Who knows about Axe steels?

D

DocT

Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
5,437
Hi Folks,

Who knows anything about the steels commonly used in axes? Which is the best steel and how hard is nominal?
I am talking about cruisers and hatchets.

Also, is there a difference in choice of steels for combat oriented axes?
 
From a previous thread, What is the deal with the steel..., listing the steel requirements in the FSS specs, the (approximate) steel type used by Gransfors, and the steels used for axes in the early 1900s:

Steve Tall said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Axe steel hardness:

from FSS specs:
3.2.1.2 Hardness. The ax bit shall have a hardness of 54 to 58 inclusive on the Rockwell C scale. This hardness shall extend to a distance of 1-1/4 inches ±1/4 inch back from the cutting edge. Within 1 inch of the eye of the tool, the steel hardness shall not exceed 45 on the Rockwell C scale. All hardness values shall be determined as specified in 4.5.1.2. The specified hardness shall extend through the entire thickness of the tool head steel.
http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/documents/5100_9D.pdf

from Council Tool site:
ANSI Standards call for bit hardness of Rc 45-60, at least ½ inch back from the cutting edge. Council Tool internal standards call for tempered bit hardness of Rc 48-55 and we target 1-1/4 inches from the cutting edge. The poll and eye walls are not hardened and remain in the as forged condition.
http://www.counciltool.com/DisplayCategories.asp?pg=displaycategories&category=10

Council Tool's premium line of Velvicut axes uses 5160 steel, hardened to Rc 50-54.
http://www.counciltool.com/DisplayCategories.asp?pg=displaycategories&category=79
 
Now that is interesting. Thanks for the information. I have some studying to do.
 
Steve Tall said:
Axe steel hardness:

from FSS specs:
3.2.1.2 Hardness. The ax bit shall have a hardness of 54 to 58 inclusive on the Rockwell C scale. This hardness shall extend to a distance of 1-1/4 inches ±1/4 inch back from the cutting edge. Within 1 inch of the eye of the tool, the steel hardness shall not exceed 45 on the Rockwell C scale. All hardness values shall be determined as specified in 4.5.1.2. The specified hardness shall extend through the entire thickness of the tool head steel.
http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/programs/fire/documents/5100_9D.pdf

from Council Tool site:
ANSI Standards call for bit hardness of Rc 45-60, at least ½ inch back from the cutting edge. Council Tool internal standards call for tempered bit hardness of Rc 48-55 and we target 1-1/4 inches from the cutting edge. The poll and eye walls are not hardened and remain in the as forged condition.
http://www.counciltool.com/DisplayCategories.asp?pg=displaycategories&category=10

Council Tool's premium line of Velvicut axes uses 5160 steel, hardened to Rc 50-54.
http://www.counciltool.com/DisplayCategories.asp?pg=displaycategories&category=79
Click to expand...



I also want to add my thanks for providing this. I am not sure if I'm reading the notes correctly but doesn't Council Tool's minimum standard fly in the face of the specifications listed in the first part? Even their Velvicut axe line seems to be short of the recommended RC scale.
 
mako20ft said:
I also want to add my thanks for providing this. I am not sure if I'm reading the notes correctly but doesn't Council Tool's minimum standard fly in the face of the specifications listed in the first part? Even their Velvicut axe line seems to be short of the recommended RC scale.
Click to expand...

I suspect you'll have to use (and abuse!) a chopping tool an awful lot in order to really appreciate whether it's a tad too soft or smidgen too hard. Soft polls are first on the list for ordinary choppers but they shouldn't be used for pounding metal or rocks anyway. Chipped blades is next (brittle hard) or at the other end of the scale; constantly dulled (too little temper) blades. Somewhere along the way you really have to trust an established and reputable maker to have done his/her homework for your benefit. In that regard a $15 new axe with no stamp or identifier on it can not be expected to perform like an established domestic company's proudly stamped $100 product. That "you get what you pay for" is hardly a recent jingle although 'boutique' Swedish outfits, that don't mass-produce their stuff, can obviously not be expected to compare (price vs quality) within that sort of market.
 
mako20ft said:
...doesn't Council Tool's minimum standard fly in the face of the specifications listed in the first part? Even their Velvicut axe line seems to be short of the recommended RC scale.
Click to expand...

Council's hardness standards would meet the listed ANSI requirements for axes, and could meet the FSS specs at the end of the range (54 or 55 Rc).

Just checked the Wayback Machine, to see what Council wrote about those FSS boy's axes. They are said to be made to Forest Service standards. They wrote "ANSI Standards call for bit hardness of Rc 54-58" but they must be referring to FSS and not ANSI standards. Then they list Council's internal standards of 48-55 Rc.

So it's unclear what hardness Council was actually providing for these FSS axes they were retailing to the public. 54-55 Rc? Or ,aybe the FSS axes that they retailed were from the batches that failed to reach the FSS specs for hardness???


https://web.archive.org/web/20130204005315/http://www.counciltool.com/product.asp?pg=product&item=22DV28C%20FSS
 
300Six said:
That "you get what you pay for" is hardly a recent jingle
Click to expand...


I've learned many things in my years as a guide and other assorted. There are so few things left where a consumer really does "get what they pay for". Blade Forums has taught me more about the importance of the core steel and also the wicked difference between proper Heat Treat and how close it can be to miserable.

I think in my experience "one" of the only other general products where pricing really does reflect what to expect for performance is Optics. Binoculars, rifle scopes, spotting scopes...each plays a critical part and the hunter who cheaps out gives me some idea of what the next 3 days will bring.
 
That is a huge range in hardness.

Also, I noted the carbon content you quoted:
"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.""

Granfor Bruks and Council seem to be off the mark of high carbon content.
 
Wetterlings seems to have a similar formula to GB and the way they heat treat the steel. Hardness is listed as Rockwell C 57.

I wonder what some of the other maker's have/use?
 
Gränsfors Bruk and Finnish makers use Ovako steel, bits or the entire head.
John Neeman tools uses plethora of steels ranging from L6 to German Silver steels
I noticed Russian and Finnish makers also prefers their version of ball bearing steels.
Japanese as i know uses White or Aogami steel bits.


Bottom line is.....this is just ONE part of the equation.
 
Last edited:
DocT said:
Wetterlings seems to have a similar formula to GB and the way they heat treat the steel. Hardness is listed as Rockwell C 57.

I wonder what some of the other maker's have/use?
Click to expand...

H & B Forge: We use 1095 in the bit which runs down the center of the blade. That is wrapped with 1018.Once they are forged they are very hard. So they are quenched and drawn back out again. This is done to soften them some. Otherwise they would be too hard and brittle and would break when thrown. The throwing hawks are hardened to 35-40 Rockwell and the Camps and spikes to the mid 50s.
 
DocT said:
Wetterlings seems to have a similar formula to GB and the way they heat treat the steel. Hardness is listed as Rockwell C 57.

I wonder what some of the other maker's have/use?
Click to expand...

H & B Forge: We use 1095 in the bit which runs down the center of the blade. That is wrapped with 1018.Once they are forged they are very hard. So they are quenched and drawn back out again. This is done to soften them some. Otherwise they would be too hard and brittle and would break when thrown. The throwing hawks are hardened to 35-40 Rockwell and the Camps and spikes to the mid 50s.
 
Thanks for the education everyone. I find this fascinating.

Now, 1095 makes sense to my pea brain as it has a high carbon content. The Aogami I am a bit familiar with. But some of those others I do not know much about. Do they have high carbon or is there something else that makes them good choices for axes? Axes must be able to hold an edge and also be able to take a pounding. That is a tall order.

JayGoliath, you mentioned that steel was only one part of the equation and I presume good heat treatment is another. What else?
 
barber said:
We use 1095 in the bit which runs down the center of the blade. .....
The throwing hawks are hardened to 35-40 Rockwell and the Camps and spikes to the mid 50s.
Click to expand...

That's a respectable axe bit. I suppose there's not a market for full sized axes with nice full cheeks made this way.............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top