Vintage vs. Council Tool

[jdm61]

Nope, but it has to be tempered with 10XX steel, I wold suspect. CT says that the do not harden the eye on their Velvicut axes, but they may be able to have them hard enough from a little bit of "air hardening" because of the chromium content. This picture shows what a shallow harding steel like W2 looks like when you anneal it. That blade was a hair under 3/16 at the ricasso and all of those bends were done by hand with the blade in a regular bench vice. with no cheater bar used.

It's not hard to temper back an eye.

 

[jdm61]

I have heard this said a lot, but just out of curiosity, why would a "vintage" axe generally be better than current production QUALITY axe from one of the Scandinavian companies or CT? Sure, the surface finish might be better than the normal CT line or even the Swedish stuff, but not the Velvicut pieces. In some cases, older is not always better.

 

[vcbvcbvcb]

I was looking at Best Made Company's axes. I read a review where the guy said that their ax performed substantially better than the Velvicut. Then I read on their website that their felling ax is a Dayton. I have a 4 Lb. Legitimus Dayton so saw no reason to get the Best made for $165. Anybody know anything about Best Made?

 

[Square_peg]

I have heard this said a lot, but just out of curiosity, why would a "vintage" axe generally be better than current production QUALITY axe from one of the Scandinavian companies or CT?

Because of the higher carbon content which makes them tougher and more wear resistant. Keep in mind, axes were a mainstay of industry prior to the chainsaw. Manufacturers were vying for that business and competed with each other to supply the highest grade product and garner market share. Axes were routinely made with much higher carbon content than modern axes. 60 points of carbon wouldn't 'cut the mustard' back in the day. Axes were made with agricultural steels like 1084/1085 or with even higher carbon steel.

http://blog.misumiusa.com/the-difference-between-carbon-steels/

Silver steel was advertised in axe making - .95 carbon. Fulton and other makers advertised their use of 'razor steel' which at the time contained over 1% carbon, up to 1.4%. Those higher carbon steels are harder to forge so modern makers shun them - their market is not so discriminating anymore.

 

[Hacked]

I have heard this said a lot, but just out of curiosity, why would a "vintage" axe generally be better than current production QUALITY axe from one of the Scandinavian companies or CT? Sure, the surface finish might be better than the normal CT line or even the Swedish stuff, but not the Velvicut pieces. In some cases, older is not always better.

Since I'm currently comparing a Gransfors Bruks to some of my American made axes I have some thoughts on this. Comparing a $150 Gransfors Bruks to a $26 american made axe the Gransfors Bruks was outperformed in every task I've put it through thus far, some more than others. In this case the American made axe is current production, but it's the only one I've seen with a profile similar to older North American axes mainly having a very pronounced high centerline. That said compared to some of my vintage axes it came with a very poor fit and finish. Roungh grind work uneven in a few places, deep grooves covered in thick paint to make it look smooth, and a completly unground bit. I haven't seen any evidence that these issues where present on my vintage axes from the factory. Unfortunately the two vintage axes I have that would be comparable are not in working order at the moment.

Now for my issues with the Gransfors Bruks. The bit profile ended up matching the one I had put on my ax I was comparing it to except that the GB has only a slight convex at the bit followed by flat cheeks leading into a very steep ramp. So the Gransfors seems to chop fairly well though I feel it doesn't clear out chips as well as the design with a high centerline. Obviously with limbing it is a wash. Where the Gransfors truly falls short is splitting. As soon as the eye is reached you can feel it. I presume that this is why I've seen users demonstrate how to use the wrist flick method with Gransfors Bruks axes, it would serve as a workaround for this issue. Personally I'm rarely splitting nicely cut knot free rounds with straight grain, but I'm not heating my home with wood like some. The steel seems similar to older quality axes, not the hardest I've seen nor the softest. It readily takes a fine edge and seems to hold it well enough. My final issue is the handle, to be honest it's my least favorite thing on the axe and compared to older examples I have complete rubish just like most modern handles.

While I think CT would probably be a good choice I still don't think they could compare to an old vintage axe. That's not to say that all vintage axes are made equal, sure there are some that are just as bad as what you see at a hardware store today. But the finish on the head, the heat treat and tempering of the bit and or poll, the profile, fit of the haft with no metal plastic or aluminum wedges, and the shape and quality of the handles just doesn't compare to what was once available from what I've seen.

Don't get me wrong I'm happy to see companies still producing quality axes today. I just wish they would take a few more pages from Kelly, Plumb, Mann, and Collins. I also feel like the Scandinavian axes are way over hyped and over priced for what they are. But that is all just my opinion YMMV.

 

[stevewest]

I was looking at Best Made Company's axes. I read a review where the guy said that their ax performed substantially better than the Velvicut. Then I read on their website that their felling ax is a Dayton. I have a 4 Lb. Legitimus Dayton so saw no reason to get the Best made for $165. Anybody know anything about Best Made?

Bestmade axes are basically rebranded Council Velvicut axes with some additional work done to the head and hafts.

 

[jdm61]

That's funny because as best as I can tell, the Best Made axes ARE Velvicuts that have been pimped.

I was looking at Best Made Company's axes. I read a review where the guy said that their ax performed substantially better than the Velvicut. Then I read on their website that their felling ax is a Dayton. I have a 4 Lb. Legitimus Dayton so saw no reason to get the Best made for $165. Anybody know anything about Best Made?

 

[jdm61]

Yet the modern manufacturers in many cases use the very same equipment and techniques that those old guys used to forge their axe heads and in some cases, BETTER gear. I have a sneaking suspicion that much of the stuff about old axes is legend or just hooey. The steel used is only part of the equation. Heat treatment is gong to be the biggest part. Sure, they might have used 1095, but if the modern trend of using that steel and leaving it as a "working" hardness of say 55-56 like you see on some "tough guy" factory knives held true back then, they were just wasting higher carbon steel. That is before you even start taking about some of the issues that can arise with hypereutectoid steels.

Because of the higher carbon content which makes them tougher and more wear resistant. Keep in mind, axes were a mainstay of industry prior to the chainsaw. Manufacturers were vying for that business and competed with each other to supply the highest grade product and garner market share. Axes were routinely made with much higher carbon content than modern axes. 60 points of carbon wouldn't 'cut the mustard' back in the day. Axes were made with agricultural steels like 1084/1085 or with even higher carbon steel.

http://blog.misumiusa.com/the-difference-between-carbon-steels/

Silver steel was advertised in axe making - .95 carbon. Fulton and other makers advertised their use of 'razor steel' which at the time contained over 1% carbon, up to 1.4%. Those higher carbon steels are harder to forge so modern makers shun them - their market is not so discriminating anymore.

 

[vcbvcbvcb]

I just looked at the article comparing the Best Made vs. Velvicut again. It was not apples to apples. The best made had a longer handle and appears to. Have a larger heavier head, so the comparison is useless except for maybe the feather stick part.

http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showt...e-vs-The-Council-Tool-Velvicut-Hudson-Bay-Axe

Steve, you mentioned that a Best Made is a rebranded velvicut. I read another article that indicated the owner of Best Made set out to directly compete with velvicut. I think "rebranded" implies that CT makes the heads for BM, which wouldn't necessarily make sense. Did you mean that CT makes them for BM, or just that they are twins except finish?

 

[Steve Tall]

From an earlier thread that goes into more detail about vintage axe making, including "higher carbon steels retain more wear resistance than lower carbon steels when both are tempered back to the same RC hardness."

Old North American made axes (U.S. & Canada) tended to be made with bits of higher carbon steel than current makers use (both U.S. and Swedish makers). The increased carbon makes a blade or bit more hardenable - -i.e. it will quench to a higher RC hardness - and also tougher, giving it more wear resistance.

In the hardening and tempering process steel is first quenched to a very high hardness - often too hard (brittle) for the final tool. It is subsequently tempered - reheated - to remove some of the brittleness and add toughness. The higher the heat used in the tempering process the more hardness is lost but the more toughness is gained.

Generally speaking, higher carbon steels retain more wear resistance than lower carbon steels when both are tempered back to the same RC hardness. So there is an advantage to using higher carbon steels in an axe bit - increased wear resistance.

Current Gransfors Bruk axes are made will a steel very similar to 1055 steel - containing .55% carbon - on the lower end of what are considered high carbon steels. Vintage N.A. axes were commonly made with bit of higher carbon content. For many years the U.S Forest Service specified that axes would be made from "fully killed plain carbon AISI/SAE steel containing 0.72 to 0.93 percent carbon". It was known that this higher carbon steel produced better wear resistance than lower carbon steels. Agricultural steels like plow disks and harrows were similarly made from higher carbon steels like 1080 - .80% carbon for the same reason.

Bottom line, a top shelf vintage North American axe will be made with a higher carbon bit than current Swedish import axes and the vintage axe will have better edge retention and wear resistance.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1295943-Edge-retention-Vintage-US-Axes-Versus-Modern-Swedish

 

[Hacked]

Yet the modern manufacturers in many cases use the very same equipment and techniques that those old guys used to forge their axe heads and in some cases, BETTEr gear. I have a sinking suspicion that much of the stuff about old axes is legend or just hooey. The steel used is on;ly part of the equation. Heat treatment is gong to be the biggest part. Sure, they might have used 1095, but if the modern trend of using that steel and leaving it as a "working" hardness of say 55-56 like you see on some "tough guy" factory knives held true back then, they were just wasting higher carbon steel. that is before yo even start taking about some of the issues that can arise with hypereutectoid steels.

Steel aside, I'd argue that modern manufacturers do no use the same techniques in production of axes. One of the biggest differences that is immediately viable in my opinion is the high centerline or convexed cheeks. This feature is either nowhere near as pronounced or nonexistent on modern axes. I was surprised to see it on my Vaughan which is the one example I'm aware of that is currently produced with this feature. Being that it was a feature predominant on axes produced at the hight of axe use I will argue that it was done for a reason. Personally I find my axes with a high centerline chop and split better than those without. Back to the steel for a moment, I have not done any Rockwell testing but based on working with files, stones and paper the hardest steel I've come across by a good bit is whatever Mann Edge Tool Co used in my True American, which wasn't even their premium line. I own a number of vintage axes that I've restored myself and a couple of modern ones, I've also had a chance to use other modern axes including most recently a Gransfors Bruks which seem to be considered some sort of gold standard for modern axes that I'm using to form my opinion. Not all of my vintage axes are winners, and some of the modern ones work just fine but my favorites are all older axes long out of production. Curious if you've had the chance to use a well made and properly maintained or restored vintage axe?

 

[300Six]

Best Made dictates their product specifications but the actual manufacturing and assembly is done by (except maybe the decorative coats of paint) by Council Tools. There is nothing new about this sort of arrangement and if I understand correctly all Norlund products were also consequence of being 'farmed out'.

 

[rockman0]

Interesting discussion. Personally i prefer a vintage head. Peg and Hacked are dead on in my opinion. But to each his own, go with what you believe suits you best. :thumbup:

 

[jdm61]

COST is an issue with most of these axes, modern or vintage. I would think that the optimum "simple" carbon tool steel for an ax would be something like L6. You would have very good impact resistance at higher levels of hardness, say in the 57-58 range and better edge holding than the true "shock" steels like S7. I am not sure how much more abrasion resistance 1095 would have over say 1065 or 1075 at those lower hardness levels. Typically i think about higher bars ion reliance in heels of that type being the result of high hardness levels. IMO, if you are gong to use 1095 below 60Rc, you should probably look at a steel that is a bit less finicky in the HT. 1075 or 1084 would be a better option especially stuff with higher manganese levels. Neeman and some other custom and semi-custom makers use an L6 bit forge welded into a mild steel body. using a monolithic piece of L6 might get kind of pricey even if you were using the lower moly stuff like the Carpenter RDS to try to avoid some of the air harding issues.

 

[cooperhill]

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.

You also gain considerable confidence by going the DIY route. Learning to hang, re-hang, re-hang, re-hang and re-hang. And you can dial in the axe more to your liking.

 

[vcbvcbvcb]

Several months ago I was in the woods and found a piece of soft/medium wood I wanted to take home use, but after sawing it I found a wormhole. I wanted to see if the hole was shallow or deep, so I stuck the tip of my 1085 Browning Crowell-Barker knife in it and pried, and left an 1/8” of blade tip in the wood. That left me with the impression that 1085 was too brittle. I had done the same thing with my Swap-rat, Ed Martin and Condor knives with no problem. I bought the Browning over a BK-9 because it passed a “Noss” destruction test better, go figure! What I’m reading in this thread is that 1085 in fine for an ax, maybe even desirable. Is impact durability more a matter of heat treatment than carbon content? Isn't there always a balance between wear resistance and impact durability?

 

[vcbvcbvcb]

To Steve Tall, I went to http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/sh...Modern-Swedish. It explained a lot, thanks.

 

[Ugaldie]

Old axes tend to be better because they were produced when the axe was used as a everyday working tool. You can find very good deals in very good quality old axes, but you have to be very aware of the axe you are purchasing. Standard axe owners axe mantaining knowlegde is low, you have to take in account this is a reality for many years for now. So you have to be aware you don't purchase any piece which has had a bad manteinance history like this,

The bit of that axe is as soft as iron, a friend of mine has had to heat treat it again. It's very usual to find refitted vintage axes nowadays, I don't like it. You can clean all the marks of the axe I have shown and you won't know your purchasing mistake till you try it in the wood.
If you want to find that type of quality in actually produced axes, the best you can do is to stick to old school axemakers. Council Tool is a good option, same as Jauregi or Mueller. I have seen the heat treatment in those companies, CT and Mueller in videos, and they use old school techniques. You won't find bad steels in the companies we are speaking about, proper heat treatment is more important than steel in an axe.
About steels, at same hardness higher carbon steel is not better. Between the most important qualities of an axe is its toughness, an axe at more or less at 55HRC and with more or less 0.5% of carbon is at the best point it can be for a general use. The same can be said about alloys, the less alloying elements you can give to a steel mantaining the desired quality, the best axe you are making. A clear example of this are the racing axes (I'm speaking about my experience, those used at Basque competitions and trainings), people tend to think their steel is a superalloy, this is not true. They tend to be medium tool steels with very well studied heat treatments, as an example their carbon variates but tends to be 0.6-0.65%.
If you are thinking to buy a Council Tool Velvicut I advise you to buy a FSS instead. I own both and I have not found any wear resistance difference between them. If we assume both of them have the same hardness, I think 4140's higher amount of carbides help to it's lower carbon percentage when we compare it to the 5160. If we look to toughness the 4140 is toughter.
At the price you have mentioned I would buy the standard Council Tool.

 

[jdm61]

Do you think that 4140 has enough carbon to reach that low 50 Rc range hardness AND form enough carbide volume to make a difference? I would say no. As for the "race axes" they are designed, ground and heat treated for a VERY narrow range of use, wood types, etc.

Old axes tend to be better because they were produced when the axe was used as a everyday working tool. You can find very good deals in very good quality old axes, but you have to be very aware of the axe you are purchasing. Standard axe owners axe mantaining knowlegde is low, you have to take in account this is a reality for many years for now. So you have to be aware you don't purchase any piece which has had a bad manteinance history like this,

The bit of that axe is as soft as iron, a friend of mine has had to heat treat it again. It's very usual to find refitted vintage axes nowadays, I don't like it. You can clean all the marks of the axe I have shown and you won't know your purchasing mistake till you try it in the wood.
If you want to find that type of quality in actually produced axes, the best you can do is to stick to old school axemakers. Council Tool is a good option, same as Jauregi or Mueller. I have seen the heat treatment in those companies, CT and Mueller in videos, and they use old school techniques. You won't find bad steels in the companies we are speaking about, proper heat treatment is more important than steel in an axe.
About steels, at same hardness higher carbon steel is not better. Between the most important qualities of an axe is its toughness, an axe at more or less at 55HRC and with more or less 0.5% of carbon is at the best point it can be for a general use. The same can be said about alloys, the less alloying elements you can give to a steel mantaining the desired quality, the best axe you are making. A clear example of this are the racing axes (I'm speaking about my experience, those used at Basque competitions and trainings), people tend to think their steel is a superalloy, this is not true. They tend to be medium tool steels with very well studied heat treatments, as an example their carbon variates but tends to be 0.6-0.65%.
If you are thinking to buy a Council Tool Velvicut I advise you to buy a FSS instead. I own both and I have not found any wear resistance difference between them. If we assume both of them have the same hardness, I think 4140's higher amount of carbides help to it's lower carbon percentage when we compare it to the 5160. If we look to toughness the 4140 is toughter.
At the price you have mentioned I would buy the standard Council Tool.

 

[Ugaldie]

Council Tool FSS axes have the 4140 steel at 55HRC, I have used it and it works very well.
About racing axes, they are produced for any type of wood, wet or dry, beech or pine in Basque case, the wood could vary a lot. They are produced for even harder woods in Australia and NZ. They are the same as racing vehicles, you can have a F1 car for a circuit or a truck for the Dakar.