fiskars 14" hatchet

[Cliff Stamp]

This is a small hatchet, very comparable to the Wildlife hatchet, donated for a review by Jim Hartsell :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/fiskars/hatchet/fiskars_axe.jpg

It is slightly lighter than the Bruks (525 vs 610 g), however it is also slightly more forward balanced, the handle is hollow at the end, which compensates and both have near identical heft in hand and power on the swing.

The bit is very differnt though, the Bruks has the traditional hollow grind of a hardwood axe, while the Fiskers has a much thicker flat grind and is 0.660" thick at 2 3/16" back from the edge :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/fiskars/hatchet/fiskars_bit.jpg

The Fiskers has a dual v-bevel on top of the primary flat grind, the primary edge grind is 14.4 degrees and the bit is 0.1" thick behind the edge. The secondary bevel is 21.6 degrees and its edge is 0.024" thick.

Both it and the Bruks hatchet were sharp enough to readily slice newsprint and both had no problem making thin shavings from a piece of pine. The sweep on the Bruks made it slightly more efficient, but the Fiskers has better ergonomics, the Bruks is squarish around the poll, but the Fiskers is well rounded there and works better in a grip around the poll to use it as a draw knife. :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/fiskars/hatchet/fiskars_shavings.jpg

For removing large amounts of wood though the Bruks is readily more efficient, the edge is simply more acute and much thinner. I'll quantify this on birch and hemp later on. I'll also remove the secondary edge bevel on the Fiskars which should put it much closer to the Bruks, based on the hardness listed it should be readily filed.

Moving on to chopping though, for light work, just wrist swings with some elbow, it is in the same class as the Bruks on some seasoned woods. The penetration was low, only half an inch or less. Both hatchets were used to poitn some small sticks to make wedges and no significant difference was noted in power or fluidity in the woods.

Using the wedges to split some small rounds, both hatchets had similar impact abilities, however the much thinner poll on the Fiskers tended to do more damage to the wedges because of the focused impacts. Both were in general too light, I would actually just cut a heavy baton and use that instead for maximum efficiency :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/fiskars/hatchet/fiskars_split.jpg

So based on a quick first pass, the axe seems solid, I am a bit concerned about the thick bit, it should be very fluid on some of the softer woods but penetration may be an issue on the harder ones. It should be more productive as a splitter, but it doesn't have the weight or bit depth for that except for really small rounds.

The more obtuse edge also of course gives it greater strength/durability for utility purposes so some wire/bone work would be informative with both axes as well before the edges are made more comparable.

Ref :

http://www.fiskars.com/US/Garden/Product+Detail?contentId=85474

Full review (link added August, 2006) :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/fiskars_hatchet.html

-Cliff

 

[Way-O]

Nice to see you review this as the Fiskars axes are so often discussed. I'm looking forward to updates on this, especially concerning the performance after reprofiling.

I've split a great amount of wood with a slightly larger model, the 17" one I think, and found it a good performer, pleasant to work with and pretty accurate.
How do you feel about the straight handle? Would you think it's a viable idea to lengthen the handle with an extension pushed into the handle and secured with a tap through the lanyard holes? How about storing cord etc in the handle?

 

[Temper]

Traditionally axes from Europe always had a straight handle. The curved shaft is (IIRC) pretty much an American invention that found favour back in Europe.

 

[Way-O]

Temper, around what time did the curved shaft "migrate" to Europe?

 

[Temper]

Around the time that logging became a big industry. Apparently the huge trees in the New World were a little too much for the straight handle, the curved handle was developed to counter this problem and the 'improved' axe handle was then adopted by the European makers.

There is a .pdf available called 'An Axe to Grind' its free on the Internet, I can't find it now but if you would like to read it (its by a very good authority) then I can email a copy to you.(its 17.2MB though)

 

[littleknife]

Thanks Temper for the source.
I managed to find it (it was evidently moved from a goverment site to a boy scout site):

http://scoutmaster.typepad.com/axegrind.pdf

or

http://scoutmaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/an_axe_to_grind.html

On page 9 it is stated that the straight handles are earlier European types.
I was told the same thing by Ragnar from Ragweed Forge ( http://www.ragweedforge.com ).

Ragnar is a cornucopia of axe related knowledge.

 

[NorthStarXO]

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=376012

We found that file back in December on highway administration site of all places. Here's a link to the thread.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

How do you feel about the straight handle?

You can't really call this a straight handle because the end is hooked, this is one of the main points of contention with straight vs curved handles in use for Cook who goes in in detail about this arguing for lesser precision. I don't think his arguement is valid though and I think he ignores the effect on wrist orientation (a similar arguement would be made for dropped handles on knives for example).

Would you think it's a viable idea to lengthen the handle with an extension pushed into the handle and secured with a tap through the lanyard holes? How about storing cord etc in the handle?

The handle is hollow, which is nice as it shifts the mass forward. I don't see a problem with filling it with a pole to make it two handed, that is actually a very nice idea as you could make a small two hander out of it, like the GB small forest, or just use a plug and as a mini-kit.

I have done a lot of hard wood cutting with it, it taking 20-25% more chops than the Wildlife. It will also lose the fine cutting ability faster, but even on hard and frozen/knotty wood after a session of cutting say 250-500 chops I have to give it some light work on a fine stone to get it back to slicing paper readily, so it isn't poor.

In regards to straight vs curved, Cook argues they are weaker, heavier, more costly to make and less precise. I don't know about them being used on larger wood because all I have read on very big wood (walk into a notch) was cut with traditional double bit falling axes which were straight handled.

Cook notes their introduction (bend handles) in the 1840's and considers it to be snake-oil more than anything else which sold on the basic of visual appeal.

-Cliff

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I reworked the edge with a file, nothing serious just removed the harsh transition from primary to secondary edge and widened the bevel a little by giving it a larger sweep. I made the same mistake I always do, and did more work at the top of the bevel rather than the very edge.

I intended to bring the secondary bevel down to 15, but when I actually got around to measuring it (a couple of weeks later) I found out that it was still at ~20 per side. Most of the work was spent on the top of the bevel so it is significantly wider now.

The alteration made little difference to chopping, I went through 58 sections of seasoned wood of various sizes and the performance was no statistically different from the last run :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/fiskars/hatchet/fiskars_mod_wood.jpg

However a couple of changes were noted, it felt "better" in the wood, this may have just been getting used to the axe, or it may have to do with the elimination of the sharp transition. The edge durability also increased slightly, again due to a combination of both factors most likely.

I then used it to hack/carve off a large amount of rough wood stock and it was significantly improved over the NIB edge :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/CliffStamp/fiskars/hatchet/fiskars_reground_club.jpg

I plan on refiling the edge again shortly.

-Cliff

 

[tonybigthumbs]

I'm currently trying to decide between the GB Hatchet and the Fiskars Hatchet..

might not see much use, just something to have at the ready for light duty.

problem is, I can buy the fiskars hatchet plus the fiskars axe sharpener
for 29.95 cdn + 9.99 cdn ( 40 bux total + tax)

the GB hatchet is 85 $ cdn + tax, and i think its another 20$ for the GB hatchet stone sharpener.

obviously the GB is a much more beautiful hatchet.. but is it worth more than twice the price, is the fiskars at say 50% of the performance the GB, maybe 70%?
higher?

Thanks

 

[Ravaillac]

might not see much use, just something to have at the ready for light duty.

Then, on a strictly practical point of view Fiskars should be enough. That said GB is of course a lot nicer.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Initially, with the stock profiles, the cutting ability will favor the Bruks heavily, about 50% is a what you are looking at, assuming the Fiskars I had was representative because the initial angle is significantly more obtuse. The chopping ability is closer because even though the Bruks is heavier, the Fiskars has more weight forward plus it has some advantages in bit and handle design. Mine was about 80% through almost a hundred small sticks.

However if you are willing to spend about half an hour with a file and remove the obtuse edge on the Fiskars and then blend the edge back into the primary grind, the cutting ability and chopping ability with be in the same class as the Bruks. The edge retention on mine was still lower. It isn't horribly outclassed, but side by side cutting did show the Fiskars would lose fine cutting ability faster. You are still looking at a lot of chopping, hundreds of chops, before you stop being able to slice paper for example.

-Cliff

 

[1Tracker]

Mr Stamp, Thank you for taking your time to do the testing between these 2 hatchets/hand axes. I wonder if you could elaborate upon the rest of the sizes in the Fiskars/Gerber line and the 'coating/finishes' on them? I'm interested in having a hand axe/hatchet to split camp wood, and cut off larger dead wood from standing trees, for campfires/shelter purposes.

Is'nt there a contact on this board from either Gerber or Fiskers Company? I think they should pass along your info to the manufacturing plant on the edge design, and redesign it to similiar specs as the Bruks so as to avoid having the consumer do it upon purchase. They'd have much more satisfied comsumers, and consumers would enjoy the tool more. Maybe someone here knows someone at those companies and can get a Rep' to reply to this.

Would love to hear your opiniion on the Back Paxe axe by gerber, and the whole line of Gerber/Fiskers mr Stamp. Especially the design difference in the 'splitting head' design of the 'splitting axe' by Fiskers, over say the 'sport axe' by Fiskars? The 'splitting head' would seem much more efficinet to me on a hand axe/hatchet.

Thanks.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Would love to hear your opiniion on the Back Paxe axe by gerber ...

I am leary of comments like "full size head on a reduced handle" which is used to describe that small axe. When you vastly reduce the handle you need to radically recut the head to achieve the same level of cutting power. If you are willing to regrind the head to a full taper you should be able to get decent performance out of it but a large knife would tend to be far more useful than a micro-axe, especially without a truely optomized bit. I have not looked into the rest of the line but have interest in them based on working with this one.

-Cliff

 

[Kevin the grey]

Isn,t the Bruks more expensive than the Fiskars ? I realise money is only money . How would you rate them as far as bang for the buck ?

B:T:W: Fiskars is on sale 25 percent off at Canadian tire this week .

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Bruks is more expensive, but not a lot based on a casual internet survey, about 15% or so. Lee Valley has nice prices for the Bruks. If you compare both with initial edges it is an easy win for Bruks, even noting the price, because of the massive difference in sharpness. However if you are willing to spent some time with a file and polish the edge, I found the raw chopping performance to be new identical on hard woods and the Fiskars is significantly lighter. There are also arguements to be made for the head and handle design being more optomized for greater precision on the cut on the Fiskars. I still need to check both on some really soft wood to see how the penetration/fluidity holds when they sink 2+". I have been meaning to do this for awhile, I'll see if I can't get the time this weekend. If you can get the Fiskars a lot cheaper it would be hard to argue for the Bruks on a performance/cost perspective. Thanks to Jim for letting me have a look at this, it really opened my perspective on these axes.

-Cliff

 

[1Tracker]

Thank you Mr Stamp on your reply to my query in the above post. I bought a Buck 'DiamondBack' fixed blade, hollow ground knife recently wondering if this would do what I wanted. But before I went with it I wanted to know whether or not this is a large enough knife in your opinion, to do what I want, as detailed in my previous posts...camp wood 4-6" spliting with a baton?

9" overall length, 4 1/2" blade, 4 1/2" handle, not sure if it's a full tang though through the handle. I tried a baton on my Schrade 1410T guthook hollow ground blade about the same size and figure I ruined the knife as the blade started to work itself up through the front of the handle, after just a minute or two of hitting.

I understand what you said about the handle size vs the head size/profile and will disregard the smaller (less than 14") hand axes as not worth carrying for my purposes.

What would your opinion be of the Gerber Gator Combo with the saw in the handle? 2.75 " axe blade, 2lb weight combined with the saw in handle, 15.1" long overall, product # 1420?

Thank you

 

[Cliff Stamp]

[DiamondBack]

...camp wood 4-6" spliting with a baton?

Yes, it is possible but you are facing a couple of pretty significant problems. The first one is that due to the nature of hollow grinds they tend to focus stress at the edge when it encounters a problem. If for example you chop a hollow ground edge into a piece of wood and then leverage sideways on the knife the edge is pinched hard by the knife and it can actually crack off in the wood.

If however you do this with a flat grind of similar cross section, or especially with a convex grind, it will tend to just rotate out of the cut. Now in general you should not need to do this when chopping with proper technique, however you do sometimes and the basic idea holds if the edge hits a knot or twists in the grain of the wood. Of course if the hollow grind is really thick (TOPs/Strider) this isn't an issue, but Buck usually runs thinner hollow grinds.

The other issue is that unless the knife is significantly longer than the wood is wide you are not going to be able to split it effectively because there is nothing to hit when the blade is in the wood. Your only option is to take the wood apart by removing slabs until the width has been reduced until it can be split directly. One of the best baton options for that size of wood is just a small stout machete, about 12" or so. You will need to regrind the edge as they are initially way too thick.

...Gerber Gator Combo with the saw in the handle? 2.75 " axe blade, 2lb weight combined with the saw in handle, 15.1" long overall, product # 1420?

The axe looks fine for light work. You could use it to split 4-8" wood if it was clear and very soft and open grained like white pine. The edge likely needs to be reground to be optimal. I can't tell from the pictures if the tooth pattern on the saw is the same as the one I used awhile back which was very poor. In general though you want your saw blade to be significantly longer than the wood being cut because if it isn't then it is going to be very inefficient.

Note if you put a 6" saw blade to a 6" piece of wood then the first inch wood basically sees every tooth pass through it so it gets a full 6" per cut, but the last inch out by the end of the saw only gets a measly inch of saw blade cutting it per stroke. This is why a 12" saw is much more effective on 6" wood than a 6" saw. Plus the cuts are not lopsided. If the saw cuts on the push/pull this isn't an issue, but most small pruning saws are typically pull cut only.

You can buy a folding swede saw which is basically almost full size, called the Trailblazer and it will work very well on that size of wood. It packs up into a simple tube, is very light and takes up little space. Just Cliff is fine by the way.

-Cliff

 

[1Tracker]

Cliff, Thanks,
In addressing the first part of your answer, then a 9" overall knife will be difficult at best to work with as I intended. Understood the grind parts also, a significant part of the equation that most common folks like me would not know. That's why I'm here asking folks in the know!

Your explanation of the saw/axe combo was also very enlightening to me. I was going to ask what size/spacing the teeth should be to be efficent, but you covered that in your reply. You want a saw blade to be roughly twice the dimension of the intended wood to be cut, gotcha.

Basically I want 1 tool that I can delimb dead branches from standing trees; split 4-6" round pieces in half to burn more efficently in the campfire; and practice building hunting shelters with.

The Sport Axe by Gerber would seem to now be my first choice because it is lighter to carry and swing for a longer period of time; as compared to the heavier Camp axe by Gerber/Fiskers which you can't use two hands with, and would tend to tire one out quicker. Does the weight of the head do the splitting, or is it the power imparted by a full swing?

Thank you for your time, 1Tracker

 

[rocketmann]

Has any one tested the Estwing hatchets and axes? they seem very well made and unbreakable to boot??