data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/609bf/609bf7ec06bf67551c64cf7db86c75e1b2429ebb" alt="ted_yosem"
Curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26e2f/26e2f7d702dd7be41aa0820ea5caf290b7b90d67" alt="finishing.com -- The Home Page of the Finishing Industry"
The authoritative public forum
for Metal Finishing 1989-2025
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5f77c/5f77ca5bdcdc1dd640bc1c826f3906846739a5b0" alt="mfhotline"
-----
QQ-Z-325
Should we be using this standard or should we use B633-98- - -I've read 325 was replaced by 633- -so we should adapt to 633 and rid ourselves of 325. . . correct or not?..thank you.
Ron WerkheiserAlumitek - Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, USA
2005
The cancellation notice for QQ-Z-325, dated March 9, 1982, says
"Federal Specification QQ-Z-325C, dated August 18, 1976, is hereby canceled. An existing commercial standard which covers this material is American Society for Materials and Testing Standard
ASTM B633."
So it's not a hard supercession, meaning that your customers really should make a decision based on looking at the two documents. It would probably be easier to do if ASSIST posted the canceled QQ-Z-325 on the website, but they don't. My company has decided to use B633 as a direct replacement, but what others do is up to them.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d330/1d33099eb4f302d7a885ecd352f9fd1275dcf067" alt="lee gearhart"
Lee Gearhart
metallurgist - E. Aurora, New York
2005
Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread