Vintage vs. Council Tool

V

vcbvcbvcb

Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
633
I’m a little ahead of myself because I have 4 hatchets, 2 axes and a maul to haft before I buy anything else. However, I’m thinking about a 3 ½# Council tool Jersey out of 1060 steel for my next purchase. It seems like a pretty good deal at $50. Everything’s been vintage up until now except my Husqvarna multi-purpose ax. Is vintage steel better than the new Council tool axes?
 
Probably vintage is usually better, but if no one buys council tool, they will only be available as vintage.

I am not convinced they use 1060. I think it may be 4140. The two I've experienced recently sharpen well and seem to hold up.
 
i think i have a Japanese axe made from a Yugo, i mean the whole Yugo
seriously, i have two new Sears Craftsman hatchets
, these are the only new steel choppers i have to compare with
 
A council will be a good axe. It will be hung and ready to work (maybe with a little edge work). Yes, it's a good axe and a fair deal. Yes, you can get a better axe by buying vintage and putting some sweat equity into it.

I think it's one of the best values going in a new axe.
 
markv said:
i think i have a Japanese axe made from a Yugo, i mean the whole Yugo
seriously, i have two new Sears Craftsman hatchets
, these are the only new steel choppers i have to compare with
Click to expand...


Speaking of that, my father in law finally brought me his upside down hung Olympia.

He says, "It splits real well"... Guess whatever he is splitting is spooked by the possible toaster in there...

My experience with Council Tools is limited to what my Dad says about his Rail Splitter and a CT marked head I keep meaning to use.

If I were to buy a new axe, I would probably think about Council. American made. The Velvicut gets some good reviews and the ones I've seen here look like they would do what a guy needed and be svelt while doing it.

Lots of older axes out there for the price of a good new one.

I buy used clothes at times when I don't have to. Most times they are perfect but it doesn't mean I don't like creases.
 
BG_Farmer said:
Probably vintage is usually better, but if no one buys council tool, they will only be available as vintage.

I am not convinced they use 1060. I think it may be 4140. The two I've experienced recently sharpen well and seem to hold up.
Click to expand...

vcbvcbvcb said:
What's the difference between 1060 and 4140? I think I got 1060 off a website that sells them.
Click to expand...


vcbvcbvcb is right.
According to Omaha Knife:
“Council Tool uses 1060 steel on most of their axes and 5160 on their Velvicut series. 1060 would be considered an ideal steel for axe heads and 5160 even better than that."

1060 is a really good carbon steel for axes.
The German axe manufacturer Helko uses the German equivalent of 1060 too to make its axes.
 
littleknife said:
vcbvcbvcb is right.
According to Omaha Knife:
“Council Tool uses 1060 steel on most of their axes and 5160 on their Velvicut series. 1060 would be considered an ideal steel for axe heads and 5160 even better than that."

1060 is a really good carbon steel for axes.
The German axe manufacturer Helko uses the German equivalent of 1060 too to make its axes.
Click to expand...

Omaha's guess is a good one, but not confirmed by council. Practically there is no functional difference between the two, though the compositions and treatment processes are distinct. I am guessing 4140 because that is what they state for the FSS boys axe. It wouldn't make much sense to switch from 1060 to 4140, but it does make sense to tout it on the FSS either as differentiation or because government contract requires disclosure. The regular line is simply high quality tool steel or similar verbiage, so it may be different or maybe they just don't want to tie themselves down! Another thought is that 1060 would be an easier sell if true, since most people understand simple carbon steels, but are confused by alloys where carbon percentage may be lower with comparable final hardness. Finally, the fact that they use 5160 for the vcut leads me to believe they are well equipped to deal with alloys.
 
BG_Farmer, you may be right.

Interestingly, the FSS (if this document from 1999 is current), does not specify 4140:

http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/documents/5100_9D.pdf

3.2.1.1 Steel composition. The tool head of each type of ax shall be forged from fully killed plain carbon AISI/ SAE steel containing 0.72 to 0.93 percent carbon, 0.30 to 0.90 percent manganese, not more than 0.040 percent phosphorus, and not more than 0.050 percent sulfur.
 
littleknife said:
vcbvcbvcb is right.
According to Omaha Knife:
“Council Tool uses 1060 steel on most of their axes and 5160 on their Velvicut series. 1060 would be considered an ideal steel for axe heads and 5160 even better than that."

1060 is a really good carbon steel for axes.
The German axe manufacturer Helko uses the German equivalent of 1060 too to make its axes.
Click to expand...

I think Helko uses C45, which I thought was the equivalent to 1045? I have found the them to be tempered a little harder than what I have seen from Council. Your mileage may very.

What I have owned from Council have been on the soft side for my tastes. Might be just what some one else is looking for though. Probably be just fine in freezing conditions.

Any way I think the heat treat in most cases is more important to me than the steel used.
 
garry3 said:
I think Helko uses C45, which I thought was the equivalent to 1045? I have found the them to be tempered a little harder than what I have seen from Council. Your mileage may very.

What I have owned from Council have been on the soft side for my tastes. Might be just what some one else is looking for though. Probably be just fine in freezing conditions.

Any way I think the heat treat in most cases is more important to me than the steel used.
Click to expand...

Garry3, I stand corrected again. :foot:

http://www.helkonorthamerica.com/manufacturing-process.html

I confused it with another German manufacturer, that of the Ox Head (Ochsenkopf) axes, which uses c60 steel or its derivative:

http://www.ochsenkopf.com/en/about/index.html

I should resist the urge to type before I checked my “facts”.
 
Last edited:
I know manufacturers and marketing people do not necessarily adhere to precise use of terms, but strictly speaking isn’t 4140 classified as a “low alloy steel” rather than a “tool steel”?
 
I noticed my local hardware store carries CT axes the last time I was in there. I've been meaning to stop by to have a look at them in person.

I'm certain that you can get a better vintage axe than what CT currently makes, but they are one of the last few American companies producing axes and they have a rather complete line with a solid reputation. I'd say you couldn't go wrong either way. One of the two modern axes I own is a tiny little Vaughan that is still made in the USA. It's a great little hatchet that goes to show modern USA made axes can still be great.
 
Hacked said:
I noticed my local hardware store carries CT axes the last time I was in there. I've been meaning to stop by to have a look at them in person.

I'm certain that you can get a better vintage axe than what CT currently makes, but they are one of the last few American companies producing axes and they have a rather complete line with a solid reputation. I'd say you couldn't go wrong either way. One of the two modern axes I own is a tiny little Vaughan that is still made in the USA. It's a great little hatchet that goes to show modern USA made axes can still be great.
Click to expand...

I have purchased a couple of new, recently produced Council Tool axes myself, and I am very happy with them.
I agree, that the steel composition is less important than the heat treatment and overall craftsmanship, and I think Council Tool does a decent job in both regards.

I also have the Vaughan made Craftsman camping hatchet and the Vaughan half hatchet and like them both! :thumbup:
 
Those specs would seem to indicate that they want pretty "clean" 10xx steel in the 1075-1084 range AND they want it fully hardened with the eye drawn back to 45 Rc MOL or not annealed after forging.
littleknife said:
BG_Farmer, you may be right.

Interestingly, the FSS (if this document from 1999 is current), does not specify 4140:

http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/documents/5100_9D.pdf

3.2.1.1 Steel composition. The tool head of each type of ax shall be forged from fully killed plain carbon AISI/ SAE steel containing 0.72 to 0.93 percent carbon, 0.30 to 0.90 percent manganese, not more than 0.040 percent phosphorus, and not more than 0.050 percent sulfur.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jdm61 said:
Those specs would seem to indicate that they want pretty "clean" 10xx steel in the 1075-1084 range AND they want it fully hardened with the eye drawn back to 45 Rc MOL or not annealed after forging.
Click to expand...

I've seen that specification several times and the steel composition is clearly as you say. There must have been an addendum or waiver. The specification itself is probably a little outdated at the time of publication, anyway :). One factor might have been that the unique hardness test may have been difficult to pass with plain carbon steel, where the maker would have had to deal with inconsistent hardening and the variability of carbon allowed from batch to batch. I believe the alloys are through-hardening and the amount of carbon has somewhat less effect on the result.

I agree that we stress way to much about the steel used in an axe. 1045 on is usable, but there are small gains with better steels (carbon or alloy) assuming they are treated properly for the application.
 
Yeah, but if you fully though harden th entire heard of a USFS spec 10XX or especially 5160 axe, you will have to draw the eye back quite a bit. Even the shallower harding 10XX steels will be as hard as woodpecker lips on the sides of the eye coming out of the quench. With a head made from plain carbon steel with .80+ carbon and .70 manganese you might be looking at an as-quenched surface hardness as high as 65Rc.
BG_Farmer said:
I've seen that specification several times and the steel composition is clearly as you say. There must have been an addendum or waiver. The specification itself is probably a little outdated at the time of publication, anyway :). One factor might have been that the unique hardness test may have been difficult to pass with plain carbon steel, where the maker would have had to deal with inconsistent hardening and the variability of carbon allowed from batch to batch. I believe the alloys are through-hardening and the amount of carbon has somewhat less effect on the result.

I agree that we stress way to much about the steel used in an axe. 1045 on is usable, but there are small gains with better steels (carbon or alloy) assuming they are treated properly for the application.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top