Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 (IS 1570 (Part 6):1996) and GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 (GOST 5950-2000) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Tool & Die Steels category.
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS) (India).
As per chemical composition, IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 vs GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 is a 49.7% match.
Mechanical property data is not available for both grades, so this factor could not be scored.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 35%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5
GOST 5950 4H5MFS1
Tensile Strength
Not specified
1350-1650 MPa
Yield Strength
Not specified
1150 MPa min
Elongation
Not specified
9% min
Hardness
Not specified
44-50 HRC
Typical Applications
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5
Not documented
GOST 5950 4H5MFS1
Used for forging dies, pressure casting dies, hot punches, extrusion tooling, and die inserts.
Key Differences
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 specifies Mn, Ni, P, S which are not specified for GOST 5950 4H5MFS1.
GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 specifies Mo, V which are not specified for IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5.
Can IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 Be Substituted With GOST 5950 4H5MFS1?
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 and GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 share some compositional similarity but differ enough that substitution should not be assumed. Review the differences above carefully, and consult the applicable standard or a metallurgist before using one in place of the other.
What is the difference between IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 and GOST 5950 4H5MFS1?
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 specifies Mn, Ni, P, S which are not specified for GOST 5950 4H5MFS1. GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 specifies Mo, V which are not specified for IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5.
Can IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 be substituted with GOST 5950 4H5MFS1?
IS 1570 (Part 6) T60Ni5 and GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 share some compositional similarity but differ enough that substitution should not be assumed. Review the differences above carefully, and consult the applicable standard or a metallurgist before using one in place of the other.