Compact hiking/camping axe or hatchet

[FortyTwoBlades]

"One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions."

Wernher Von Braun

A favorite of mine:

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." ~Immanuel Kant

 

[littleknife]

"One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions."

Wernher Von Braun

What he left out of the catchy saying is that you have to have a well designed methodology regarding how to conduct and interpret the test in question.
This is not self-evident at all.
I do experimental science for a living.
Many times published results cannot be reproduced, because of the lack of sufficient information.
Other times the reproducible results are misinterpreted, so a simple fact’s relevance in a specific context is not self-evident either.
Tests can fail to test the very things they were designed to test, yet will still result in a “result”, it is just irrelevant. It needs a careful analysis to see if the result is indeed an answer to the intended question.
Of course axes are not rockets, but they are not as simple as they may look either, because they have to be assessed in the context they are used.
Axes can be used for a wide variety of cutting/shaping tasks and in a wide range of materials.
There are many alternative and efficient ways to achieve a given task, and they might require differently optimized variants of the tool.
Similarly, a given tool can be used in various ways with various efficiencies.
An absence of efficiency in a given way of use is not a proof for an absence of efficiency to perform the task.
That is what FortyTwoBlades said repeatedly, and I agree with him.

As for the experts, while they are not infallible gods, their knowledge & opinion - if they are truly experts and are honest in their opinion - is worth more in the field of their expertise than that of average Joe.
Otherwise, for example the US government wouldn’t have gone into the great efforts it took to secure for itself the services of Von Braun and his crew.

 

[Old Axeman]

FortyTwoBlades- Yes, I adapted my technique to the poll less ax. The repair of historic buildings, and even my early work years logging, required a lot of technique adaption with a wide range of tools. Also, it was not the first or last time I used a poll less axe. I still use them today for historic accuracy. A good craftsman can adapt quickly to a different tool. Best example I can give you is a woodworker you all know- Norm Abram, PBS star of "This Old House" and "New Yankee Workshop." I was a guest craftsman twice on "This Old House." I took Norm to log restoration projects in Wyoming and then 4 yrs later in Montana. Both these restoration projects were in wilderness areas-this means no power tools of any kind. Now, as you all know, wilderness and no power tools are not Norms thing. He adapted extremely quickly to tools and techniques of which he had no prior knowledge. The viewers certainly could see this happen on the shows. Norm is a nice guy and great craftsman.

Lets come at this a different way. Give me one good reason for our 18th century American settlers to have developed what we are calling the American poll axe if it was not a more efficient cutter.
Now tell me why all the world titles in competition chopping are held by Polled axes if poll less axes are as efficient choppers?

 

[Old Axeman]

littleknife- Look at a book called "The Craft Of Log Building" by Hermann Phleps, first published in German in 1942 and translated to English and published in 1982 by Lee Valley Tools Ltd.
You ask could the log building in your post (for that matter the early European log buildings in this book) be built more efficiently with polled axes? My answer would be- absolutely.

 

[Old Axeman]

quinton- lets take a break and talk about a basic lifestyle. I am harvesting my Kona white pineapples. If you and your good looking hogs just lived closer you and I could be eating some kalua pork and white pineapples right now!

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

FortyTwoBlades- Yes, I adapted my technique to the poll less ax. The repair of historic buildings, and even my early work years logging, required a lot of technique adaption with a wide range of tools. Also, it was not the first or last time I used a poll less axe. I still use them today for historic accuracy. A good craftsman can adapt quickly to a different tool. Best example I can give you is a woodworker you all know- Norm Abram, PBS star of "This Old House" and "New Yankee Workshop." I was a guest craftsman twice on "This Old House." I took Norm to log restoration projects in Wyoming and then 4 yrs later in Montana. Both these restoration projects were in wilderness areas-this means no power tools of any kind. Now, as you all know, wilderness and no power tools are not Norms thing. He adapted extremely quickly to tools and techniques of which he had no prior knowledge. The viewers certainly could see this happen on the shows. Norm is a nice guy and great craftsman.

Lets come at this a different way. Give me one good reason for our 18th century American settlers to have developed what we are calling the American poll axe if it was not a more efficient cutter.
Now tell me why all the world titles in competition chopping are held by Polled axes if poll less axes are as efficient choppers?

Because it allows for them to be better used for hammering purposes, and simplifies handle design and manufacture when trying to craft a handle that allows multiple grip positions (such as when using a sliding stroke) to lay along the same axis. All in all, this makes the axe a more generalist style well suited to a broader range of work rather than narrowly focusing on just chopping or just splitting, but instead able to handle both chopping and splitting reasonably well while also doubling as a hammering tool for soft targets. Ironically, you mention polled axes in racing...Tuatahi axes actually have very little poll and use an offset neck instead. This allows for a thinner geometry and deeper bit while maintaining the single-axis set of the handle.

 

[Old Axeman]

After I posted I was sure you would mention the Tuatahi ! They do have a smaller poll, but have a poll. I have a Tuatahi, good axe, but I think my Hytest, with a larger poll, is a more efficient chopper.

Try and remember, I never said that I did not like or use poll less axes. I did not say they were not good choppers. What I said was that the American poll axe was a more efficient chopper.

My take is that the early settlers to North America encountered a LARGE volume of trees that needed to be cut. The American poll axe was the most efficient answer to that problem.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

In what way is it more efficient, though? Define what you mean by that. For instance, I personally find that my Italian axes (the ones in my personal stable) have lighter heads on longer handles than similarly intended American counterparts, and while those American axes would get the job done a bit faster with their heavier mass, the Italian axes get through in almost the same time and I find myself using much less energy. Since I run the homestead almost exclusively on hand power, being able to save my energy for other tasks during the day is of great benefit. However, that's mostly a function of the long handles, light heads, and deep, thin bits. Those same axes could have the handles brought more naturally on-axis by adding mass to the poll, but that would increase head weight. The head weight could be kept static by simply shifting the eye position forward, but that would shorten the depth of the bit and reduce clearance. The poll-less designs prioritize the deep bit and low head weight combination over on-axis handle construction simplicity and pounding functionality.

I have nothing against polled axes, and do have and use a number of them. I just find that the function and advantage of a poll is something that's often talked up, without much attention paid to whether or not those assertions are actually true.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

A Keech that similarly shows almost no poll, to the point where it has less than even many Italian axes. (Photo not mine.)

 

[quinton]

In what way is it more efficient, though? Define what you mean by that. For instance, I personally find that my Italian axes (the ones in my personal stable) have lighter heads on longer handles than similarly intended American counterparts, and while those American axes would get the job done a bit faster with their heavier mass, the Italian axes get through in almost the same time and I find myself using much less energy. Since I run the homestead almost exclusively on hand power, being able to save my energy for other tasks during the day is of great benefit. However, that's mostly a function of the long handles, light heads, and deep, thin bits. Those same axes could have the handles brought more naturally on-axis by adding mass to the poll, but that would increase head weight. The head weight could be kept static by simply shifting the eye position forward, but that would shorten the depth of the bit and reduce clearance. The poll-less designs prioritize the deep bit and low head weight combination over on-axis handle construction simplicity and pounding functionality.

I have nothing against polled axes, and do have and use a number of them. I just find that the function and advantage of a poll is something that's often talked up, without much attention paid to whether or not those assertions are actually true.

I see a benefit to the lighter Italian axes for smaller, thinner type brush around the farm. I know you are right about saving energy with that style axe for these tasks. But, the energy spent bucking a 18" white oak log would be better spent with a good polled axe.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

On the larger trees I've dealt with I've still found the light head/long handle/thin bit approach to still save me energy. A heavier head saves time but uses more energy. The poll, once again, has almost nothing to do with it. Honestly, something in that size range is much better dealt with using a saw of some kind. Use the axe for limbing it. But a light head on a long handle allows for hard-hitting blows to be delivered while requiring less energy to be expended in picking the darn thing up after you swing it.

Again, the poll's real function is to simplify the requirements of an on-axis handle. The other functions it provides (increasing head weight if all else is held constant and providing a better surface for hammer usage) don't really have much impact in that context of use or can be accomplished by other means.

 

[Old Axeman]

FortyTwoBlades- I define efficient as-a poll ax moves more wood than a poll less ax in the same length of time.The increase in efficienece you describe with a longer handle is the same for poll ax or poll less ax.

It might be time for you to start a weight training program if cutting with your poll ax is making you too tired out to do your other chores. I have never had that problem.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

FortyTwoBlades- I define efficient as-a poll ax moves more wood than a poll less ax in the same length of time.The increase in efficienece you describe with a longer handle is the same for poll ax or poll less ax.

It might be time for you to start a weight training program if cutting with your poll ax is making you too tired out to do your other chores. I have never had that problem.

And you're dealing with otherwise identical or similar bit geometries and edge angles? Because it seems very likely to me that the differences you experienced could be traced to factors other than the presence or absence of a significant poll.

I never said that using a polled axe makes me too tired to get my chores done. Just that using a lighter and thinner axe on a longer handle, regardless of type (polled or not) tends to aid in conserving energy, which I find of benefit with all of the other physical labor that I'm doing during the course of a normal day.

•Ultimately, there is only so much force the human body can exert, and the way that it breaks down in its distribution in an axe blow is between penetration and spreading/splitting forces divided over the length of the cutting edge contacting the target. The more emphasis on penetration, the less chip popping ability the axe has, but the more readily the axe will bite deep and so the thickness of things like branches that can be dealt with in a single hit is increased. In cases with depth, the geometry of the axe will determine the required volume of wood that needs to be removed, and the thinner the geometry, the narrower a notch can be made without running into issues with clearing the eye. However, an axe that's purpose built for penetration can become stuck if used improperly and so usually such axes are fairly broad if used on softer woods where over-penetration would otherwise be likely, spreading the force out over a wider edge. This also improves accuracy because not as many blows need to be made to cut across the face of a broad trunk and so there are fewer opportunities for a poor blow.

•However, these dedicated chopping axes aren't going to split worth crap unless you use the twist splitting method, and that's not an appropriate method in all wood.

•A deep bit reduces clearance requirements for the eye but comes at the expense of either moving the edge further from the axle of the tool and/or reducing the size of the poll, which lowers the suitability of the axe for pounding work and makes shaping a single-axis handle more complicated.

 

[jfk1110]

Have you seen/looked at the roselli axe. It comes in 2 lengths 14" & 19" I believe. I have the shorter one and love it. It's looks alone hooked me. It's a very beefy implement. Works very well splitting rounds up to 6" diameter. Really don't bother with anything bigger when hiking/camping. Works well for limbing and bucking as well. Especially like carving with it. I find the ergos to be phenomenal. I find myself making spoons on every outing. The handle is made of birch and does an excellent job deadening the feel of impact much more than hickory does..it comes with a nice sheath as well. After a few times out with it I removed all the carbon left from forging and this puppy shines bright.
I love it. It always comes with me. Have a look n it might appeal to your eye as well. Good luck

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

From an 1866 article in the Irish Industrial Magazine that describes phenomena of bit geometry nicely:

 

[littleknife]

Old Axeman, thank you for sharing your great experience and answering my question in a satisfactory way. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Then it is in a way good that the Russians never invented, nor adopted the polled felling axe - this at least slowed down the deforestation of Eurasia a bit. The western & central parts of Europe did not fare so well: there were just too many people for a very long time around and most forests there did not have a chance.

I have learnt a lot from this thread, and hope it will still go on for a while.
FortyTwoBlades, I thank you too for sharing your expertise, I learned a lot from you too. :thumbup::thumbup:

If I understand correctly the results of this discussion so far, it seems that:
a) the accuracy of the axe does not depend on the mere presence or absence of a poll;
b) the polled axes allow for increased efficiency regarding the amount of wood moved;
c) poll-less axes allow for less energy expenditure;
d) poll-less axes are more specialized, while the American polled axe is a more generalist tool;
e) chopping with polled or poll-less axes require different techniques;
f) there is a different optimal range of weight and bit thickness in each design type to allow for the advantage of the given design to be prevalent;
and
g) no wonder Paul Bunyan was an American superhero - he had to wield a polled axe.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

[...]
b) the polled axes allow for increased efficiency regarding the amount of wood moved;
c) poll-less axes allow for less energy expenditure;

I would perhaps modify the statements, personally, to be that:

b) Polled axes are able to use a handle with less crook in the neck and have the whole handle (or most of it, at least) lie on-axis, which aids in sliding the hands during a swing or choking up on the handle without affecting the effective hang. Handle manufacture is simplified as a result, and a smaller billet can be used when making that handle, which is quite convenient for the home handle-maker and a cost savings for commercial manufacturers.
c) Poll-less or reduced-poll axes require more crook in the handle neck if an on-axis handle is desired, but allow for a deeper bit. A straight handle can be used with poll-less axes but results in the handle running off-axis, which requires an adaptation of technique to account for it, or else accuracy will suffer. The more off-axis a handle runs, the more difficult it is to compensate for it.

I believe one of many contributing factors to the development of polled axes was the availability of hickory, which allowed for a narrower eye that could fit farther up inside the desired geometry of the axe without bulging it out. You'll notice that most European axes tend to have somewhat thicker and/or overall larger eyes because the best wood they had available to them was beech and ash, which are still quite strong woods, but less able to support the very slim tongues that hickory handles can without suffering a loss in durability.

Some interesting further reading can be found in this 1862 article, though the print is small. It goes over the "crooked handle" matter to an extent.

 

[Square_peg]

Traditional axe patterns die hard. Many regions cling to old patterns out of habit. But all the old world patterns came to the new world and were thrown into the crucible of trial and invention. Forestry became an industry on a scale never seen anywhere else. Woodsmen learned what worked best and they wanted it - needed it - to stay competitive. And they invented the American poll axe. Still unequaled.

 

[littleknife]

FortyTwoBlades, thanks for the corrections and clarifications.

Many poll-less axes shown when compared to the American polled axe are shown with straight handles, for example like the 5th axe you posted in post #33 in this thread, a Brazilian Tramontina axe.
Based on what you have just wrote, these axes have an off-axis running handle, no crooked neck and they need a special technique to compensate for the easy to produce handle but less-optimal overall design of the whole axe.
No wonder a straight handled polled axe with an axis running through the handle will feel “more balanced”, since it does not require an additional technique to compensate for a sub-optimal design feature in the actual axe (head + handle).
Also, that would mean that the American polled axe developed to - among other things - to provide a user-friendly design solution by negating the need for corrective techniques while still keeping the advantages of an easy to produce straight in-axis handle. Later on the polled axe proved to be versatile enough to accept (mostly) in-axis curved handles too.
Do I understand this correctly?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Traditional axe patterns die hard. Many regions cling to old patterns out of habit. But all the old world patterns came to the new world and were thrown into the crucible of trial and invention. Forestry became an industry on a scale never seen anywhere else. Woodsmen learned what worked best and they wanted it - needed it - to stay competitive. And they invented the American poll axe. Still unequaled.

It's a little more complicated than that in my opinion. I'd rather say that the new world proved to be a different environment inhabited by people with different functional needs than in European settings, and that the unique prioritized range of functions required or desired of their tools combined with their developed methodological preferences, and led to a tool that best fulfilled the tasks they asked of the tool in the way that they wanted it to do it. That is to say, if their preferences in prioritized features and work methods were at all different, different designs that accomplished the same work with equal efficiency but in slightly different ways would have been the result. Regional variations represent signs of this, with the different preferred patterns in certain regions being forms adapted to the specific functional contexts of those populations' environments, tasks, and work preferences, all viewed through the lens of the overall dominant design philosophies of the industry and the manufacturing methods and materials of the day, as well as a certain amount of pure marketing.