Welcome... and Warning:
Because I seem to have “an ax to grind” with many folks (some fellow ax nuts, some nuts in other ways), perhaps I ought to apologize beforehand for any ego-harm some of my comments (plus unintended prejudices and bias) in the discussions below may cause.
Rest assured, however, that my intent here is to elevate the potential usefulness of an ax – one of the tools which, as the future unfolds, I believe we will be glad that we know how to apply seriously and efficiently.
At the same time I wholeheartedly welcome constructive criticism, of course.

May 22, 2011

Notes on Ax Head Geometry -- part 2 of the article "In Search of an Ax for 'The World Made by Hand'"



Left photo: 
Keen Kutter with high-centerline "convex-sided" geometry. 


Right photo: 
Gransfors Bruks with "flat-sided" geometry.



photos courtesy of  killa_concept




After  several thousand years of ax-making and use, the principles of most efficient shape for each purpose-specific ax could have been settled at some point, and the various manufacturers would now be making, for instance, felling axes which resemble that basic “ideal”. 


There is, however, nothing approaching consensus on this issue -- axes made for presumably the same task come with faces that are long and short, wide and narrow, plus they all can be variously thick. Each design has roots in the cultural tradition of some region of the world, where for a long time it satisfied the local population. (Though in many instances their users never tried any other principally different design – sometimes for generations.)


Imagine that something of an international ax-testing symposium was held where experienced regional representatives were given an opportunity to work (for extended periods, not a few swings) with samples of every tradition. This would take many days. In the evenings the representatives would be supplied with their favoured drinks (to help them transcend the typical bias regarding their traditional “best”) and discuss the revelations taking place during the days of ax-work. Finally a council would be held to decide which axes should be taken aboard “the next Ark”, for the children of our children to sustain their livelihood by.


If such an event indeed took place, I believe that many time-honoured designs – in both heads and handles – would hit the dustbin of history. Yes, I’m dreaming; humanity has yet to learn to function as an extended Family, and that imaginary event is unlikely to happen anytime soon...


Instead, as the cruel blade of corporate capitalism plows the globe, many  hand-tool designs (some well worth keeping) have already hit the dust... and more are waiting under the guillotine. What remains are not necessarily only the best, selected with wisdom, but those which for a variety of reasons out-competed the rest. Tradition no doubt plays some role, but all too often the “winners” are put in place as the result of manipulative market forces rather than a fair trial in the field. Economy of production, low wholesale price, and financial profit to the dealers (not makers) comprise the decisive bottom line...


Yet we still have a selection worthy of reconsidering, and a few slim chances of “saving” the best of those from disappearing. There may even be a chance to resurrect some of the old relics. For instance, The Council Tool company – one of the last remaining ax-makers in America -- has recently embarked on a venture to produce “world-class premium axes” and now offers a 4 lb American felling ax in that line. (Although -- on behalf of all those 21st century citizens for whom the lumberjack’s classic of the past may be too much to swing -- I hope they will add some lighter weight equivalent.)


 Now to the intended topic: In the context of this discussion, “geometry” may be just a fancy substitute term designating the overall FORM, or SHAPE (of the head of an ax). Perhaps I should have chosen a different title, but I do want to address how the angles created during the “birth” of an ax affect its function – and geometry is about angles.


An ax is a tool with a rather more complex geometry than meets the uninitiated eye, where curved lines of different angles blend into each other. Those angles are not easily measured, and in practice they rarely were...


In fairness to the multitude of past and present ax makers, I wish to emphasize at the start that I appreciate all axes. The ones I evaluate critically are simply those I like less than some others – and I will attempt to substantiate my prejudices. It may also seem that this essay is at once an “American Ax Promo” as well as “an attack” on the Gransfors products, but that is not quite how I intend it to come across. I selected the Gransfors as the reference “to pick on” because among the contemporary quality axes they are so well-known. Besides, many of their enthusiasts can (and no doubt will) come to the rescue of their image.


Selecting tools on the basis of the maker’s reputation has become a less dependable guide than it used to be. In many instances, the quality of the same brands has gone through changes, often not for the better. A new Collins ax – to use an example of a well-known old name still on the market today – is a far cry from one made 50 years ago. This is not to say that all new tools are less good than they once were; advancements in metallurgy have partially off-set the universal “need for economizing”. Good axes are still being made, while truly good pitchforks, for instance, are completely extinct...


Considering all of this, I prefer many tools, including axes, that were made decades ago -- even if I can only find them in used condition. Because such purchases usually take place at flea markets, auctions, etc., I have an opportunity to inspect the design of the tool in question. (Steel quality and edge retention can also be tested, but this article focuses on design.)


The factors that influence the outcome of my initial (visual) judgment of an ax are:


 (a)  the size/weight of the face relative to the size of the poll -- which determines the potential BALANCE of an ax


(b)  the outline of the face when viewed from the side -- which affects the VERSATILITY, or conversely, the specialization of a model


(c)  the thickness profile of its fore-section -- which also affects the VERSATILITY (discussed below)


The balance issue appears to have received plenty of attention on the ax forums, though (in the sections that I managed to read) I have not yet found a comprehensive explanation of the pertinent points such that newcomers on the ax-scene would likely grasp the principles easily and quickly. There are plenty of poorly balanced axes on the market -- some of them otherwise very well made, others less so -- which people keep purchasing on the basis of “reputation”, because they don’t have anything else of substance to go by.


Among the well-known old trademarks readily available in North America, the larger felling models from Ox-Head (with head weights over 2 lbs) are clearly exemplars of unbalanced axes. So is (or was?) the Hudson Bay pattern – at least when it was still made in USA. The version now outsourced (by Snow & Neally) appears in catalogues to have a larger poll, which might be a compensation -- as far as balance alone is concerned. (However -- in line with the pattern’s tradition -- the face remains too long... well, too long for my liking.) The more recent creation by American Tomahawk (Cold Steel) -- the China-made “Trail Boss” -- is another example of poorly balanced design, one based more on “coolness” than practicality. It may do for some re-enactments games... though I would reject it for both a trail or homestead because it fails on all three counts (a, b, c) listed above.


The sideways profile has been discussed on the ax forums, albeit sparingly. It presents a less straightforward “mixture of concepts”, and as such lends itself to more room in terms of personal likes or dislikes. What I mean is that it's hard to imagine anyone with actual preference for a decidedly unbalanced ax head. But a face which is very narrow, or conversely, one that is extremely wide can rightly be chosen as best for a specific task.


To avoid getting into muddy waters (by trying to suggest some “ideal” shape of the head), let me just say that I endorse the notions on this issue presented by Dudley Cook in his Ax Book.


The aspect of ax geometry that, to my knowledge, has remained mostly un-discussed is the thickness profile of the fore-section -- which is why the following segment focuses on it.


As previously stated, an ax is a tool with a rather more complex geometry than meets the uninitiated eye, where curved lines of different angles blend into each other. Those angles are not easily measured, and in practice they rarely were. (Ask an old-timer what angle he sharpened his ax – and he will likely give you a blank stare. Put the same question to one of the fussy people among the contemporary tool users -- who will know the exact bevel angles of his chisels -- and he will probably bumble for an answer. Don’t blame him, though, it's not an easy thing to explain.)


However, all ax-makers no doubt agree that if an ax is to effectively penetrate into the material to be cut, its wedge-like profile should not be excessively thick. Yet to define “excessive” and how this general principle translates into functionality of axes is somewhat more complicated, because other factors (such as the tool’s minimum required strength, its necessary wedging action, etc.) enter the equation...


Representing the variations of models still produced today, there seem to be two (rather contradictory) schools of thought regarding both the overall thickness of an ax’s working end, and exactly how it should be shaped initially -- under the hammer in the factory.


The European tradition took the notion of “the thinner [the face] the better” to the extreme. Thus, the Lee Valley Tools catalogue description for the 2½ lb German-made Ox-Head can state that “two inches back of the face the blade is still only ¼ inch thick... (which) gives excellent penetration by minimizing wedging action”. Hmm... in theory Leonard Lee (the author of that well-meant ad) was correct. But did the Americans and the Japanese have some other objectives in mind? Or did they not dare make this tool typically subjected to such stress quite as thin? In any event, the American and Japanese ax faces are notably thicker, in many instances twice as thick.


To categorically state that if one of these schools of thought is right, the other must be wrong, would be silly. However, I am also not willing to simply swallow the worn maxim of “different strokes for different folks”, and leave it at that.


A little background related to the theme at hand :


Between 1975 and 1977 – as a greenhorn in the field -- I bought five new axes. Three of them were brands made in Sweden (the small “Sandvik” previously discussed was one of them), and two were the “Iltis/Ox-Head” brand from Germany. I was not looking specifically for imports; these were simply the axes then readily available in Eastern Canada’s stores. My objective was to have a somewhat diverse group of head weights and handle lengths which those five examples provided. What I did not yet know was that such level of diversity was only a small beginning of my (still ongoing) ax-related education...


Sometime thereafter I learned that a rather large variety of axes was still easily found at local garage sales, flea-markets and antique stores, sometimes at pitifully low prices ($2 to $20). Thus followed three decades of mostly used additions, many of them beaten-up and rusty, with an occasional one in very good condition. Beside some Banko/Sater and several more Ox-Heads, the bulk of them were made in USA or Canada. I brought a few more back from Europe, both used and new.


About two years ago, we bought the Wetterlings “Camp/Small Forest Ax”, and a year later their “Large Forest Ax” (2 lb head on 26 inch handle). It was out of curiosity rather than a need for still more axes. You see, while every ax-nut I know has a Gransfors (or several of them), nobody around these parts had a Wetterlings – another “hand-forged" Swedish product, but at half the price (back then) -- for me to look at. Meanwhile, more old relics continue finding their way into our hands, as gifts from generous friends or as irresistible bargains stumbled upon here and there...


Oddly enough, there still is not a Gransfors Bruks product among the now fairly sizable heap... Yet, for perhaps 30 years -- during which time they steadily grew in popularity -- I knew of these Swedish axes, initially through the catalogue of the Smith & Hawkens company (which may have introduced them to North America). Eventually Lee Valley Tools (which probably sold more of them to date than any other retailer on this continent) added them to their product line and, as an old customer, I have since read their up-beat description many times.


Considering how partial I am to anything “hand-made”, the Gransfors axes could win my heart just with their “story of origin”... as they probably did for thousands of owners worldwide. But by the time I first held one (belonging to a friend) in my hands to closely inspect its head geometry, I was already convinced that the profile principles of North American axes were very sound... and they were noticeably different from the Gransfors.


Quite likely, if I found a used Gransfors for the price that good quality old axes typically bring on the street, I’d be tempted to get it just the same. But to spend the required chunk of cash on a new Gransfors is not for me... Nor would I advise it to an ax-less friend who has no extra money to pay for a famous name, or who needs an ax which is somewhat multi-purpose. What appear to be the most popular of the Gransfors models – the two versions of “forest” ax -- are both, in my view, less versatile in application than other less known and less costly alternatives, including some new axes and many of the remaining relics from the heyday of the North American ax industry.


Before explaining what I mean by “less versatile”, it may be helpful to briefly review how the first axes brought from Europe gradually evolved into this continent’s prevalent design. The two principle features that istinguish the contemporary North American ax from the initial imports are the increase in the weight of the poll and the decrease in the length of the bit. This has been discussed by numerous authors and documented in drawings and photographs of museum collections. But there is an additional feature or “touch”, actually two touches, which I never found specifically mentioned in writing. The first is the "high-centerline" convex-ness of the face in the to-and-fro direction (meaning parallel to the edge direction, or perpendicular to the eye-to-bit direction). I see this feature in every single specimen of old North American felling/all-purpose ax head that we’ve collected. The Swedish-made axes sold on this continent in the past also had this feature, and some (the Wetterlings, Husqvarna, Agdor, and perhaps others) still do.


The second touch is the relative thickness of the face between the edge and the eye, which, in a way, makes the "high centerline" convex-ness I’m talking about possible, or let’s just say “realistically useful”. An alternative way to put this: if the “mid-blade hollow” of an ax is as thin as it is on the regular Ox-Head or the Gransfors “Forest” models, shaping it so as to incorporate the "high centerline" convex-ness may be a bit futile, because such an ax will remain less efficient for splitting much of anything, nor excel at serious felling -- the tasks the North American everyman’s ax versions were, after decades of changes/evolution, eventually designed for.


In any event, it appears that while most of Europe, including the UK and perhaps parts of Scandinavia, stubbornly adhered to the somewhat medieval tradition in ax design, at least some Swedish companies were more creative. (I speculate that they may have been influenced by the developments in American ax design, because for more than a century some North American companies sub-contracted to have a portion of their axes made to their specifications in Sweden.)


Well, the Gransfors Bruks axes seem to have never “graduated” or departed from the initial European tradition, or they later broke away from what I think of (perhaps wrongly) as the “Swedish/American style” regarding the face geometry, and thereby lost my full endorsement.


This is not to imply that Gransfors axes are “bad” -- and to prevent an attack by an army of their sharp-edged owners, I hasten to state a positive thing or two about this widely beloved baby:


Regarding the most obvious of the fundamental design features, the regular product line from Gransfors is better than anything I have seen (which, admittedly, is but a fraction of the total) made in continental Europe or the British Isles. Namely -- in relation to the fore-section’s weight -- the poll is more or less of adequate size, and the distance from center of eye to the bit  is about “the right length” (meaning not excessively long). The company is obviously using better steel than is commonly chosen for much of the global ax production these days, or else they would not dare to heat treat their edges to such high RC hardness. (Depending on circumstances, however, an excessively hard edge can be both blessing or a curse...but more on this in a future article.)


If only there was more of that good material in a certain area of its face, I’d think of the Gransfors “Large Forest” model as a fine option for extended “walkabouts”. But the material is not there, and the face is flat – a duo of features typically found together. Consequently, if I wanted an “all purpose” light ax, I would choose another one instead.


The photos below are an attempt to show the difference between the two schools of thought on head geometry:



In group “A” (above) are two old American felling axes, along with the very model of Plumb’s Scout hatchet that Peter McLaren supposedly threw 42 feet to split a woodchip, plus our little Sandvik.  Now, if a straight edge is laid across the fore-section of their heads (parallel to the ax’s edge) it will be noted that the center is higher than the top and bottom of the face. In some models the difference is very substantial, in others less so, but it is always there.



Group “B” are European axes -- Rinaldi from Italy, Ox-Head from Germany and the Gransfors forest ax. They all lack the “high centerline” feature. (This specific example from Gransfors actually has a slight hollow on one side of its face...)


“So what?”, some of you may now ask; “Is this a big deal?” To me it is a big deal; just exactly how big depends on the intended use for the ax in question...


In the discussion below I will refer to the two head styles as “flat-sided” and “convex-sided” (terms I just invented). A flat-sided ax is fine for limbing small to mid-sized limbs, cutting saplings the size severed in about one to three strokes, for dressing timber (i.e. carpentry work), and making kindling out of small dimension round stock or scraps of boards. In other words, for all tasks where the ax is not sunk so deep into material that will then exert significant side-pressure upon its face.


For felling and bucking larger than, say, 4” diameter trees, and for serious splitting of firewood, a flat-sided ax is, in my view, inferior to one which is convex-sided. (Assuming, of course, other parameters like head weight, overall thickness and width of face, as well as state of sharpness being equal.)


Why is this so? Well, a suitable chopping ax should not only sink into wood with relative ease, but also release itself from the cut sort of “automatically”. By this I mean that just a slight tug will bring it back to starting position without disturbing the “chi” of chopping. (I am not talking of splitting right now, though the principle is the same). The “high centerline" convex-ness of a fuller-faced ax helps in this regard because the wood has less surface to “grab onto/squeeze/hold” than if the sunk portion of the ax face is flat.


I noticed this years ago (and before I read much ax-related “how to”) when I first began using the double-bitted Ox-Head to fell green poplar trees. In spite of a very positive initial expectation for this famous “ringing” ax, I eventually concluded that a plain old American model was easier to use. In any event, I could cut more wood in a mornings-worth of chopping with the latter, regardless of whether it was a Plumb, Collins, Walters, Campbell, etc., or for that matter the Swedish axes made for the North American market in the past. The Wetterlings would fit into that category as well, because its (“full”) face is convex-sided. I might add that our impressive-looking Ox-Head double-bit has been collecting dust for many years...


That said, for the kind of weekend adventures during which no sizable trees need to be cut nor volumes of firewood split (in order to keep your butt adequately warm on a relatively cold night without the aid of state-of-the-art camping gear), the Gransfors “forest” model is a fine enough ax. However, if my livelihood in a northern climate was dependent on only one ax, I would give decided preference to a Wetterlings (of appropriate head weight) or any of the older North American models. I emphasize “older” because at some point in the insidious phenomena of globalization, many once-reputable ax manufacturers (Collins, Snow & Neally, etc.) transformed themselves into mere distributors and began to out-source their ax production to Mexico, Brazil or somewhere in the “East”.


It has been a gradual process, and it would take a committed, knowledgeable detective to ferret out the pertinent information as to when each make/brand underwent what changes, and how much of what had previously earned them the deserved reputation still remains. If, as the result of this investigation, a comprehensive directory was made readily available to aspiring ax-users, we’d be a needed step further along the path of being adequately informed.


As it is – and it bears repeating -- choices are often based on the assumption that the store owners have (as they commonly claim) customers’ satisfaction in mind, or (in case of mail-order purchases) on catalogue descriptions alone. Those assumptions are sometimes wrong -- many store clerks haven’t a clue about the axes they sell, nor do many of those writing catalogues -- and the unsuspecting buyers frequently end up with less than they hoped for. In addition they may not come to realize it for years...


Steel quality aside for now, many of the contemporary reproductions (still sporting labels with the famous old names) no longer have the efficient shape of a classic American ax. Many now have what I call “flat faces”, and make neither good wood-splitting nor tree-felling tools. What on  this continent was once referred to as a "swamping ax” could normally be used for a whole range of jobs with appreciably better results. I believe that some version of it is the tool to be acquired by a serious homesteader as his/her first or only ax.


Provided a new owner understands the principles of ax-head shaping, many of the worn old leftovers can be re-conditioned and most of the readily available “utility” versions somewhat improved. In both case it involves a considerable amount of hand filing or careful electric grinding. Unfortunately, the otherwise finely-forged Gransfors “forest ax”, or for that matter the “felling” models of Ox-Head do not provide that opportunity, because (as already mentioned) they are missing material in certain critical places.


Paradoxically, we may be witnessing an example where the attainment of one goal seems to have brought about a shortcoming of another. You see, it is the trademark of skillful workmanship to forge an ax very thin and yet strong enough to withstand years of repeated beating. In this respect the European ax makers have done very well indeed; in relation to their surface area the faces are often extremely thin. At least some of them are also remarkably tough. (See the photos below as an example.)




When I found this ax head (above) in a used tool shop many years ago, I bought it for $2 as a kind of souvenir, and with the notion that one day I’ll learn how to reshape and then re-temper axes in my forge...


I have seen many examples of abuse, but this one is unique. Namely, an average ax of good quality -- if that thin in the face -- would likely break before it bent this much. There was no sign that it may have gone through a fire (like a burning building). Its mangled edge was somewhat mushroomed over most of its length ( I had back then filed away the sideways-protruding metal), and there were couple of small chips but  no cracks.

Interestingly, the poll showed hardly any signs of being beaten upon with anything harder than it (i.e. a sledge hammer). I suspect that this ax may have been used to chop ice on a road and driven (frantically, or stupidly) against rocks or concrete.



In any case, if I didn’t know its maker I’d think that it was some cheaply-made and uncommonly soft version of an ax. But we’ve used the Ox-Heads enough to know first hand that metallurgically speaking they are first class axes, neither soft nor exceedingly hard. (I never read how hard exactly, but guess them to be approximately 50- 52 RC.) So if anything, this bent-up ax head can rightly be considered a piece of advertising for the Ox-Head company.


But the goal of wood chopping is the least energy expended for the volume of wood in one’s firebox. Wood begins its journey into that box as a standing tree which must first be felled. Here the extremely thin cheeks just “don’t cut the cake”. Well, for cutting a cake they would be OK; in green wood they stick, and they also do not “throw a chip” as well as a “cheekier” ax can do it. Same goes for cutting sizable limbs or bucking the trunk into pieces. To split the billets into stove-sized pieces is, of course, a job for an even cheekier ax . If,
however, a splitting ax is not owned, then an old ax made in Canada or USA should be up to the task -- especially if the user learns how to not drive the ax straight through the block, but instead give it a sideways twist just as it enters the wood...


To sum up the above thin-versus-thick discussion -- for many of the tasks expected of an average ax, an extremely thin face may be a case of “too much of a good thing”.


Interestingly, the Champion model from Ox-Head (currently sold in the USA) is a radical departure from their traditional felling and general purpose models. I haven’t seen it in real life, but from the photo it appears that (although the poll remains starving/crying for more heft) this famous company finally borrowed a page from an old American ax-makers’ guide on head geometry...


The relatively recent "American Felling Axe” (3 lb) model from Gransfors may also be a move in that direction. (Again, I have so far only seen it in the two-dimensional electronic form.) If this indeed is the case, that ax as delivered to a new customer can probably be thought of as the old “swamping” version, fit more or less for some splitting as well as felling, limbing etc.  Whichever of these tasks the owner has more use for, he/she can, by means of a good file, shape-shift the ax head in either direction.


To be continued... some day, perhaps.







May 1, 2011

In Search of an Axe for "The World Made by Hand" PART 1


In view of our collective future, the time to learn how to use an ax is NOW. Why? Well, the likelihood is getting higher by the month that during the upcoming “era of major energy descent”, a good ax and the skills to use it will be a blessing for many country dwellers in areas where wood still abounds. But to realize its potential EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested), that ax should be selected with care. 


This two-part guide is to help with the selecting of an ax, though not in the manner of a consumer report that picks a winner product and points you to its source. Instead, I suggest that you learn enough of the related fundamentals to do your own picking; hence what follows is some relevant food for thought.


Part One addresses the issue of “right” size. Part Two focuses on ax design and is meant to point out that the most expensive or popular ax is not necessarily the one to try to get your hands on, and it's worth considering other options. They may be equally satisfactory, in many instances more so... 


Part One – The "Right" Size


The most obvious questions in the selecting process ought to be:
a) how heavy an ax do I need?  and
b) how long should be its handle?

Most old frontiersmen who wrote on related subjects expressed rather firm opinions as to the size of the (one and only) ax a man, be he a scout or a trapper, should carry with him on extended woodland adventures. But this information is neither easy to find nor necessarily applicable for the present generation to follow as-is.


There is, however, at least one exceptional piece of work that manages to span that historical divide -- "The Ax Book", by Dudley Cook (formerly titled "Keeping Warm With an Ax"). Even if it doesn’t cover a few of the details I want to draw attention to here, it is the most whole source on all aspects of ax-manship that I am aware of. Though readily available, it has yet to become a bestseller...

Meanwhile, plenty of people purchase an ax (perhaps their first one) -– be it from a local hardware store or a mail order catalogue -- without giving the issue of head weight and handle length much prior thought. That is our first mistake. The second one is the tendency to purchase only what is conveniently available. Even when illumination is sought by those individuals who tend to ask questions, wisdom may remain out of reach. Most store clerks nowadays haven’t a clue about axes, and relying on their advice is na├»ve. The mail-order catalogue descriptions are not much more help, because they are formulated to sell that particular ax. Here is an example:

From Lee Valley Tools’ catalogue:  The double-bit Iltis is used in competitions or by those who prefer the balance and feel of a double-bit axe.


Well, the Lee Valley folks fail to add the prefix "throwing" in front of the word "competitions". As for competition chopping events, no Canadian in his right mind would take this ax to face the others who are using much better designed-for-the-purpose products (from Sweden or New Zealand, for instance).  (Note: The penetrating ability of these Oxhead axes will be discussed in Part Two.) Now even if customers don’t know what “balance” means in relation to axes, the term is automatically attractive. And who would not want “competition quality design” in a tool?...  In the event that someone actually does want to use this $129 ax for throwing competitions, they will have to modify it by cutting at least 4” from the butt end of its 35" handle.

The catalogue writers either disregard the appropriateness for the customer’s real needs or somehow assume that whoever reads the blurb already knows what they want. The technical advisors of these companies may know something about gardening or woodworking tools, but axes? Rarely. On top of it, they very much dislike to admit that axes are not one of their specialties. Instead of useful advice, they come up with something like “this is our bestseller”. Well, a bestseller and an ax appropriate for a certain person and situation may be two very different things...

I think that these tendencies are epidemic. Consequently, the purchases of axes that are too heavy on too long a handle, or those that may have a suitable weight of the head but sport a handle that is too short (in both cases limiting potential usefulness), are all too common. This article is written in the hope of making some improvements.

Having used axes of every quarter-pound increment up to 4½ lbs, with most of these head weights on various sized handles, I now have certain “flexible prejudices” when it come to head weights and handle lengths. The flexibility is rooted in the fact that a certain amount of overlap in function is indisputable, and the “ideal” size for a job is not easily fixed.  (At the same time, a quarter-pound difference in head weight or 2-inch difference in handle length is readily noticed by seasoned ax users, and declared to be “a little too light/heavy or too short/long" for the specific task.)

Personal quirks notwithstanding, there are general upper and lower limits on the suitable sizes of ax heads and handles with respect to line of duty -- which most experienced users would agree on. I believe we should be able to settle on these "line-of-duty" groups, at least approximately. If so, a condensed version of a “Beginners Guide to Ax Selection” would be just a short step away. More details and refinement could appear in a second chapter. (If a guide along these lines already exists, please let me know where I can obtain a copy.) In the end, the choice of ax will be affected by the specific user’s strength and size (most likely in that order), and the job he/she has for it.

Someone attentively reading "The Ax Book" (by Dudley Cook) will be much better informed than the vast majority of first-ax-buyers today. However, a number of details on ax selection are not discussed, so an addendum of sorts (like the guide I’m talking about here) would be in order. Most other contemporary sources tackling this subject are even more incomplete.


When I questioned local old timers on the weight of their everyday working axes, their answers varied all the way from 2½ pounds to 4 pounds,  but their handles were within a much narrower range –- 30” to 32”. Perhaps the rare extra-tall man used a longer handle, but among the local leftovers of the past such handles are practically non-existent. (The trees here in the East are nothing like the giants of the West Coast, although 50-100 years ago they were not matchsticks, either.)


So I conclude that the head weight was more in line with what each man could swing “comfortably all day” (related to the strength of the user), and the handle length was related to the size and form of the trees and the terrain (e.g., for a longer handle, brushy undergrowth needs to be cleared in a larger circle around the tree to be felled). And because the same (always double-bitted) ax was used for felling as well as limbing, its handle had to be more or less good for both purposes. 


Most of these men must have felt that a 36-inch handle (frequently purchased by novices wanting a “full-size ax”) would be awkward. Having used them myself, at least in the past, I agree –- especially for limbing and bucking.


As a side note: the limbing technique around here was such that a man first walked along the trunk of the dropped tree (from butt towards the top) clearing it of all branches protruding upwards and to the sides. The ax of a good lumberjack rarely made an “empty trip” while limbing evergreens; that is, one stroke took off most limbs -- the larger ones from the bottom upwards, and as the ax reached the end of its travel the handle was rotated to point the edge at another limb (preferably one of the smaller ones ) as it traveled back. This is what I’ve been learning and however “unsafe” it may seem to the uninitiated (especially from my description) it certainly is energy-efficient and has a nice flow to it.

Anyway, the outline below is meant to inspire a dialogue among somewhat seasoned ax users.  Naturally, no matter what I might suggest, there will be folks out there disagreeing. I have, in principle, no difficulty with diversity of opinions as long as they are based on actual experience (preferably a varied one) in the field. But I should also emphasize that I have neither time nor interest to indulge in polemics. My aim here is to help establish some immanently practical guidelines, and to see if at least some consensus could, after all, be arrived at.

Before the merits and limitations of potential head/handle combinations are considered further, let's settle whether we are talking of a desire for only one ax, or several of them.  To illustrate how this influences the choice of axes, I'll paint three imaginary scenarios -- with my preferred options (as fuel for fiery debate?):

Suppose I were preparing for a more-or-less settled existence of farmer (and seasonal hunter/gatherer) in a place where trees are not excessively large (say, not much over 12” diameter at the butt), and these would be my exclusive building and firewood material. I’d have no prospects of obtaining other tools for a long time, possibly years.


If, in that situation, I were to have only one ax (in combination with a small belt knife as my other edge tool), I’d take a
2¼ lb head on a 28-29” handle.

If, in addition to the knife, I could have two axes, they would be 
1¾ lb head on a 24-25” handle, and 
2¾ lb head on a 30” handle.

If, in addition to the knife, I could have a hatchet as well as two axes, they would be
1¼ lb head on a 14” handle,
2  lb head on a 25-26” handle, and
3 to 3-1/4 lb head on a 30” handle,

in which case the last one might be a double bit -- with one bit shaped for felling and hewing in clear wood, the other for the “tough on edge” jobs (knots, dead limbs), and splitting.

To briefly substantiate my choices:

One ax only:
This obviously has to be a compromise in more ways than one.  For felling trees (not teenage saplings), a handle less than 28” is a serious drawback, especially with a head which is only marginally heavy enough. (Yet certain amount of “compensating” is possible. For instance, if the head is ½ lb too light, 2-4” extra length of the handle somewhat makes up for it. Say a 2 lb head on a 30” handle may sort of “equal” a 2 ½ lb head on a 28” handle in trees per hour felled.)
Limbing offers more leeway – and most combinations of 2-3 lb head/26-30” handle would suit me well enough.  However, a handle over 25-26” hinders maneuverability in all those various small ax jobs like finishing corners of a log structure (in place of a log gouge or a slick), squaring 4-5” rails for making gates, fencing, dressing a large animal (deer, moose, cow) etc. Here a 1-3/4 to 2 lb head on 24-25” handle is most handy. Throughout the year we probably use axes of this size on more frequent basis than others. But to have that one ax only, and hoping for it to double for these tasks as well as to function as a more serious felling/splitting tool (which that 2 ¼ head/28-29” handle can represent in an emergency) is a wish to span two ax-work worlds that are a mile apart.

Two ax scenario
Once that handy “small utility version” is on the scene, its mate can grow in size by ½ lb in head and 2” in handle above the “one ax compromise”.

Two axes plus hatchet:
Three axes nearly span the essentials of the ax duties. The smallest (the hatchet) can now take over some tasks of the utility version. The 2 lb head can do the rest of them, as well as portion of the 30” handled one more efficiently. The largest ax would then do for all the rest of my chopping between now and eternity. For instance, while flattening 9-12” trunks (to make a 6” dovetail corner, for instance) a 3-3 ½ lb two-beveled ax is a sufficient replacement for a broadax. It would be nice if it had  5-6” face, but if not, it will do. 


Let me add that for an average family homestead needs I consider a broad ax a luxury; in the future it will be even more so the case... If you can easily afford a broad ax (new ones are far from cheap), then get it if for no other reason than posterity. Food for thought: many a local old-timer squared all the timbers for the traditional 30 by 40 foot post & beam barn (18-foot posts) with his standard felling double-bitted ax.


As for firewood splitting, our family’s favoured tool is a somewhat worn (thereby cheekier) 3 ½ lb double bit. (Our stoves in various buildings contribute to the climate change by swallowing about 10-12 cords of wood per year.) In line with New Brunswick tradition, we do not place billets upon a splitting block and we do not drive the ax straight through down to the ground. A much lighter ax than 3-1/2 lb, used in this manner, can also do it, if need be.

As you see, there is no ax among my choices with either a 19-20” or 36” handle.  The shorter of these two makes neither a handy (one-hand) hatchet nor a decent two-hand ax. I consider it sort of a hybrid, invented perhaps for the city folks’ weekend adventures in the forest. Some strong-armed men can no doubt wield it as if it were a hatchet; in the hands of the rest (incl. me) it wobbles too much to be accurate. If held in two hands its shortcomings are instantly felt by anyone who has used a light ax with 4-5” longer handle for the same job.


An ax with a 36" handle is a specialized tool (primarily for professionals with large trees to fell), with limited small homestead applications. I strongly discourage novices to begin their learning with a 36 inch handle, because at least some of them will get discouraged before they discover the charm and usefulness of a well-chosen ax.


Consider the Weight and Geometry before the Maker


Along with the weight of the head, its “form” or specific shape/geometry plays an important role, at least for me. An ax needs to satisfy both of those parameters before I’d be concerned with who exactly was its maker. This is not to say that I wouldn’t give preference to a reputable product from the USA, Sweden or Germany instead of one of China. I would. But the 
shape of some famous heads is nothing to write home about -- other than to caution my family that all that glitters is not gold...


Upcoming post:
Part 2 -- Notes on ax head geometry

The axes in the photo:
The axes in the photo (from left to right) are:

2-1/4 lb Emerson and Stevens on 29" handle, 
1-3/4 lb Sandvik on 25" handle, 
2-3/4 lb Walters on 30" handle, 
1-1/4 Plumb Scout Hatchet on 13" handle, 
2 lb Wetterlings on 26" handle, and 
3-1/4 lb Grey Gorge on 30" handle.


(All have that "high centerline" -- a feature of geometry to be discussed in Part 2 of this post.)

Notice our preference for straight handles. Two among the pictured group we consider less than "ideal": the hatchet and the Wetterling. The first is an exact replica of the Plumb original (which was rotten) I made 20 yrs. ago, but now find it too round, and a little too short. Today I'd make it differently.
The Wetterling has its original -- albeit refined (see "Thinning ax handles")  during which process I tried to straighten that bottom curve... In the long run I'd replace that handle as well.



April 10, 2011

Log Cabin In Progress...


Some photos of a log cabin being built for the youngest member of the Vido family.  To be continued...














Addendum dated January 6, 2012:
 
I regret that in spite of the apparent interest in this topic we have not continued the thread. One reason is simply that during the (8+month long) "farming season" much of the computer-related work needs to take a back seat. And, as destiny would have it, we were moved to put off the finishing of the cabin until more pressing matters (among them other building projects -- like a bee house, a root cellar and a new barn) received attention.

Of course, the few photos we sent were not meant as a "how-to" piece -- to necessarily be followed up  For one thing, there are stacks of books that outline the step-by-step process of log structure building -- so anyone desiring written guidelines is (potentially) well served. It is true that practically all contemporary how-to manuals on the subject consider a chainsaw a given. Consequently the described techniques of log squaring, corner joinery, etc.  are, unfortunately, chainsaw-dependent...
 
Nor were those photos meant as a little show of the "look, we're cool" kind. Rather, the core message was simply the re-stating of what every backwoods person of this continent knew 100 years ago: To build a home from standing trees, the only tool one really needs is a good ax.
 
We did use additional tools, simply because they were at hand's reach, made the job easier or quicker, and still adhered to the hand tool principles. However, I'm mindful that many of the tools we are presently privileged to own may not be available to all people needing (or wanting) to do similar work. So as I work I find myself continuously gaging the "essentiality" of them -- in my present life and in view of most people's "less fat" future. Let's be honest -- how many of the Earth's citizens could ever own all the tools we used in this little cabin project? 
 
In any case, here is the list of additional tools (besides the various axes), in order of their importance (as perceived by us):
 
1) the buck saw or bow saw -- used primarily to cut the logs to length and to make the cross-gain cuts while shaping the dovetail joint. I should add that had we chosen to make the more popular round notch corner joint, the saw would quickly lose its merit.
 
2) the level  -- to mark the center-line of each log end, before hewing and/or defining the dovetail joint.
 
3) a small (12") square -- to mark the width of the dovetail.
 
4) two drawknives -- the straight one for touching-up the squaring of the log's sides (primarily accomplished with a standard double-beveled ax), and an acutely curved, hollowing style one for the finishing of the groove on the underside of each log; this, of course, only for the so-called "chink-less" method of contour-fitting that is used in this case. Both of these drawknives, however, could be dispensed with easily because the side of the log touch-up is purely cosmetic, and the underside grooving can -- even if it is somewhat trickier -- be accomplished with the ax, which is how we initially remove most of the wood.

Of course, we do use a marking tool -- a soft pencil (or an indelible one when the wood is wet). It is convenient, but one can get by without it. A spike, point of a knife, thinly shaped piece of charcoal etc. can come to the rescue, if need be.
 
Other convenient aids are a scribe, an adjustable angle gauge, flat chisel (1 1/2")  and/or a slick. Any of these may or may not be found with us on the building site. The last three of them are only useful for the dovetails, but progressively more often the chisel and the slick have been made obsolete by a nicely sharpened 1-3/4 to 2 lb ax on a 23 to 25" handle. (The two other versions we use on a project like this are a 2-1/2 and 3-1/2 or 4 lb, the latter with a rather wide 6" face, though not a bona fide broad ax.)

Please understand that all of the above is NOT a "recipe". These are simply tools that (after more than a few hours of experience) we presently use -- a "kit" that tomorrow may change...

In closing: 
 
Taking the "between the lines" intended encouragement of that little cabin profile (just do it!) a step further, we hoped to remind the readers that the ax (as well as other human body-powered tools) is likely to make at least a partial comeback -- not as a cute re-enactment of history, but as a serious energy-conserving alternative. An ax, in my view, is not an "old fashioned" tool.  "Timeless", or -- at this point in history -- "futuristic" may be a more fitting term...

Cheers, 
Peter


March 4, 2011

Thinning handles





I should think that for most (if not all) ax users, thinning a piece of wood would be a straightforward task. The majority of the handles I’ve thinned were done with a hatchet, and without drawing any guiding lines beforehand. But for the benefit of some beginners we will describe it step by step – hence the notes on the “proper procedure” below.

As the first step, mark a line down the center of the whole handle on the narrow sides, both front and back. Then mark 2 lines parallel to it, again front and back. Each one of these should be half as far away from the center line as the intended thickness of the refined handle. (The woodworking beginners might give themselves a millimeter or two of grace and draw the line that much further away from the center.) The line should taper outwards 2-3” short of the end; this portion will taper gradually from knob (max thickness) to the average thickness of the whole to form the actual grip and ought to receive particular attention later in the process. 

In the examples shown we opted for 20mm overall thickness (10mm to each side). That is still plenty heavy and will be further refined (thinned, though in portions of the handle only).

To remove the now clearly defined superfluous wood you have several options:

Using only a rasp is the most primitive, costly and time-consuming method, but it works and requires the least skill. (To rasp much off a hickory handle you had better have a good rasp; such rasps are not cheap and hickory wood dulls edges fast... but anyone can operate a rasp.)

The next most exact and “safe” method is to clamp the handle horizontally in a vice, saw down to the line at 1-2” intervals and then remove the wood with a chisel.

A faster option is a hatchet (or any other ax you can be reasonably accurate with) – or if you are a khukuri knife user this can be the tool of choice.

I advise against the use of drawknives as a sole ax handle thinning tool (without the wood being first scored). The chance of catching a piece of wood and prying it away from the intended depth is too great – unless you’d be lucky enough to work on a handle with “perfect” grain, know how to recognize it before you start, and have enough experience using the drawknife for exacting work.




The rough wood removal is literally a 5 minute job. Simply score down to the lines. It is easier to concentrate on one line at a time, score every 2” or so and then place another sequence of score marks between the former ones, this time focusing on the other line. (Both of these lines, of course, represent one actual working side of the handle.)




Then remove the wood between score marks -- always from the opposite direction than the one they were placed from. (I do break this rule occasionally, but, being smart, you shouldn’t...)




In these photos the use of khukuri knives -- the multipurpose tools of the Nepalese culture -- is shown. They work very well; in addition, these knives can serve the role of a drawknife, and for many tasks other than handle thinning (peeling bark, shaping/smoothing small rails, tipi poles, etc.)





A spokeshave  is one option for smoothing after the hewing step. I usually use a rasp, followed by a 12” bastard file. When completely shaped the handle can be further finished with sandpaper, emery cloth or a small piece of broken glass/windowpane.

Between the rough thinning of the sides and the final finishing, I also reduced the width of these 2 handles. The leftover centerline (visible in an upcoming photo) shows the respective sections of the handle where no wood was removed (that is, the original wood was left intact).

To be continued...