Compact hiking/camping axe or hatchet

AFAIK it's not just the balance that the poll gives it's the fact that the poll adds more weight behind the bit in the most efficient manner. I have never and will never use a poll free axe.
I care how my axe looks and like the look of the Michigan pattern axe the best.

the position of the eye also causes a poll axe to widen out a bit sooner which is good for splitting.
 
The poll doesn't add more weight. You start with a certain head weight and then push that weight of steel around until it's axe shaped. By having the eye located closer to the edge it does generally thicken the geometries that are possible without abrupt changes in the bit/eye transition, which alters the best approach to cutting work. American axes tend to be more generalist in their application between chopping and splitting tasks than some other global styles. Many European axes are more separated into dedicated chopping or splitting designs rather than combining the two functions.
 
Hickory n steel said:
AFAIK it's not just the balance that the poll gives it's the fact that the poll adds more weight behind the bit in the most efficient manner. I have never and will never use a poll free axe.
I care how my axe looks and like the look of the Michigan pattern axe the best.

the position of the eye also causes a poll axe to widen out a bit sooner which is good for splitting.
Click to expand...

There are poll-less axes which widen out very similarly and are good at splitting.
They can also have enough weight behind the bit, because the cheeks are wide and the eyes are large, and the metal around the eye-hole is thick.
The bits of some bearded splitting axes have not the thinner, symmetrical lens-like cross-section of the Michigan pattern, but a wedge-like one, tapering from the toe to the heel sections:

An example, posted (and made by fellow forum member ipt) can be seen here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1351298-Axeandadze/page4

An advantage the American polled axe design has is, that the extra material in the poll allows for the eye to be narrower and the metal around the eye to be thinner, allowing for a more continuous and smooth transition from the bit to the cheek without the need for a longer bit.
However similar cross-sections are possible in poll-less axes too, a good example being the contemporary Basque axe discussed many times here in the Forum.
A picture of a Basque axe posted by FortywoBlades can be seen in post #33 of his thread, it’s the 3rd from the top.
Is this design feature a parallel development or was it inspired by the polled American felling axe, I don’t know.
 
Last edited:
As for the historic record of ill-balanced axes, I will readily concede that a lot of crappy axes were made over the centuries before we understood how an axe works. Many of those old axes are beautiful, even elegant. They just aren't as efficient choppers as the vintage N. American axe. I'll grant that they can still perform work. I'd take a very sharp poorly designed axe over a dull well designed axe. But when I have work to do I want a sharp well designed axe.

The problem with poll-less axes is twofold.

As I stated earlier, the first is the balance issue. As the axes of lateral pivot (through the center of gravity) moves forward and outside the haft you lose accuracy. The axe is attempting to pivot on an axis other than the axis you're using to control it. This is inherently less accurate.

The other problem is longer bit. The further the bit is from the center of handle pivot the less accuracy the axe will have.

I frequently disagree with Dudley Cook but he explains this rather well. Begin reading at the 2nd paragraph on page 2 but refer back to the illustration on page 1.


Page%201.jpg


Page%202.jpg


Page%203.jpg
 
Square_peg, I am familiar with Cook’s argument.
I first read about it in the blogs of an old fellow forumite, Old Jimbo, whom I respect very much.
That lead me to purchase ‘The Ax Book’ of Cook, which I have re-read a few times.
I am not sure I have sufficient knowledge of mechanics to be able to judge (agree or disagree based on scientific arguments) with all that Cook says regarding the superiority of straight handles vs. curved ones, but I think that he is wrong regarding the issue of ascribing an automatic mass increase he speaks in paragraph 2 on page 17 due to an increased length of the bit. He wrongly assumes that the 3 dimensional geometry and proportions of the axe head are given constants, and that you can’t increase bit length without increasing mass as well. You can actually increase the bit length and keep mass the same by thinning out the bit, making narrower the bit (as seen from the side) or by the combination of both. You can also counterbalance any mass increase in the bit by increasing the mass around and behind the eye (the latter being the poll). You can increase the mass of the poll by making it longer while keeping it the same thickness, or by increasing its thickness and/or width (as seen from the side) while keeping its length the same. Some approaches will result a better chopping axe, other ones a better splitting axe or a good compromise of the two. I think Cook thinks about the chopping axe as a default, but even there could be several equally good alternative solutions: just think about the wide Jersey heads vs. the narrower Michigan pattern ones. In a Michigan pattern due to the narrower head you need a longer poll to achieve a similar balancing effect to what you can have with the shorter but wider poll on a Jersey head.

Taking this further, you don’t have to have a pronounced poll to achieve a balance between the front part of the bit and the eye part of the head. In fact, many of the modern racing axes, which are very well balanced axes, don’t have long polls, but they don’t need one, since they are very wide. Look at the Basque axe FortyTwoBlades posted in post #33. It has a very wide bit and no poll at all. Yet, as fellow forum ember Ugaldie has reported, this axe is still used in axe racing competitions to great effect.

I think what made the American felling axe so superior to most of its predecessors was not a superior balance, but an overall good geometry, which allowed it to penetrate deep yet not bind in the wood, i.e. to throw big chips with ease. This design feature has more to do with the geometry of the bit rather than the balance issue. It is also an efficient splitter, because of the smooth transition from the bit towards the cheeks around the eye. To achieve that and to solve the issue of the balance as well, the counterbalancing mass was pulled back way behind the eye, thus the poll. With this design it means that the narrower the bit, the longer the poll has to be. The design allowed for a wider variation but mostly inversely proportionate changes in the width and length of the poll, while kept the overall thickness of the heads similar. (Hence the many regional patterns.)
As FortyTwoBlades mentioned it, it is a good generalist design, good at several tasks and over a wide spectrum of wood hardness. While the poll clearly contributes to the design’s value, it’s excellent user value cannot be simply reduced to & explained by a “superior” balance due to the presence of a poll.
 
Last edited:
I made a living by swing an axe of some sort, every day, for 55 + years. Simply put , you guys need to chop more and think less. More hands on experience will answer all your questions.
 
I just got into axes myself recently and I have both the velvicut hudson bay and the wetterlings bushman, the velvicut has the much better head but the wetterlings has the superior haft in my opinion. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either but honestly the velvicut is where it's at.
 
Old Axeman said:
I made a living by swing an axe of some sort, every day, for 55 + years. Simply put , you guys need to chop more and think less. More hands on experience will answer all your questions.
Click to expand...

A very wise advise, Mr. Weisgerber (or Bernie, if you allow me to call you so).:thumbup: :thumbup:
Unfortunately, few of us here have your great and valuable experience, for one, I don’t have even a fraction of yours.
Since this is one of the better forums on the net, and I think it is the perfect place to ask questions, speculate, discuss freely and debate in a friendly manner, and also learn in the process and have some fun too.

You are definitely an expert on axes and axe use, so your opinion and experience would be greatly appreciated by many of us here.
Could you please share with us what do you think regarding the role of the poll, axe balance etc. discussed in this thread?
And no, this is not a trick request, I for one would genuinely value your input, given that I have very limited experience (even though it’s coming from several culturally different perspectives - traditional regional European and contemporary US one.)
I know, it could be a can of worms, but I hope we can keep the discussion civilized and people would not resort to personal attacks but would focus on the real issues rather.

I think it is a huge asset that we have you here on board and I feel, this is a great educational opportunity for all of us, even those who would disagree with you.
Please do comment on the issues above,

Thank you in advance! :)
 
I also apologize to Herlock if we hijacked his thread, so Moderators please separate this part of the discussion into a separate thread, if you think it is distracting.
 
One could, in theory, have a design as unlikely as this balance just fine.

13599946_10209763114583033_1575048978546039733_n.jpg


So when selecting tools I'd worry less about little details like if there's a poll or not so much as if the benefits the design provides align with your needs and if it has any disadvantages that would hinder your intended applications.
 
Yes, that would balance and handle just fine as the axis of rotation coincides with the haft. But the torque created by having the bit so far from the tiny eye would assure that the handle came loose very quickly.
 
Is oldaxeman really Bernie wisegerber ?
I had no idea, that's so awesome ! Everyone who wants to get into restoring and using axes has seen " an axe to grind " I don't know of anyone that actually uses swellock on their handles ( it's sells so people must use it ) but everything else is pretty much exactly how everyone does it, because the information is perfect.

It would be pretty funny if some sort of debate / argument started and someone told him to watch " an axe to grind "
 
Square_peg said:
Yes, that would balance and handle just fine as the axis of rotation coincides with the haft. But the torque created by having the bit so far from the tiny eye would assure that the handle came loose very quickly.
Click to expand...

Another example. Just stretching the bit and then correcting the heel/toe line so the set of the bit is still good, you would get these results. The two different blue dots/green lines show what a change in the grip point does to the axle. The axe continues to function just fine, but the set of the bit relative to the axle changes.

13438868_10209764669381902_4201163071365081569_n.jpg


While not an axe, Japanese blacksmith hammers follow similarly asymmetric design and you can see the same principles at work in their execution.

post-34782-0-06766500-1436929166.jpg
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
While not an axe, Japanese blacksmith hammers follow similarly asymmetric design and you can see the same principles at work in their execution.

post-34782-0-06766500-1436929166.jpg
Click to expand...

And it is terribly flawed for the same reason as the long bit axe. Study the Hofi Hammer to understand what a blacksmith hammer should be.
 
Square_peg said:
And it is terribly flawed for the same reason as the long bit axe. Study the Hofi Hammer to understand what a blacksmith hammer should be.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it simply operates based on principles you've thoroughly demonstrated that you don't understand...Lots of very accomplished smiths enjoy them.
 
I have to ask, Square_peg...how much time have you actually spent using poll-less axes and similarly designed striking tools?
 
It's not an insult. You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the mechanisms by which they work. By all means elucidate why they're so "terribly flawed"? They follow solid design principles with regard to their angular relationships. They work, and work well enough that many accomplished smiths enjoy using them. What is problematic about them? :confused:
 
I'll restate my understandings.

Accuracy is lost when the axis of rotation (through the center of gravity) is not coincidental with the axis of control (the haft). Accuracy is also lost as the bit of an axe or face of a hammer moves further from the axis of control.

I accept that you don't agree with my understandings and that I won't change your mind.

Much respect, Benjamin, but you and I will continue to peaceably disagree on this subject.
 
Square_peg said:
I'll restate my understandings.

Accuracy is lost when the axis of rotation (through the center of gravity) is not coincidental with the axis of control (the haft). Accuracy is also lost as the bit of an axe or face of a hammer moves further from the axis of control.

I accept that you don't agree with my understandings and that I won't change your mind.

Much respect, Benjamin, but you and I will continue to peaceably disagree on this subject.
Click to expand...

The axis of control necessarily has a point laying along the handle, but it is not defined by the axis of the handle itself. It is defined by the grip point. The rest of the handle will rotate around the axle of the tool as defined by the line running between the grip point and the center of gravity. You could, in theory, chuck the tool up in a lathe along the axle and it would spin without the slightest vibration. The center of gravity is a fixed point, while the grip point is variable, but limited to points within the body of the object (graspable space) while the center of gravity may lay external to the tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top