Talk:Marine grade stainless

"Very few countries and mills make marine grade stainless." This sounds like just 316 stainless (used anywhere salt corrosion is a problem, not just marine) which is probably the second most common stainless after 304. I've bought rolled flat strip from Bollinghaus (Germany) and Aceros Olarra (Portugal) recently. 130.246.135.176 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I removed the offending statement. Wizard191 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalic acid causes erosion of stainless steel

I accidentally spilled oxalic acid crystals on a stainless steel sink. I rinsed the sink and wiped the surface dry and left it about three days. The surface was quite badly pitted especially where it had been previously scratched. It occurred to me that, as fiberglass boats and associated wood work and stainless steel are often cleaned with dilute oxalic acid to remove rust stains, residual oxalic acid could remain in stainless steel rigging cables in crevices in swaged joints, thus speeding up the erosion process dreaded by sailors. Could a warning be placed on this oxalic acid page? Jon Stephen Horridge (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of entry

Why marine grade? There is an accepted grade system for steels, whereas marine grade is a agenral desciption of some of the uses of this metal, which are not exclusive, I think. It is used in food and some tissue implant devices as well. As well one of its types is considered surgical steel. Perheps this entry should be 316 stainless steel or SAE 316. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.43.117 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed that AISI/SAE 316 and friends should have their own dedicated page. as for keeping the "marine grade" article, there also exists a similar article about Surgical stainless steel detailing its medical uses and the relevant considerations, so a page detailing the special requirements and considerations of a marine environment doesn't seem out of place. 157.131.250.246 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

splitting 316 out into its own article =

there are many "marine grade" alloys of which 316 is only one, and it should be mentioned here. however, 316 is a very common alloy outside of marine applications and deserves a page of its own. 316 is even listed in the SAE template already, which points to marine grade stainless. 316 is not 316L, so redirecting to SAE_316L_stainless_steel does not seem appropriate. there are already a zillion links about 316 pointing to marine grade stainless and those redirects and links will need to be fixed. i did not understand the bureaucracy of the article splitting process and think it's probably stupid anyway. there's not much content here to be split; it's about fixing a bad ontology. how do i do this? do i need to request an article for creation? i'm not sure whether wikipedia should have an article on all 316 alloys or just the vanilla flavor. thoughts? 157.131.250.246 (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we have some very bad ontology going on here. It could be a good idea to merge 316L into "marine grade stainless" but split 316 out. --Artoria 2e5 🌉 04:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]