Not a great debut for the new Council Wood-Craft Pack Axe

Woodcraft said:
Here is an example of a working edge I use for frozen oak. The close up was after the work. I cut down the center part way with a chain saw. I allowed this oak to get soaked rain snow and slush. From the top down. From the ground up. And from the sides. Then I waited for it to freeze. You can see the ice in the center. This was a test to test an edge on an unwarmed axe on frozen oak on a below 25° day. It suffered no damage. It also had gone through some abusive splitting. I banged up the handle and drove it into the ice and ground more than once. No damage.
Thin bits are to blame more often than not.

2il0dpg.jpg

110xgyt.jpg

2i0x6q.jpg
Click to expand...

Edit for unclear picture
 
Let's be wary of generalising

Council has made over 6000 of the Pack axe now and had a problem on one day.

The edge is intended to be 25 degrees. My example was 27-28.
 
BG_Farmer said:
Let me be cynical. The problem is likely not the steel, the heat treatment, or the hardness, except as incidental factors. It is the ambition of the design, which appears to attempt too much. The thinnish flat grind and sharp corners, etc., make it suitable for finer tasks such as carving, while the phantom bevels and other features appear to tempt use as a general purpose axe. The design probably does nothing that the Hudson bay can't do as well or better, but it looks like it can. If these were selling for $50 or so, I'd say, it is what it is, but it really begs to be held to a higher standard, as do other boutique axes, which often have similar form before function deficiencies.

On the corners, I'd like to point out that the Michigan pattern, along with several other time-tested designs, has rounded corners. That is not for looks.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I own all the axes you mentioned and haven't noticed a geometry issue, The GB SFA is even thinner the the WC and Hasn't had any issues. I've wailed on my WC and it's done fine I'd argue they run soft but sharpen easy.
 
BG_Farmer said:
Let me be cynical. The problem is likely not the steel, the heat treatment, or the hardness, except as incidental factors. It is the ambition of the design, which appears to attempt too much. The thinnish flat grind and sharp corners, etc., make it suitable for finer tasks such as carving, while the phantom bevels and other features appear to tempt use as a general purpose axe. The design probably does nothing that the Hudson bay can't do as well or better, but it looks like it can. If these were selling for $50 or so, I'd say, it is what it is, but it really begs to be held to a higher standard, as do other boutique axes, which often have similar form before function deficiencies.

On the corners, I'd like to point out that the Michigan pattern, along with several other time-tested designs, has rounded corners. That is not for looks.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

They are playing to the bush craft crowd and the axes are ground like a Scandinavian knife. It's not by accident or because it's better. They are getting way out there with their designs.
The size and weight of their new saddle axe is right for me but I just can't get past what isn't right. It's OK though, as long as the bushcraft crowd eats them up.
I don't mean to offend all the bushcrafters out there I know some of them know what's up it's just that the vast majority are completely clueless.
 
garry3 said:
They are playing to the bush craft crowd and the axes are ground like a Scandinavian knife. It's not by accident or because it's better. They are getting way out there with their designs.
The size and weight of their new saddle axe is right for me but I just can't get past what isn't right. It's OK though, as long as the bushcraft crowd eats them up.
I don't mean to offend all the bushcrafters out there I know some of them know what's up it's just that the vast majority are completely clueless.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with the saddle axe? Did you pick one up?
 
DeadboxHero said:
Whats wrong with the saddle axe? Did you pick one up?
Click to expand...

No I didn't. They almost got it right. They left the top and bottom of the cheeks thick, so there isn't really a high center line like it should have even though they have phantom bevels. And they have those real long flat chisel ground blades. It's odd. Might be able to fix it but it would be work. All they had to do was make it like America has been making axes for better than a hundred years. I can't explain why they don't.

I can't recommend this guys review but he shows the geometry well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohEsUQHovv4
 
garry3 said:
No I didn't. They almost got it right. They left the top and bottom of the cheeks thick, so there isn't really a high center line like it should have even though they have phantom bevels. And they have those real long flat chisel ground blades. It's odd. Might be able to fix it but it would be work. All they had to do was make it like America has been making axes for better than a hundred years. I can't explain why they don't.

I can't recommend this guys review but he shows the geometry well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohEsUQHovv4
Click to expand...

I can assure you that a high center-line was built into the design and functions properly... putting a straight edge across the back side of the bevel will show the high center-line...on such a light-weight axe, in conjunction with a cruiser sized eye for strength and the thickness needed to create the phantom bevels, there is a lot going on, and a balance was found... the axe performs well with both bit geometries...

Chopping is believing... :)

Peace, Rooster
 
RoosterMod said:
I can assure you that a high center-line was built into the design and functions properly... putting a straight edge across the back side of the bevel will show the high center-line...on such a light-weight axe, in conjunction with a cruiser sized eye for strength and the thickness needed to create the phantom bevels, there is a lot going on, and a balance was found... the axe performs well with both bit geometries...

Chopping is believing... :)

Peace, Rooster
Click to expand...

I will try before I buy.;)
 
Ziggy99 said:
Well, this is where that over-large phantom bevel comes into play. It's the toe and there's not a huge amount of meat up there. I don't want to start my life with this axe by sacrificing some of it.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. With so little bit even a few sharpenings will change both the appearance and fucntion of the axe.
 
Square_peg said:
Despite the advertising I see no welt in that sheath.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I do. In the photo of the axe going through the stitching you can see that the bit is riding up over the welt. It's just hard to see because of the contrast level and the angle.
 
Thanks. I see it now. I wonder how the axe got around it. Perhaps it's long on the inside and left a flap for the axe to get into. A couple more rivets might help.
 
Perhaps the welt wasn't glued, and could use such treatment. Perhaps it was just the weird angle it jostled in the box at. When resting on its side it's going to have the edge drift to the side it's laying on, so that's my guess.
 
The purpose/function of a welt is to prevent what happened there. It's something I look for in a sheath. Of current sheath makers Weaver seems to include them always. Sheaths from Ben Meadows or Harry Epstein don't have welts.
 
I have been making my own. It seems that stitching is the highest regarded but I have sheaths that the stitching has worn out. So I have just been glueing with cooper rivets. Maybe all stitching isn't created equal and I should look into it?
 
This particular failure
UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_23e_zpst0isgris.jpg
Click to expand...
could just be a one in 1,000 defect. Obviously these things happen and CT made good on it to the customer's satisfaction.

I would hope that CT examined that sheath after if it was returned to see if it was a defect.


Bob
 
Square_peg said:
The purpose/function of a welt is to prevent what happened there. It's something I look for in a sheath. Of current sheath makers Weaver seems to include them always. Sheaths from Ben Meadows or Harry Epstein don't have welts.
Click to expand...

By the same token, put swing any sharp axe with the cover on it, and regardless of if there's a welt or not you'll chop clean through it. We don't necessarily know how much force was placed on it.

As far as a welt preventing such a situation, I'd say that it just greatly minimizes the chance of it--it doesn't make it impossible. What I was getting at is that if the bit is resting on the join of the sheath and welt it can still wedge between and sever the stitching. A welt just makes it much less likely because the form is no longer funneling the edge straight towards the unprotected stitching and by being off center the seams are kept out of the way by the edge's shoulder unless it gets scrunched/twisted somehow.
 
garry3 said:
I have been making my own. It seems that stitching is the highest regarded but I have sheaths that the stitching has worn out. So I have just been glueing with cooper rivets. Maybe all stitching isn't created equal and I should look into it?
Click to expand...

It's not unheard of to glue, stitch, and rivet.:)


Bob
 
All of Condor's sheaths use all three. Glued and stitched with riveted stress points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top