Axe steel choices, why are most low carbon?

[79Luca79]

Just so you know: Müller is from Carinthia, while Stubai Werkzeugindustrie reg.Gen.m.b.H. is from the Stubai Valley in Tyrol. I have some Axes from them aswell, very good Quality aswell just not as good as from Müller since Stubai makes alot more different Tools aswell while Müller is more focused on Forestry tools. (Stubai Blades are a bit thicker)

The thin blades are the optimal form for Debranching and pruning. The wide cutting edges i dont want to miss aswell, it is so much easier to hit Branches and not your handle. (A thing mentioned aswell in 1959 about swedish axes, seems they did not learn half a century later...)
And the refiling is also faster because the blade stays thin for a longer distance.
I find that with the "D" shaped eye i can make rehandling easier and faster, i had a more difficult time with the oval (not symetrical=different radius on front curve) eye on my Prandi axe.

I would get a Biber "broad" its 10 or 30 mm wider than the normal Biber, a few 10s of mm are the difference between a blade hit or a handle hit when a bad strike is made. I would get a light version, max 1200 g.
For debranching of Leafwood over 1,0 fm (m³), a mass of 1250 g was recommended in 1959. Under 1,0 m³ its 800-1000 g.

Müller told me by email that the difference between the Biber (Light blue) and the Classic (forge finish) is in the steel quality and finer grinding.

 

[Sid Post]

Just so you know: Müller is from Carinthia, while Stubai Werkzeugindustrie reg.Gen.m.b.H. is from the Stubai Valley in Tyrol. I have some Axes from them aswell, very good Quality aswell just not as good as from Müller since Stubai makes alot more different Tools aswell while Müller is more focused on Forestry tools. (Stubai Blades are a bit thicker)

The thin blades are the optimal form for Debranching and pruning. The wide cutting edges i dont want to miss aswell, it is so much easier to hit Branches and not your handle. (A thing mentioned aswell in 1959 about swedish axes, seems they did not learn half a century later...)
And the refiling is also faster because the blade stays thin for a longer distance.
I find that with the "D" shaped eye i can make rehandling easier and faster, i had a more difficult time with the oval (not symetrical=different radius on front curve) eye on my Prandi axe.

I would get a Biber "broad" its 10 or 30 mm wider than the normal Biber, a few 10s of mm are the difference between a blade hit or a handle hit when a bad strike is made. I would get a light version, max 1200 g.
For debranching of Leafwood over 1,0 fm (m³), a mass of 1250 g was recommended in 1959. Under 1,0 m³ its 800-1000 g.

Müller told me by email that the difference between the Biber (Light blue) and the Classic (forge finish) is in the steel quality and finer grinding.

THANKS! That is SUPER HELPFUL!

 

[jake pogg]

Cool discussion,a lot of interesting stuff came up.

Just as a reminder (to myself as well) :

What are low and high alloy steels?


Low-alloy steels are the ones which have up to 8% alloying elements whereas high-alloy steels have more than 8% alloying elements. There are around 20 alloying elements that can be added to carbon steel to produce various grades of alloy steel. These provide different types of properties.Jul 23, 2019

And also :

What is the difference between alloy steel and steel?


Alloy steel and carbon steel are such two types of steel. The main difference between alloy steel and carbon steel is that alloy steel has high amounts of other elements apart from iron and carbon whereas carbon steel has trace amounts of other elements apart from iron and carbon.Jun 21, 2017

So to correct the Topic title a bit,Most axe steel choices are Low-Alloy,Medium Carbon steel alloy.
For all the reasons discussed above this is the type of alloy suitable for axe-making.

Frankly, (and purely intuitively,lacking enough data), i'd tend to think that the Ht of an Ochsenkopf product is adequately Suitable.
However,what that means may be that Suitability is related to their engineering requirements.
That their idea of Hardness relates to their idea of Angle/shape of edge,ditto to type of Duty the tool intended for.

I realize that it may conflict with Your ideas on all these stats. To change these factors you'd need to change the Ht.

You could do it the backyard way (a number of us on here do), or you could take it to a reputable Ht joint (you may have to mail it).
If you do,you could ask to have the blade tested,on a calibrated Rc3 hardness tester first,and then request the whatever changes you consider desirable.

But first i'd double-check that the tool you have matches your requirements in all ways,is that the right Pattern for what you intent to do with it?
Is your idea of the edge geometry consistent with the pattern?
Is your idea of duty?
Because that's what the (responsible) manufacturer adjust the hardness to.

 

[jake pogg]

All modern alloys are created by melting the ingredients to a liquid state,then samples are taken and tested and the level of Carbon and other alloying elements adjusted to specs. (To what degree of niceity is a different question,but if that batch is numbered and stamped by most reputable manufacturers it's pretty consistent).

Molten alloy is poured into a cylindrical mold where it cools.

It cools from the outside-in,gradually,and so the crystallization takes place in the so-called "dendritic" pattern that has a central,axial symmetry,with "branches" extending radially from it.
Eventually,when that steel will drop below Austenitic T,the grains will form along that branching dendritic pattern.
A grain is a perfect crystalline arrangement of iron molecules,where the grains come together there's an imperfection that we term the Grain Boundary.
Grain size will change every time the grain re-forms with the T going above and below Austenitic,but they'll always form at those same nucleation sites (until the next time this alloy reaches Liquidus and then cools).

As that cylinder cools it goes through all sorts of rolling mills that shape it into whatever shape is needed. In that process the dendritic pattern is distorted,elongating in a directional manner,and that is what is referred to as the "grain".

Again,the nucleation being set by that original cooling pattern the grains will always nucleate according to it (it will also affect the distribution of other alloying elements and the forming of Carbides), every time the alloy undergoes a Phase-change,but in an axe-head the "flow" of that "grain" will not make a heck of any degree of difference!

Just simply because it's such a blocky,clunky shape,and because by means of your arm-muscles,+ a hickory stick,you'll Never find the boundaries of the mechanical stresses affecting that forging!

The "grain direction" is something they'd test for in some Very critical hardware in places like a big bad US Navy yard or similar circumstances. Forgings that are meant for some very serious loading.
Or smaller things where the dimensional stability under say thermal conditions are critical,some gear that needs to expand and contract in a very strictly concentric manner.

Closed-Die forging is,indeed,a very complex science. The physics involved in filling that die have a bearing on the structure of the forging,but not in a "grain" "flow" manner.
The flash surrounding a freshly forged part is a very calculated event,it reflects the force that was necessary to shape that forging correctly,the thickness of what gets squeezed out creates the necessary resistance,you may say.
It gets chopped flush in the subsequent stage and then ground,but never be fooled by the "rude" appearance of that ground seam.

Grinding the flash invisible is very time/energy/fuel - consuming chore,the manufacturers are probably saving you money not getting anal with it,on a tool where it's not critical to it's function.

We're all somewhat spoiled by the decades past,especially in the US where the competition among the many tool manufacturers was fierce,and a clean-ground head, intuitively appreciated by most of us,was another selling point (and the labor was dirt-cheap). If greatly desired any head can be ground clean and smooth by the owner,fairly uncomplicated chore.

 

[Sid Post]

The Iltis axe I have is pretty thin behind the edge and is thin through the cheeks so, for its 'application', I would think it is best to have harder steel than say a general use or splitting axe which will have a thicker and more blunt edge and fatter cheeks.

 

[catspa]

Thanks for posting that Jake, you bring up some points I hadn’t considered before.

There’s a thread going on Vaughan rigging hatchets right now, a topic which I mentioned on a different forum. That brought a comment that the last 20 years of them (and other Vaughan products implied) were cast rather than forged (basically the “blue paint” era). All mine are earlier specimens, but I would think drop forging is superior to casting for producing an impact tool, tougher and less brittle.

I have seen hatchets that I believed to be cast (not Vaughan), due to the rough factory finish or a visible “form ridge”, and thought them inferior to others that didn’t show that. I understand that a casting can be highly machined and/or polished, so you can’t always judge by looking.

So how does the average cheechako tell forged finished products from cast? Non-destructively, I mean. Does it grind or file differently, is there a simple chemical or magnetic test, or do I need Superman’s microscopic X-ray vision? Perhaps I just need to memorize all the mfgrs and when they used what processes (a rather daunting task).

I need a good way to distinguish the prime users from the Hatchet Shaped Objects. Any ideas?

Parker

 

[79Luca79]

"The Norms of european Countries about Axes recommend, and still do today, a C content of 0,6-0,7% for a good cutting edge retention.

However, the present investigations have shown that high demands must also be made on the toughness. Furthermore, it must be ensured that the toughness is maintained during the cold season, when the felling work is carried out at low temperatures. Higher carbon contents are not advisable, since with proper hardening and thin shaping of the blades, the desired hardness and cutting ability can be achieved at 0.50 C%. As early as 1953, Lüben (Dipl. Enginner) emphazised a carbon quenching and tempering plate melted in the Siemens Martin furnace with a carbon content of 0.45-0.53%."

Source: Die Konstruktionsgrundlagen der Axt, Gottfried Reissinger (1959)

So if you got a thick blade, unlike the 3-5 mm ORIGINAL Iltis or Müller Axes of today, you use no more than ~0,5% of C for the needed Toughness. As is the Case in Müller axes.

As we know Ochsenkopf in their Iltis today, uses 0,6%C, unlike ~1960.
They dont need the Toughness since their (stupid) thick Axes dont break either way and the People that use them dont sharpen them thin (i use 14° on my Müller Biber, Putzhacke and Tiroler Asthacke. My Prandi Dayton can not handle that Angle without bending. So i do not recommend it anymore. If someone interests this, i added this information?)

If you want a Iltis than get an original one from ~1960 (idk when they became bad and fat) or a Müller Biber.


My Müller Biber is 7,9 mm thick, in a distance 80 mm from edge. (Axe 180 mm long)
My Putzhacke 7,8 mm. (Overall blade is thicker quicker, but 20 mm longer so its the samd thickness at this measuring point)
My Tiroler Asthacke 7,5 mm. (Axe is 195 mm long)
(+-0,5 mm, since the thickness changes if you measure closer to heel or toe and how you reference "distance from edge" perpendicular from edge or Nape, bla bla bla)

The original Iltis (the non plus ultra) is 4,9 mm.
The Ochsenkopf Iltis today (I asked Ox by Email).....11 mm...

sad...

sorry for rambling

 

[79Luca79]

The Iltis axe I have is pretty thin behind the edge and is thin through the cheeks so, for its 'application', I would think it is best to have harder steel than say a general use or splitting axe which will have a thicker and more blunt edge and fatter cheeks.

This is the problem when we communicate over the internet in words even pictures. How thin is good for its application and what does "behind the edge" mean? The Majority here are americans and i know that your Axeblades of old are more than half as thick as old Axes from the Alpine Region, (also the newer ones today). This is why i made a Table of Axebladethicknessmeasurements a month ago, but nobody responded, only 1 person on Reddit did.
(This is more a general critique of this Forum/the Webz rather than directed at you, i mean no offense)

We cant compare Axes if People dont start measuring...

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

This is the problem when we communicate over the internet in words even pictures. How thin is good for its application and what does "behind the edge" mean? The Majority here are americans and i know that your Axeblades of old are more than half as thick as old Axes from the Alpine Region, (also the newer ones today). This is why i made a Table of Axebladethicknessmeasurements a month ago, but nobody responded, only 1 person on Reddit did.
(This is more a general critique of this Forum/the Webz rather than directed at you, i mean no offense)

We cant compare Axes if People dont start measuring...

Part of the problem is that you would need some very complicated diagram drawing and measurements or 3D scanning to really generate meaningfully useful information. It's otherwise just a bunch of numbers that aren't really *useful* for much. There's a lot of variables involved that aren't exactly the most trivial to record, and having only partial figures is not very useful without the context provided by the less-easy-to-measure aspects. This all takes a lot of time and effort without much payout so most folks will probably not actively contribute to such a project.

 

[jake pogg]

So how does the average cheechako tell forged finished products from cast? Non-destructively, I mean. Does it grind or file differently, is there a simple chemical or magnetic test, or do I need Superman’s microscopic X-ray vision?

Well,Sir, i'm afraid there's not an easy way to tell. Probably the least destructive would be to polish a spot,etch it with Nitric,and put it under a metallographic microscope. (what it translates to is a friend in a lab somewhere).

However,the good news is that the casting of steel in general is often misunderstood-a cast-steel object does Not equal a poor,inferior quality product,not in any general sense.

ALL steel has been cast at some point,the question is how well the process was controlled as far as what went into the mix,and how it was cycled thermally or mechanically in the subsequent stages.

The main difference for us,the non-metallurgists,is the Cost. Casting is significantly more expensive,from what i understand as much as 8x more than Forging.

To begin with,you'd be Very unlikely to run into a cast-steel axe-head.
Historically the idea was appealing to manufacturers,and apparently many,including W.C.Kelly had/(have?) patents registered attesting to that effect (anecdotal evidence for me at this point,alas i never got off my duff to research that closely).

In practice though,for reasons of economics or other,we don't really hear of any mass-produced cast axes until shortly before WWII,when Keech in Australia patent their famous "Keechsteel" products. (These are excellent axes,produced for several decades (not sure until when),and very sought after to this day).

After WWII the idea came up less and less. I'm aware only of a Finnish manufacturer Hogsfors who tried,and failed,to produce axes by casting in the 1970-ies. Otherwise all was quiet on the casting front.

Today to my knowledge only Ivan Tasev,in Bulgaria,is still experimenting with the process. He's an excellent metallurgist,and has gotten a hold of some dinosaur soviet equipment to play with,and is actually producing axe-heads that are cast.
He sells his tools on ebay under the handle "mapsyst",and also has a site,you may try http://axessive.com/
(He's a nice guy,very approachable,possibly you can pick his brain in regards to details).

Other than that again the odds of running into a cast axe-head are rather long,it was never a practical Or a cheap way to produce axes,and again-the result would in no wise be of an inferior quality,not for reason of it being cast in any case.

 

[79Luca79]

I already made such a Drawing. I drew the outline of my axe on a Paper that has 5x5mm Quadrats, so its easy for People to get a sense of scale without me needing to write measurements. (They can just count...) Then i made 3 lines perpendicular to the curtingedge measurements, add more for more precision obviuously. They represent thickness at heel, middle and toe. After that write your measurements on the Paper.
Alternativly everything can be made to reference the Lines of the Paper.

Good that you mention it, i also made a fully defined CAD Model of my Axes in Autocad.

Its too bad that many people on Youtube, Facebook, here or in other Forums ask about handle shape, thickness, blade thickness or shape over and over again without recieving informative answers that have some numbers in them.

Now take this how you will, but me being from Europe and knowing 3 Languages i post in English speaking, german and italian forums and noticed that only in the american Forums seem people to have something against Numbers or Formulad to calculate something. In the others, even English Forums they dont, so it has do to something with the Shool system rather than their System of Measure.

To be honest, the amount of answers and meaningful comments i get on my posts elsewhere are barely worth my time.

 

[crbnSteeladdict]

Well,Sir, i'm afraid there's not an easy way to tell. Probably the least destructive would be to polish a spot,etch it with Nitric,and put it under a metallographic microscope. (what it translates to is a friend in a lab somewhere).

However,the good news is that the casting of steel in general is often misunderstood-a cast-steel object does Not equal a poor,inferior quality product,not in any general sense.

ALL steel has been cast at some point,the question is how well the process was controlled as far as what went into the mix,and how it was cycled thermally or mechanically in the subsequent stages.

The main difference for us,the non-metallurgists,is the Cost. Casting is significantly more expensive,from what i understand as much as 8x more than Forging.

To begin with,you'd be Very unlikely to run into a cast-steel axe-head.
Historically the idea was appealing to manufacturers,and apparently many,including W.C.Kelly had/(have?) patents registered attesting to that effect (anecdotal evidence for me at this point,alas i never got off my duff to research that closely).

In practice though,for reasons of economics or other,we don't really hear of any mass-produced cast axes until shortly before WWII,when Keech in Australia patent their famous "Keechsteel" products. (These are excellent axes,produced for several decades (not sure until when),and very sought after to this day).

After WWII the idea came up less and less. I'm aware only of a Finnish manufacturer Hogsfors who tried,and failed,to produce axes by casting in the 1970-ies. Otherwise all was quiet on the casting front.

Today to my knowledge only Ivan Tasev,in Bulgaria,is still experimenting with the process. He's an excellent metallurgist,and has gotten a hold of some dinosaur soviet equipment to play with,and is actually producing axe-heads that are cast.
He sells his tools on ebay under the handle "mapsyst",and also has a site,you may try http://axessive.com/
(He's a nice guy,very approachable,possibly you can pick his brain in regards to details).

Other than that again the odds of running into a cast axe-head are rather long,it was never a practical Or a cheap way to produce axes,and again-the result would in no wise be of an inferior quality,not for reason of it being cast in any case.

What about Marion Tool Co and their Crafcoite cast axe heads?

 

[Albin]

Anyone know what steel and/or hardness of the Gerber/Fiskars axe heads?

I was given this 23.5" version several years ago as a gift; it's held up well, but I'm not an axe user.

 

[jake pogg]

What about Marion Tool Co and their Crafcoite cast axe heads?

There ya go,it's something that has never crossed my sights at all.
Were these good? I'd imagine there may well be others too,however small their market-share may've been.

Cautiously,but i think one may say that if a company ever did come out with cast product then they'd be more likely to brag on it,vs somehow try to slip it into the market on the sly.

 

[crbnSteeladdict]

There ya go,it's something that has never crossed my sights at all.
Were these good? I'd imagine there may well be others too,however small their market-share may've been.

Cautiously,but i think one may say that if a company ever did come out with cast product then they'd be more likely to brag on it,vs somehow try to slip it into the market on the sly.

They were cheapest option. https://archive.org/details/SimmonsKeenKutterCatalog1939Part/page/n145/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/WmFrankfurthCoHardwareCatalogNo5/page/n84/mode/1up?view=theater

 

[jake pogg]

They were cheapest option. https://archive.org/details/SimmonsKeenKutterCatalog1939Part/page/n145/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/WmFrankfurthCoHardwareCatalogNo5/page/n84/mode/1up?view=theater

That's Way cool,thank you for that.

Just in the general,the rumor/urban legend department,there isn't really much history on the cast heads being prone to failure,or other problems?

 

[veeteetee]

Well,Sir, i'm afraid there's not an easy way to tell. Probably the least destructive would be to polish a spot,etch it with Nitric,and put it under a metallographic microscope. (what it translates to is a friend in a lab somewhere).

However,the good news is that the casting of steel in general is often misunderstood-a cast-steel object does Not equal a poor,inferior quality product,not in any general sense.

ALL steel has been cast at some point,the question is how well the process was controlled as far as what went into the mix,and how it was cycled thermally or mechanically in the subsequent stages.

The main difference for us,the non-metallurgists,is the Cost. Casting is significantly more expensive,from what i understand as much as 8x more than Forging.

To begin with,you'd be Very unlikely to run into a cast-steel axe-head.
Historically the idea was appealing to manufacturers,and apparently many,including W.C.Kelly had/(have?) patents registered attesting to that effect (anecdotal evidence for me at this point,alas i never got off my duff to research that closely).

In practice though,for reasons of economics or other,we don't really hear of any mass-produced cast axes until shortly before WWII,when Keech in Australia patent their famous "Keechsteel" products. (These are excellent axes,produced for several decades (not sure until when),and very sought after to this day).

After WWII the idea came up less and less. I'm aware only of a Finnish manufacturer Hogsfors who tried,and failed,to produce axes by casting in the 1970-ies. Otherwise all was quiet on the casting front.

Today to my knowledge only Ivan Tasev,in Bulgaria,is still experimenting with the process. He's an excellent metallurgist,and has gotten a hold of some dinosaur soviet equipment to play with,and is actually producing axe-heads that are cast.
He sells his tools on ebay under the handle "mapsyst",and also has a site,you may try http://axessive.com/
(He's a nice guy,very approachable,possibly you can pick his brain in regards to details).

Other than that again the odds of running into a cast axe-head are rather long,it was never a practical Or a cheap way to produce axes,and again-the result would in no wise be of an inferior quality,not for reason of it being cast in any case.

The Finnish axe you are referring to is Högfors 10.

It was made by Högfors foundry using Kymenite ADI (Austempered Ductile Iron), a patented material developed in the early 1970s. The radical axe design came from the company advertisement department assisted by designer Jaakko Ahopalo. The developmental models were known as 10, 20 and 30. Model 10 was the final model and was produced in the early 1980s, but only in limited numbers as there were problems in use with fractured polls.

The axes are extremely rare but luckily I have these two:

If I´m correct there was also a smaller version Högfors 11.

 

[catspa]

They were cheapest option. https://archive.org/details/SimmonsKeenKutterCatalog1939Part/page/n145/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/WmFrankfurthCoHardwareCatalogNo5/page/n84/mode/1up?view=theater

cSa, there goes my weekend. Thank you and dang you for those links, all at the same time.

Luca, I saw your previous post, and like your idea, but data on my axes/hatchets would be useless to you and your readers (as an American who can read, not all my countrymen are skilled). My tools were used/worn out/damaged when they came to me, some modified or sharpened way back already, and I have modified some myself over the years. They are individual specimens now, not representative members of the batch they were formed in. Don’t want your readers misled into thinking theirs will be the same.

Perhaps we Americans are not so much opposed to measuring and calculating, as much as we are busy using our tools (or perhaps that’s too broad a brush to paint Americans with). When I get in a new (to me) vintage axe, half an hour of chopping or splitting wood gives me some useful feedback. I make a semi-informed guess about how to improve it, and embark on a trial and error process of modification that hopefully meets my expectations. It’s very individual and personal, and at the end of the day, not really applicable to you and your axe(s).

I think it’s cool when another person does it too, but their approach and process and target differs from mine, sometimes greatly. So I’m afraid my contribution to your data set would fall somewhere between irrelevant and meaningless.

Parker

 

[Ernest DuBois]

I don't think making measurments and enumerating dimensions is anything too difficult, it takes time and some effort's all and is a pretty standard way of communicating an idea into something sensible/translatable. If I wish the blacksmith to make an axe of my own fancy ideally I'd be standing next to him the whole way but if not and even in that case, I'm positive any blacksmith is more comfortable with a sensible drawing from minimal two perspectives and indications of thicknesses at reasonable intervals. This is not unreasonable, in fact it's the very least that's required. Straightfoward and by no means mysterious which only comes once the axe gets put to use with innumerable variables at that point.

 

[catspa]

Hey, Ernest. Good to hear from you.

I agree, and if I thought anybody wanted to forge out a duplicate of a tool I had, it’d be well worthwhile. But I read Luca to be compiling a database of manufactured axes, which none of mine are in the “as manufactured” state anymore.

Truly, he should be anticipating the inevitable public demand for “a hatchet just like the one Parker uses”, but I don’t think he grasps the significance of that. Yet.

Also, there’s not just one. Last week I used two different drywall hatchets, a Vaughan mini-shingler, and a lath hatchet similar to yours (for some kindling). So folks will have to pick their poison (unless they want to collect the whole set).

S’okay, when the clamor arises, I’ll generously share the arcane secrets I’ve hidden for so long. Maybe I’ll post them in Spanish, to weed out the insufficiently motivated (or too buried under a pile of chips) Americans. And Luca can have first dibs on translating my scrivenings into German and/or Italian. They’ll be fractional though, not metric.

Thank you to Jake for the insights. Much appreciated.

Parker