6lb axe / RIVETING DISCUSSION ON PROUD HAFTS!!

Square_peg said:
I think Bob settled this for us. He made the clearest analysis of the of the question.

It's damn clear that no one would try to drive that haft out of the head without first cutting it flush. I can't see any circumstance where Bob is wrong. If anyone can please enlighten us.
Click to expand...
What direction are you driving that head?
 
With a flush cut you need to drill out and remove the wedge just as you would need to with a proud hang. I fail to see how that settles anything?
In my experience the failures occur at the bottom of the eye never the top. I guess that's why i don't see any need, to even try, to improve on something that already is stronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
garry3 said:
What direction are you driving that head?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure he was talking about driving it out the normal way. But frankly it's not very clear. Either way i have a hard time basing the finality of the entire discussion on one kinda muddy thought experiment.
 
Nah i think i was wrong and they're talking about driving through the bottom from the top. Either way it doesn't prove anything because you've got to remove the wedge anyway.
 
Yankee Josh said:
I'm pretty sure he was talking about driving it out the normal way. But frankly it's not very clear. Either way i have a hard time basing the finality of the entire discussion on one kinda muddy thought experiment.
Click to expand...
Then as I already stated that haft being proud would mean nothing to me. perhaps we need to get back to the basics?

Not like this guy....

but like this...
 
garry3 said:
What direction are you driving that head?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Bob.

My interpretation was he was adressing the isssue of an axe flying off the haft. And I don't see how anyone would interpret it differently. But may Bob please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my mind the proud haft, swelled larger that the eye, prevents the head from flying off the axe. That seems obvious to me.

Imagine trying to drive that axe up off the haft. It would so obviously be much more difficult with that fat wedged tongue than it would be if the tongue were cut flush.

Is there anyone here that would dispute that? Please take another look at Bob's pics and tell me you'd try to drive that axe off over that massive wedge. He exagerrates the swollen tongue for the sake of clarifying the argument.
 
You can't drive a flush cut through either. That's exactly my point. The wood on top is extraneous. Something larger can't fit through a smaller hole and this is already achieved through a tapered eye. Just because we can see the flare doesn't mean it's stronger than what is in the eye already. If the eye WASN'T tapered a proud hang would be necessary. Has anyone had an axe fly off a handle on a properly done, secure hang? I don't see how it could happen. Not in a million years and not with our understanding of physics.
 
But they do come loose. Whether it starts with humidity or prying on a stuck axe. That tiny bit of wiggle starts. And the wiggle acts as abrasion on the wood in the eye, further loosening it. This is why eye ridges were developed.

If axes can't come loose as you say then why did they start making eye ridges?

The extended tongue, wedged wider than the eye adds an additional stop. It slows the loosening. And it doesn't get in the way.

I'm a belt and suspenders man. ;)
 
There's a reason why there have been so many innovations (some effective, many not) in wedging and epoxying systems for axes and other eyed tools. In this case one could probably best describe an axe handle's tongue/wedge as being akin to a flush rivet in metal. Leaving a little wood above the eye is sort of like having a second non-flush rivet head above the flush head. The bearing surface of the tongue inside the eye is the interior walls of the eye itself but the bearing surface of the expanded wood above the eye is mostly the top of the eye. In cases of wood shrinkage some would bear against the top interior of the eye, but what remained would go back to bearing on the top of the eye. I mean, you could always use a roll pin, if you just wanted to keep the head from flying off when loosened, but the reason I think a proud hang is best for short-eyed axes is the main reason those are prone to loosening is when subjected to leverage when withdrawing the axe, and the proud wood would increase resistance to those forces to some degree, giving you a little extra insurance against the head loosening from that particular dynamic.
 
Last edited:
What I have gathered so far is the folks that used to actually use an axe day in and out for a living have been doing it wrong for a couple hundred years, to bad they didn't have the internet back then. Wedges are like nails and rivets. The proud haft keeps the head from flying off.

I am out of this one...;)
 
I'm still following this but my honest input will likely irritate both camps to a certain degree.
I'm more interested in the motivations of some of the posts in this thread than the actual "physics versus tradition".

Maybe I'll just go get rid of the maple branches that blew down last night.
 
Just got home from a short day at work.
Square_peg said:
If axes can't come loose as you say then why did they start making eye ridges?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they never came loose. I meant to imply that either hang will come loose over the same amount of time or work performed. I don't believe the proud tongue adds any longevity to a hang. And in the meantime the work is done inside the eye. By the time the head is loose and you gain any advantage from it it's time to rehang anyway.
Isn't it true for you guys that it's the bottom of the eye that wears out first anyhow? It's always been true for me.
My motivation is that, not only is it fun to amicably discuss differences with folks, the only way to get to the bottom of something is to discuss it!
During the industrial revolution where everyone was looking for a patent or a sales gimmick if there were an advantage to be gained we'd see it advertised and know about it by now. You can't tell me this is something they just didn't think of. So my argument is based from that and morphed into my own experience and thought process.
But by insinuating there's no advantage I'm by default saying that some folks are wrong because they feel there IS an advantage. So while I'm arguing for arguments sake I don't care whether people leave it proud or not. I don't feel there's any difference. I used to think leaving it proud on short eyes gave an advantage but i really don't think that's the case anymore. The more i think about it the more i realize that wood protruding into thin air accomplishes nothing. You don't NEED a downward force on top of the eye because this is already achieved through the taper in the eye! Regardless of how small the eye is. A small eye is just going to wear out faster. I think I'm gonna give it a rest for a few days. I'm surprised anyone is still following this!
 
Wood is an imperfect material. It's porous. Under pressure it compresses over time. The typical wedge is softer wood than hickory and compresses more than the axe. But the axe handle will compress some, too.

When that happens the wedge can be driven further down into the kerf to take up the slack. If the tongue and wedge start out 1/4" proud and by tightening you drive the wedge another 1/8" then the entire eye is still filled with wedge. And the proud tongue, now 1/8" longer than the wedge will bulge slightly over the wedge, locking it in. And you can add to that swelling with a little swell lock.

OTOH, if your wedge starts flush and you drive it down 1/8" then your eye is no longer filled to the top. Now you've effectively made a shorter eye. And the part you've lost was the widest part of the hourglass. Maybe it will still be fine, at least until the next time you have to drive the wedge (which admittedly might be a decade or more).

And to claim that this is a new thing is wrong. I've already stated that loggers were leaving tongues proud in the PNW 100 years ago. Were they doing it wrong? Did they not know what they were doing? I doubt it.

Fascinating discussion at any rate and thanks to all for bringing your ideas and keeping it civil.
 
Last edited:
I'm in my 40s.

Dad was no kind of axe lover, he just used them at work, and we cut a lot of firewood. He took no care to treat them right, let alone nice. But he wanted it to stay on.

He always left the top a little proud. I heard other fallers he worked with say something about it before too. This was not new ideas they were tossing around, more like old time tips for the new kid.

None of these guys gave a damn about the aesthetics, history, or what the other guy thought.....they just wanted it on to stay. Half the summer there was a bucket of antifreeze with axe handles sticking out in the bed of their trucks.

All this to say, I don't think it's a completely new or very recent idea. Maybe it was just more common in the PNW, or something.

No idea, but they thought it helped. Maybe all it did was delay the inevitable, but that's enough to get you through the week, or even just the day sometimes. At least you got your scale cut, and can fix it at home after you grind your chains.

And probably because they weren't too obsessive about every detail when they slammed a new handle in, extra security was a good idea.
 
Agent_H said:
I'm still following this but my honest input will likely irritate both camps to a certain degree.
I'm more interested in the motivations of some of the posts in this thread than the actual "physics versus tradition".

Maybe I'll just go get rid of the maple branches that blew down last night.
Click to expand...

Speak brother! I want to hear it! :D
 
Each will form their own take on this discussion but for what it's worth I'll be hanging my Elwell proud. And for those that think it will provide me with no added benefits, I quite like the look of it so it's a win win either way.
 
You're right. They will form their own ideas from the discussion. I tried to make valid points many of which went without rebuttal. With that in mind my last statement on the subject is that; I may be the minority here but hundreds of millions of axes from the largest and most successful companies ever and the millions of axe men that used them over the course of several hundred years cut them flush and if it was good enough for them it's good enough for me. A few anecdotal examples can't refute that. I'm out axemen!
 
Yankee Josh said:
You're right. They will form their own ideas from the discussion. I tried to make valid points many of which went without rebuttal. With that in mind my last statement on the subject is that; I may be the minority here but hundreds of millions of axes from the largest and most successful companies ever and the millions of axe men that used them over the course of several hundred years cut them flush and if it was good enough for them it's good enough for me. A few anecdotal examples can't refute that. I'm out axemen!
Click to expand...

It's been fantastic to have your input, great discussion, thank you!
 
Overall I think it's important to realize that axes have taken on a myriad of forms over their existence, and humans are mercurial creatures that are often taken to following tradition for tradition's sake. The incredible variety of axe types and traditions across the globe as well as the range of expertise and the talent for understanding the "why" behind the "how" of the majority of the tool-using public means that we should be very wary of oversimplifying the dynamics that influence what is considered as convention in a given part of the world. And a dynamic that has a significant positive or negative impact on one kind of axe in one context of use may not apply in a broad-brush fashion to other kinds of axes and/or other contexts of use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top