In-Between Axe Recommendation?

Square_peg said:
If shopping for a vintage axe True Temper and Plumb are safe brands. Look for an axe with a long toe, a sign that it hasn't been heavily worn. Also look for poll damage, you don't want an axe that was used for pounding steel wedges.
Click to expand...

One last, convex cheeks, also called a high centerline. Flat-cheeked axes are sticky. They don't pop the chip well. I don't know if anyone has made a good convex-cheeked axe since the 70s or early 80s. Council's Velvicut is probably the closest thing.
 
Square_peg said:
But it helps if you have a mule team to carry your gear.
Click to expand...

Well, sure :) along with that though, I do a lot of cutting out of the wilderness, or on fires, and have spent my share of days on steep ground, no trail, with a sawpack, or fire line gear, saw on one shoulder and fuel can over the other hung on my axe handle.

Square_peg said:
One last, convex cheeks, also called a high centerline. Flat-cheeked axes are sticky. They don't pop the chip well. I don't know if anyone has made a good convex-cheeked axe since the 70s or early 80s. Council's Velvicut is probably the closest thing.
Click to expand...

Sure seems that's the case. I've found the recent councils to be alright in this regard, though it's pretty slight theres just enough high centerline to work. Not like the older american axes though, by any means.
 
I'm thinking they were gone with the closing of the Kelly plant in 1982. Warren and Woodings Verona were mking flat junk by then. Perhaps Vaughan still made a real axe. I don't know.

Sounds like a good topic for it's own thread. When did convex cheeks die?
 
I don't know for sure, but I think Plumb might have been the last out in that regard. They made flat junk too, but I've a couple sticker only ones from the 80's with really nice high centerlines.
You're right, its a topic of its own :)
 
Random thought because I like to modify everything .... not that it necessarily does or doesn't fit your needs but I happen to think 3lb axes are pretty dang handy outside of real serious wood chopping/bucking. It might be possible to take a new axe, like a Council Tool and grind a bunch of material away from either side of the cheeks, thin the bit overall and reduce the poll down to nearly 3lbs. This would raise the cheeks to resemble older made axes, and reduce the weight. Whether or not you could get a half pound out of a 3.5lb head is the question. All of the 3lb heads I have are roughly the same side profile of a 3.5lb head but in every other dimension are thinned.

Example; 3.5lb heads on left and right, 3lb head in the center. All 3 are Jersey patterns.
jersey_bits by city_ofthe_south, on Flickr
 
cityofthesouth said:
Random thought because I like to modify everything .... not that it necessarily does or doesn't fit your needs but I happen to think 3lb axes are pretty dang handy outside of real serious wood chopping/bucking. It might be possible to take a new axe, like a Council Tool and grind a bunch of material away from either side of the cheeks, thin the bit overall and reduce the poll down to nearly 3lbs. This would raise the cheeks to resemble older made axes, and reduce the weight. Whether or not you could get a half pound out of a 3.5lb head is the question. All of the 3lb heads I have are roughly the same side profile of a 3.5lb head but in every other dimension are thinned.

Example; 3.5lb heads on left and right, 3lb head in the center. All 3 are Jersey patterns.
jersey_bits by city_ofthe_south, on Flickr
Click to expand...


I agree, 3 lbs is real handy. Most I've had that size were born bigger, but I've a
few made that way, and they are similar in size but thinner, as you said. They are great choppers, and really nice to swing.
 
survivor45 said:
I think a good starting point for the length of someones personal axe is measure the length of your arm. As if the axe head is in the palm of your hand and the palm swell is in your armpit.
I've always found 36" handles too long. Either over striking or afraid I'd take it in the nuts if I choked up too much on the handle.
I'm 5'6" and 160lbs. A 26 inch handle is just the thing for me when spitting wood.
Click to expand...

Based on this test 24" should be about right. I also have short arms.
 
Square_peg said:
I can relate. I'm Forest Service certified to operate chainsaws or crosscut saws on any Forest Service land. Up here in WA we re-certify every 2 years. The certification program started by the Back Country Horsemen of Washington was actually the pilot program for certifying sawyers for FS lands. We were the first one
Click to expand...

I found your website while looking for OHLEC complexity information for the new FS saw policy. It looks like someone got a hold of some of this info in preview form or the policy workgroup web site got closed to non_FS personnel. I *thought* I remember getting onto the policy workgroup site at one time but can't any more.

Square_peg said:
All that said, I'd still look for a 2-1/4 to 3 pound axe on a 24"-30" handle for your work. A Hudson Bay would work but they will work loose under serious work because of their short eye. That's why I prefer the boys axe, longer eye.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the right track. I also saw and rejected the Hudson Bay pattern for your reasons. It looks like 24" would be a good length. However, I haven't seen much in the 2-1/2 to 3 pound head weight on the Bay.

Square_peg said:
If shopping for a vintage axe True Temper and Plumb are safe brands. Look for an axe with a long toe, a sign that it hasn't been heavily worn. Also look for poll damage, you don't want an axe that was used for pounding steel wedges.
Click to expand...

Good tips. I have seen a considerable amount of both on Bay items.

Square_peg said:
If you could find a 2-3/4 pound axe like my Walters and put it on a 26" - 30" haft I think it would serve you extremely well. If you also wanted to use it as an underbuck then I would want at least a 32" haft.
Click to expand...

Is your Walters a vintage head or is it still available? Even though I am crosscut certified I don't own a saw (my ATC club does) and I don't do much crosscut work.
 
Trailsawyer said:
Steve Sr. - Welcome to the forum!
My favorite saw comapnion axe - for last weekend anyway (026 Stihl, logging out a trail in medium sized fir) - is a 2-1/4# Craftsman boys axe, hung on a 28" crusier double bit haft.
I want a straight haft for driving wedges, and by doing a little work on the tounge most of the "fat" replacement hafts available today
can be made to fit nicely. Finished length usually ends up between 26 to 27". Total weight is just over 3#.
If working in big timber, or doing any felling, I usually carry a 3.5 or 4# on a 32" straight haft. If your packing a 046 Sithl with a 36" bar, or a 7 ft. crosscut saw, the extra weight dosen't
seem to matter as much, and your swamper can help!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips!

Trailsawyer said:
I would like to see a picture of your backpack!
Click to expand...

Got complete assembly instructions. How do I post a PDF file. I don't see any attachment options.
 
cityofthesouth said:
Random thought because I like to modify everything .... not that it necessarily does or doesn't fit your needs but I happen to think 3lb axes are pretty dang handy outside of real serious wood chopping/bucking. It might be possible to take a new axe, like a Council Tool and grind a bunch of material away from either side of the cheeks, thin the bit overall and reduce the poll down to nearly 3lbs. This would raise the cheeks to resemble older made axes, and reduce the weight. Whether or not you could get a half pound out of a 3.5lb head is the question. All of the 3lb heads I have are roughly the same side profile of a 3.5lb head but in every other dimension are thinned.
Click to expand...

I have noticed that just about all of the boys axe heads that I have seen on the Bay are pretty thin cheeked. I guess that this gets rid of the weight without reducing the size much. From what I have read the thinner cheeks make the axe more likely to stick and less likely to eject the chip. Is this usually much of an issue?
 
I also do wilderness trail maintenance, and can tell you that I definitely would not carry anything less than a 2.5lb head and 28" length. I know you are trying to stay light, so I think a 3lb head with 28" handle should work good (and I think would be the minimum that I would want to carry). I don't think the extra half pound is going to kill you, and you will appreciate it when you have to actually chop through something. I actually carry a 3 3/4 lb w/ 32" handle and really like it. Also I recommend something like a Jersey pattern which tend to have a fatter poll which you will appreciate for pounding wedges. sometimes we really whack on those wedges and I wouldn't want to be tapping on them with a little boy's or hudson bay sized poll. also we usually use the axe to open up the logs before we start the cross cut, so again, wouldn't want to be chipping away with a tiny axe.
 
I would say the boys axe is a good suggestion even though I would probably go for a hudson bay axe instead simply because you mention that it will mostly pound stakes so the portability will be nice. I have a snow and neally hudson bay and I was actually surprised how well it cut for such a small axe. I have since put a 24" handle on it and it smashes through stuff really well while not weighing a lot or having a big bit. Council looks to have nice options as well

Having said that, I have a much bigger axe for when things get serious on the mtb trails I help maintain. I try to avoid power tools out of preference and I like the workout. The rinaldi trento is my first foray into a poll-less axe and a big draw was the really long cutting edge as I have some aspirations about using hand tools and building furniture using bushcraft techniques, though I've yet to figure out a proper lashing to keep things really stable. Working on pressfit type things now but that requires a drill.

i9PC7bOl.jpg

tvqjJX8l.jpg


A big draw to some of the rinaldi's, even though they are poll-less, is that the fit like a tomahawk so I can pull the head and carry the handle and head off of each other for easier packing since I usually bike into the work area.

Unfortunately, I don't have a better shot of the hudson bay saved. They are thinner in the cheeks than what it sounds like you're after though.
emDXWLIl.jpg
 
Steve Sr. said:
I have noticed that just about all of the boys axe heads that I have seen on the Bay are pretty thin cheeked. I guess that this gets rid of the weight without reducing the size much. From what I have read the thinner cheeks make the axe more likely to stick and less likely to eject the chip. Is this usually much of an issue?
Click to expand...

Yeah as others have said, flatness is really the key but I'm no wood chopper. I mean, you are going to make some kind of compromise probably but it sounds like you need to do more light work than chopping so the compromise is in the right direction. As long as you keep the cheeks convex and full height at the center, but take out material from the outer edges (I can't find the right words to describe the area I'm talking about but I think you know what I mean) I think you'll be happy with it. In any event, it would be a fun project. You might even get a pretty good handle from CT.

ETA: I guess here is where I am going with the 3lb thing and I think it was what manufacturers had in mind when they made them. The side profile remained the same because you want plenty of edge for those times when you do want to chop. Even big limbs turn into chopping when they start to require several swings. But the axe is thinner and lighter because its primary goal is limbing, light work, brush clearing. That makes it breeze through light stuff because it's slightly heavy for the work. It basically does most of the things a bow saw is good for (in green wood anyway), but easier and faster. No sawing, no hacking, just quick swings where the weight does the work. You can take a tree apart real quick, and leave the heavy stuff for the chain saw.

A 3lb Connie on a short handle. One of my favorite things.
truetemperFEKW_connie2 by city_ofthe_south, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
EdmontonAxe said:
I had a 1.75lb 26" axe as a chain-saw assist for one 9-month work season. Heavy enough to drive wedges, light enough to swing one handed when needed and not too much of a hassle to haul around. 15lbs of chainsaw, an extra half pound might not make a difference.

http://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/garant-chainsaw-axe-26-in-0575135p.html

http://stubai.com/index.php/en/forestrytools/n-6715-stubai-chainsaw-axe-canadian-type-detail
Click to expand...

Those aren't bad choices. The Stubai steel is very good. The Stubai handle will be a little harder to replace since it's not a standard American handle.

But those both have flat cheeks and will be less efficient choppers.
 
Last edited:
Square_peg said:
Those aren't bad choices. The Stubai steel is very good. The Stubai handle will be a little harder to replace since it's not a standard American handle.

But those both have flat cheeks and will be less efficient choppers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the intended purpose is to pound wedges, chop out a hung-up chainsaw, and light limbing. Which is exactly what these little axes are designed for. I don't see efficiency in chopping as a criteria that matters in most cases (felling and bucking via chainsaw), and it wouldn't matter in this case either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top