"Weak" handles, revisited

Here's a guest post from our friend and fellow "challenger of the status quo" Eric C. from Maine, followed by commentary from Peter.

Handle made by Eric C., described below.

Getting a grip -- handle overkill  
by Eric C.

I think the purism that people still cling to regarding traits of the ideal axe handle is probably contributing to the general supply of shite handles. Hickory is probably way overcut as a result, probably compromising its quality to some extent. I don't know anything about trees from a scientific standpoint, but I know that you don't need to use sawn and then lathe turned (or even riven and hand carved) hickory handles for every axe of every weight. The shrinking abundance will continue to decline until we figure out how to redefine abundance further down the line. 

I have heard that White Oak was once the preferred handle material (from an axe historian specializing in the late 1700s until around 1900).  It was cut for ships and tool handles, presumably, and this was when population and consumption was way lower. In the absence of oil-driven machines, which is an inevitability, the supply of hickory and ash will probably drop like a brick.  Not taken into account is the startling decrease in the quality of hickory handle stock.The handle pictured here was made out of a stave of Birch around 3 inches in diameter at the large end. There are two knots in it, and the piece wasn't large enough to completely fill the eye, with about a 6mm or 8mm gap on the poll side which I filled with a shim. I don't believe Birch to be as strong as maple or ash, but I still thinned this one down to 3/4 of an inch, and in one place down to 5/8 of an inch.

Since it wouldn't have given me enough material to work with by splitting it in half, I worked with it in the round as a single stave, to try and get one handle out of. The smaller end became the knob, and I just hewed the handle off to one side. Since I hewed the knob out of the small end with the circumferential grain, where there is way less stress and risk of breakage, I was able to get grain parallel to direction of force on the upper half or two thirds of the handle. How strong does a 24" handle need to be for an axe that weighs less than two pounds? I have no reservations about using this axe for jobs within its realistic limitations.

Material of this size is usually burned, left to rot in the woods, or maybe turned into spoons or something by the slightly less wasteful but still somewhat resourceful spoon-carving hippy. Not that there is anything wrong with those things, but when said man goes to fell a hickory to make a couple handles for 2.5 pound axes when he could have used a Birch branch and produced a handle more than durable enough to be used in context with the weight of the head and job at hand, the context changes.

The inspiration for that axe was the Vido's little Sandvik axe mentioned here (giving credit where it's due), with a Birch handle of the same grain pattern and size, and the same size head. They still use that axe extensively, and it's been through more than mine probably ever will. It also has 5 knots compared to the measly 2 knots in mine (wish it had more, was disappointed).

An abundance of material is still here, but not an abundance of prerequisite skills and the time to nurse them into a deeper sense of what will work and what won't.

Commentary from Peter Vido:

Thanks for sharing your status quo-challenging thoughts. You and I seem to be on the same page regarding ax handles -- their basic shape, thickness and what material they be made of. The notion that an ax needs a handle from the strongest/most break-resistant wood (regardless of distance it is obtained) I also consider to be both myth and a trap. For centuries axes have been swung on locally sourced handles, and many of the coldest regions (Siberia, a large part of Scandinavia and the Canadian 'North') have no species of adequately thick dimensions stronger than white birch.

To address the hickory obsession: It may well be the Northern Hemisphere's finest ax-handle wood; however, the pertinent question (at this shaky point in history) is: do we all need it? On several levels, a strong case can be made for a definite "NO".

Nevertheless, on the whole we've reached this stage (of our sleepy journey) where hickory can pose as the cat's meow of ax handle wood to the point that some of the prestigious European ax makers (Gransfors Bruks, for instance) now find it profitable to import hickory from USA, stick it into their fine ax heads and ship a portion back across the ocean for sale to American ax lovers.  Plus, the European populace is now also being trained to purchase axes outfitted with this famous wood. I consider that preposterous; instead of inspiring young people to appreciate the gifts of creation laying at their feet, and helping them learn how to best use them, we let the beast of Globalization pursue its insidious agenda…

What many folks today do not seem to understand is that in order to fully fulfill its function, an ax does not need to be wielded with brute force; what's actually required is a type of force that's different from what most inexperienced ax users perceive.

In brief, a moment before the bit hits the target, the direct force behind it is greatly reduced, and the weight of the head (along with the already generated velocity) is left to pursue the task. That is how the old-timers could "chop all day and love it". And their very slim handles (mostly sugar maple or white ash, along with some hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana, also called "ironwood") lasted for years.

Contacting with full force right through the stroke is one way to break handles -- even many of those made of the so-called 'perfectly aligned' hickory.  Besides, a hickory handle is in itself no guarantee against breakage, especially nowadays. For instance, here is a firsthand true story: 

Back in 1979, an old man gave me a 20-pound head for a fence post pounding maul. Being slightly more naive than I am now, I fitted it with a store-bought hickory handle. Shortly afterwards a friend asked to borrow it, and the next day he broke that handle. As a respectful borrower, before bringing it back he bought another new hickory handle and replaced the broken one. Not very many fence posts later the handle snapped again, right under the head -- which flew off and narrowly missed my wife Faye who was steadying the post for me. No, I did not overreach; those boughten hickory handles apparently could not take that 20 pounds of steel (with an admittedly small eye in the maul).

My brother Alex walked into the nearby woods, came back shortly with a hornbeam sapling and replaced the broken hickory with it.

That was the summer of 1980.  Now, 32 years and I don't know how many hundreds of posts later, that very same handle is still intact. It never took a season off work, and although I have meant to replace it long ago -- just as a precaution to not endanger Faye, who still steadies the posts -- it functions as it always did, driving posts until the ground freezes solid in late autumn. 

So there you have it:  One example of local wood versus imported hickory...

End grain of maul handle

Wood Splitting with the Twist

Anonymous has left a new comment 

on our post "Splitting Mauls":

What do you feel about having the axe wedged in the piece of wood to be split, then turning the axe over and hitting the poll of the axe against the block?

This works well on larger pieces.

Thanks

Coincidentally, just before we got this question we had decided to make a short video on our preferred way of splitting wood.

The method asked about is a very common one in Slovakia (where I grew up); I'd almost say that it is THE technique applied in conjunction or as a follow-up to that straightforward style of "drive the ax into the middle of the billet, and hope it will split into two more or less equal halves". If it doesn't split -- which happens often enough -- the next move is to do just what you suggest. That is, you lift up the stuck ax along with the billet and then invert the whole thing so that the poll of the ax hits the splitting block. The trouble with this method is that at least some of the time the billet does not split and the ax gets driven still deeper. The subsequent aid involves sledgehammer and/or wedges. 


Yes, that is one way to get the job done, but one I presently consider a poor use of calories. But in all fairness, I should add that when, on occasion, my ax gets stuck beyond the point when a simple nudge on the handle frees it (but is nowhere near half driven in a block), that inversion technique is a quick way to 'undo the mistake'.

However, that is 'might near' the exact antithesis of our approach; one we learned about after moving to New Brunswick. The principle difference is demonstrated by Ashley in these two short videos.

That was, in this neck of the woods, the way to split wood, period.

Keep in mind that what she shows is 'the skill of an apprentice', rather than the mastery of this technique, as practiced by the old timers here.

Here is a brief commentary (with an expanded version to follow, perhaps):


Setting numerous billets up on their ends is not how we normally go about splitting a pile of wood; standing them up (often using the ax to tip them into an upright position) one at a time is more like it. Doing it this way was mostly to save on video time (and we assume that everyone already knows how to stand up a chunk of wood…).

The ax being used has about a 3 1/4 lb. head. I say 'about' because that ax was once a tree-chopping tool belonging to the father of an old friend, Lee, whom we obtained it from two years ago. Lee is now 98 yrs. old, still surprisingly spry in body and with a mind sharper than, hmm, let me think for a moment… many teenagers today! Please don't feel bad; this man is extraordinary. Once an airforce pilot, then a dentist, he still learned to make fine violins when he 'retired'. An avid reader and amateur naturalist throughout his life, he also, at 70 (after his first wife passed away) married a woman 20 years younger than himself… 

But back to the ax: With "3 1/2" stamped on it's face, but probably an inch of wear from the length of each side, I loosely estimate its present weight to be somewhere between 3 and 3 1/4 lbs.  Now, while this weight of ax head may be a good general purpose one for splitting, I should point out that to tackle that beech -- because its tight and twisted grain is more resistant to penetration -- an ax a pound or so heavier would have been advantageous. (Notice, in the 'Splitting with the Twist' clip, how, upon contact, the wood 'bounces' the tool back some of the time. The edge of that ax, by the way, is sharp.) On the other hand, the poplar (in the 'Splitting with Ease' video) could have easily been split with an ax a pound lighter, albeit using the same 'sideways-flick/twist' technique.

However, attempting to drive the ax straight down through those beech chunks, the girl might have spent half her time prying out the stuck tool. Yes, a hefty swing of a 6 lb. plus maul would split some of them in less time, but with more energy expended in total. Also, some of the pieces would simply resist the penetration of the sort of edge many folks keep on their splitting mauls…

As a side note: After making these two clips, we took a look, for the first time, at some of the wood-splitting videos posted on YouTube -- and conclude that most of them are a show of muscle power and force. From the ones we got around to watching, the man in "Splittin' Maple" we consider the best, in so far as the competence in handling his tool, although the old men around here made wood splitting seem far more effortless in comparison…

For one thing, the old-timers rarely touched the un-split blocks with their hands. Starting at the edge of a pile to be split, they nudged (using the ax) the nearest piece into an approximate standing position. If the surface was uneven, they steadied it with the toe of their boot and then swung their ax in what essentially was the direction of their foot, more or less.

Today's safety inspectors would faint if they saw that… but once they regained consciousness they'd see the old man's foot still intact, with a large pile of split firewood gathering to his sides as he continues to work his way forward through the pile. (The old fellows weren't barefoot, but neither did their boots have steel toes in those days.)

Anyway, what the maple-splitting-guy shows (and I'm glad he does) -- splitting a piece lying sideways on the ground -- was, and still is, common in this region. If that good man would add 'the twist' to what he already is so capable of, he'd save himself some sweat and his splitting tools' edge some nicks. Also, his handles would last much longer.

Over the years I had watched numerous old timers at work, and the most obvious 'secret' of their efficiency was accuracy. There never was a wasted swing. On large blocks they'd "draw a line" -- either through the middle, or the aimed-for "slab" off to the side, but without the ax getting stuck in the least interim. That line -- consisting of three to five ax widths -- seemed like one drawn with a straight edge… Then the splitting blow -- one with a bit more force -- would part the block as if by magic. The other factor was their ability to 'instantly' perceive each block's weakest point and place that first line just there.

At this point in her experience, Ashley has the basic technique figured out. Splitting wood is not a chore for her, but one of her favourite 'jobs'. She still sometimes (especially while being watched) fails to place the blade exactly where she wants to, and/or misjudges the weakest place of the odd billet. Not to worry; by the time she's 70 or so she might be on par with the old fellas. Maybe even split straight towards her bare toes…

Oh yeah, the bare feet. Please, folks, do not be alarmed; during the frost-free portion of the year we do much, if not most of our farm work barefoot. Gardening and scything nearly always so; ax-work sometimes. Ashley rarely wears shoes while working with bees, etc.

Some people feel differently, of course. I recall how once a man gave me 'hell' very loudly and in public for being barefoot while demonstrating the use of the scythe during the Common Ground Country Fair in Maine. I asked him where he was from and how he had gotten to the fair. Actually from another state, he drove, of course. Some of these many miles were spent on the highway… Like other more civilized people, strapped to the car seat, moving 60-70 miles an hour, shoes and all, he evidently felt safe -- and righteous enough to admonish me.

Well, that's his trip through life. As for our 'semi-primitive' ways -- we use all manner of sharp tools with hands and feet 'protected' by awareness rather than auxiliary gear…

In any case, it will not be of much use if, by way of comments, you try to enlighten us on safety issues. Though we do it ourselves on occasion, we do not specifically advocate bare feet while swinging a sharp ax.

To sum-up the advantages of 'splitting firewood with the twist':

1. The ax does not ever get stuck in a serious way.

2. The handle is not abraded (a common side effect of the 'normal' method) and can last for years without any protection (steel collar, wire wrap, etc.).

3. There is no need to lift the chunks upon a splitting block proper and a wide range of surfaces (from soft earth to a concrete floor) provides a suitable base.

The principle difference between this style of splitting and the more common method is that the blade does not travel through the block all the way to the bottom. As the wood flies apart, the blade ends up in a position nearly perpendicular to the line of the initial swing.

There were no doubt other regions where people have figured this technique out, although it appears surprisingly uncommon. Whether I talk about wood splitting with Slavs, Brits, Austrians or most North Americans, the concept of the sideways twist raises blank stares; splitting wood upon a concrete floor without the protection of a splitting block?? Are you crazy??

Well, not really; if anything is crazy, it may be the fact that this method isn't more widespread…

Splitting Mauls

Q:  I've been using a True Temper 8 lb maul.  I ground the bit for a better (I think) edge profile and it works okay, but still by no means easy on tough Eucalyptus.  The steel's not great, though, and often rolls under the stress.  What 8 lb maul (and/or ax) would you recommend for splitting?

A:  From among the versions of splitting mauls we've used, none would "curl its edge" if properly maintained and used.

Your experience, I think, may be the case of one of the following:

a) you have a maul of uncommonly soft steel.
b) you've driven it through the wood into the ground underneath, and it was the rocks/grit that caused the curling.
c) you filed/ground the edge to a shape that is too thin for splitting hard wood.
d) when grinding the edge, you overheated the steel.

Our primary splitting tools are 3-1/2 to 4 lb. axes, not mauls. We use a maul only occasionally, but one with a 6 lb. head, not 8 lb.

These choices are the results of gradual and continuous learning (we are still only students rather than an "authority"), though "our recipe" is by no means universally applicable. We have no experience with eucalyptus wood; it may well be that it requires a heavier tool. The toughest-to-split species we used to encounter in these parts was elm; 30 years ago, there were still some of the old ones left standing -- but dying rapidly by then. Many had very tight and twisted grain; most mauls (or wedges) would just bounce back before penetrating.

Perhaps it was then I came to appreciate a 'sharp edge' even on splitting tools, and have maintained them as such ever since.

Many people do not bother putting blocks [of firewood] to be maul-split upon a block and they regularly drive their edge against/into the ground, dulling it. As such it is still "okay" for some wood, although the tight-grained pieces will require a heftier swing.

It must be these strong (but less wise) folks that came up with some version of that now commonly perpetuated 'maxim': "You don't want a sharp ax for splitting wood"; or, "A splitting ax should not be sharp." Well, that, in my view, is a myth, or to perhaps put it more accurately, a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the concept of "sharpness".

By a 'sharp' splitting ax (or maul), I do not mean one that has a thin (meaning readily penetrating) profile. Instead, one with 'fat cheeks' seems preferable. But I want the very edge to be finished so it does not reflect light (when looked at straight on). Beyond that 1/16 - 1/8" zone it should, of course, have more of a convex profile than a general purpose ax, or certainly one meant for felling, hewing, carving.

We do have variety of splitting mauls (and wedges) and back in "the elm days" I was still fool enough to swing one of those steel-handled "Monster Mauls"… Yes, it "works" -- and we have friends who swear by it. I also know a commercial firewood producer -- a husky man -- who uses an 8 lb. maul and claims that he can split wood faster with it than a hydraulic wood splitter (which many people have gravitated towards these days).

However, the local old-timers' technique -- of twisting the splitting ax just as it enters the wood -- has far more appeal to me. It takes a bit of practice initially but makes a 3-4 lb. ax capable of equaling an 8 lb. maul in output -- and with considerably less energy expended -- which is the reason that our 8 lb. mauls have been collecting dust for years. 

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.