If only one axe (or only two, or only three axes)

[Steve Tall]

As written by Peter Vido:

This is meant to inspire a dialogue among somewhat seasoned ax users. Naturally, no matter what I might suggest, there will be folks out there disagreeing. I have, in principle, no difficulty with diversity of opinions as long as they are based on actual experience (preferably a varied one) in the field. But I should also emphasize that I have neither time nor interest to indulge in polemics. My aim here is to help establish some immanently practical guidelines, and to see if at least some consensus could, after all, be arrived at.

Before the merits and limitations of potential head/handle combinations are considered further, let's settle whether we are talking of a desire for only one ax, or several of them. To illustrate how this influences the choice of axes, I'll paint three imaginary scenarios -- with my preferred options (as fuel for fiery debate?):

Suppose I were preparing for a more-or-less settled existence as a farmer (and seasonal hunter/gatherer) in a place where trees are not excessively large (say, not much over 12” diameter at the butt), and these would be my exclusive building and firewood material. I’d have no prospects of obtaining other tools for a long time, possibly years.

If, in that situation, I were to have only one ax (in combination with a small belt knife as my other edge tool), I’d take a
2¼ lb head on a 28-29” handle.

If, in addition to the knife, I could have two axes, they would be
1¾ lb head on a 24-25” handle, and
2¾ lb head on a 30” handle.

If, in addition to the knife, I could have a hatchet as well as two axes, they would be
1¼ lb head on a 14” handle,
2 lb head on a 25-26” handle, and
3 to 3-1/4 lb head on a 30” handle,

in which case the last one might be a double bit -- with one bit shaped for felling and hewing in clear wood, the other for the “tough on edge” jobs (knots, dead limbs), and splitting.

To briefly substantiate my choices:

One ax only:
This obviously has to be a compromise in more ways than one. For felling trees (not teenage saplings), a handle less than 28” is a serious drawback, especially with a head which is only marginally heavy enough. (Yet certain amount of “compensating” is possible. For instance, if the head is ½ lb too light, 2-4” extra length of the handle somewhat makes up for it. Say a 2 lb head on a 30” handle may sort of “equal” a 2 ½ lb head on a 28” handle in trees per hour felled.)
Limbing offers more leeway – and most combinations of 2-3 lb head/26-30” handle would suit me well enough. However, a handle over 25-26” hinders maneuverability in all those various small ax jobs like finishing corners of a log structure (in place of a log gouge or a slick), squaring 4-5” rails for making gates, fencing, dressing a large animal (deer, moose, cow) etc. Here a 1-3/4 to 2 lb head on 24-25” handle is most handy. Throughout the year we probably use axes of this size on more frequent basis than others. But to have that one ax only, and hoping for it to double for these tasks as well as to function as a more serious felling/splitting tool (which that 2 ¼ head/28-29” handle can represent in an emergency) is a wish to span two ax-work worlds that are a mile apart.

Two ax scenario:
Once that handy “small utility version” is on the scene, its mate can grow in size by ½ lb in head and 2” in handle above the “one ax compromise”.

Two axes plus hatchet:
Three axes nearly span the essentials of the ax duties. The smallest (the hatchet) can now take over some tasks of the utility version. The 2 lb head can do the rest of them, as well as portion of the 30” handled one more efficiently. The largest ax would then do for all the rest of my chopping between now and eternity. For instance, while flattening 9-12” trunks (to make a 6” dovetail corner, for instance) a 3-3 ½ lb two-beveled ax is a sufficient replacement for a broadax. It would be nice if it had 5-6” face, but if not, it will do.


Let me add that for an average family homestead needs I consider a broad ax a luxury; in the future it will be even more so the case... If you can easily afford a broad ax (new ones are far from cheap), then get it if for no other reason than posterity. Food for thought: many a local old-timer squared all the timbers for the traditional 30 by 40 foot post & beam barn (18-foot posts) with his standard felling double-bitted ax.

As for firewood splitting, our family’s favoured tool is a somewhat worn (thereby cheekier) 3 ½ lb double bit. (Our stoves in various buildings contribute to the climate change by swallowing about 10-12 cords of wood per year.) In line with New Brunswick tradition, we do not place billets upon a splitting block and we do not drive the ax straight through down to the ground. A much lighter ax than 3-1/2 lb, used in this manner, can also do it, if need be.

As you see, there is no ax among my choices with either a 19-20” or 36” handle. The shorter of these two makes neither a handy (one-hand) hatchet nor a decent two-hand ax. I consider it sort of a hybrid, invented perhaps for the city folks’ weekend adventures in the forest. Some strong-armed men can no doubt wield it as if it were a hatchet; in the hands of the rest (incl. me) it wobbles too much to be accurate. If held in two hands its shortcomings are instantly felt by anyone who has used a light ax with 4-5” longer handle for the same job.

An ax with a 36" handle is a specialized tool (primarily for professionals with large trees to fell), with limited small homestead applications. I strongly discourage novices to begin their learning with a 36 inch handle, because at least some of them will get discouraged before they discover the charm and usefulness of a well-chosen ax.


Consider the Weight and Geometry before the Maker

Along with the weight of the head, its “form” or specific shape/geometry plays an important role, at least for me. An ax needs to satisfy both of those parameters before I’d be concerned with who exactly was its maker. This is not to say that I wouldn’t give preference to a reputable product from the USA, Sweden or Germany instead of one of China. I would. But the shape of some famous heads is nothing to write home about -- other than to caution my family that all that glitters is not gold...

This post was written by Peter Vido and excerpted from his blog "Axe Connected"
In Search of an Axe for 'The World Made by Hand'

 

[Operator1975]

This is an excellent post. Lot to think about here. With the different situations, there are so many options. One thing that you assume maybe is the availability of the axe to the person in question. If you are living in said circumstance, you might not have all the options available to you, and have to make due with whatever axe you can get your hands on. This then can make the situation more interesting, no doubt.

That being said, if I had options, I tend to go with the heavier axes, and have noticed this in many of the threads that are somewhat similar to this. I am not sure why I like the bigger axes, I guess my reasoning is that I would rather manage the weight and carrying, cumbersomeness of it to have the tool that I need when I need it, if that makes sense. In the situation listed above, if I could only have one axe, even with 12" diameter trees, I would probably go with a 3lb single bit with a good pole on it. This way not only can I do whatever I need with it wood wise, but then I have the ability to drive stakes, wedges, etc, if need be. I would keep the handle a little shorter than normal, maybe around 30 inch or so, then I can buck more efficiently. You get into the longer handles here, and in my experience, bucking is a little ackward, more time consuming, but manageable.

There are so many variables with this question, and that is what makes the post excellent. What about your age? Im 35 and can handle a 3 lb axe all day. What if I am 60? What if older? What kind of trees are we talking about? Mostly evergreens, or conifers? This to me would make a difference. (I don't like pounding away all day on a pine).

Great question with situations given. The real question is, is there technically a right answer? I could see going with the 2 1/4 lb for one axe only. Good choice, versatile, all around. I wouldn't argue. When I think about bucking, splitting smaller wood, kinling, etc, now the 3 lb seems like a monster to have to handle, especially if older. The 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 pound seems and would be a better choice. I myself though would prefer to have a little more mass if ever needed, sort of like overdressing to go outside when it is 5 degrees. I would rather have it then not have it at all. But thats just me.

Excellent question/post.

 

[Shotgun]

Don't have any experience with full size axes really but I have to agree with the short handled axes in the 19 inch area. I have a 19 inch haft on my tomahawk and I don't know how people use both hands to swing it. It feels extremely awkward to use two handed and if it were an axe with a 1 3/4 pound head, it would be a pain to swing one handed. In the limited experience I have with larger axe like objects, 24 inch seems to be the bare minimum that I feel comfortable to swing two handed.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Can't really argue his logic, although I have different preferences.

For the One Axe scenario:
30" Double bit axe. Although I prefer a longer haft on my big axes, he's right that they aren't so good for an all-rounder, and the double bit is just more versatile. Remember, he's limiting the number of axes, he never said we didn't have a sledge hammer. . .

For the Two Axe scenario:
36" Double Bit axe. Since I have another tool, I'll maximize this one for felling and splitting.
24" axe. I kind of agonized over this one. This size become difficult to use in some of the smaller construction projects, but the larger ones (like building the cabin and barns) would be nearly impossible with a hatchet.

For the Three Axe scenario:
36" Double Bit axe.
24" axe.
18" Carpenter's Axe. Yep, 18". Not everything on the homestead is about cutting wood for fires or building large structures. A lot of detail work ends up needing to be done, and the Carpenter's Axe is better at such things than even a 14" hatchet.

Of course now we can get into other homesteading tools like adzes, froes, splitting mauls, sledges. . .

 

[rg598]

It is hard to argue with preferences. As with all the other threads on the subject, it comes down to how you use your axe and what you plan on doing. For the scenario listed above (a homestead), the choices look good, and so do Cpl Punishment’s choices. At the end of the day it is a very personal thing, and I think Operator1975 outlined some of the other considerations very well.

In defense of axes with short handles (I’m thinking a Gransfors Bruks Small Forest Axe), they are primarily designed for people on the move, where weight is a very significant consideration and all your gear has to be carried on your back. With some practice they can be used very effectively, and in addition to chopping and splitting smaller wood, they serve very well as carving tools when no other is available. I think some small axes get it right and others don’t. For example, I have no problem using a Small Forest Axe with two hands (even though I’m a fairly tall guy), but their Hunters Axe with a handle of similar length is very burdensome to use in the same manner. Small changes in the handle can make a big difference.

http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/

 

[jw2n]

I would take a 36" double if limited to one.

Given a 2nd, for me it would be a 26" Hudson Bay pattern. I can get a full two-handed swing out of it, and it is not unreasonable to strap to a pack. (I might cheat and throw a GB SFA in)

for adding a hatchet - hmmm, GB Wilderness, Reeves Double, or Rosselli. I have both Reeves single and double. Although a bit large, the Reeves double would probably be my first choice. When I received my Rosselli, I immediately dismissed it as useless - until I started using it. Unconventional and cast, but it works very well.

I have not stated specific weights as you mentioned, but I have used these type of tools since the 60s and know what works for me.

 

[Steve Tall]

Operator 1975:

Yes, without available options ANY ax would do. Given enough perseverance and/or time, one can fell sizeable tress and build a cabin with one of those 1-1/2 pound 19" handle camp axes -- or (if no knife is to be had) skin a squirrel with the corner of a 4 pound ax. However, presently there are options in just about every imaginable head weight -- I think that their diversity will be whittled down considerably in the future. Handles should preferably be self-made; the time to learn how to do so is BEFORE an emergency...

That said, a 3 pound head is a fine option for someone who can "handle it all day". Many probably couldn't ... but I may simply not give enough credit to the potential of the generation of people who are presently being trained to push ever more buttons...
The issue here is that once you get a bit too tired from swinging "extra" weight, accuracy is compromised, sometimes very much so. The "extra", of course, must be determined by each individual.

The factor effecting the choices which I did not specifically address is the proportion of small (carpenter-like) jobs to big ones (felling, bucking and splitting lots of firewood). Our kids, I must say, split very respectable amounts of wood -- even when they previously used a 2-1/2 lb head for it.

As for handles, a 30" length was/is the standard in these parts... For strictly splitting 32-34" is admittedly better.

Shotgun:

I absolutely agree with your "24 inch seems to be the bare minimum that I feel comfortable to swing two handed". For this reason, even if I were to be on the move constantly and otherwise concerned about the total weight to be carried, the few extra ounces (between a 19-20" handle and a 24-25") I would consider a fine trade-off -- and take the longer handled ax.

Cpl Punishment:

A well-designed double bit ax may well be considered as the cream of ax evolution. (Though as some of you know, the design was in existence 2300 BC, in Crete -- and then it mysteriously disappeared from the wood-cutters' world. So perhaps the Yankees merely "re-discovered" it.) However, this "cat's meow" in certain hands is NOT a toy for novices to begin playing with, and one of the old time writers rightly commented that "the double bit ax is more dangerous than a loaded gun"...

We have double bits in most weight from 2 to 4 lbs (all on no less than 28" handles) but we use them far less frequently than the singles. One reason is that since we work close enough to home, having 2-3 axes (shaped differently) at a job site is not an issue.

That said, in this region the old timers scoffed at what they referred to as "poll axes". In their view, a good ax has two bits, period. One friend, now 94, told me that he was in his early twenties when he first even SAW such a thing as a single-bitted ax.

And, by the way, the sledge hammer would be a long way down on my list of essential tools (unless I needed to smash rocks). A beetle/mallet of any size can easily be made with nothing but an ax -- any ax. (For me the choice would be the 1-3/4 lb head with 25" handle.)

A splitting maul is likewise an unnecessary tool; handy at times, but those occasions are not frequent in our life. (Of course we ourselves do have them now, along with a plethora of all kinds of other less-than-needed tools. Ah, the luxury of "The American Way of Life"!)

-- Peter Vido

 

[Steve Tall]

The axes in the photo (from left to right) are:

2-1/4 lb Emerson and Stevens on 29" handle,
1-3/4 lb Sandvik on 25" handle,
2-3/4 lb Walters on 30" handle,
1-1/4 Plumb Scout Hatchet on 13" handle,
2 lb Wetterlings on 26" handle, and
3-1/4 lb Grey Gorge on 30" handle.


(All have that "high centerline" -- a feature of geometry to be discussed in Part 2 of this post.)

Notice our preference for straight handles. Two among the pictured group we consider less than "ideal": the hatchet and the Wetterling. The first is an exact replica of the Plumb original (which was rotten) I made 20 yrs. ago, but now find it too round, and a little too short. Today I'd make it differently.
The Wetterling has its original -- albeit refined (see "Thinning ax handles") during which process I tried to straighten that bottom curve... In the long run I'd replace that handle as well.

-- Peter Vido

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Cpl Punishment:
And, by the way, the sledge hammer would be a long way down on my list of essential tools (unless I needed to smash rocks). A beetle/mallet of any size can easily be made with nothing but an ax -- any ax. (For me the choice would be the 1-3/4 lb head with 25" handle.)

A splitting maul is likewise an unnecessary tool; handy at times, but those occasions are not frequent in our life. (Of course we ourselves do have them now, along with a plethora of all kinds of other less-than-needed tools. Ah, the luxury of "The American Way of Life"!)

-- Peter Vido

Well, I put those in there because we are discussing a homesteading life. For the same reason you'd choose purpose-built axes (working close to home), the same is said for the sledge and maul. Since I'm working a homestead, there's no reason not to have them in the barn/shed -- it's not like I'm packing them in a backpack all day.

Part of it's also the environment we grew up in. I DID grow up in a very rural area, went years without electricity and we really did use these tools. While some may split wood with an axe, when we are talking around the ol' homestead, the maul is my first choice. I also have a particular dislike for wedges and sledges -- seen way too many a glancing blow on a wedge to like them.

The sledge was an oft-used construction tool. Just a couple of weeks ago, in fact, I helped a neighbor place some large decorative stone pieces with a sledge. She wa worried I'd chip and break them, but put a piece of wood in between the sledge and the rock, and just tap, tap, tap, with a bit of sway in the hips and letting the momentum of the sledge do the work, it was fast, precise, and took little effort.

I'd also want things like a pick mattock (and pick axe if I have to move stones often), hoes, cultivators, etc, but that's a bit beyond the scope of the discussion. Nice thing about all these tools is that you can either find very nicely made versions, or if you have more time than money, you can shop yard sales and flea markets for vintage tools, and at most have to sharpen and re-haft them, all for less than one of those powered log splitter contraptions. Plus, with all those tools, if you get out and use them, you never need a gym membership!

 

[Steve Tall]

Cpl Punishment,

Your common sense regarding tools is evident -- and I am glad to note your branching off into the realm of other necessary homesteading aids. (This being an ax forum, and me being a good little boy I was sticking to the subject; besides I don't know how many of the readers are strictly ax collectors and what % use them frequently -- to sustain their livelihood by.)

As may be obvious, the homesteading scenario I scantily painted as the basis for ax selection is what I imagine a lot of future homesteads are likely to represent -- ones where resources (especially money) as well as ready access to many tools will be limited. (The writing is on the wall in bloody big letters; the reading of it is not keeping up...)

It seems that the rational approach is to give tool selection deserved attention -- axes as well as the rest. While an ax is surely one of the most essential of them all, it would be difficult to function vey well on a settled homestead without tools for earth digging (hoes, shovels, pick ax...), crop harvesting (sickle, scythe, forks...), carpentry (saw, chisel, brace/bits, drawknife)... the list is long.

Presently, most of these are at our fingertips, both new and used. In both instances -- relative to their usefulness -- good tools can be had for a song. Will it always be so? I don't think so -- which is why I emphasize that the time to obtain (and learn to use!) hand tools is NOW.

Those just starting their collection may do well to seriously contemplate the order of essentiality and focus on those near the top of the list first. An ax is already accepted by this readership as belonging to that priority group. What's next? A shovel, pick ax, sledge hammer...or...?

How about some feedback on this one?

jw2n,

Yes, 26" is a nice utility handle, easy enough to swing with both hands, long enough to fell (if need be) a sizeable tree, fine for limbing, OK for bucking (even if some extra bending is requires) and a respectable amount of firewood can be split with it.

But can you -- as well as the rest of the "36 inch fan club" -- tell me if you are all very tall -- or am I missing something of essence here?

An ax on a 36" handle as the only homesteading ax? I mean, for sharpening small stakes (but bigger than a knife job), making other tool handles, round notch-cutting in fence rails, rafters or in other building projects, limbing bushy tree trunks (with branches sticking out at you from every direction), for all of that , and more... an ax with a handle that long??

One more question (and then I'll shut up):

What exactly do you like about the Hudson Bay pattern? I mean get right into the details. Many thanks.

-- Peter Vido

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Cpl Punishment,
Presently, most of these are at our fingertips, both new and used. In both instances -- relative to their usefulness -- good tools can be had for a song. Will it always be so? I don't think so -- which is why I emphasize that the time to obtain (and learn to use!) hand tools is NOW.

AMEN!
I remember as recently as 2004, when every hurricane in the known universe hit Florida, people were begging for, and paying outrageous sums for, simple things like hand tools, plywood, tarps, etc. They forgot that when the electricity goes out for weeks, in some places more than a month, the gas pumps don't run, either. There goes your chainsaw and weed-eater fuel. Home repairs are more difficult if all you have is power tools because now you either have to burn your limited fuel supply to run a generator to run tools and charge batteries, or do without. As for cost, new tools are cheap. Let's face it, we're gear whores on forums like this. We really could get by with a made-in-mexico Collins axe and a file, we don't really need GBs, Wetterlings, etc. If one will re-haft tools, flea markets sell the heads cheap, and I've even gotten hand tools for free from people who were going to throw them out!
I keep harping on this, but there are health benefits to using hand tools. You get stronger, healthier, and you save money versus buying exercise equipment.

Those just starting their collection may do well to seriously contemplate the order of essentiality and focus on those near the top of the list first. An ax is already accepted by this readership as belonging to that priority group. What's next? A shovel, pick ax, sledge hammer...or...?

How about some feedback on this one?

This will be very situation dependent. I would argue that no matter where you live, the shovel is a universal homesteading need. Most places, other than deserts one of those manual lawn mowers will be a big help. Then your working cutting tools, axes, machetes, scythes -- all location and climate dependent.
Where I live now, I have no rock to speak of, so a pick axe is not needed. What I do have is an immensely dense root system, everywhere I go, about a foot underground. Too much for a shovel to handle well. A cutter mattock is a must.
Most homesteads need some sort of fencing. A post hole digger, while not necessary, will be much praised. A sledge is nice to have here. Yes, you can use a large mallet, but the sledge has other uses, and the smaller head with the weight more concentrated makes for a better tool.
If you are going to make wood shingles for house and barn, planking, etc, a froe will hold up much better than a batoned machete. Drawknives are invaluable for peeling logs and such.
For gardening, cultivators -- full size and one-hand, trowels, one-hand mattock (just a mattock, no pick or cutter, about a 2.5' haft), hoes, shears -- pruning and hedge, etc.
A brace drill and good selection of bits will go a long way, and of course various hammers.

While it all sounds like a lot, you can buy most, if not all the hand tools you'd need for $500 or less, so long as you don't look exclusively at Gucci brands -- NEW. Considerably less used. That being said, I'd say go inexpensive, but don't go cheap. Older tools are usually better, as they were made for long term, continuous use. A lot of the stuff you find in hardware stores are cheap crap these days, that handles will fall off of, tines and such on pitch forks, rakes and cultivators break, etc.

That being said, if one really wants to long-term homestead, they need to think about getting an anvil and learning to blacksmith. Then, as things break, you can fix them yourself. Making garden tools isn't rocket science.

There's a lot more tools to go over and discuss, and it'd be best if people from different climates went into what is necessary, what is nice to have, and what is REALLY nice to have.

jw2n,
But can you -- as well as the rest of the "36 inch fan club" -- tell me if you are all very tall -- or am I missing something of essence here?

I'm of the 36" fan club, though not as my ONLY axe. Although, I'm not a member of the "only one" fan club.

For me it's simple mechanical advantage, plus the fact that there is less bending down involved when doing a lot of heavy work. If you are asking why such an axe as your only one, I can't answer that.

What exactly do you like about the Hudson Bay pattern? I mean get right into the details. Many thanks.

-- Peter Vido

Not the guy you asked, but I am a big fan of the Hudson Bay profile, at least on medium sized axes.
Reason is the beard. 3/4 axes are somewhat unwieldy for detail work and such, and there is a big control advantage in being able to have my hand right behind the edge I'm working with. Since the 3/4 axe is really a jack-of-all-trades size, I'll trade off a little of the chopping advantage of a shorter cutting edge for the versatility.

 

[Operator1975]

Cpl Punishment,

One more question (and then I'll shut up):

What exactly do you like about the Hudson Bay pattern? I mean get right into the details. Many thanks.

-- Peter Vido

I myself do not like the Hudson Bay pattern, I prefer a more coventional (or what I call conventional, anyway) pattern, like Dayton or Michigan, or even a Jersey I like better. The weight on the Hudson does not "feel" right in my hands, for whatever reason. Not sure if I can explain it. It seems to me, when I swing it, I can "feel" the head twist, thus I am trying to work but just thinking about the axe the whole time, and thats not good. Now the reasons for this could be many, and probably the biggest one is to me just being so used to what I call conventional head patterns. Maybe I am a good example of someone using said pattern that is the most common in their own area. That being said I will try and use the Hudson style more. It must be good, I think I am the only one to comment on not really caring for it.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

You have to consider the Hudson Bay style is designed as a jack-of-all-trades tool. it was designed for trappers to be out running their trapline. They didn't carry much in weight, so they often kept their tools to a skinning knife and their cruiser axe. The axe would get used for a lot of tasks from gathering real wood to doing finer work they wouldn't want to use their skinner on.

If you aren't using your axe for anything but wood gathering, the Hudson Bay style doesn't really offer you a whole lot.

 

[Operator1975]

You have to consider the Hudson Bay style is designed as a jack-of-all-trades tool. it was designed for trappers to be out running their trapline. They didn't carry much in weight, so they often kept their tools to a skinning knife and their cruiser axe. The axe would get used for a lot of tasks from gathering real wood to doing finer work they wouldn't want to use their skinner on.

If you aren't using your axe for anything but wood gathering, the Hudson Bay style doesn't really offer you a whole lot.

I did not know this about Hudson style. Thanks for that info. Though I would question, if the trappers wanted ligther weight, which I understand why, I am not sure if I see the advantage of the Hudson vs just a smaller hatchet or axe of regular pattern (to me regular is dayton or michigan, as stated). Therefore, the development of the Hudson style doesn't seem warranted, at least to me. I wonder, maybe it developed like the others, from a local blacksmith that created his own pattern, and then it took off from there? Or if we are talking trapline, which I know little about, how does the Hudson have an advantage over say a dayton then of comparable weight? I guess I just don't see it. I am not saying you are wrong, I guess I just don't see it myself, thats all.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

From what I read, they used the beard to hook traps and pick them up (sometimes they were in places not easy to get your whole body in, and picking them up with the axe is nicer than getting bit by picking them up by hand).

Why no hatchet is simple to answer: they might really find themselves in a bad situation and the 3/4 axe is big enough to make fire and shelter fast, and small enough to carry.

Other styles of axes were used as well. The Hudson Bay was what the Hudson Bay company came up with as a distinctive and versatile tool for the trappers they sponsored. Despite the romantic notion of the lone wolf mountain man, quite a few, if not most, were sponsored by large companies, and often established camps of several men and each picked a sector to work. Safer being in a camp with others. Usually they packed gear that their sponsored companies manufactured.

Like I said, I like the Hudson Bay pattern as a jack of all trades tools. It's kind of the most versatile answer to an axe small enough to carry and big enough to work. If I'm not hampoered by the "only one" paradigm popular on the internet, I'll carry more specialized tools myself.

 

[Operator1975]

From what I read, they used the beard to hook traps and pick them up (sometimes they were in places not easy to get your whole body in, and picking them up with the axe is nicer than getting bit by picking them up by hand).

Why no hatchet is simple to answer: they might really find themselves in a bad situation and the 3/4 axe is big enough to make fire and shelter fast, and small enough to carry.

Other styles of axes were used as well. The Hudson Bay was what the Hudson Bay company came up with as a distinctive and versatile tool for the trappers they sponsored. Despite the romantic notion of the lone wolf mountain man, quite a few, if not most, were sponsored by large companies, and often established camps of several men and each picked a sector to work. Safer being in a camp with others. Usually they packed gear that their sponsored companies manufactured.

Like I said, I like the Hudson Bay pattern as a jack of all trades tools. It's kind of the most versatile answer to an axe small enough to carry and big enough to work. If I'm not hampoered by the "only one" paradigm popular on the internet, I'll carry more specialized tools myself.

Ok I can see what you are talking about. Sounds like a good reason for such a creation. Thanks!

 

[jw2n]

Perhaps I would be more accurate in stating a 26" axe instead of stating Hudson Bay specifically. Sure, head weight, profile, and pattern are all factors, but the basic platform is one that I like. It is portable enough to be unobstusive yet large enough to perform true axe tasks. I have the Gerber Camp axe and a GB SFA and I find the sub 20" to be neither fish nor fowl. Too small for a full two handed swing and too large as a hatchet. Also, as I said earlier, I find the 26" to be not unreasonable to strap to the outside of a pack.

In my heyday of axe swinging I stood just over 6'. I found that the 36" gave me greater mechanical advantage, longer reach, and although a bit more effort was required to swing it the impact was greater. I believe that much of what goes into what tool works best for any individual is subjective. There is an interaction between a man and his tool that goes beyond physics, and can be difficult to explain, as I am sure you understand. Anyways, I love hatchets, hawks, and axes, and would love to have the time and money to try them all.

 

[thunderstick]

I'll chime in on what I see as the value of a Hudson Bay ax in a 18" handle (I'll be the odd man out here). In this length it is very easy to control the head from turning on impact so that can be laid aside as a negative. For someone who is a carpenter by trade ... if you remember back when a hatchet was a part of a wood framing toolbox you can understand that the broad head of a Hudson Bay style is closest to a carpenter's hatchet bit. The blade is flat so that you shave a wood member on a flat plane or use it as a shingling hatchet. This is not as easily accomplished with a standard contoured pattern. You can choke up on a Hudson Bay and actually get behind the bit for controlled shaving or fashioning with less stress on the wrist over a period of time. Its a little easier to sharpen and keep a straight edge because there is no contour. It is superior for splitting because it makes a larger cut which protects the handle farther back so you can strike closer to the center of the wood without marring the handle on the edge. The 19" is the length you need for framing. No framers would swing a 12" or 14" hammer by choice. The 18" gives a framer the proper leverage for driving spikes or dowels. The poll is shorter and concentrates the force more like a hammer than the standard ax when it is used for that purpose.

I grew up on a farm and have been a builder all my adult life and have heated with wood all my life. Hand tools are my thing. I'll take a 32" single bit and a 18" Hudson Bay belt ax and do everything that needs to be done. Since we are homesteaders and not loggers the single-bit and the 32" handle offers more versatility over the double-bit and a 36" handle. My first preference in a 32" would be a 3-1/2 lb single-bit Jersey with 5" plus flat bit with ears (extra grip on the handle) and phantom bevels so that it does not stick when felling or chopping and can also be used as a broad ax -- similar to this one:
http://www.counciltool.com/product.asp?pg=product&item=35JC36C
I would go to my inventory and take the mint condition vintage Jersey Plumb head with phantom bevels and ears now residing on a new 32" properly fitted handle and my Council Tool Hudson Bay ax head which is fitted to a new 18" handle that projects an 1/8" above the head for extra grip.
Similar to this:
http://www.counciltool.com/product.asp?pg=product&item=17HB18
These are properly grained handles that are gorilla glued after being closely fitted (to swell and fill all voids) in the eye and then wood center wedged. One metal cross wedge is used and then the end grain is lacquer sealed which leaves room to add another wedge if it would be needed later. The handles are finished with alternating coats of Casey's True-Oil and Gunstock Wax.

If a 3rd ax is a possibility then I would probably add a 28"-30" cruiser weight double-bit for felling, limbing, and grubbing. The double-bit is a more efficient cutting tool and so a full size 3-1/2 lb. head would not be needed for felling 12" trees and the lighter weight would be better for limbing.

Those are my picks.

Good thread and good replies.

 

[G-pig]

Can we continue this thread? I know its old and all but.... but.... but....

This middle one is growing on me. 2 3/4 pounds, maine pattern. 29 inch handle. I havent used it extensively enough to confide in to this degree yet (Mann 2 1/4 pound still most trusted), but its whicked handy for just about everything.

 

[Steve Tall]

...
This middle one is growing on me. 2 3/4 pounds, maine pattern. 29 inch handle. I havent used it extensively enough to confide in to this degree yet (Mann 2 1/4 pound still most trusted), but its whicked handy for just about everything.

I love that handle, if as I suspect the curve follows the grain. That curve sure brings the cutting edge closer in alignment with your wrist rotation; should be a very accurate chopper.

This weight/length combination (well, with another inch on the handle) is one of Peter Vido's choices if he could only have two axes (the other would be 1-3/4 pound on a 24-25" handle), as listed in the original post.