Quit playing dumb. Your charts are bogus. They are bogus because they compare tensile strength to a low strength steel, and they compare elasticity to a rather unelastic steel.
nice try.
Apparently you cannot have a civil discussion without ad hominem attacks. I am not "playing dumb" nor are the charts "bogus," as you claim without proof. You want to claim that, post at the specs for a stronger stainless steel that would or could be used for the same porposes, not some other steel that is stronger but does not compete and is not suitable.
Let's discuss your claim that the stainless steel in the chart I posted is a "low strength steel." That claim is BOGUS!
Although the 17-4 Stainless Steel on the chart is tested as a casting and its hardness at 120ksi is therefore lower than rolled or extruded form at 140-160ksi, the rating of this stainless steel makes it among the strongest of the stainless steels. In fact it is a "Precipitation-hardening martensitic stainless steel, which have corrosion resistance comparable to austenitic varieties, but can be precipitation hardened to even higher strengths than the other martensitic grades."
17-4PH, uses about 17% chromium and 4% nickel. There is a rising trend in defense budgets to opt for ultra-high-strength stainless steel such as 17-4PH when possible in new projects. So much for your claim of "allow strength steel!" The Defense Department's contracts are still in place and research and development is taking place on new weaponry using casting of liquid metal as we debate, much to your chagrin.