Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 86

Thread: Council 3.5lb Classic Jersey

  1. #61

    Support BladeForums!
    Paid memberships don't see ads!
    Quote Originally Posted by Square_peg View Post
    Another option would be adding to the Velvi-cut line. How about a nice full-cheeked Connie? I'd buy one.
    It would be nice wouldn't it.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    20,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey_Jim View Post
    I thought those were forged in South America and handled in the us a. Wranglerstar has a review vid of them.
    Most of the Marbles axes are made by Condor/Imacasa in El Salvador (which is in Central America) but these two (really one, just different finishing options) are USA made.


    Baryonyx Knife Co. ~Trusted specialists in high value, low cost knives and tools.

    "To live at all is miracle enough."
    — Mervyn Peake

  3. #63
    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.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    8,364
    Quote Originally Posted by FortyTwoBlades View Post
    A picture in case anyone doesn't already know what you're talking about.

    I've seen new Made in India full size axes that look like that, too. Marketers need to get off google images and actually talk to someone.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Square_peg View Post
    I've seen new Made in India full size axes that look like that, too. Marketers need to get off google images and actually talk to someone.
    There's a full rack of truper carpenters hatchets at my tractor supply. For $9, I'd forgive most of their shortcomings and buy a couple at least just to put in fencing buckets, random places, but they all have that worn toe look!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,348
    Quote Originally Posted by FortyTwoBlades View Post
    A picture in case anyone doesn't already know what you're talking about.

    I just wish it was Titanium. It would then hit 30% harder than a steel one.

  7. #67
    Oh come on, this is an abomination! Kill it with fire. Also, laugh maniacally, while you're at it!

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Square_peg View Post
    I'd be happy with 53-57. The old FS spec boys axes they sold a few years back were a good product. Quality axe for about $60. They replaced it with a 'bad boys' axe for twice the price and lost that market.
    I have one of those FS boys axes and it's a great tool. Penetrates well and holds an awesome edge.

    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

    http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/sh...6#post16886926

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Camber View Post
    I have one of those FS boys axes and it's a great tool. Penetrates well and holds an awesome edge.

    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.
    The FSS specifications call for a RC 54-58. Council states there axes are RC 48-55. I heard that they are targeting RC 54 in the velvet cut line, but I don't think they say that on their website. So if your FS boys axe met FS specs it would be decent.

  10. #70
    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

    http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/sh...6#post16886926

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    533
    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.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    8,364
    Quote Originally Posted by garry3 View Post
    The FSS specifications call for a RC 54-58. Council states there axes are RC 48-55. I heard that they are targeting RC 54 in the velvet cut line, but I don't think they say that on their website. So if your FS boys axe met FS specs it would be decent.
    Check the spec on there FSS pulaski. 53-58. This is what was spec'd on their FSS boys axe.

    http://counciltool.com/shop/municipa...e-fss-version/

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    8,364
    Quote Originally Posted by BG_Farmer View Post
    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.
    FSS spec calls for a fully killed plain carbon steel bit with at least 72 points of carbon. I've heard rumors that the spec isn't followed any more. I have no idea if that's true.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Square_peg View Post
    FSS spec calls for a fully killed plain carbon steel bit with at least 72 points of carbon. I've heard rumors that the spec isn't followed any more. I have no idea if that's true.
    Don't CT explicitly state 4140 for FSS boys axe? That is nothing like plain carbon steel with 72 points carbon, compositionally. My WAG is that 4140 is currently used in all or most non-velvicut lines, but many seem to think it is 1060. My guess is the spec's might be relaxed in terms of composition if improvement of alloys allows equal or better performance?

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Square_peg View Post
    FSS spec calls for a fully killed plain carbon steel bit with at least 72 points of carbon. I've heard rumors that the spec isn't followed any more. I have no idea if that's true.
    I often wondered whether that was back when the bit was either inserted or overcoated. It kind of made more sense.

    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?

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    8,364
    I think that spec was in place for decades. I saw it on a document dated late 90's , maybe 1999.

  17. #77
    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.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Square_peg View Post
    I think that spec was in place for decades. I saw it on a document dated late 90's , maybe 1999.
    Aha. I see, thanks.

    It may have stayed in place just because no one bothered to change it. Like those funny old laws still in effect .

    I may be reaching, but who can tell for sure?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,348
    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.
    https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/f...ts/5100_9D.pdf

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Maple Valley, WA
    Posts
    8,364
    This is interesting.

    "4.5.2.6 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.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •