Heartwood vs sapwood??

Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
180
Why is it that they almost always use sapwood for axe handles? all the sources I've read never mention any benefits of sapwood so why don't we use heartwood? One picture was labeled "to much heartwood". Any information on the difference of the woods and there usage would be great.

Mitch
 
"AN AXE TO GRIND " explains much about choosing handle wood for axes

i use some Red Bud, i don't find large pieces to work with so some heartwood is usually present,
doesn't seem to matter as Red Bud is really hard wood.

buzz
 
I suppose its because most people think that sapwood is more resilient vs heartwood. But I heard somewhere that the US Forest Service did a test a long time ago comparing sapwood and heartwood, and they both performed the same as each other.

But I can't be 100% sure.

I have had my fair share of handles made of both heart wood, and sap wood, and I have yet to see anything that suggests that one is better then the other. I personally really like the lighter sapwood to the darker heartwood, even though it does show dirt a lot easier.

I have a Gransfors Bruks Scandinavian Forest Axe with a sapwood helve, and my GB Double Bit 35" with a heart wood helve. Both are great and have shown no weakness to date.

Just my $0.2.
 
The "superiority of the sapwood" is an "urban" legend.

What is more important that the handle should have vertical grain and be free of knots or other structural defects.

The following is a quote from the book of Samuel J. Record on the Mechanical Properties of Wood:

"In the study of the hickories the conclusion was: "There is an unfounded prejudice against the heartwood. Specifications place white hickory, or sapwood, in a higher grade than red hickory, or heartwood, though there is no inherent difference in strength. In fact, in the case of large and old hickory trees, the sapwood nearest the bark is comparatively weak, and the best wood is in the heart, though in young trees of thrifty growth the best wood is in the sap." The results of tests from selected pieces lying side by side in the same tree, and also the average values for heartwood and sapwood in shipments of the commercial hickories without selection, show conclusively that "the transformation of sapwood into heartwood does not affect either the strength or toughness of the wood.... It is true, however, that sapwood is usually more free from latent defects than heartwood."

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/home-improv...Wood/Heartwood-And-Sapwood.html#ixzz1tTAut3Uz

Also, read the first paragraph of the second page of the following publication of the Forest Products Laboratory:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrn/fplrn147.pdf
 
Hardly an urban legend. Anyone who kows anything about making selfbows can tell you the difference and why sapwood is used on the back of a bow and heartwood on the belly. There is a difference in the cellular structure that allows heartwood to be strong in both tension and compression, while sapwood is more elastic in tension but does not handle compression well. Heartwood is also generally denser, has less moisture in it and does not expand or shrink as much in varying moisture conditions.
 
Kingfisher Wood Works make "Impact Grade Hickory" Bokkens and other wooden practice weapons. Their website has lots of info and links about hickory, and how it compares to other woods. They claim there is no difference in strength between the heart and sap wood, of hickory(in the context of bokken).
I have several of their products, and the highest grade they offer will often be both types, very strong and sturdy hickory. These are made to take direct impacts, with other wooden swords of course, and stand up to it very well.
Add two or three pounds of steel to the end of a piece of hickory, and now it must endure even more stress. I know these links aren't about axes, but it gives insight into hickory vs. other woods. There's info out there also about wood baseball bats and grain alignment of ash vs. maple. Studies show that it doesn't matter so much with maple, but I've never seen axe handles made of maple, why not, too heavy, IDK?

http://kingfisherwoodworks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=kf&Category_Code=hickinfo
http://www.aikiweb.com/weapons/goedkoop1.html
http://kingfisherwoodworks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=kf&Category_Code=hickinfo2
 
Wow that was quick and quite insightful! Thanks everybody, il have to read into those links more later!

Thanks again,
Mitch
 
There's info out there also about wood baseball bats and grain alignment of ash vs. maple. Studies show that it doesn't matter so much with maple, but I've never seen axe handles made of maple, why not, too heavy, IDK?

I have around 8 axes hung on maple handles I carved myself. Defenitely not too heavy, but its a bit more breakable/brash than hickory or ash which is probably the reason you don't see handles made from it that often.
 
Hardly an urban legend. Anyone who kows anything about making selfbows can tell you the difference and why sapwood is used on the back of a bow and heartwood on the belly. There is a difference in the cellular structure that allows heartwood to be strong in both tension and compression, while sapwood is more elastic in tension but does not handle compression well. Heartwood is also generally denser, has less moisture in it and does not expand or shrink as much in varying moisture conditions.

Arathol, the OP question was about sapwood vs. heartwood in axe handles. My response was regarding the same use.
Bows require different mechanical properties. I am sorry if my post was not clear enough.
Best,
littleknife
 
Don't worry guys, any info on this topic is great, I'm probably not the only guy looking for help/info on this subject. Someone else can reference this thread later if it is more broad than just axe handles so feel free to add!
 
Never the less, the difference is clear. Bow or axe, efficient use of energy potential is the bottom line. They are not as different as you might imagine. Wood that is springy and does not take compression well won't make for a good axe handle. A soft and springy handle will absorb energy that otherwise would go into the cut.
Wood that expands and contracts with different moisture levels makes for a poor handle. Keeping the head on tight at all times is important. Heartwood is generally stronger than sapwood for the reasons posted earlier, depending on the species of course.
 
Wood of a given dimension is going to have the greatest potential for straight vertical grain the closer it is to the outside of a piece of any wood because it will contain less arc from the trees rings(?)
 
Slightly curved grain is OK (by curved I mean curved in the cross section). Lengthwise the grain should be running straight.
What is most important, that the grain should not run diagonally out of the side of the handle.
Vertical or near vertical grain is more important in long handles than in short ones.

While there are several “rules” regarding the optimal type of handle wood, they are not absolute ones.
As with many things in real life, the criteria regarding acceptable axe handle wood are more complex than to squeeze into a couple of rules.
Still, there are some traits which are statistically associated with higher frequency of failure, so they are best to avoid - if possible.

Several years ago I have posted the following quotes in two similar threads on another forum:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/us...d/241hicko.pdf

"Over the years a prejudice has developed against the heartwood of hickory. Red hickory (heartwood) is often placed in a lower grade than white hickory (sapwood) simply because of its color. Tests by the Forest Products Laboratory have shown conclusively that red, white, and mixed red-and-white hickory have the same strength characteristics, regardless of color. The negative attitude toward red hickory developed during the days of virgin hickory stands. Under virgin-stand conditions the heartwood was often less dense and not as strong as the sapwood. In the second-growth stands of today this density difference does not exist, and specifications and utilization practices should be adjusted to take this fact into account.”


http://abcworld.net/Wood

"Wide-ringed wood is often called "second-growth", because the growth of the young timber in open stands after the old trees have been removed is more rapid than in trees in the forest, and in the manufacture of articles where strength is an important consideration such "second-growth" hardwood material is preferred. This is particularly the case in the choice of hickory for handles and spokes. Here not only strength, but toughness and resilience are important. The results of a series of tests on hickory by the U.S. Forest Service show that:

"The work or shock-resisting ability is greatest in wide-ringed wood that has from 5 to 14 rings per inch (rings 1.8-5 mm thick), is fairly constant from 14 to 38 rings per inch (rings 0.7-1.8 mm thick), and decreases rapidly from 38 to 47 rings per inch (rings 0.5-0.7 mm thick). The strength at maximum load is not so great with the most rapid-growing wood; it is maximum with from 14 to 20 rings per inch (rings 1.3-1.8 mm thick), and again becomes less as the wood becomes more closely ringed. The natural deduction is that wood of first-class mechanical value shows from 5 to 20 rings per inch (rings 1.3-5 mm thick) and that slower growth yields poorer stock. Thus the inspector or buyer of hickory should discriminate against timber that has more than 20 rings per inch (rings less than 1.3 mm thick). Exceptions exist, however, in the case of normal growth upon dry situations, in which the slow-growing material may be strong and tough." "

According to

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/usda/tb342.pdf

"Too much reliance should not be put on ring width in judging the
quality of wood, since for any ring width large variations in strength
may occur, because different growth conditions may produce similar
rates of growth but different proportions of the various types of
tissues found in wood."

and:

"No generalization on the relative toughness of sapwood and of
heartwood or on the occurrence of brash wood in either can be made.
In old, slowly growing trees the sapwood is frequently low in toughness
and may even be brash, on account of the large percentage of
spring wood or other porous tissue that it contains.”

Best,
littleknife
 
Last edited:
I will add that straight grain is much more important in a curve handle than a straight handle. "Bad" grain orientation in a curved handle will result in a crap load of run out in 3 or 4 areas. Most of the breaks (that are not simply sheared off from an over strike or something) on curved handles with perpendicular grain occur at one of those high stress run out points. Straight grain is still ideal in a straight handle, but it would not be a deal breaker like it would be in a curved handle.
 
Probably the workability of sapwood made it preferred to heart wood. When folks lived by their labor you would use whatever got you back into business the fastest. Splitting out billets and trimming them into handles was not a separate trade until large logging operations connected with vast timber stands here in North America. Before that blacksmiths made axes and sold them as is and the buyer made the handle out of what suitable wood was on hand and worked. Sapwood was a better choice just in a practical sense.
 
Would it be fair to say that a combination of the two would be worse than just one or the other? Would it be more likely to separate?


I suspect part of the reason is grain alignment and the arc of the annular rings, as mentioned by Dunner.




Probably the workability of sapwood made it preferred to heart wood. When folks lived by their labor you would use whatever got you back into business the fastest. Splitting out billets and trimming them into handles was not a separate trade until large logging operations connected with vast timber stands here in North America. Before that blacksmiths made axes and sold them as is and the buyer made the handle out of what suitable wood was on hand and worked. Sapwood was a better choice just in a practical sense.

Yes and no. While it may be quicker to use sapwood, I suspect that most people who depended on an axe would have done the extra work and used the heartwood if it would pay off down the road. It seems that at one time people had a better grasp on the consequences of their actions than they do now.
 
Yes and no. While it may be quicker to use sapwood, I suspect that most people who depended on an axe would have done the extra work and used the heartwood if it would pay off down the road. It seems that at one time people had a better grasp on the consequences of their actions than they do now.
I imagine there were regional and local preferences for species of wood and sapwood versus heartwood. Some people follow what they saw before with little interest in innovation and others look for a way to improve something they have used all their lives. So yes and no is exactly right more or less. lol
 
Back
Top