Why isn't S2 steel used for axe heads?

B

BlindGoldenRetriever

Joined
Feb 29, 2024
Messages
11
I was looking around at axes and saw these cheap axes for like 12$. Thats less relevant to me. spoiler alert the handles are made out of iphone glass, cigarettes or something . I'm more curious about the head. S2 steel seems like on paper a good candidate for an axe. Is there some fatal flaw I'm missing, Any reason cartech s2 shock absorbing steel would make a poor head? Or is the conventional why bother when 1060 works great.

AXE-112_1024x.jpg
 
Iron, Fe​
97.0
Silicon​
1.05
Carbon, C​
0.4-0.55
Molybdenum, Mo​
0.4
Manganese, Mn​
0.4
Vanadium, V​
≤0.5
Phosphorus, P​
≤0.03
Sulfur, S​
≤0.03
 
I agree .45-70% carbon I get it. We all know the gimmick. Ive gone through dozens of old catalog with "special alloy steel" "super quality tool steel" "high carbon steel" that's just 1055-1065 or some majestic swedish steel thats just a recycled European equivalent. I'm just curious of the trade offs of s2 vs say 1060 or 5160, 4140. With the advancements of knife steel, it's kept the market alive. With axes it's usually buy gb, council, or find something older than a Countach
 
Mostly because for the context, it really doesn't matter enough to make a difference for most users, and in knives there's more steel types that you can purchase in relatively low quantities and appropriate formats for manufacturing via stock removal. Could they use more exotic steels in axes? Sure. But cost tends to be the biggest driver with axes since the forging dies cost so much that only volume can bring the price down, and it's so much easier to move a large volume of less expensive axes. Since the performance difference is miniscule or even non-existent, they opt for the most economical grade of suitable steel they can get their hands on without too much hassle.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Mostly because for the context, it really doesn't matter enough to make a difference for most users, and in knives there's more steel types that you can purchase in relatively low quantities and appropriate formats for manufacturing via stock removal. Could they use more exotic steels in axes? Sure. But cost tends to be the biggest driver with axes since the forging dies cost so much that only volume can bring the price down, and it's so much easier to move a large volume of less expensive axes. Since the performance difference is miniscule or even non-existent, they opt for the most economical grade of suitable steel they can get their hands on without too much hassle.
Click to expand...
I guess but council tool has made a killing charging 3x for an old leaf spring steel, that's usually not hardened enoughn5160 is notoriously hard to forge weld. What hardcore hammers made a company by using 4140. I see all these American axes companies getting shipped to Mexico, where people recommend buying Chinese trail bosses, or old axe heads. The steel is the cheap part, it's the work and heat treat that costs the company. I want to see American steel take the initiative innovating , over sending their legacy to China & india bc unlike them they're not afraid to try something new. Then again axes are prettyuch obsolescent, in the world of chainsaws and hydrologic splitters
 
BlindGoldenRetriever said:
I guess but council tool has made a killing charging 3x for an old leaf spring steel, that's usually not hardened enoughn5160 is notoriously hard to forge weld. What hardcore hammers made a company by using 4140. I see all these American axes companies getting shipped to Mexico, where people recommend buying Chinese trail bosses, or old axe heads. The steel is the cheap part, it's the work and heat treat that costs the company. I want to see American steel take the initiative innovating , over sending their legacy to China & india bc unlike them they're not afraid to try something new. Then again axes are prettyuch obsolescent, in the world of chainsaws and hydrologic splitters
Click to expand...
All the alloys innovated in autos, metal work, drilling hammer drilling & a wrought iron axe with a steel core from 120 years ago is usually a better tool
 
BlindGoldenRetriever said:
I guess but council tool has made a killing charging 3x for an old leaf spring steel, that's usually not hardened enoughn5160 is notoriously hard to forge weld. What hardcore hammers made a company by using 4140. I see all these American axes companies getting shipped to Mexico, where people recommend buying Chinese trail bosses, or old axe heads. The steel is the cheap part, it's the work and heat treat that costs the company. I want to see American steel take the initiative innovating , over sending their legacy to China & india bc unlike them they're not afraid to try something new. Then again axes are prettyuch obsolescent, in the world of chainsaws and hydrologic splitters
Click to expand...

And higher alloy steels are more difficult to forge, which results in more wear on the dies, meaning they wear out faster and results in a higher cost per unit of production, in addition to more machine hours, and more abrasives and time to finish grind, for more consumable and labor costs.

The fact is that where modern axes fall flat is almost never in the raw materials, and almost always in the geometry and heat treatment. There are limits to how thin drop forging can go, meaning additional processes are required to achieve geometries with thinner sections. The softer heat treatment of most axes these days is not only to reduce finish grinding times, but also because the nature of axe work means that having a bit soft enough to file is of benefit to most users. It's true that the steel is the cheap part, but that completely ignores the costs in abrasives, tooling, and labor that directly result from those changes in steel and heat treatment decisions.

You asked why fancier steels aren't used -- this is why. The functional difference is essentially nil and all of your costs would HAVE to go up before you'd see even those very marginal performance increases. It's simply not a good value proposition.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
And higher alloy steels are more difficult to forge, which results in more wear on the dies, meaning they wear out faster and results in a higher cost per unit of production, in addition to more machine hours, and more abrasives and time to finish grind, for more consumable and labor costs.

The fact is that where modern axes fall flat is almost never in the raw materials, and almost always in the geometry and heat treatment. There are limits to how thin drop forging can go, meaning additional processes are required to achieve geometries with thinner sections. The softer heat treatment of most axes these days is not only to reduce finish grinding times, but also because the nature of axe work means that having a bit soft enough to file is of benefit to most users. It's true that the steel is the cheap part, but that completely ignores the costs in abrasives, tooling, and labor that directly result from those changes in steel and heat treatment decisions.

You asked why fancier steels aren't used -- this is why. The functional difference is essentially nil and all of your costs would HAVE to go up before you'd see even those very marginal performance increases. It's simply not a good value proposition.
Click to expand...
I agree most new axes have worse angle geometry & a soft heat treat. I don't think abrasives have anything to do with it. The truth is most otc axes r for, and by people that don't use axes. They're made for the lowest common denominator. The dad that may split a few logs. The "Fancy" steels I'm taking about isn't m4 or cruwear. I'm talking about slightly different steels, that have mostly the same tradeoffs & are cheap. That the most cramped sweat shop in South Asian have no problem working & shining it. I guess my real issue i I didn't realize the axe just isn't all that important compared to decades ago. I guess Council tools with their 130$ bad boys axe, 5160 line, & hardcore hammers 210$.for their 4140 boys axe have found what's been keeping knives sort after. Or iphones and Samsung for their phone releases. Marginal advancements. Men want the next best gadget/tool
 
BlindGoldenRetriever said:
I agree most new axes have worse angle geometry & a soft heat treat. I don't think abrasives have anything to do with it. The truth is most otc axes r for, and by people that don't use axes. They're made for the lowest common denominator. The dad that may split a few logs. The "Fancy" steels I'm taking about isn't m4 or cruwear. I'm talking about slightly different steels, that have mostly the same tradeoffs & are cheap. That the most cramped sweat shop in South Asian have no problem working & shining it. I guess my real issue i I didn't realize the axe just isn't all that important compared to decades ago. I guess Council tools with their 130$ bad boys axe, 5160 line, & hardcore hammers 210$.for their 4140 boys axe have found what's been keeping knives sort after. Or iphones and Samsung for their phone releases. Marginal advancements. Men want the next best gadget/tool
Click to expand...
Frankly, and I say this with kindness, I think you started a thread asking a question you didn't know the answer to but were very confident in your opinion on and wanted people to agree with you. To qualify my statements, I am literally an axe (and other tools) designer and am friends with others, and all of them (and myself) do not design with non-axe users specifically in mind. They would all confirm what I've written here, along with other finer details that ultimately aren't worth getting into. The fact is that cost and convenience (availability and ease of sourcing) play the bulk of the role simply because the specific steel doesn't matter much compared to being in the generally correct broad family of appropriate steels. Other factors play a much more significant role. There may be theoretical differences between different steels, but none meaningfully noticeable to the end user in the overwhelming majority of cases because they all perform roughly the same within their relevant ranges of use for an axe. Other design criteria and specifications are much more impactful on the final product.
 
It seems you're taking this a little personal. The avg person picking up an axe from the hardware store today vs the early 60s probably have vastly different expectations. I agree the others geometry heat treat play major roles. I don't care if people agree with me, I'm asking the controversial question. So cost and convenience are bigger concerns than trying to improve the quality, I guess companies using 3cr13 is proof. Maybe any difference is only theoretical, but id sure like to see 80 years of alloying recipes with a range of heat treats go head to head with the basic 1060. and chart the tradeoffs.
 
BlindGoldenRetriever said:
It seems you're taking this a little personal. The avg person picking up an axe from the hardware store today vs the early 60s probably have vastly different expectations. I agree the others geometry heat treat play major roles. I don't care if people agree with me, I'm asking the controversial question. So cost and convenience are bigger concerns than trying to improve the quality, I guess companies using 3cr13 is proof. Maybe any difference is only theoretical, but id sure like to see 80 years of alloying recipes with a range of heat treats go head to head with the basic 1060. and chart the tradeoffs.
Click to expand...

I'm not taking it personally whatsoever, it's just you're repeatedly ignoring what I'm saying as someone who has direct experience working in the industry. There's literally no controversy over it--it's very well established.

The historical steel grades were generally poorer than basic 1055-1080 is today. We have better consistency in the raw materials, and that allows us to now get more consistent heat treatment as a result. However, the biggest limiting factor in geometry is the drop forging process. You can hand-forge, open-die forge, or forge press a geometry to thinner dimensions than you can with drop forging, which means that you don't need as much finish grinding to achieve a good result, but that work is higher-skilled "work of risk" where there's a greater chance of screwing up and ruining a head due to one misplaced blow. In addition to it being difficult to find, hire, and retain workers capable of that kind of work at a price the mass market will bear, due to labor market changes over history, you do have a higher failure rate in finished product (historical makers sold their "second rate" heads at a discount to offload them), and more man-hours. Some small shops have had success returning to this model of production, but their products are MUCH more expensive than the ones from volume manufacturers and/or take advantage of exchange rates to bring cost down to something North American and Western European buyers of boutique axes can stomach.

Some historical manufacturers used alloy steels (mostly similar to 5160 etc.) rather than plain carbon steels, but most advertised things like "special analysis" steels and so on which just meant that they were making sure the raw material they received was consistently the proper grade without significant variation, which used to happen a lot, and impacted everything from the forging behaviors to heat treatment needed, and you can't dial in your production and heat treatment well without that consistency. Nevertheless there were countless axes made and broken historically that were the result of poor steel or heat treatment, often resulting from things like cold shuts/delamination in welded bits, inclusions, or the steel simply not being consistent batch to batch and resulting in the heat treatment protocol they used not producing the results they were shooting for. We tend to get a lot of survivor bias in old axes today because out of the ones that were used only the "good ones" made it.

Cost and convenience are bigger factors in why fancier steels aren't used, yes, but that's not necessarily out of "not wanting to improve the quality" so much as it just literally not conferring meaningful benefit vs. other factors that would have to be addressed first before any measurable difference could be attributed to the steel choice, and even then it would be minimal. Like you don't need a V8 engine in a golf cart, you don't need fancy steel to make a high quality axe. There are many premium axes, not just in price, but in performance/design/labor that are made from plain steels. You can easily heat treat 1060 hard enough a file won't reliably bite it and have it hold up, but ironing out any edge damage from hitting a rock (which will damage any axe of any steel) is a challenge if you can't use a file in the field to get that head back to work, and have to grind it out instead.

Essentially, define the "better" qualities you want out of an axe, and most of them are going to boil down to things that need to change in the geometry and heat treatment more than the steel. If a steel that improves those qualities is more expensive and less convenient to purchase and turn into a finished product, it needs to be meaningfully better than the easier cheaper thing. If the easier, cheaper thing works 99.99% as well as the less convenient, more expensive thing, it's simply not a good value proposition for the maker OR buyer.
 
I predict that will be true for the average person in the 2060s as well.

Edit: I don’t mean that in any way as a slap at Larrin. I mean that metallurgy is an obscure field of study that few people are interested in.

I ask my friends (many of whom are significantly above average in some area) about knife steels and they don’t even recognize 1095. They choose their cutting tools on the basis of durability, performance, cost, and sometimes looks.

Those are properties indirectly affected by steel choice, in common with a number of other factors. They also don’t differentiate between convex, Scandi, and hollow grinds, or know what degree of microbevel they prefer.

When they’re in the kitchen, they want it to slice a ripe tomato. When they’re at work, they want it to open packages. When they go camping, they want it to whittle a hot dog stick. When they bring it to me dull, they want me to give it back to them sharp.

“Magnacut? Yeah, I think I’ve seen a couple of their videos. Are they the ones that always wear the shiny gold tights?”

Go down to your local auto shop and ask what steel their wrenches are made from.

Parker
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
If a steel that improves those qualities is more expensive and less convenient to purchase and turn into a finished product, it needs to be meaningfully better than the easier cheaper thing. If the easier, cheaper thing works 99.99% as well as the less convenient, more expensive thing, it's simply not a good value proposition for the maker OR buyer
Click to expand...
you're ignoring much of what I am saying. I agree that heat treat and edge geometry are extremely important. You ignore the avg desk jockey grabbing an axe off a shelf for a camping trip or to split wood by his firepit has different expectations than a tradesman 60-100 years ago. ex the rise of 3cr13mov axes. To the quote above I find this point completely contradicted by the knife market and this forum. So many knife steels are marginally better & make a killing for companies. Imo d2 works 99.9% as well or better as s30v, yet the market sold a ton. Council tool velvicut are 2-3x the price and the suv versions, work 99% as well. We could go into almost every field from tech, to automobiles, to firearms. Almost every old axe catalog had different lines, a budget & premium, & mostly wasn't the edge geometry being marketed. I'm arguing for premium. I probably don't own an axe outside of a 1xxx equivalent, & they work great. So is there a reason s2 wouldn't make for a good axe? If India can make and sell these heads to an american company that sells a 17" hatchet for 12$ & boys axe for 21, & a felling axe for 22. Is the ease & cheapness of requisition the factor? I get some are harder to forge/machine. But the amount of d2 coming out of China makes me question that barrier
 
BlindGoldenRetriever said:
you're ignoring much of what I am saying. I agree that heat treat and edge geometry are extremely important. You ignore the avg desk jockey grabbing an axe off a shelf for a camping trip or to split wood by his firepit has different expectations than a tradesman 60-100 years ago. ex the rise of 3cr13mov axes. To the quote above I find this point completely contradicted by the knife market and this forum. So many knife steels are marginally better & make a killing for companies. Imo d2 works 99.9% as well or better as s30v, yet the market sold a ton. Council tool velvicut are 2-3x the price and the suv versions, work 99% as well. We could go into almost every field from tech, to automobiles, to firearms. Almost every old axe catalog had different lines, a budget & premium, & mostly wasn't the edge geometry being marketed. I'm arguing for premium. I probably don't own an axe outside of a 1xxx equivalent, & they work great. So is there a reason s2 wouldn't make for a good axe? If India can make and sell these heads to an american company that sells a 17" hatchet for 12$ & boys axe for 21, & a felling axe for 22. Is the ease & cheapness of requisition the factor? I get some are harder to forge/machine. But the amount of d2 coming out of China makes me question that barrier
Click to expand...

No

No

Think that answered both questions.

See FortyTwoBlades FortyTwoBlades posts above for why.
 
I'm just going to assume youre in the if it ain't broke don't fix it camp. While I'm like wouldn't it be cool if we could test out all these different alloys and see how they stack up. They make jackhammer bits out of this. I wonder how that would do in an axe. Is a little molybdenum & vanadium going to morph into inconel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top