If you mean with a magnet, they are both three Series so neither one is ferrous.

[VA-Sawyer]

The first label is 309 X .045
The second label is 316 X 1/16"

So, which size is it? .045 or 1/16" ?

It appears to me that the 316 label was put on by mistake.

[Poland308]

It’s 309. That tag has the heat numbers. Those are how the filler metal is traced for code work.

[Spartan]

The first label is 309 X .045
The second label is 316 X 1/16"

So, which size is it? .045 or 1/16" ?

It appears to me that the 316 label was put on by mistake.

It’s 309. That tag has the heat numbers. Those are how the filler metal is traced for code work.

You guys make compelling arguments, but your observations are circumstantial.

We must PROVE that the rod is 309.

[Oscar]

Easy. Science.
I looked at various PDFs on 308L/309L and 316L.
Both 308L and 309L have an elongation figure of an average of 40% in 2 inches, upon tensile fracture.
316L has an average elongation of 60% in 2 inches upon tensile fracture. This is enough of difference to test it and measure it.

One could make "pulling jig" to secure and hold a 2" long segment of that 045 wire, make 2 marks to indicate that 2" length, slowly & steadily pull it, without stopping, until it breaks. You could wrap it around rod or such to get it to hold without sliding, on both ends, and then somehow pull it apart so that all the strain happens only within those 2 inches of length, until it breaks. Repeat 5 or 6 times to get a good average.

Upon breaking, the 2 inch lengths, which would now be two pieces would have a combined length of about 2.8" if it was 309l. If it was 316L, the combined length of both pieces would be about 3.2". The difference is ~71mm vs ~81mm. So if the sum of the length of both pieces is closer to 81mm, and assuming it is either 309L or 316L (and only those two choices), then there is your answer.

[TraditionalToolworks]

The first label is 309 X .045
The second label is 316 X 1/16"

So, which size is it? .045 or 1/16" ?

It appears to me that the 316 label was put on by mistake.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

I completely missed that, sometimes having eyeballs on the Internet is more helpful that one would think.

It is in fact .045" filler, and yes, I agree as I have stated above that it would appear the 309/309L label was from Madco and the Praxair label was put on when they did inventory. This was similar to the Tensileweld rod I bought from them, they didn't actually have a part number in Praxair's database so figured out and/or charged per another product. Could be that only 1/16" was in Praxair's systems for 309L, hence the 1/16". Irony of this is that I really wanted 1/16" filler, but the choice was .045" or 3/32", so I took the .045".

What Josh says makes sense also, the Praxair label has no Heat information on it, although it does say WAHT (I'm guessing Washington Alloy Heat Test or similar).

Easy. Science.

Actually that same information is on the label, although I'm not sure how I can stretch it to break, that piece of what you call "Easy." doesn't seem so in the real world. An arbor press might work for that, but I don't have one. I have a come-a-long, but not sure how I would secure it. I'm convinced on the size, good eye VA-Sawyer!

It's all moot at this point, VA-Sawyer solved the mystery. The filler is in fact .045".

[Oscar]

I guess I should have said "it would be easy for me, YMMV". I can easily think a few small jigs that would allow one to do this, but like you said, its all moot at this point.

[TraditionalToolworks]

I guess I should have said "it would be easy for me, YMMV". I can easily think a few small jigs that would allow one to do this, but like you said, its all moot at this point.

Another project I didn't need. I could devise something also, but I'd rather spend my time doing some welding on my cart today.

At some point it's not worth my time, I could just toss out the lb. of filler and go buy another pound and actually be ahead of the game, time wise. We all need to place a value on our time.

With Linux, there's a saying..."with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". It took a number of eyeballs, but VA-Sawyer spotted the difference in size. And it makes sense for the reasons I've described.

Also, going by what Spartan suggested, that 308 and 309 are typically shiny and that 316 is duller in color, that backs up the size theory.

[ODNT]

From Tool and Die...Although spectrum testing is done with expensive machines, if I have a questionable material, most of the time the local industrial recycler, where I drop off my scrap/chips, has a handheld and scans it free of charge. I'm only posting this because even if it wouldn't work out on your filler rod, maybe it could help on actual workpiece ident + it's non destructive.

[LtBadd]

I realize the mystery is solved, but FYI 309 is slightly magnetic while 316 is not

[TraditionalToolworks]

I realize the mystery is solved, but FYI 309 is slightly magnetic while 316 is not

Hmmm....this doesn't seem to be, unless is it ever so slight. I have some 308 and it is not magnetic either, but I have what I believe to be 312 and it is magnetic.

Are you sure that 309 is magnetic?

EDIT: I hate to correct you on anything Richard, but this site says otherwise. (we all know that Abe Lincoln said not to believe everything on the Internet though... )

https://rolledmetalproducts.com/stainle ... -type-309/

"Type 309 is non-magnetic in the annealed and cold worked conditions and is as resistant to corrosion as Type 304/304L."

EDIT2: Here's an interesting read that the nickel content is low in these "austenitic" stainless types, and I know that 312 is known to have fairly high nickel content, could that be why it is magnetic???

I think Oscar cursed me with his Texas heat today...everything in my shop must be annealed!

[LtBadd]

No worries, HERE is a YT video link.

[TraditionalToolworks]

No worries, HERE is a YT video link.

That's pretty convincing, maybe I should try with a stronger magnet...it sucks the 312 to the magnet pretty strong. I'll check it again when I'm out there. I also wonder if the size has something to do with it. That is 3/32" or 1/8" in that video.

[LtBadd]

3/32" and it is a strong mag