Baryonyx Knife Co. ~Trusted specialists in high value, low cost knives and tools.
"To live at all is miracle enough."
— Mervyn Peake
If they added some ears to their Hudson Bay pattern and just left the paint off and hung it on a 22 inch handle they would have a winner in my book.
Oh come on, this is an abomination! Kill it with fire. Also, laugh maniacally, while you're at it!
I would be happy around a consistent 55 as well. I tend to feel RC hardness is overrated (I have a chopper in bainite 1095 at 52-54 that holds as edge as well as anything I've used), especially in axes where the cross sections are thicker and help provide the extra stiffness needed for edge stability.
I'd also love to see the Connie and Rafting Axe in the Velvicut Line.
On a separate note, if people really want these things, I hope they are writing Council. Unless they know there is demand, they will likely never do it.
Bester 2K for sale, LNIB. $50 to your door
Based on the way it sharpened I'd be surprised if it wasn't closer to 55. It doesn't grind ridiculously easy. Either way, regardless of the RC, it works, and works well.
Bester 2K for sale, LNIB. $50 to your door
Just to speculate idly, I wonder if the range isn't based on production standards for all axes. As an example, if they all get a standard heat treatment, some thinner models may get harder than others. Heads at the beginning of a run may get quenched in somewhat cooler water. An axe going from heat to quench on inside of rack may retain a little more heat...Could go on and on. I suspect that to assure min. 54Rc under all conditions would result in some axes coming out harder than acceptable.
The FSS hardness spec is completely acceptable to me, but CT must have had to modify production for that model. Regardless of whether it is a different steel than the standard line (I really don't think it is) or not. That production modification must slow production significantly, as I can't see why they wouldn't otherwise produce all axes to an accepted published quality standard, as that would be good in terms of both quality and liability.
I'm not a steel snob--even 1045 is good enough for an axe if done right, but targeting a max of 54Rc with 5160 seems silly to me. I'd rather have 4140 or 1060 at the same hardness for a fraction of the price. That's one reason I don't see myself buying a velvicut, as the value added is pretty much superficial compared to the standard line.
I'm not saying 1075, 1080 or 1095 differentially hardened wouldn't work, but I cannot recall any one piece axe made out of such a carbon rich steel.
Any idea about the timeframe that spec came out?
I think that spec was in place for decades. I saw it on a document dated late 90's , maybe 1999.
Also, I don't think 5160 at 55 - 57 HRC would chip...I'd still expect it to roll/dent. So I wouldn't put so much stock on the lawyers' involvement in this. Maybe I'm wrong.
To someone that doesn't know how steel is supposed to act, chipping or rolling would anyway look "catastrophic" .
OTOH, I can see how a chipped axe that one may continue to slam with into a rock with the same abandon a gorilla would could lead to a bigger chip, starting from a smaller one acting as a stress riser.
Maybe they are concerned about the "lowest denominator" customer, intelligence-wise? As in, how can we make an axe as safe as possible yet still plenty usable?
I'm not American, so please tell me: wouldn't a disclaimer sticker accomplish the same? i've seen plenty of knives warning you on the box that they are sharp, seems to suffice in their case? I really can't blame you for some things that sometimes amuse us, printed on various stuff, as you live in a country where people sue for anything. But fret not, Europe is making great strides to reach this level of "enlightenment" as well. I'm sure we can find plenty of more ridiculous things we've devised, on this side of the pond. The "civilized" world is getting dumber day by day...
I wish "common sense" would be something invoked more often in courts, and found in more generous quantities everywhere.
Last edited by Moonw; 03-15-2017 at 05:33 PM.
This specification is out on the net. I don't know if it is current or in effect or whatever.
It covers axes and dates to 1999. I would think materials and tools that didn't meet specifications would be an issue. It is at the state level.
This is interesting.
"184.108.40.206 Practical cutting test. The practical cutting test to determine compliance with 3.2.6 shall consist of striking hardwood knots of any size a minimum of 10 heavy blows with each cutting edge. After striking a minimum of 10 heavy blows, there shall be no evidence of chipping, dulling, or turning over of cutting edges, loosening of the handles or wedges, or any other damages to the tool heads or handles."
Good thing they specified 'hardwood knots' and not hemlock knots.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)