Edge retention: Vintage US Axes Versus Modern Swedish

[Square_peg]

Perhaps having most of the axe head made of iron (or softer low-carbon steel) was a factor.

No doubt, as 1% carbon steel would make for a fragile eye. When a single homogenous steel is used for the entire axe (as a cast steel axe) then a compromise must be struck between strength at the eye and hardness at the bit. Differential hardening isn't limitless in its ability to produce different qualities along the length of an axe.

Returning to another recent thread, this makes a case for the insert method vs. the overcoat method as encasing the hard bit with softer steel adds toughness to it. The advantage in overcoating is economy in production.

 

[DeadboxHero]

How does the vevicut line by council tool fair with its 5160 steel?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

No doubt, as 1% carbon steel would make for a fragile eye. When a single homogenous steel is used for the entire axe (as a cast steel axe) then a compromise must be struck between strength at the eye and hardness at the bit. Differential hardening isn't limitless in its ability to produce different qualities along the length of an axe.

Returning to another recent thread, this makes a case for the insert method vs. the overcoat method as encasing the hard bit with softer steel adds toughness to it. The advantage in overcoating is economy in production.

Toughness of fully annealed 1% carbon steel, to the best of my knowledge, wouldn't be too brittle for an axe eye in the slightest. Many (or even most) axes have the bit brought to heat treatment temp by induction heating, and only the bit is quenched, then the whole head tempered.

 

[joshiecole]

How does the vevicut line by council tool fair with its 5160 steel?

I can only answer from metallurgical principles, not practical experience with the Velvicut line. The only Council axe I have is the regular line Boy's axe.

The principle advantage of the modest alloying elements in 5160 are A) through-hardening and B) the ability to attain higher hardness while sacrificing less toughness (impact resistance, edge stability) than would plain 1060. So 5160 ought to be tougher at 58-60HRC than 1060 steel.

Now the general view seems to be that the Velvicut line axes are hardened to between 50-54 max, and mostly on the lower-middle end of that. This doesn't get anywhere close to taking advantage of the increased toughness at higher hardness offered by 5160. So the use of 5160 is a bit of a waste since it throws away its chief advantage over say plain 1060.

The only remaining benefit of the Velvicut 5160 steel over the regular line steel (1060) is going to be less variation in its heat treat. (the range of hardnesses in the regular line is pretty slack). I can testify that the steel in my Council Boy's axe files like butter, but I am sure others have been luckier.

People might argue that the chromium content of 5160 might improve wear resistance. However, 5160 steel does not have any free carbon to convert into hard chromium carbides -- this requires about 0.80% or more carbon. And even if it did, this wouldn't be any great advantage in an axe which wears more through impact damage and subsequent resharpenings than from cutting or slicing actions.

Anyway, that's the theory and I'm happy to be called out if the practice contradicts it.

 

[Operator1975]

Good info in here.

Basic use of these tools will reveal, as others have stated above, that the old school axe manufactured axes will have better sharpness, bit life, etc retention than the new manufacturers of today. And this makes sense. The times were different to the point of when an axe was a very popular, staple tool. Not so much today. So there is no reason to put the resources, effort, time, and money into such a thing.

Great info posted above. A new GB, Velvicut, or Wetterlings just doesn't quite compare to an old Plumb, Mann Edge Knot Klipper, or a Warren Sager at all. Is what it is.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I think that in addition to the willingness to use more complicated forging methods and very hard heat treatment, the attention to geometry is the single largest difference between the axes of yesteryear and today.

 

[Guitarist7.62]

I think that in addition to the willingness to use more complicated forging methods and very hard heat treatment, the attention to geometry is the single largest difference between the axes of yesteryear and today.

This and craftmenship. Taking pride in what you make and trying your hardest to make it the best it could possibly be for the end user.

 

[BG_Farmer]

5160 ought to be in the high 50s Rc at least, but it wouldn't file like butter if it were! I think 4140 is good enough for low to mid 50s and 5160 is mostly marketing if not hardened to its capabilities.

Most vintage axes require good files, which are rare these days, so I expect CT and other companies stay on the softer side. I have a couple of Trupers with 1045, even that is serviceable. It is just a sort of tradeoff between drawn out sharpening up front or the need for more touchups. There are a lot of rocks here, some even IN trees, and for that I'd rather dent a soft edge than chip a really hard one...much quicker to iron out.

 

[garry3]

Vintage axes that I have owned range from being to soft to hold an edge to being to hard to file and everything in between. Not just USA made either.

Your experience may differ, but that has been mine.

 

[DeadboxHero]

Thx for the info Josh, good stuff.

I saw someone mention 4160 any info on how that steel compares? I've noticed it on my CT FSS boys axe being very soft yet taking a keen edge quick.

BTW

My current favoite production axe of all time.

Perfect size. Big enough to work, small enough to carry.

 

[joshiecole]

My current favorite production axe of all time.

I don't know about 4140, but I do have the regular line version and it is my most used axe. I use it for everything! The boy's axe has just enough weight to have enough authority and is light enough to employ a wrist flick technique to de-limb or clear brush. It has a really nice weight even for carving in my mind. I've got a couple of Maine pattern boy's axes on the way which I hope will give it some competition.

 

[joshiecole]

Steering back on topic, perhaps 300Six or Operator or Square Peg or any of the other members here could tell me when two piece construction stopped being practiced?

I know there were some axes produced in Oakland, Maine which were still two piece construction into the 60s, but what was the overall picture?

 

[halfaxe]

Steering back on topic, perhaps 300Six or Operator or Square Peg or any of the other members here could tell me when two piece construction stopped being practiced?

I know there were some axes produced in Oakland, Maine which were still two piece construction into the 60s, but what was the overall picture?

Emerson & Stevens were the last in 1964. Check out the video on youtube called Pioneer Axe. I'm not sure what company ended the overcoat method second to the last. I imagine it was well before E&S. Of course there are still individual custom smiths still doing a 2 piece axe.

 

[BG_Farmer]

Thx for the info Josh, good stuff.

I saw someone mention 4160 any info on how that steel compares? I've noticed it on my CT FSS boys axe being very soft yet taking a keen edge quick.

BTW

My current favoite production axe of all time.

Perfect size. Big enough to work, small enough to carry.

4140 is alloy that can be hardened to 55Rc, which is adequate. I know people say CT uses 1060 for most of its main line, but I suspect it is all 4140 and they only specify it for the FSS possibly as a marketing point. Due to the increased toughness of the alloy, I think it could be tempered minimally and retain hardness in the mid 50s whereas 1060 tempered correctly for axe use would wind up in the same hardness range, despite 20 extra points of carbon. Just speculating based on a Hudson bay I gave my son. It sharpens up easily and holds edge nicely.

I could be wrong, but I suspect 4140 may have advantages in a production facility and is more likely than 1060.

 

[Steve Tall]

...when two piece construction stopped being practiced? ...

Emerson & Stevens were the last in 1964. Check out the video on youtube called Pioneer Axe. I'm not sure what company ended the overcoat method second to the last. I imagine it was well before E&S. Of course there are still individual custom smiths still doing a 2 piece axe.

Warren Axe & Tool Co. used the overcoat method, perhaps until the factory was shut down in 1958 (according to YesteryearsTools). Warren's 1937 catalog says that their axes were "hand forged" and not done by the "cheaper drop-forging process". However, they did use drop-forging equipment for part of the process -- re-shaping the eye after the overcoat bit was forged.

Article from The Iron Trade Review, September 22, 1921, p. 751


Drop forging is mentioned in this 1895 article How Axes are Made, but only as part of the two-piece process using either an overcoat or inserted bit:

Hardware Dealer, March 1894, page 129

 

[joshiecole]

Thanks for that info Steve, just what I was hoping for. Do you know when it became common to use monosteel construction among the big manufacturers?

 

[300Six]

Thanks for that info Steve, just what I was hoping for. Do you know when it became common to use monosteel construction among the big manufacturers?

If you were a national manufacturing company that was low-bidding on making MILSPEC artillery, naval guns, rifle actions and barrels for 'new-fangled' high pressure smokeless powder you'd have been right up on this tuff-steel stuff by the late 1880s. Mom and pop operations for making utility axes and rakes would have been a heck of a lot slower on the uptake. Walters Axe of Hull Quebec, for instance, had to entice an innovative wartime tool and die maker over from Toronto's Inglis Washing Machine (that had switched over to making pistols and machine guns in WWII) to simplify their operation starting in 1947. Ed Hammel wouldn't have put up with old-fashioned labour-intensive axe head making once he was tasked with trying to figure out a way to produce 1000 high quality axe heads with the same amount of time and effort as was required to make 100 per day before that.

 

[jdm61]

Some of there more expensive European custom.semi=custom axes like the Niemans will have a mild steel body and a forge welded bit "insert" of some kind of very tough tool steel like L6.

 

[Steve Tall]

Thanks for that info Steve, just what I was hoping for. Do you know when it became common to use monosteel construction among the big manufacturers?

Quoted from one of the Davistown Museum publications:

"Most hand tools made in the 20th century show no evidence of hand work, but, in a minority of cases, (e.g. the ax) there is no clear distinction between the hand-forged and the machine-made tool until the late 20th century. Most edge tools made before 1930 are “hand-forged” or “forge welded” to some extent, no matter the technique used to “steel” their edges. The trip hammer and the water wheel are examples of machines that assisted edge toolmakers in the forging of their tools. The advent of the modern rolling mill (Henry Cort, 1784) for hot rolling cast steel bar stock did not end the long tradition of hand-forging an edge tool. When the Collins Ax Factory began drop-forging all steel axes sometime after 1837, many smaller ax companies continued hand-forging and hand hammering axes they produced, often with the aid of other machinery, well into the 20th century. The evolution from hand-forging to machine forging (drop-forging) hand tools was thus a gradual process. One goal of the creative economy of the post-industrial era is the revival of handmade hand toolmaking strategies and techniques."

from Tools Teach: An Iconography of American Hand Tools
by H. G. Brack, Davistown Museum Publication Series,
Volume 13, page 236
© Davistown Museum 2013

http://www.toolsteach.org/pdfs/iconography.pdf

Edited to add: Other sources clarify that Collins was inserting a steel bit into a slit in the head.

Also added: this source give a better description of Collins axemaking and their use of wrought iron:

https://archive.org/stream/scientif...-american-v01-n03-1859-07-16#page/n3/mode/2up