What is the deal with the steel? Old vs New

Cashmore said:
So does anyone know the actual types of steel used in any of the vintage axes? Or have numbers on the RC hardness?
Click to expand...

I have been looking into testing some older axes for RC hardness. Not as easy as I first thought it would be. When they test them in the FSS specifications the heads are cut in half. I won't cut mine even if I had a way of doing it. Still going to try somethings in the next week or two. Can't promise anything.
 
garry3 said:
I have been looking into testing some older axes for RC hardness. Not as easy as I first thought it would be. When they test them in the FSS specifications the heads are cut in half. I won't cut mine even if I had a way of doing it. Still going to try somethings in the next week or two. Can't promise anything.
Click to expand...

Cool! If you do find anything out, please post here, but it's definitely not worth losing a good head.
 
Out on my homestead here in the rainforest of the Olympic Peninsula, I've chopped a lot of wood for a lot of years. Wood is my only heat. I've used a lot of axes. But to be honest, I've never found axe design to be as critical a factor in efficient wood splitting as the ability to read the wood itself. For splitting, I use almost nothing but a fat, heavy splitting axe. The finer cutting axes were more for cutting down trees. I use only a chainsaw for that and for making rounds.

The old timers here saw different wood than I see. They were splitting either old growth or young, straight-grained second growth that grew up in shade and had few low branches or knots.

Nonetheless, an 18-inch round of 100-year-old Doug fir -- maybe three feet across -- is no easy thing. Usually, I need wedges or a strategy of calving off slabs from the perimeter until the diameter gets small enough to deal with head on. If the wood grain has a twist, I'll have to puzzle over it for a while to get a strategy; otherwise I'll be banging on it for a long time to little result.

Alder is another animal. Unless the round has a large branch, it splits so easily that any axe is fine. I've never found any great difference in axe design for this wood. Light axes I have to swing a bit harder. Heavy axes I swing easily, letting the weight of the head do the work. Seems like the same work either way. Sharp, thin axes can bury themselves so deep in a twisted round that it often takes a wedge and a sledge to retrieve it.

Even here in logging country, I seldom hear of anyone using an axe to fell a tree. Chainsaws are the weapon of choice. And nobody would use an axe to make rounds. The waste is too great compared to a chainsaw. The people who sell firewood usually use splitters.

For making the morning fire, I use two small Gransfor Bruk hand axes -- a carpenter's model for the small, straight-grained wood splits and a splitting hand axe for the more challenging grain patterns. I always stack my firewood alongside the stove, divided into rounds that fit one or the other axe and rounds that are so grain complex that I just burn them as I find them.
 
Cashmore said:
So does anyone know the actual types of steel used in any of the vintage axes? Or have numbers on the RC hardness?
Click to expand...

Here are some clues, quoted from
The working of steel, annealing, heat treating, and hardening of carbon and alloy steel
by Fred Herbert Colvin, Kristian A. Juthe, published in 1922

books


According to this, the Latrobe Steel Company in 1922 produced "Axe Temper" steel (for making axes, chisels, etc.) with 1.00 to 1.09 percent carbon.

A little further in the book from 1922, some specifications for another company's steel used for making chisels are given:

carbon, 0.75 to 0.85 [percent]
manganese, 0.30
silicon, 0.10
sulphur, 0.025
phosphorus, 0.025

Compare this to the current specs for the Forest Service FSS axes:
"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."

And compare to the steel currently used by Gransfors Bruks:

1055 steel composition (not exactly what GB uses, but reportedly "very close"):
carbon 0.55-0.65
manganese, 0.60-0.90
phosphorus, max 0.040
sulfur, max 0.050

Later in the 1922 book, a table of tempering temperatures was given:

books


(The 8-minute tempering was listed as an quicker option for "rough work".)

Sources:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jWNJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/specs.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/documents/5100_9D.pdf
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1017665-Gransfors-bruks-steel
http://www.steeltalk.com/composition_of_steel.php
 
Twindog said:
Even here in logging country, I seldom hear of anyone using an axe to fell a tree. Chainsaws are the weapon of choice. And nobody would use an axe to make rounds. The waste is too great compared to a chainsaw. The people who sell firewood usually use splitters.
Click to expand...

I've talked to a few people about cutting all wood with just an axe. I am more or less insistent that anyone who is motivated to do that has, or can develop, the skill required to throw some decent plates, which can be collected and burned themselves. If the system is fine tuned enough there wouldn't be a terrible amount of waste. A certain amount left in the woods is beneficial anyway. Most of the people who limb and leave all the slash are too "wasting" a lot of wood, but I'd like to think leaving wood to rot back for other trees is not really wasting it after all. I use a saw for bucking, but sometimes use an axe for bucking to longer lengths in the woods when its convenient to not have to haul a crosscut in.
 
G-pig said:
A certain amount left in the woods is beneficial anyway. Most of the people who limb and leave all the slash are too "wasting" a lot of wood, but I'd like to think leaving wood to rot back for other trees is not really wasting it after all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's important to leave some material behind to rot and enrich the soil. Both forestry and farming are in reality slow forms of mining. When we remove plant growth from the land we are taking away the soil minerals that produced it. We hear about farm land that has been 'farmed out', all the organic material has rotted away without being replenished and you end up with useless barren land. This is why farmers let some land lie fallow or plant 'green manures' like vetch or alfalfa to build up the soil.

The same thing goes for timber land. Repeated harvests can deplete the soil and decrease production of timber. Deep topsoil is like money in the bank.
 
Square_peg said:
Yes, it's important to leave some material behind to rot and enrich the soil. Both forestry and farming are in reality slow forms of mining. When we remove plant growth from the land we are taking away the soil minerals that produced it. We hear about farm land that has been 'farmed out', all the organic material has rotted away without being replenished and you end up with useless barren land. This is why farmers let some land lie fallow or plant 'green manures' like vetch or alfalfa to build up the soil.

The same thing goes for timber land. Repeated harvests can deplete the soil and decrease production of timber. Deep topsoil is like money in the bank.
Click to expand...


I agree with you and G-pig, but not much is being left. Forestry is a mining operation. Industry has built two giant biomass burners in my area to make electricity to sell at subsidized rates to California. Industry is mining our forests for organic material. It's getting difficult to find firewood. Used to be that people here made money by finding, bucking and splitting firewood. Those days are disappearing. Firewood companies are buying low-quality logs by the truck load. Everything is mechanized, including loading firewood into delivery trucks, which are dump trucks.

Forests are mostly second-growth scrub these days, with 30- to 60-year rotations. It's difficult to compare yesterday's axes to today's axes when axes now do much different work and see much different trees.
 
Thank you very much for those numbers Steve. I really appreciate them.

Honestly they are higher than I would have expected w regards to the carbon content.
 
Thanks Steve! This could get interesting. Might have to sacriffice a old head that has seen better days, but not one that is worn out. Has anyone tryed to cut something this hard with a bandsaw? How else would it be done?
 
Cashmore said:
Honestly they are higher than I would have expected w regards to the carbon content.
Click to expand...

I noticed that, too. With plain carbon steels (as the Forest Service specs) there's really no reason to go over 95 points of carbon. Any above that will be wasted. 70 or 80 points of carbon is plenty to make a superb axe.
 
garry3 said:
Has anyone tryed to cut something this hard with a bandsaw? How else would it be done?
Click to expand...

If you annealed it first it would cut nicely with a bandsaw. Of course you'd need to re-harden and temper it when you were finished.

Abrasive cutting discs will cut hardened steels but they produce heat. I suppose a carborundum abrasive coping saw blade would work though I haven't seen one in stores for some time. I think you can still get carborundum hacksaw blades. For that matter a cobalt hacksaw blade might do the job.
 
Square_peg said:
If you annealed it first it would cut nicely with a bandsaw. Of course you'd need to re-harden and temper it when you were finished.

Abrasive cutting discs will cut hardened steels but they produce heat. I suppose a carborundum abrasive coping saw blade would work though I haven't seen one in stores for some time. I think you can still get carborundum hacksaw blades. For that matter a cobalt hacksaw blade might do the job.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea how they are cutting them. I just need to file down below the work hardened steel, polish it. And figure out a way to hold it perfectly still and supported directly under an anvil while a pin penetrates the surface a few times. Sounds easy until you figure the pin must be at a right angle and the shape of the axe. I am thinking about useing grout and casting them at the proper angle. I think a good grout can handle that. Not by the book but might get a good consistent number.
 
Steve Tall said:
Maybe a power hacksaw with the right blade? The cut is continuously being cooled by recirculating oil. My metal shop class back in 7th grade had one.

power_hacksaw.png

http://www.powerhacksaw.org/
Click to expand...

I have access to a couple similiar to those steve. They are band saws. Metal cutting band saws. I have never tried to cut anything as hard as a axe in one though. At least not as hard as the bits. Hate to ruin a blade and wear out my welcome.
 
garry3 said:
I have access to a couple similiar to those steve. They are band saws. Metal cutting band saws. I have never tried to cut anything as hard as a axe in one though. At least not as hard as the bits. Hate to ruin a blade and wear out my welcome.
Click to expand...

The ones I'm talking about aren't bandsaws. The blade goes back and forth.
 
Square_peg said:
Yes, it's important to leave some material behind to rot and enrich the soil. Both forestry and farming are in reality slow forms of mining. When we remove plant growth from the land we are taking away the soil minerals that produced it. We hear about farm land that has been 'farmed out', all the organic material has rotted away without being replenished and you end up with useless barren land. This is why farmers let some land lie fallow or plant 'green manures' like vetch or alfalfa to build up the soil.

The same thing goes for timber land. Repeated harvests can deplete the soil and decrease production of timber. Deep topsoil is like money in the bank.
Click to expand...

I guess we are going a little off topic-- but thats our thing here in the ATH forum.

I am not going to speak about forestry, because I don't know much about that (although I suspect that, just like farming and growing of food, there are probably some stupidly simple solutions to it's issues).

No till farming is gaining a little steam even amongst mechanized farmers, and despite them not even doing it particularly well its paying off. they just plant, harvest, and dont till it all up the next year. All the root systems stay in and some of the "waste" (not much) stays on top. The results are pretty impressive. Even more impressive is the result of almost 40 years of mulching in conjunction with no tilling, seen here;

[video=youtube;wffoeYUFK7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffoeYUFK7k[/video]

at about 1:28 you can see the black carbon rich soil. It keeps the "weeds" down and some people report never having to water. The added benefits of not needing to till the soil every year saves untold amounts of work. Not having to water nearly as much (or ever) saves input. Home gardeners could grow way more food with the same amount of work using no till. The biggest obstacle for a lot of people i've talked to is the "complication" factor. They dont want to get a tiller, fertilizers etc. Simple is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top