(Gränsfors) Why the axe handle of model wildlife is thinner than model hand?

For anyone interested in reading up on actual wood science, there's a nice book available here from 1914 that's quite in-depth and approachable. Naturally we've also learned more since then, but most of those discoveries stand on the shoulders of work like this. Just be aware that, naturally, more recent scholarly works will be more up-to-date. The US Forest Products Laboratory also has this PDF publication.
 
Last edited:
510Whisper said:
An interesting discussion. My field is metal, not wood, but I'm in agreement that removing material does not and cannot increase rigidity. [...]
Click to expand...

The True North said:
[...]
Stiffer, sure, but yield strength is reduced. Think of that as the redundant strength that gets you through it but still needs to be rebuilt afterwards.
[...]

But we're talking axes here, and everything FortyTwoBlades said is correct.

Try being an adult and knock off the petulance. It's a bad look.
Click to expand...
I have a question for both of you. It's been 45 years since I got my engineering degree, and I was never very good at statics and dynamics. IIRC, when you compare an I beam to a solid rectangle of the same dimensions, the I beam retains it's stiffness compared to the solid rectangle but reduces weight. Which is why we use I beams.

Does removing the material affect the stiffness, or just the yield strength?
 
sodak said:
I have a question for both of you. It's been 45 years since I got my engineering degree, and I was never very good at statics and dynamics. IIRC, when you compare an I beam to a solid rectangle of the same dimensions, the I beam retains it's stiffness compared to the solid rectangle but reduces weight. Which is why we use I beams.

Does removing the material affect the stiffness, or just the yield strength?
Click to expand...
My understanding is not so much that it retains its stiffness as much as it retains MUCH of its stiffness while GREATLY reducing weight, making for a VASTLY better strength-to-weight ratio and has an improved moment of inertia due to more of the mass being distributed a farther distance from the central axis. For a given mass, for instance, a square tube has better torsional rigidity than an I-beam does. Yield strength is a material property, however, and should not change as a result of the material being removed, as it remains the same material. That said, I'm a designer, not an engineer, so it's entirely possible I've misinterpreted what actual engineers have written on the subject.

iu
 
Last edited:
garry3 said:
Width to thickness ratio does indeed affect how a material will bend.

I can't believe that is even in question.

I'm done here.
Click to expand...
It will affect how the material bends, yes, but you have yet to explain how it will make it stiffer. If you understand this better than we do, surely you can explain it. So far you have not so much as even attempted.
 
far from science of yours the fact is it's because it's not exactly the same movement, , a bushcraft hatchet would need a whip effect and not the carving one , wich can have thicker handle for weight effect
 
Well... just for fun, poops and giggles, I can think of one scenario where "removing" material could theoretically stiffen a piece of wood, but only in one direction.

If I take a 2" X 2" X 12" piece of wood and cut it lengthwise through and with the grain (not perpendicular to the grain), then stack the pieces and glue them together with a good resin glue, I've technically removed material through the process of cutting and now have a <1" X 4" X 12" piece of wood that's stiffer when stood and flexed on edge, but decidedly not when flexed while laying flat.

Again, this was just for fun... 😁

If, however, I took that same sample of wood and took a draw knife or spoke shaver to it, I most certainly woodn't (pun intended) make it stiffer, unless I crushed up and introduced a blue pill to the mix! 🤣
 
510Whisper said:
Well... just for fun, poops and giggles, I can think of one scenario where "removing" material could theoretically stiffen a piece of wood, but only in one direction.

If I take a 2" X 2" X 12" piece of wood and cut it lengthwise through and with the grain (not perpendicular to the grain), then stack the pieces and glue them together with a good resin glue, I've technically removed material through the process of cutting and now have a <1" X 4" X 12" piece of wood that's stiffer when stood and flexed on edge, but decidedly not when flexed while laying flat.

Again, this was just for fun... 😁

If, however, I took that same sample of wood and took a draw knife or spoke shaver to it, I most certainly woodn't (pun intended) make it stiffer, unless I crushed up and introduced a blue pill to the mix! 🤣
Click to expand...

Yeah but then you have to sit around and wait 60 minutes to chop wood😏
 
Yeah... but in the meantime, I could use that hour to contemplate the universe to figure out how to bend the laws of physics through kundalini yoga and Tesla powered innovation, all while starring lustily into a black hole! 🤣
 
Last edited:
SwissHeritageCo said:
OP, If you're referring to the "hand" model, it's because thickness doesn't matter as much when the handle is that short. It's bombproof so that it doesn't break, that's it.
Click to expand...
But I was just wondering why don't they make same thickness on the 2 models, but longer handle (on Wild model) is thiner than shorter handle (on hand hatchet model)
 
Steely_Gunz said:
I'm not an expert, but it makes sense to me that having something that is thin side to side yet thick enough front to back would yield a tool that stays Ridgid when striking head on but would allow for more flexibility when glancing or striking at an angle. Like I could see having some flex being a good thing as you swung upward at a 45 or something.
Click to expand...
sounds reasonable in real-world use cases (I haven't tried yet)
 
rjdankert said:
"The Gränsfors Wildlife Hatchet . . . with the same head as the Hand Hatchet but on a longer handle. This longer handle lends the axe more power, not least when felling trees. "
Click to expand...
Correct, that's why I confuse, they mention that the Wildlife Hatchet is longer, but didn't say it's thinner


rjdankert said:
I have "regular" and short handled hatchets. When carving, I have a preference for a short thicker handle. I like to grip up just under the head and the thicker handle feels better to me for that. I have a couple set up for this.
Click to expand...
Exact same feeling
 
As to the engineering ideas, if you have a solid beam of structural steel 12 inches by 12 inches and an "I" beam of the same dimension say 20 feet long even with a substantially oversized web thickness and dropped them both from 30 feet so they impacted the ground at a 30 degree angle, would anyone standing nearby suggest the "I" beam was stiffer? Or would the flex and shimmy of the "I" beam remove that idea from their minds.
 
DeadPineKnives said:
If I got the handle on the left I'd be disgusted and send it back right away

The one on the right could stand to be thinned
Click to expand...
at the time I handle the 2 axes, the left-hand one makes me feel handle solid, i'm not big-hands, but the right-hand side one makes me feel there are space between the handle and my hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top