Axe steel choices, why are most low carbon?

Square_peg said:
But that wasn't always the case. 100+ years ago razors were made with very high carbon steels with 100 or more points of carbon. At least one maker was still making razors recently with 135 points of carbon.
www.badgerandblade.com

Theirs Issard C135 steel v. Historical forgings steel

After my 6/8 DIW TI in C135 steel has arrived it fairly quickly convinced me to get another Theirs Issard razor (untreatable stage of RAD). Does anyone have any experience with TI Historic straight razors such as: http://www.rasurpur.de/english/shop/shop.html? How do they perform in compressing...
www.badgerandblade.com www.badgerandblade.com
Click to expand...
Just trying to point out what simply could be marketing in the Hurds Razor axe.

But since we are on the subject I don't know if anyone has analyzed the steel in old razors? When was it that carbon content of steel became really consistent and readily available?

I see on the Disstonian Institute some saws have been tested.
Cast Steel, London Spring Steel, Extra Refined London Spring Steel.

Of note is the backsaw from 1865-71. The oldest saw tested with the highest carbon content and the poorest heat treat.

Online Reference of Disston Saws -- Analysis of Saw Steel

identifying and dating disston saws
www.disstonianinstitute.com
 
I know that historically makers like Plumb and True Temper advertised the use of "special analysis steel" and documents I've seen from the 1910's from steel producers show steels by that label in up to grades having a stated carbon range of 0.65 to 0.8% carbon. Most historical makers found a single steel source that produced in a fairly consistent manner and used them exclusively so that the material they were working varied less from batch to batch compared to if they were getting it from multiple sources. Their manufacturing methods, therefore, were matched to their material, and were dialed into how to process that particular steel grade into a successful end product. Any change in the raw material sourcing would have required re-optimizing their process.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Ah. You phrased it as a question, and that threw me off. :)


And then we realized it wasn't at all necessary. From what I can tell the C135 is mostly marketing playing off the false notion that more carbon is inherently harder/better. I suspect, in fact, that if there was any advantage to be had in the use of extra high carbon content it was probably because of inserted bit construction requiring raising the steel to welding heat, and the extra carbon ensuring it didn't lose too much through burning off. But otherwise plain medium carbon steels are able to achieve hardness that's actually excessive for the tool. Steels with more than 0.8% carbon at the time of heat treatment are more finicky to heat treat correctly so for most tools 1080 or less is better to minimize failure rate.
Click to expand...
I would like to think TI just has a different philosophy. That's a lot of going out of their way for just a selling point. White steel #1 has 1.25-1.35 carbon content and an excellent reputation for taking an extremely fine edge.
 
White steel #1 is also typically run at very high hardness (65+) and known for being chippy at such hardness. I'd expect any steel run that hard to take a very fine edge.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
White steel #1 is also typically run at very high hardness (65+) and known for being chippy at such hardness. I'd expect any steel run that hard to take a very fine edge.
Click to expand...
I usually see at a bit lower.
More carbon is ran at a higher RC. That statement is kind of like saying water is wet.
It would be my guess that TI razors are ran at a higher HRC.
 
OK. I am just waxing lyrical here. But a high hardness for a thin edge to make it slice.

Softer to protect from impact.

But an axe doesn't need to be that slicey and so can protect its softer edge with physically more metal.
 
garry3 said:
I usually see at a bit lower.
More carbon is ran at a higher RC. That statement is kind of like saying water is wet.
It would be my guess that TI razors are ran at a higher HRC.
Click to expand...

Yes, but my point is that them taking a very fine edge would have more to do with the high RC rather than the high carbon content. They run their razors at about 64 RC. Very hard. Of course it'll take a fine edge when it's that hard. 1080 can reach a hardness of 65 RC through water quenching. It is possible to bring 1060 to 62 RC quenched hardness and temper back to 60. The extra carbon isn't needed to achieve high hardness in an axe.
 
Drop bear said:
OK. I am just waxing lyrical here. But a high hardness for a thin edge to make it slice.

Softer to protect from impact.

But an axe doesn't need to be that slicey and so can protect its softer edge with physically more metal.
Click to expand...
Some truth to it but hardness in this instance is mostly for edge retention. When going on about keenness, then it is, in practicle terms, a matter of composition and the structure that results in a given alloy and not carbon content alone. The purer the alloy the finer the structure, the keener the edge's potential.

So, for example, I've spent time with blacksmiths making axes composed of pure iron with cutting edges of one percent carbon steel and no other alloy ingredients. This to me is the ideal make-up for a good axe, across uses since I don't limit my conceptions to chopping and felling patterns and in fact consider a slicing action the primary one.

An interesting anecdote from personal experience -take it for what it's worth - about a chisel I have with White paper steel cutting edge. New out of the box the edge did crumble but once the fresh from the blacksmith edge was ground back after a single sharpening it was plenty resilient and takes the finest edge.

Hardness, of a given steel, this is mostly in the hands of the blacksmith and heat treatment. Sharpness, it's up to the user's skill but the edge with the highest potential is near and around the one percent carbon content with no other alloy elements with White paper steel made by Hitachi being among, if not the purest widely available form, though I've one Swedish axe, steel unknown, that seems A good rival. I'd say that if it is the case that most axe steels are low carbon that it has little to do with performance and a lot to do with standardized manufacturing.
 
Ernest DuBois said:
Some truth to it but hardness in this instance is mostly for edge retention. When going on about keenness, then it is, in practicle terms, a matter of composition and the structure that results in a given alloy and not carbon content alone. The purer the alloy the finer the structure, the keener the edge's potential.

So, for example, I've spent time with blacksmiths making axes composed of pure iron with cutting edges of one percent carbon steel and no other alloy ingredients. This to me is the ideal make-up for a good axe, across uses since I don't limit my conceptions to chopping and felling patterns and in fact consider a slicing action the primary one.

An interesting anecdote from personal experience -take it for what it's worth - about a chisel I have with White paper steel cutting edge. New out of the box the edge did crumble but once the fresh from the blacksmith edge was ground back after a single sharpening it was plenty resilient and takes the finest edge.

Hardness, of a given steel, this is mostly in the hands of the blacksmith and heat treatment. Sharpness, it's up to the user's skill but the edge with the highest potential is near and around the one percent carbon content with no other alloy elements with White paper steel made by Hitachi being among, if not the purest widely available form, though I've one Swedish axe, steel unknown, that seems A good rival. I'd say that if it is the case that most axe steels are low carbon that it has little to do with performance and a lot to do with standardized manufacturing.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. All of it.
 
I would personally disagree with several assertions above based on my understanding. 1060 is technically higher carbon than what Gransfors uses (effectively the same as 1055) and we know they're able to achieve very high hardness in their axes. Without additional alloying elements to assist in maintaining toughness at high hardness, an ultra-high-carbon steel is simply going to get into the brittle range. In a plain carbon steel, 1045-1080 are all able to achieve requisite hardness to still have suitable toughness, with even 1045 being able to achieve 60 RC. You'd only gain benefit from using low-alloy steels with over 1% carbon in applications where you needed a tempered hardness above 60 RC and high toughness was also not a required trait. For most axes 57-58 is about as high as you want to go or else filing becomes difficult. In that hardness range it's plenty resistant to abrasive wear for almost all axe applications and is still tough enough to accept quite thin geometries while remaining stable.

What y'all mostly want is just a harder heat treatment, which is attainable with lower carbon steels, no problem. It's just mostly not done because ease of edge repair is more important for 99% of Joe Schmoe users out there and minimizes returns they get from folks beating on their tools and breaking them. Companies using more exotic steels naturally tend to gravitate towards offering them in higher hardness as a matter of product distinction and the easy marketing angle of mysticism around steel type. Nothing wrong with medium and high carbon steels as long as it's 1045 or higher, and there are actually potential negatives to going higher than 1080 in most cases, for the relevant hardness range for axes.
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
I would personally disagree with several assertions above based on my understanding. 1060 is technically higher carbon than what Gransfors uses (effectively the same as 1055) and we know they're able to achieve very high hardness in their axes. Without additional alloying elements to assist in maintaining toughness at high hardness, an ultra-high-carbon steel is simply going to get into the brittle range. In a plain carbon steel, 1045-1080 are all able to achieve requisite hardness to still have suitable toughness, with even 1045 being able to achieve 60 RC. You'd only gain benefit from using low-alloy steels with over 1% carbon in applications where you needed a tempered hardness above 60 RC and high toughness was also not a required trait. For most axes 57-58 is about as high as you want to go or else filing becomes difficult. In that hardness range it's plenty resistant to abrasive wear for almost all axe applications and is still tough enough to accept quite thin geometries while remaining stable.

What y'all mostly want is just a harder heat treatment, which is attainable with lower carbon steels, no problem. It's just mostly not done because ease of edge repair is more important for 99% of Joe Schmoe users out there and minimizes returns they get from folks beating on their tools and breaking them. Companies using more exotic steels naturally tend to gravitate towards offering them in higher hardness as a matter of product distinction and the easy marketing angle of mysticism around steel type. Nothing wrong with medium and high carbon steels as long as it's 1045 or higher, and there are actually potential negatives to going higher than 1080 in most cases, for the relevant hardness range for axes.
Click to expand...
GB uses a slightly modified version of 1055. There was an email from a competitor that was posted on the net about just what that slight modification was.
With no way of verifying the email or or the analysis of the steel I will just leave it at that.
 
garry3 said:
GB uses a slightly modified version of 1055. There was an email from a competitor that was posted on the net about just what that slight modification was.
With no way of verifying the email or or the analysis of the steel I will just leave it at that.
Click to expand...
I mean, if you're talking about the fact that it's recycled steel that technically doesn't have a grade to it, that's exactly why I'm saying is effectively equivalent to 1055. Internal sources have stated that it's functionally equivalent to 1055 or EN9.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I mean, if you're talking about the fact that it's recycled steel that technically doesn't have a grade to it, that's exactly why I'm saying is effectively equivalent to 1055. Internal sources have stated that it's functionally equivalent to 1055 or EN9.
Click to expand...
What sources do you have, anything more than hearsay? You don't have to answer that, I know you don't have anything from GB themselves.

OK, the steel its melted down rebar and what not. Recycled steel is shit steel and who knows what is in it.
I guess some people still believe that.

GB themselves refer to their steel as "special alloy steel".
https://www.gransforsbruk.com/en/production/#sp-1-forging

You do know what alloy steel is right? If not google it.

I'm out of this conversation.....;)
 
You can find old threads (about 2012-ish) that have folks talking about emails they received from Gransfors themselves, plus info from an ex smith of their, Cegga, who confirms it.

80% or so of all steel on the market today is recycled. It's not inherently bad, when run through the right processes, and steel recycling is a mature science. "Alloy steel" means almost nothing, as basically any steel on the market is going to fall under that category.

Edit to add: To be completely clear here, if you think I'm criticizing Gransfors for their choice of steel you couldn't be more wrong. It, if anything, illustrates my point that they're able to achieve high-hardness axes that hold an edge well using a steel that many people turn their nose up at because it's "not fancy enough."
 
Last edited:
Ernest DuBois said:
Some truth to it but hardness in this instance is mostly for edge retention. When going on about keenness, then it is, in practicle terms, a matter of composition and the structure that results in a given alloy and not carbon content alone. The purer the alloy the finer the structure, the keener the edge's potential.

So, for example, I've spent time with blacksmiths making axes composed of pure iron with cutting edges of one percent carbon steel and no other alloy ingredients. This to me is the ideal make-up for a good axe, across uses since I don't limit my conceptions to chopping and felling patterns and in fact consider a slicing action the primary one.
Click to expand...

Axes need to be selected for their primary uses which vary from user to user. In my case, I'm looking for a cutter to penetrate deeply and cleave cleanly, not cut and split like common 'hardware store' axes. I have other axes for splitting work.

Then you have bushcrafters that use an axe almost like many of us use a knife. Then there is the classic housewife using one for a wood-burning stove and to dispatch the chicken for dinner.

Good quality steel heat treated properly makes a huge difference. If your axe edge varies by 3 RC, it's no wonder some axes, like mine, seem soft and don't hold an edge well.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I would personally disagree with several assertions above based on my understanding. 1060 is technically higher carbon than what Gransfors uses (effectively the same as 1055) and we know they're able to achieve very high hardness in their axes. Without additional alloying elements to assist in maintaining toughness at high hardness, an ultra-high-carbon steel is simply going to get into the brittle range. In a plain carbon steel, 1045-1080 are all able to achieve requisite hardness to still have suitable toughness, with even 1045 being able to achieve 60 RC. You'd only gain benefit from using low-alloy steels with over 1% carbon in applications where you needed a tempered hardness above 60 RC and high toughness was also not a required trait. For most axes 57-58 is about as high as you want to go or else filing becomes difficult. In that hardness range it's plenty resistant to abrasive wear for almost all axe applications and is still tough enough to accept quite thin geometries while remaining stable.

What y'all mostly want is just a harder heat treatment, which is attainable with lower carbon steels, no problem. It's just mostly not done because ease of edge repair is more important for 99% of Joe Schmoe users out there and minimizes returns they get from folks beating on their tools and breaking them. Companies using more exotic steels naturally tend to gravitate towards offering them in higher hardness as a matter of product distinction and the easy marketing angle of mysticism around steel type. Nothing wrong with medium and high carbon steels as long as it's 1045 or higher, and there are actually potential negatives to going higher than 1080 in most cases, for the relevant hardness range for axes.
Click to expand...

This is why I bought an Ochsenkopf Iltis, unfortunately, it seems to have the Home Depot/Lowes heat treat for weekend warriors trying to cleave nails with an axe. šŸ˜”

Someone buying a >$100 axe expects a good heat treatment, not a soft axe. I expected to need and bought good files. Turns out that money was wasted because my ~$7 axe puck from Walmart makes quick work of a dull edge. :(
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I mean, if you're talking about the fact that it's recycled steel that technically doesn't have a grade to it, that's exactly why I'm saying is effectively equivalent to 1055. Internal sources have stated that it's functionally equivalent to 1055 or EN9.
Click to expand...

Grade Application:​

EN9 is used commonly for many general engineering applications. Typical applications include shafts, axes, knives, bushes, crankshafts, screws, sickles, woodworking drills, and hammers.​

​

Equivalent grades:​

BS 970 1991​

BS 970 1955 EN​

AISI/SAE​

Werksoff​

070M55​

EN9​

1055​

1.0535​


This makes me wonder where I could find a good 1084 axe that isn't a true custom. However, a good 1060/1070 axe would probably be a real winner too. All of this assumes a good heat treatment which seems to be where Gransfor Bruk earned their reputation with their ~1055 based axes.
 
garry3 said:
GB themselves refer to their steel as "special alloy steel".
https://www.gransforsbruk.com/en/production/#sp-1-forging
Click to expand...

That is marketing verging on the 'snake oil' theme IMHO.

It is not hard to take a simple carbon steel and add a small ingot of something to make it special for marketing purposes. Whether Gransfors Bruk is large enough for a special 'melt' is open for debate. Does anyone remember Busse and Infi? Great marketing and good steel are likely really good due to a top-notch heat treat process, not some 'secret' stuff in the steel.

Gransfors Bruk has the additional benefit of a forge to hammer a grain structure versus a simple stamping machine to pump out axe heads like you see on cheap hardware store axes and hatchets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top