Experience with the Council Tool splitting mauls?

L

littleknife

Joined
Nov 29, 2000
Messages
1,926
What is your experience with the Council Tool splitting mauls (6 lb or 8 lb)?

I have read some posts on several forums, and several comments reported the 6 lb mauls frequently bouncing off the rounds despite being sharpened & the bevels polished. Other mauls (Swedish or Austrian makes) were reported to split subsequently the same wood without much of a problem.
Is there a design feature which makes these mauls suited for only some type of wood?

Thanks,
littleknife
 
Just a guess on my part, but I suspect that there's probably a rather abrupt and thick edge shoulder. Most stock mauls of "classic" built have been that way. A properly tuned maul, in my experience, should have a smooth transition from the cheeks into the edge, at a low convex. I bet that the first inch or so back from the edge needs blending in for a more penetrating geometry.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Just a guess on my part, but I suspect that there's probably a rather abrupt and thick edge shoulder. Most stock mauls of "classic" built have been that way. A properly tuned maul, in my experience, should have a smooth transition from the cheeks into the edge, at a low convex. I bet that the first inch or so back from the edge needs blending in for a more penetrating geometry.
Click to expand...

Thanks FortyTwoBlades.
That means a lot of metal needs to be removed for the proper geometry.
I wonder why don't the companies forge the tool to have a better starting geometry in the first place.
If I am not mistaken most of the stock shape is formed by a closed die drop forging, and the polishing and edge grinding should not change much this geometry.
 
I think it has to do with the way the dies are sunk and the minimal finish-grinding done to them. A limit to a lot of drop-forging equipment is how thin of a section they can reliably and repeatably forge without risking "clashing" the dies, which can damage the equipment, which is why the bits on things like axes typically need a decent amount of finish-grinding in the cheeks to get them to the approximate desired geometry. With splitting tools, there's the seeming presumption that they're supposed to be thick, so less grinding is done, but also their heft makes them more likely to cause issues in shipping if made thin and sharp in the edge, so leaving them chunky is also a cost saving measure when it comes to their required packaging. I find this problem is common not only with mauls, but also with splitting wedges. They very often need significant thinning/blending in the shoulders to help them actually do their job properly.
 
My thoughts ...
What works with regard to profiles varies considerably based on the species and moisture content of the wood. Blunt profiles do split some types of wood quite well and sometimes the sharper Euro styles are more prone to sticking in some species. A maul that tends to stick will wear you/slow you down more quickly than a profile that takes 2 more strokes to open the split. Extracting from sticks puts a lot of stress on the handle in the eye even if you properly rap it free. In my opinion a classical 6# maul that has sharp initial profile will be one of the better generalist wood splitters. With that "hunk" of steel you can take a grinder to it and rough it in quickly and then file and hone the finished edge.

I tend to sharpen my mauls to where they penetrate enough to have an occasional slight stick. In this way you are cutting the fibers to more easily open the split but not penetrating too far that it cannot be easily extracted. My favorite all-round maul is a 6# classic on a straight fiberglass handle that is a good balance of shock absorption and impact transfer. It has a relatively thick and hard handle saver. It's my go to bludgeon. If that is not optimum for the species or moisture content, then I test some other profiles to decide if I need a heavier 8# or just a sharper profile. With this maul I can also split on the ground and not worry about the occasional breakthru hit into the ground as the blunter profile does not easily damage.

In summary I would pick something like a CT classic 6# maul as my starter and generalist maul and build inventory from there as needed. In general with a classic maul--plus two profiled splitting wedges, along with a Fiskars X27; there will not be much that you cannot split. With the Fiskars fill that hollow handle with expandable foam to help dampen the handle shock.

I have wood handled mauls and like them--but my Go-tos are the classic and the Fiskars mentioned above because of their durability in all conditions.
 
Thanks FortyTwoBlades and thunderstick for your insights and sharing your experience.

I also wonder what is the purpose of the flared toe and heel on the classic mauls or the hook on the German style mauls.
Are those for helping to extract a stuck tool?
 
It's a lesser version of a hookaroon to some degree, but also for repositioning the log for a better exploitation of the natural checking lines in the wood.

As far as geometry goes, I should specify that I'm not talking about making the bit at all sticky so much as smoothing the cheeks. Ideally it should almost be a near zero transition with the cheeks running straight into the edge, but still a thick enough angle to not be sticky. The closer to the edge you get, the greater the order of magnitude of influence the specific geometry has on cutting performance, so the thicker and abrupt transition right behind the edge has a HUGE influence. In the following image, the geometry on the left is what a typical maul would look like if the cheeks extended to the edge apex in a zero'ed geometry, what most factory-supplied classical mauls come like, and how they should be blended back to get them working right.

73312688_10219808013099218_19438824413200384_o.jpg
 
Fine. I split a couple winters worth with a pair of them. Occasional bounce on really wet rounds, but swing a little harder and they stuck. I'd rather have a bounce now and then than a hard stuck blade in a round, but that's just me, not a perfectionist when it comes to making firewood.

EDIT: I think I smoothed the edges a bit with a brown or red scotchbrite disk on an angle grinder. Just smoothed up a bit, not like honed or anything.

I do love splitting by hand, kinda regret not having a woodstove any more. Getting old and splitting wood and hiking are wonderful workouts.
 
thunderstick said:
In summary I would pick something like a CT classic 6# maul as my starter and generalist maul and build inventory from there as needed. In general with a classic maul--plus two profiled splitting wedges, along with a Fiskars X27; there will not be much that you cannot split.
Click to expand...

I like that approach, I think I will get a CT classic and another splitter. I am thinking about the Rinaldi maul.

Thanks again to all who shared their experience or have given advice.
It was very helpful. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
littleknife said:
How efficient is it for difficult to split wood (interlocked grain and/or knots)?
Click to expand...

Blasts right through it. If it manages to make it to the bit/eye transition, the additional thickening there busts it apart, and if it's stringy, like oak often is, the bit is very capable of slicing right through 'em. I've chopped clean through wavy grain and knots with it no problem. Most wood will split just fine without having to go deep, but when it does, it's able to push through and clinch the split quite nicely. It'll twist-split pretty nicely, too. It's been a real favorite of mine--I like to think of it as being halfway between a conventional maul and a large splitting axe, with a few extra tricks up its sleeve.
 
serotina said:
Fine. I split a couple winters worth with a pair of them. Occasional bounce on really wet rounds, but swing a little harder and they stuck. I'd rather have a bounce now and then than a hard stuck blade in a round, but that's just me, not a perfectionist when it comes to making firewood.

EDIT: I think I smoothed the edges a bit with a brown or red scotchbrite disk on an angle grinder. Just smoothed up a bit, not like honed or anything.

I do love splitting by hand, kinda regret not having a woodstove any more. Getting old and splitting wood and hiking are wonderful workouts.
Click to expand...

Thanks, serotina, that was really helpful! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Blasts right through it. If it manages to make it to the bit/eye transition, the additional thickening there busts it apart, and if it's stringy, like oak often is, the bit is very capable of slicing right through 'em. I've chopped clean through wavy grain and knots with it no problem. Most wood will split just fine without having to go deep, but when it does, it's able to push through and clinch the split quite nicely. It'll twist-split pretty nicely, too. It's been a real favorite of mine--I like to think of it as being halfway between a conventional maul and a large splitting axe, with a few extra tricks up its sleeve.
Click to expand...

I really like that. Thanks!
 
Consider also the Council 6 lb. flat head fire axe. It's an impressive splitter. It will penetrate wood that the thicker mauls won't, especially after a little profiling/sharpening. It has the thicker convex cheeks that we see in vintage axes but are largely missing in new axes. I would choose it before a maul.
 
Square_peg said:
Consider also the Council 6 lb. flat head fire axe. It's an impressive splitter. It will penetrate wood that the thicker mauls won't, especially after a little profiling/sharpening. It has the thicker convex cheeks that we see in vintage axes but are largely missing in new axes. I would choose it before a maul.
Click to expand...

Square_peg, you were reading my mind.
I have actually ordered the Council 6 lb. flat head fire axe two days ago! :)
Actually your posts and those of David Martin's were the ones which helped me to make a decision. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
I was looking for a maul to deal with the difficult to split pieces. I really like the look of the Swedish maul designs, but they are too expensive for my means. The Council Tool axes are considered quality tools and are affordable, that is why I have inquired about them. :)

Thanks for the great suggestion. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
The flat head fire axe would essentially do what I indicated for a 4.5# Fiskars. It will give better penetration than a maul when that is preferred. However, if you are picking a 6# axe as a light splitter, then I would consider moving the companion maul up to 8# for heavy splitting and driving wedges.
 
I would be interested in hearing how the 6# fire axe splits green wood here in the east. In my experience the green eastern wood has a higher moisture content and tends to be stringy, and the axes guys use with success in the west are not as efficient in the east. For example my recently fitted Rafting axe will stick big time in some wet green wood, while guys in the west like it for splitting. Once the wood dries out/seasons, the axes work much better.
 
thunderstick said:
The flat head fire axe would essentially do what I indicated for a 4.5# Fiskars. It will give better penetration than a maul when that is preferred. However, if you are picking a 6# axe as a light splitter, then I would consider moving the companion maul up to 8# for heavy splitting and driving wedges.
Click to expand...

Thanks thunderstick, I think this is an excellent suggestions.
I might still end up getting a Rinaldi maul first.
If possible, I would like to avoid a heavier maul, even though you are probably right that in this case the bigger/heavier is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top