Council 3.5lb Classic Jersey

Whiskey_Jim said:
I thought those were forged in South America and handled in the us a. Wranglerstar has a review vid of them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
A picture in case anyone doesn't already know what you're talking about. :D

IMG_4175.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
Square_peg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Oh come on, this is an abomination! Kill it with fire. Also, laugh maniacally, while you're at it!
 
Square_peg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Camber said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
BG_Farmer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Square_peg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Square_peg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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:
Square_peg said:
I think that spec was in place for decades. I saw it on a document dated late 90's , maybe 1999.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top