If you had to pick one splitting maul ...

FortyTwoBlades said:
No, it's very much a maul. A hardened hammer face is not a prerequisite for a maul. It's also not that it's not designed to drive wedges, but rather a priority was placed on deformation over energy transfer--Council themselves call it a maul and do not tell you not to strike wedges with it. Similarly, when finishing a split with the poll it's still being used as a hammer. Your definition is overly narrow compared to the historical scope of the tool
Click to expand...

I asked Craig Roost about it (or rather I asked about it in general and he answered me) and he said they recommend using a sledge hammer for wedges instead and that the reason they don't harden the poll is because they anticipate that their users will use the thing as a wedge, which is dangerous if both tools are hardened. A surrender in the perennial struggle for American axe manufacturers to get their American customers to not misuse their tools. I am sure you know that old American mauls, and new Finnish, German, Swedish, and Italian mauls all have hardened, functional, mauling polls, so it's still a bad idea to make a habit of using mauls as wedges if whatever striking implement used is hardened.

Using the poll to finish off a split is a good idea but squarely in axe territory, especially because it is tapered to work by wedging action, albeit with a very blunt wedge.

Anyway, the definition I use is specific, long standing, and not recently invented, subjective, vague, or convoluted like "priority is placed on deformation not energy transfer"; rather than being overly narrow it is based on the ordinary meaning of words in English, which also parallels the names of these tools in German (Spalthammer vs. Spaltaxt translates as splitting hammer vs. splitting axe), Swedish (klyvyxa and släggyxa translates as splitting axe and sledge axe), and other languages. Straightforwardly, an edged metal wedge mounted on the end of handle is some sort of 'axe' and a 'maul' means what it always has: a percussive driving tool shaped like a hammer or club. This is the dictionary definition. The Dictionary of Tools Used in the Woodworking and Allied Trades defines maul as "A term for various tools used for driving." The and last time I Googled it the main definition given in various places for the difference between an axe and a splitting maul is the latter's hardened poll. In the glossary of The Ax Book, Dudley Cook's definition for Maul is "Long handled hammer with wood-splitting bit also." The USFS One Moving Part axe manual says "splitting mauls and sledge hammers have hardened ends, so it is best to use one of these tools to drive metal splitting wedges or strike other metal surfaces". This follows what "maul" in general and 'splitting maul' in particular always meant at least until 70s or 80s, around the time when people also started hanging their dull axes upside down on fat handles after burning the old handle out of the eye in a back yard fire pit. Prior those dark ages, Plumb described their Constructor's axes (usually called a rafting pattern now) in the 1970 catalogue as "Has broad hardened head to withstand constant pounding. A maul and axe combined in one tool." True temper's 1957 catalogue entry for their constructor's axe says "Heads specially heat treated and tempered for use as a maul". In the Mann 1949 catalogue they call it a "mauling mattern" and on page 7 under axe defects they note "Axes are not designed or intended to be used as mauls or wedges". These catalogues aren't saying that you can't use a regular axe to split wood, they are saying that a regular axe is not meant to be used as a bludgeoning or driving tool by using the word 'maul' as they expected it to be understood by their customers.

Anyway, I have a couple mauls: an 8lb USM, an unstamped 6lb sledge eye (that one is my favourite, getting back to the topic), and a 6lb BNT (putting it in the 50s or 60s) and I intend to use the word maul in the same way it would have been understood by the people that made those tools.
 
axes of keevil said:
I asked Craig Roost about it (or rather I asked about it in general and he answered me) and he said they recommend using a sledge hammer for wedges instead and that the reason they don't harden the poll is because they anticipate that their users will use the thing as a wedge, which is dangerous if both tools are hardened. A surrender in the perennial struggle for American axe manufacturers to get their American customers to not misuse their tools. I am sure you know that old American mauls, and new Finnish, German, Swedish, and Italian mauls all have hardened, functional, mauling polls, so it's still a bad idea to make a habit of using mauls as wedges if whatever striking implement used is hardened.

Using the poll to finish off a split is a good idea but squarely in axe territory, especially because it is tapered to work by wedging action, albeit with a very blunt wedge.

Anyway, the definition I use is specific, long standing, and not recently invented, subjective, vague, or convoluted like "priority is placed on deformation not energy transfer"; rather than being overly narrow it is based on the ordinary meaning of words in English, which also parallels the names of these tools in German (Spalthammer vs. Spaltaxt translates as splitting hammer vs. splitting axe), Swedish (klyvyxa and släggyxa translates as splitting axe and sledge axe), and other languages. Straightforwardly, an edged metal wedge mounted on the end of handle is some sort of 'axe' and a 'maul' means what it always has: a percussive driving tool shaped like a hammer or club. This is the dictionary definition. The Dictionary of Tools Used in the Woodworking and Allied Trades defines maul as "A term for various tools used for driving." The and last time I Googled it the main definition given in various places for the difference between an axe and a splitting maul is the latter's hardened poll. In the glossary of The Ax Book, Dudley Cook's definition for Maul is "Long handled hammer with wood-splitting bit also." The USFS One Moving Part axe manual says "splitting mauls and sledge hammers have hardened ends, so it is best to use one of these tools to drive metal splitting wedges or strike other metal surfaces". This follows what "maul" in general and 'splitting maul' in particular always meant at least until 70s or 80s, around the time when people also started hanging their dull axes upside down on fat handles after burning the old handle out of the eye in a back yard fire pit. Prior those dark ages, Plumb described their Constructor's axes (usually called a rafting pattern now) in the 1970 catalogue as "Has broad hardened head to withstand constant pounding. A maul and axe combined in one tool." True temper's 1957 catalogue entry for their constructor's axe says "Heads specially heat treated and tempered for use as a maul". In the Mann 1949 catalogue they call it a "mauling mattern" and on page 7 under axe defects they note "Axes are not designed or intended to be used as mauls or wedges". These catalogues aren't saying that you can't use a regular axe to split wood, they are saying that a regular axe is not meant to be used as a bludgeoning or driving tool by using the word 'maul' as they expected it to be understood by their customers.

Anyway, I have a couple mauls: an 8lb USM, an unstamped 6lb sledge eye (that one is my favourite, getting back to the topic), and a 6lb BNT (putting it in the 50s or 60s) and I intend to use the word maul in the same way it would have been understood by the people that made those tools.
Click to expand...
Sir, it is literally a maul. By your own description the originals were large wooden mallets. I am well familiar with the history of the term and you are being ridiculous. If you took the No.7 back to any period in which woodchopper's splitting mauls existed and you asked them what the tool was, you'd get a UNANIMOUS answer. Never mind the fact that there are countless hammers used for splitting of various kinds.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Sir, it is literally a maul. By your own description the originals were large wooden mallets. I am well familiar with the history of the term and you are being ridiculous. If you took the No.7 back to any period in which woodchopper's splitting mauls existed and you asked them what the tool was, you'd get a UNANIMOUS answer. Never mind the fact that there are countless hammers used for splitting of various kinds.
Click to expand...
It is "literally" not designed to drive the implement that a splitting maul is by definition "literally" designed to drive. You didn't know that but now you do so you might consider adjusting your preconceived opinion before you call anyone else ridiculous. The reason that a wooden splitting maul and a steel splitting maul have the same name is because the name refers to the tool's function to maul (percussively drive) splitting wedges not the vibe you perceive when you look at it.

It may be that if you showed an old time American woodchopper ca. 1935 (or 1910 or 1960) that tool they would think that it looks basically like an Oregon pattern woodchopper's maul and might call it that until they found out that it isn't suited to drive their steel splitting wedges and that they would have to get something else to use as a maul to the mauling job. Oh to be a fly on a tree trunk for that conversation. If the woodchopper is Czech or Swedish or German it wouldn't look that much like the mauls they were familiar with so you might not be able to fool them at all.
 
Last edited:
axes of keevil said:
It is "literally" not designed to drive the implement that a splitting maul is by definition "literally" designed to drive. You didn't know that but now you do so you might consider adjusting your preconceived opinion before you call anyone else ridiculous. The reason that a wooden splitting maul and a steel splitting maul have the same name is because the name refers to the tool's function to maul (percussively drive) splitting wedges not the vibe you perceive when you look at it.

It may be that if you showed an old time American woodchopper ca. 1935 (or 1910 or 1960) that tool they would think that it looks basically like an Oregon pattern woodchopper's maul and might call it that until they found out that it isn't suited to drive their steel splitting wedges and that they would have to get something else to use as a maul to the mauling job. Oh to be a fly on a tree trunk for that conversation. If the woodchopper is Czech or Swedish or German it wouldn't look that much like the mauls they were familiar with so you might not be able to fool them at all.
Click to expand...
I actually did know that, man. I'm friends with Craig and saw drafts of the design before it ever saw production. You CAN drive wedges with it. It's just going to deform faster than a hardened face so you'll need to dress it more frequently. You can also use it for driving gluts or socket wedges without fear of deforming the face. Pretty sure folks outside North America would still recognize a maul by its proportion and shape as well thanks to basic tool literacy. They might find the shape different from their usual style, but they wouldn't be unable to accurately guess its intended function. Your assertion is incorrect for a multitude of reasons and your definition is overly narrow. Expand your mind, sir.
 
Last edited:
vltor17 said:
I much prefer this one. Made it out of an excavator tooth, weighs 26 lbs. Haven’t really found anything I can’t split. View attachment 2776253View attachment 2776254
Click to expand...
Slap a wooden plug in the back of it and you'll have a striking face! Like a socket wedge on a handle. I rigged up a mini bucket tooth as an Iron Age-style axe at one point. The intention in buying it, though, was as a cheap alternative to a real socket wedge lol
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Slap a wooden plug in the back of it and you'll have a striking face! Like a socket wedge on a handle. I rigged up a mini bucket tooth as an Iron Age-style axe at one point. The intention in buying it, though, was as a cheap alternative to a real socket wedge lol
Click to expand...
Good idea, but I put lead shot in the tooth and welded a piece of plate on it for a cap.
 
flexo2 said:
so the right tool must weigh 5 pounds !?!?
Click to expand...
No. Sometimes the right tool is heavy splitting maul. I have a 10-pound maul I'm very fond of. Sometimes the right tool is a sledge and wedges. Sometimes it's a house axe or even some lighter hatchet.

But in the 4-5 pound range I'd choose a rafting axe over a maul. When the wood is easy to split with that weight tool I prefer the geometry of a rafting axe. It's a sort of half-maul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top