Ever broke a fiskars or seen one break?

baldtaco-II said:
Thomas Linton, hola

“Exceptions proof the rule (test - as in "proof mark"). Enough exceptions and you have no rule.”

Indeed. Thus the need to make a reasonable assessment as to where to set the P value. I believe modern track housing dwellers are notoriously bad at placing a decent probability threshold when it comes to bladed tools. A quick peek at the ridiculous over compensation with many of their knives frequently offers up a plethora of examples. By the time the interweb rumour mill has done with them they're so darn paranoid only one or two makes can be trusted to stand the gaff. I think the same uselessness at having a feel for probability that sees the fat burger guzzler on the way to his second aneurysm but building a bunker in his basement in case the The Mekon attacks is behind many an ax or knife evaluation. Shame.

“I do not require a photograph to prove that a member's report is genuine unless the report or the reporter are inherently unlikely. But that's me. And if you're a doubter, there's still PhotoShop.”

Yeah, I can see how what I wrote could also be described as casting ugly aspersions. However, from my perspective there's no getting away from it. Not so long ago, just for fun, I decided to get a bit further into digital forensics. This isn't the place to get into that, but I'll briefly say that I'm interested more in photography that just identifying cameras from information I can take from headers and on to attempt to identify cameras for unique identifiers in camera sensors. I'm also quite interested in identifying which bits of images have been manipulated with copty / paste techniques such as the clone tool in Photoshop blah blah. Anyway, the thing is, from what I've looked at here, although cameras range from modest to particularly good, it isn't all that often one comes across a genuinely bad one. In direct contrast to this we could run a look up of reports of how often a camera has apparently failed. Not wanting to point a finger at anyone in particular but there does not seem to be a fit between these things. I wonder; where are all these dying cameras coming from. What's with the massive over representation here. I wonder that all the more when the claim that goes with the declaration of the suddenly dead camera is of something particularly unique or fantastic. Forgive my skepticism. I know it's an ugly trait but I'm stuck with it. It's how I arrive a true confidence.
Click to expand...


Ummmm? What:confused: Is this a joke or was your account hijacked?
 
Indeed, stainless will rust too - practically all steel will rust. But carbon steels defnitely are more rust aggressive than even high carbon stainless steels are.

And with that said, I haven't ever seen anyone present even the slightest bit of evidence that Fiskars axes are stainless steel. I have a very hard time looking at it as anything more than a baseless rumor, and there's lots of those to go around. Again, according to Fiskars themselves, they are carbon steel - it says so quite clearly on their Finnish website. Making an axe out of stainless steel would be less than brilliant anyway... it certainly wouldn't cut down costs, so why do it?
 
bladefrienzy said:
http://www.fiskars.com/webapp/wcs/s...ategoryId=10277&productId=10526&page=products

American site has no mention either way. I looked at this yesterday and decide to post it after seeing your post. Yes, there are a lot of very cheap stainless steels.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's funny that it isn't mentioned on the US or International site. I've seen the steel mentioned so far on the Swedish and Finnish sites. But it seems that their marketing department was more at work at the US & International site - lots of marketing, salesman speak there, and less of that on the Scandinavian sites. Could be simply because everyone knows Fiskars here.

While there are cheap stainless steels, I'm not quite convinced there are stainless steels that are cheaper than cheap carbon steels, considering how simple carbon steels are: they're just iron and carbon, and nothing more. Stainless steels will need at least chromium added, so they're a lot more complex - and expensive. And in terms of performance, using stainless wouldn't add anything to an axe except some corrosion resistance, so I don't see any reason why stainless would be used.

But anyway... I'm sure anyone who doubts what steel Fiskars axes are made of can just ask them. And if they doubt their answer, one can always get the axe tested if one is willing to take their doubts that far. I generally don't let rumors affect me, though. Carbon steel they are.
 
It may very well be that the Fiskars and the Gerbers are not the same. My experince was with the Gerbers like I said. I had seen so many places and people say they were the same, including sales folks. Plus as someone mentioned above The ones I saw had Fiskars on them. More than a chance that they are not.

A few more ingredients than just iron and carbon. Here's 0-1 for example.

Chemical Composition of O-1 Tool Steel Physical Properties of O-1 Tool Steel
Iron 97.1% Hardening (°F) 1450 - 1500
Carbon 0.90% (°C) 788 - 816
Chromium 0.50% Tempering (°F) 350 - 550
Manganese 1.00% (°C) 177 - 228
Tungsten 0.50% Hardness Range (Rc) 64 - 58

Didn't mean for it to get so far off topic. Sorry Joezilla.
 
Last edited:
O-1 is not a plain carbon steel, it is an alloy tool steel. A lot of folks (including me) most often call it a carbon steel simply because it isn't a stainless steel. The classic 1095 would be a plain carbon steel.

PatriotDan said:
Incorrect. Chrome effects hardening depth.
Click to expand...

And it affects also wear resistance and corrosion resistance, but there are also downsides. And simply adding some chromium to a steel doesn't yet make it stainless, you'd have to add quite a lot (what was it by AISI standards, 11 % or something?) , so... My point here is that there's no performance benefit to making a stainless steel axe, aside corrosion resistance. Or can anyone else think of one?
 
Elen said:
And simply adding some chromium to a steel doesn't yet make it stainless, you'd have to add quite a lot (what was it by AISI standards, 11 % or something?) , so...
Click to expand...

12%. Chrome is exactly what makes it stainless by standardized definition.
 
Elen if you want to continue arguing with me over stuff that this thread has nothing to do with, please email me . So it can get back on topic.

Here's 1095, per your words.

Element Weight %
C 0.90-1.03
Mn 0.30-0.50
P 0.04 (max)
S 0.05 (max)
 
PatriotDan said:
12%. Chrome is exactly what makes it stainless by standardized definition.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it was 12! I honestly never remember that number. But no big deal. Chrome certainly makes it stainless, but it's the amount of chrome that's the key. Adding 1,1 % of chrome doesn't make it stainless, and neither does adding 5 %. So, there can be chromium in a steel without it being a stainless steel. :)

bladefrienzy said:
Elen if you want to continue arguing with me over stuff that this thread has nothing to do with, please email me . So it can get back on topic.

Here's 1095, per your words.

Element Weight %
C 0.90-1.03
Mn 0.30-0.50
P 0.04 (max)
S 0.05 (max)


See any iron?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue, Steve, and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational here.

Yes, I see iron there. A lot of it. In fact, about 99 % of iron...
 
Thats why I edited my post. Sorry I didn't do it before you read it . I had a brain fart. A lot of companies import very cheaply made knives to AMerica, you may not see them in Finland. But they are not even made of cutlery grade steels. They are stainless, many most would expect don't have enough carbon to probably heat treat them well at all. I'm talking about stuff like the Frosts you see on Home Shopping Network and at FLea markets and such, Not Frost that makes the Mora. These steels are inferior to anything in a "real" cutting intstrument of any kind. SO they are cheaper, or these companies would use 440c or something. I was saying maybe Gerber is doing that based on the thread posted earlier about them being made in China. That's all.


Can we please let this get back to the topic ?
 
bladefrienzy said:
Thats why I edited my post. Sorry I didn't do it before you read it . I had a brain fart. A lot of companies import very cheaply made knives to AMerica, you may not see them in Finland. But they are not even made of cutlery grade steels. They are stainless, many most would expect don't have enough carbon to probably heat treat them well at all. I'm talking about stuff like the Frosts you see on Home Shopping Network and at FLea markets and such, Not Frost that makes the Mora. These steels are inferior to anything in a "real" cutting intstrument of any kind. SO they are cheaper, or these companies would use 440c or something. I was saying maybe Gerber is doing that based on the thread posted earlier about them being made in China. That's all.

Can we please let this get back to the topic ?
Click to expand...

Oh, we see those knives here too, unfortunately. They're everywhere, I guess, in the world. I think the reason why those knives typically are made of very low grade stainless is that at least it won't rust easy... Making them out of very low carbon non-stainless would, I think, be even cheaper, but they would rust like hell, and then it would be very hard to sell those things to unsuspecting consumers...

Really, I have no problem getting back on topic. Except that I don't really have anything to add, so if anyone else does, go ahead. It's not like you need my permission! :eek: But I'm guessing there won't be any shocking discoveries made in this thread, although it will be interesting to hear if Fiskars replies to those who have mailed them and asked about the steels they use. :)
 
Elen said:
How is it incorrect?
Click to expand...

"because it isn't stainless"

By your definition anything not stainless is carbon steel. And it really isn't so is it. Since in this thread we went on about to avoid overgeneralization about axes and their qualitities it really confuses things further by referring steels and their properties your way.
 
Last edited:
Definition of virtually. Nearly, Or , for all practical purposes. As I said, anything can be broken by someone who is common sense challenged. Or if a product is defective.
 
I've been trying but haven't been able to break this one yet.
Fiskars002.jpg

Its grown quite ugly over the past 6 or 7 years but still cuts and chops like new. In fact better since I convexed the edge and knocked the shoulders off the factory grind.
 
The Fiskars handles are tough and from my experience much less likely to break when compared to a wooden handle.
However as other have mentioned with a regular axe one can rehandle the head, you can't do that with the Fiskars, (or Estwings for that matter).
Of course rehandling (a wooden handled axe) in the field is a PITA so either way your axe use will probably be over for that trip.
As far as Gerbers being made by Fiskars in Finland well the one Gerber branded axe i own and all the ones i have handled (10-15?) were so marked.
Its possible that they make them somewhere else now, i don't know for sure.

Anybody here own a recently manufactured Gerber axe?

Regarding pictures of broken/damaged Gerbers/Fiskars they do exist.
There is one thread here for sure with pics of a damaged axe.
I THINK it was an axe owned by bf member morablades.
(Apologies to morablades if i am incorrect).
From what i remember there was two splits in the backside of the handle just below the head running at least 5 or 6 inches down the length.
And as i recall the axe was still useable after the handle was damaged so it was not totally incapacitated.
So in that case the damaged Gerber would be better than a wood handled axe with the handle completely snapped off.
Actually if i remember correctly the owner of the damaged axe had decided to forgo any warranty claims and had decided to autopsy the axe to see how the head looked with the plastic removed. And he was having a really hard time actually breaking the handle further to get at the head. The last time i read that thread it sounded like he had given up on that idea because it was just to hard to remove.
Too bad actually as i'd love to see what the head looks like under the plastic.

Regarding the occurence of cameras dying before a pic can be taken i don't find that unbelievably at all.I think by dying most people mean they ran out of juice.
I've been taking pics with SLR's since the early 90's but i've only recently bought a digital camera. One thing i've noticed are Digitals are h*ll on batteries.
I used to get 5-10 years out of a battery in my manual focus Canon SLR, but i'm lucky to get 2 hours out a set in my digital camera.
Using rechargables or lithiums digital cameras are really energy hungry.
So i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say their camera died, lol.
 
Last edited:
Elen said:
My point here is that there's no performance benefit to making a stainless steel axe, aside corrosion resistance. Or can anyone else think of one?
Click to expand...

With your categorization of stainless and carbon steels the most important axe steel group is left out, tool steels and specifically shock steels. This is what the most demanding rescue and entry tools/axes are made of. So yes, I can think of many properties of steel that are enhanced when adding various elements, including ones that are used mainly in stainless steels. Including various effects that are produced by chrome.
 
As far as Im concerned right now, Fiskars are Carbon steel. The rust like carbon, and sharpen like carbon. If someone told me their were stainless, I would want some proof. And as far as I remember In the hand book that comes with the fiskars axe, its states their carbon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top