The performance between the two axes too different. The manufacturers don't have a good cycle heat treatment, so they cannot risk using a thinner blade geometry. What comparison do you have between O1 and 1095 in your HT ?
Optimal geometry is a no-brainer physics but material/steel capabilities determine workable/supportable/compromises geometry. This comparison is here for establishing a baseline for a nifty good production axe with really nice edge geometry, obviously this baseline doesn't look too good compare to this BCMW O1 test axe. I plan to re-harden this production axe to 65rc and put a chopper grind (10* bevel, 30* edge) then perform this chop test again. to be seen, whether all is good or edge blow-out. O1 & 1095 are about the same however O1 is more repeatable & consistent & support thicker cross section (i.e. in term of sequencing/ht outcome). This sequence so far tested well for O1 & niolox, while blades of 1095,magnacut,t15,15v,1V test pending. Unfortunately re-sequenced aebl blade only get 61rc (due to high RA% after cryo), where 1st time seq aebl got 62.5rc. regardless, I will test 61rc aebl blade (your project 27) Upcoming seq will continue with further sequence parameters shift...
I like the "experimental " look
Love the MadMax look you got going there.
:)
Nice wow 👍🏽
👏👏
👍
The performance between the two axes too different.
The manufacturers don't have a good cycle heat treatment, so they cannot risk using a thinner blade geometry.
What comparison do you have between O1 and 1095 in your HT ?
Optimal geometry is a no-brainer physics but material/steel capabilities determine workable/supportable/compromises geometry. This comparison is here for establishing a baseline for a nifty good production axe with really nice edge geometry, obviously this baseline doesn't look too good compare to this BCMW O1 test axe. I plan to re-harden this production axe to 65rc and put a chopper grind (10* bevel, 30* edge) then perform this chop test again. to be seen, whether all is good or edge blow-out.
O1 & 1095 are about the same however O1 is more repeatable & consistent & support thicker cross section (i.e. in term of sequencing/ht outcome). This sequence so far tested well for O1 & niolox, while blades of 1095,magnacut,t15,15v,1V test pending. Unfortunately re-sequenced aebl blade only get 61rc (due to high RA% after cryo), where 1st time seq aebl got 62.5rc. regardless, I will test 61rc aebl blade (your project 27)
Upcoming seq will continue with further sequence parameters shift...
@@BluntCutMetalWorks
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Also for my projects.