Best axes.

[Graham]

draw back with gransfos is the axe head is rather on the fat side unlike a proper side axe witch is thin. i have a elwell 4lb axe and it is a dream to work with. as other post a nice thin 2lb axe would be nice to have in tool kit.

can you show some photos of the ox head be interested in what it looks like.

i am trying to thin down my gransfos on the wet stone but will take time to get it nice and thin. but a good axe for hedgelaying.

my other tool is my elweel spar hook nice and small with a sharp edge ideal for cleaning binders when cut down. and for cleaning wiskers up on hedge

 

I'll try and get a few shots tomorrow. If ever we meet up you can try it out.

[morten]

Funnily enough, no. The process of forging causes grain refinement and alignment. You just wouldn't get the same microstructure by machining from a billet.

 

In addition to the technical considerations, it isn't that cost-effective. Consider the shape of rectangular section billet you would need to start with and think about how much weight that is. The scrap is of negligible value so you are wasting that. You would also get through a lot of tool wear to machine it out. You would also have all the heat-treatment costs to get the hardening and tempering, which pretty much offsets the energy costs in forging. In the end it's cheaper just to forge it.

 

There is a smith I know who I spent a week with who is brilliant at forging tools. He particularly specialises in hammers. I first ran across him when I needed a pair of shearing hammers (used for a particular job in wooden boatbuilding). He made them to a drawing, forging by eye and measuring to dimension and supplied them (complete with handles) at £25 each. I think you would struggle to match this by machining them.

 

Alec

 

I agree. Metallurgy is a very complex science. Direction and size of the metal crystals are determined by the temperature and processing (hammering) done my the blacksmith. An axe milled out of a lump of mild steel would not be nearly as strong.

 

A good read When a Metallurgist met a Blacksmith - John Aveson, Cambridge University; Gordon Bevan, blacksmith in Eltisley. - The Naked Scientists

 

 

I happen to know that the blacksmiths at Gränsfors are quite happy to produce custom axes, provided they get a specification to work by. But communication and shipment may prohibit that from happening.

Edited March 2, 2014 by morten

[Rune]

Funnily enough, no. The process of forging causes grain refinement and alignment. You just wouldn't get the same microstructure by machining from a billet.

 

In addition to the technical considerations, it isn't that cost-effective. Consider the shape of rectangular section billet you would need to start with and think about how much weight that is. The scrap is of negligible value so you are wasting that. You would also get through a lot of tool wear to machine it out. You would also have all the heat-treatment costs to get the hardening and tempering, which pretty much offsets the energy costs in forging. In the end it's cheaper just to forge it.

 

There is a smith I know who I spent a week with who is brilliant at forging tools. He particularly specialises in hammers. I first ran across him when I needed a pair of shearing hammers (used for a particular job in wooden boatbuilding). He made them to a drawing, forging by eye and measuring to dimension and supplied them (complete with handles) at £25 each. I think you would struggle to match this by machining them.

 

Alec

 

True in a way, but also it's is totally posable to make an axe that is strong enough by stock removal, however it would cost more than forging it as you say, making the 3d model ect and the expensive machinery needed to do it make it impractical, especially seeing as if you wanted more than 1 or 2 you may as well drop forge as most cheap axe makers do anyway, elwell's big 7lb felling axes were actually cast steel, and those are fine, in fact they are quite sort after, and a machined steel head would be be stronger than those if you use the right steel, something like O1 would be fine.

 

almost all knives these days are made by stock removal, I do both stock removal and forged myself, knives like the ray mears woodlore by alan wood are stock removal, so no forging but very good strong blades

 

the main reason you wouldn't make a stock removal axe is the amount of stock that would require removing

 

I'm planning to have ago at making some axes before long, Hand forged of course I've done a small hammer as practice, came out fairly well if i do say so myself

[agg221]

elwell's big 7lb felling axes were actually cast steel

 

They weren't actually cast - the blades were forged from cast steel. Steel was originally made by diffusing carbon into iron (the purer the better, hence Swedish iron was particularly popular due to the purity of the ore). Crucible steel was invented in the late 1700s which made it much cheaper but still too expensive to be used for whole tools - this is the era when most tools were forged in iron with a steel insert fire welded in to form the cutting edge.

 

The open hearth and Bessemer processes of the late 19th century made steel cheap enough to use for whole tools. This was when 'cast steel' starts appearing on them, to indicate that they were made in the new modern material. The billet was still forged to shape though.

 

In terms of strength - yes a machined head would hold up, but it won't be as good. There are several things which happen when you forge - the grains are usually decreased in size and they end up aligned with the direction in which the steel is drawn. Another effect though is that the 'impurities', along with lattice defects in the crystal structure, tend to get drawn to the grain boundaries. The removal of lattice defects gives improved resistance to failure under impact, so more important for axes than for knives. The 'impurities' are often precipitates of deliberate additions which form intermetallic compounds which are harder. This means you have the very hard component of the structure, backed by the softer, stronger grains. The net effect is a steel which is easier to sharpen but holds its edge better - coincidentally exactly the same effect as was being aimed for in the original fire welded tools with a thin layer of steel welded to softer iron (which is how the Japanese still do it).

 

I have even managed to avoid the words martensite, pearlite and bainite:001_smile:

 

Returning to the original thread, I like my Gransfors axes.

 

Alec

[agg221]

elwell's big 7lb felling axes were actually cast steel

 

They weren't actually cast - the blades were forged from cast steel. Steel was originally made by diffusing carbon into iron (the purer the better, hence Swedish iron was particularly popular due to the purity of the ore). Crucible steel was invented in the late 1700s which made it much cheaper but still too expensive to be used for whole tools - this is the era when most tools were forged in iron with a steel insert fire welded in to form the cutting edge.

 

The open hearth and Bessemer processes of the late 19th century made steel cheap enough to use for whole tools. This was when 'cast steel' starts appearing on them, to indicate that they were made in the new modern material. The billet was still forged to shape though.

 

In terms of strength - yes a machined head would hold up, but it won't be as good. There are several things which happen when you forge - the grains are usually decreased in size and they end up aligned with the direction in which the steel is drawn. Another effect though is that the 'impurities', along with lattice defects in the crystal structure, tend to get drawn to the grain boundaries. The removal of lattice defects gives improved resistance to failure under impact, so more important for axes than for knives. The 'impurities' are often precipitates of deliberate additions which form intermetallic compounds which are harder. This means you have the very hard component of the structure, backed by the softer, stronger grains to provide toughness. The net effect is a steel which is easier to sharpen but holds its edge better - coincidentally exactly the same effect as was being aimed for in the original fire welded tools with a thin layer of steel welded to softer iron (which is how the Japanese still do it).

 

I have even managed to avoid the words martensite, pearlite and bainite:001_smile:

 

Returning to the original thread, I like my Gransfors axes.

 

Alec

[Rune]

They weren't actually cast - the blades were forged from cast steel. Steel was originally made by diffusing carbon into iron (the purer the better, hence Swedish iron was particularly popular due to the purity of the ore). Crucible steel was invented in the late 1700s which made it much cheaper but still too expensive to be used for whole tools - this is the era when most tools were forged in iron with a steel insert fire welded in to form the cutting edge.

 

The open hearth and Bessemer processes of the late 19th century made steel cheap enough to use for whole tools. This was when 'cast steel' starts appearing on them, to indicate that they were made in the new modern material. The billet was still forged to shape though.

 

In terms of strength - yes a machined head would hold up, but it won't be as good. There are several things which happen when you forge - the grains are usually decreased in size and they end up aligned with the direction in which the steel is drawn. Another effect though is that the 'impurities', along with lattice defects in the crystal structure, tend to get drawn to the grain boundaries. The removal of lattice defects gives improved resistance to failure under impact, so more important for axes than for knives. The 'impurities' are often precipitates of deliberate additions which form intermetallic compounds which are harder. This means you have the very hard component of the structure, backed by the softer, stronger grains. The net effect is a steel which is easier to sharpen but holds its edge better - coincidentally exactly the same effect as was being aimed for in the original fire welded tools with a thin layer of steel welded to softer iron (which is how the Japanese still do it).

 

I have even managed to avoid the words martensite, pearlite and bainite:001_smile:

 

Returning to the original thread, I like my Gransfors axes.

 

Alec

 

yeah all true, though with differential heat treat ect a stock removal axe could still be a very good tool, also before you get the steel it will have been hot rolled, making it stronger in the same way as hand forging, O1 is used for making a lot of tooling for metal work, fly press dies, gillotene blades ect if it can stand up to being slammed in to metal I'm sure it can manage wood

 

gransfors also add a carbon steel edge into a much softer body on some of their more expensive axes, the normal ones are just forged from a single piece of steel though.

[Rune]

yeah all true, though with differential heat treat ect a stock removal axe could still be a very good tool, also before you get the steel it will have been hot rolled, making it stronger in the same way as hand forging, O1 is used for making a lot of tooling for metal work, fly press dies, gillotene blades ect if it can stand up to being slammed in to metal I'm sure it can manage wood

 

gransfors also add a carbon steel edge into a much softer body on some of their more expensive axes, the normal ones are just forged from a single piece of steel though.

 

dunno why I'm bothering as I said it'd be pointless and overly expensive/time consuming.. haha but still it's doable if you were that way inclined, IMO.

[agg221]

dunno why I'm bothering as I said it'd be pointless and overly expensive/time consuming.. haha but still it's doable if you were that way inclined, IMO.

 

I think you're bothering because sometimes it's more about whether something -can- be done, rather than whether doing it makes any sense:001_smile:

 

I agree a higher alloy tool steel would be the way to go. O1 is carbon/tungsten/chromium/manganese steel. I think I would go for something with molybdenum and vanadium additions for toughness. Quite expensive per billet though....

 

Alec

[mendiplogs]

True in a way, but also it's is totally posable to make an axe that is strong enough by stock removal, however it would cost more than forging it as you say, making the 3d model ect and the expensive machinery needed to do it make it impractical, especially seeing as if you wanted more than 1 or 2 you may as well drop forge as most cheap axe makers do anyway, elwell's big 7lb felling axes were actually cast steel, and those are fine, in fact they are quite sort after, and a machined steel head would be be stronger than those if you use the right steel, something like O1 would be fine.

 

almost all knives these days are made by stock removal, I do both stock removal and forged myself, knives like the ray mears woodlore by alan wood are stock removal, so no forging but very good strong blades

 

the main reason you wouldn't make a stock removal axe is the amount of stock that would require removing

 

I'm planning to have ago at making some axes before long, Hand forged of course I've done a small hammer as practice, came out fairly well if i do say so myself

 

HI RUNE ive a nice el well 7lb felling axe in nice nick on arb trader thanks jon

[Rune]

I think you're bothering because sometimes it's more about whether something -can- be done, rather than whether doing it makes any sense:001_smile:

 

I agree a higher alloy tool steel would be the way to go. O1 is carbon/tungsten/chromium/manganese steel. I think I would go for something with molybdenum and vanadium additions for toughness. Quite expensive per billet though....

 

Alec

 

O1 is pretty basic steel, but it can do most things and takes an edge easily, I like it and it's also very similar (or so I'm told) to the steel gransfors use for their axes, though I believe there steel is specially made for them.

 

by the way go read the page on gransfors under production, about heat treating ect, I emailed them about it but they haven't put it right...