Full size single bit design

Woodcraft

Woodcraft

Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
796
For the four who voted for it, and anyone else interested in designing full size single bit. I imagine making a list of tasks in order of importance is a good place to start. Then hardwood softwood, order of importance no point designing an ax for limbing and hewing if everyone is just splitting Ash and bucking pine. Any pattern you would want to start with, or just improve on? See if we agree on anything. I will start.

For me
Tasks
1. Bucking
2.splitting
3. Limbing

Hardwood softwood order
I actually buck more hardwood, but would love to design a softwood leaning ax. (Something with good bevels, different than the norm perhaps, and a good strong cheek.)


Pattern
Tasmanian.


Any important features anyone wants to see? Like hardened poll. Or "cheeks";)

We can compare lists and go forward with what is common in most lists
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see a light full size for trail work. 3 pounds max. Most anything sold these days will be 3-1/2 pounds for a full size single bit. Ideally this would be 2-3/4 pounds with a full size eye, convex cheeks and a 33" or 34" haft. The haft needs to be long enough to serve holding an underbuck tool. Experience has taught me that 32" is the bare minimum for holding an underbuck tool and getting the clearance you need from the tree.

Underbucking.jpg


Hard poll is a plus but not a deal breaker. We mostly use plastic wedges these days. In a pinch and 5 miles up the trail you will abuse an axe before you'll hike down for another tool. If I'm forced to hammer on another axe as a wedge or let my axe be used as a wedge I want my axe to be the one with the hard poll.

The convex cheeks need not be too thick. I'm not splitting. And I want the axe to stick when I need it to.

I have a 2-3/4 pound Walters full size I just need to hang to fulfill this role. But other trail workers would like this axe. And I bet a lot of people would find it super handy. Fills a niche between a boys axe and a full size.
 
Woodcraft said:
For the four who voted for it, and anyone else interested in designing full size single bit. I imagine making a list of tasks in order of importance is a good place to start.
Click to expand...

I was surprised the hatchet received so many votes, but it's only a small bit ahead of full-size axes in general, and the single-bit is the only one that generated any real discussion. Clearly this is where the passion is!

I lack a high-quality felling axe. My Plumb is fine, but unsophisticated. I have a doozy of a splitter in my old worn Connecticut, though I wouldn't mind a fresh one...

Regardless, I find Peg's description rather lumberjack-romantic, so I guess that's:
1. Bucking
2. Limbing
3. Splitting

For a custom design, I think it would be silly to omit the hardened poll, which is an unusual and desirable feature in a forest axe.
 
I would happily fall in line with the order bucking, limbing, splitting. I think a group that puts bucking first share the same set of wants in the geometry department. If we are discussing handles I think 34" is a good sweet spot. I am on board with a hardened poll as well. I think if we used the Connecticut pattern as the starting point I would like to see a strong cheek and a 34" handle. For me it would be a 4lb der and have some grindwork done for release and a good cheek to give that chip a hearty shove;)

While I like a 36" handle splitting and bucking from the ground, I agree that when you throw in limbing, and underhand chop from atop, a little Seuss this morning, a shorter handle makes sense. I think if I put a handle on a 4lb Connecticut I would use a 34". My "sweet spot".
 
Last edited:
I personally picked hatchet, because I and I assume many others don't have any real need for a full sized axe. Their are plenty of full sized and boys axe SB axes out there to be restored. I almost selected the Cruiser option as that's not as common either.

Anyway I like Square_Peg's suggestion. It would at least be something different, and I can definitely see Sawyers taking to it. They have no need for a DB axe, and the handle length and strength arguments are compelling.

I'd argue that a pattern with a wide bit and high centerline would offer a good balance between hard and soft wood which is the mix we have in my area. I'd opt for something like a Jersey, Connecticut, or Rockaway (but with a thinner profile like the two previous patterns). 2 3/4 lbs full sized axe would be interesting for sure.
 
I would like both a 2-2/4 AND a 4lb. :D

Peg, are you favoring one head profile or another?

Regarding haft length, I think preference must be partly due to head-weight and task, and partly due to user height. I'm 5'9". How tall are you guys?

Would these be straight or hafts with the standard curve?
 
I think now would be a good time to start clarifying with photography what we are on about. A lot of my axes are "upta camp", but I have a good charge here that I am messing with and working on. I think some pencil cheek pictures to show the centerline's we are talking about and want.
 
daizee said:
I would like both a 2-2/4 AND a 4lb. :D

Peg, are you favoring one head profile or another?

Regarding haft length, I think preference must be partly due to head-weight and task, and partly due to user height. I'm 5'9". How tall are you guys?

Would these be straight or hafts with the standard curve?
Click to expand...

Curved for me. 6'. I am open to design with both 2 3/4 and 4lbs as an endgame.


It is my opinion that the boys ax could/should be increased to 3lbs and 30". (Just in general, not pegs idea) 32" would probably be better. My increase to 30" from 28" is a compromise for packing.
 
This is the 3 1/2 lb Plumb. (This one is going on a 34" Ash handle) It is my opinion that this, while it can work on both is set up to destroy softwood. A jersey may be more of a compromise as the bevels recess aids in release and they do have a mild to low high centerline, I would rather have geometry more like the plumb.






This is roughly an inch and a half back from the bit.
 
It is hard to tell from the pictures, and what seems like small differences actually make for big differences in my experience.
The council tool Classic Jersey. Thick for a jersey, relatively low centerline (compared to the Plumbs)


The "Perfect" lol. It is pretty thin and has a pretty low centerline. Taking full advantage of those cut outs. Neither one of these first two are as awesome in pine as other examples.





More plumb geometry, victory, Michigan. Again far superior in softwood. I will dig out the 4lb plumb with bevels. It to has the "Plumb" geometry and the bevels. It is absolutely beat up and pitted. But it is one of my favorite axes to use. It blows a chip two stories and will not get stuck, even if you try. I often wonder if the pitting makes the minimal surface area of contact even smaller and aids in the non stickyness.




While the lower centerline axes cross over well and cutouts do aid in release I have found when crossing over I have been happier lately with higher centerline's on hardwood than with lower on soft. (What works best out of its element)Fulton, Plumb, Michigan and Rockaway, really impressed crossing over
 
Last edited:
I think as far as design and testing it comes down to overpenitration. Depending on the wood chosen for bucking. If you penetrate but repeatedly stick, and have to manipulate the chip, you have overpenitration. Blasting into a log and achieving depth is pointless in my opinion if the cheek is not sufficient to "push" the chip and separate it from the log and offer release. It comes down to efficiency. Of course it is an extremely delicate balance of bit and cheek geometry mixed with grinds and cutouts. But simply put, you can have too much of a good thing. It works in reverse as well. Too sharp a transition and you separate the chip but do not penetrate very far. It all translates to doing more work than needed. And as someone else pointed out, is more easily noticed by someone who counts production in fractions of a second and number of chops.
Striking similarly in the Stuart and Plumb geometry.
 
daizee said:
Peg, are you favoring one head profile or another?
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with a Michigan pattern. The rounded face is a little more forgiving of offcenter blows on a felling wedge. The bit can't be too wide nor the cheeks to thick just in order to stay down to 2-3/4 pounds while still giving adequate overall head size, say 7-1/4 x 3-3/4 or 4. The profile of that Kelly Perfect Woodcraft posted would be just about right.

This axe won't be super fast bucker. It's limited by its size and weight. But it's perfectly adequate for clearing small falls without the need of a saw. Even a boys axe is enough of a chopper to be adequate for trail work. This is just a bigger longer more powerful version of a boys axe that's long enough to underbuck.
 
Square_peg said:
I'd be happy with a Michigan pattern. The rounded face is a little more forgiving of offcenter blows on a felling wedge. The bit can't be too wide nor the cheeks to thick just in order to stay down to 2-3/4 pounds while still giving adequate overall head size, say 7-1/4 x 3-3/4 or 4. The profile of that Kelly Perfect Woodcraft posted would be just about right.

This axe won't be super fast bucker. It's limited by its size and weight. But it's perfectly adequate for clearing small falls without the need of a saw. Even a boys axe is enough of a chopper to be adequate for trail work. This is just a bigger longer more powerful version of a boys axe that's long enough to underbuck.
Click to expand...

A 2 3/4 lb Jersey with a rounded poll and a 33" 34" curved handle and "low" high centerline and phantom bevels and a full size eye? Sounds like it would be a dream for limbing and light work.
I like the idea of a 2 3/4 lb Michigan. Craftsman used the pattern for boys axes. If mine is any indication they were very light. Under 2 1\2 lbs.
 
Yes, I have a very nice Craftsman single oval boys axe that is much of what I desire in a trail axe. I just wish it were a little bigger. I also have a 3-1/2 Craftsman single oval single bit that has really nice form. It's just a little too big. Looking for that sweet spot in the middle. I realize this axe might not interest anyone else. But this post is about what I want.
 
Woodcraft said:
A 2 3/4 lb Jersey with a rounded poll and a 33" 34" curved handle and "low" high centerline and phantom bevels and a full size eye? Sounds like it would be a dream for limbing and light work.
I like the idea of a 2 3/4 lb Michigan. Craftsman used the pattern for boys axes. If mine is any indication they were very light. Under 2 1\2 lbs.
Click to expand...

A light Jersey? Hawt.
A light Connecticut? Hawt.
Probably tricky to make those very tall patterns light on a full-size eye, though.
What advantage do the Jersey eye lugs deliver vs. a CT pattern, which is already tall in the eye?
I recognize the practicality of the Michigan pattern, but find it rather boring to look at.
 
Square_peg said:
Yes, I have a very nice Craftsman single oval boys axe that is much of what I desire in a trail axe. I just wish it were a little bigger. I also have a 3-1/2 Craftsman single oval single bit that has really nice form. It's just a little too big. Looking for that sweet spot in the middle. I realize this axe might not interest anyone else. But this post is about what I want.
Click to expand...

I want a heavier "boys ax" with a longer handle for packing in. Or just small tasks. I can appreciate your wants. If not for a different use.
 
Last edited:
daizee said:
A light Jersey? Hawt.
A light Connecticut? Hawt.
Probably tricky to make those very tall patterns light on a full-size eye, though.
What advantage do the Jersey eye lugs deliver vs. a CT pattern, which is already tall in the eye?
I recognize the practicality of the Michigan pattern, but find it rather boring to look at.
Click to expand...

The lugs on the tall eye patterns are just for looks at this point in my opinion.
 
daizee said:
A light Jersey? Hawt.
A light Connecticut? Hawt.
Probably tricky to make those very tall patterns light on a full-size eye, though.
Click to expand...
I bet if you apply these grinds and general geometry to a Connecticut pattern you can get close with acceptable bit size. Someone who is cad savy could figure it out.


You could definitely go deeper on the cheek grinds to save weight.
 
Last edited:
Drop the cheek down a little. Go DEEP with the grinds. Remove from the poll the same that you remove from the grinds and cheek. I would even remove a little less from the poll than from the grinds and cheek. Trying to maintain or improve balance as you go. On a Connecticut pattern of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top