Introduction and "The Devolution of Ax Handles"

I'd like to breathe life again into this old but valuable discussion. I do wish it was shorter but excellent points are made (or defended as the case may be).

I have no where near the experience of any of the 3 major contributors to the thread. That is good and bad. The bad...since my childhood was spent on a Dairy Farm in Northern Indiana I simply swung whatever my father handed to me. The main house has supplemental electrical heating for the most bitter days but 99% of the time our kitchen round belly served the heating needs. Btw, cooking was done with a state of the art (for the early 70's mind you) propane 6-burner stove...we all liked Mom's cooking :thumbup: The good...from what I remember my Dad enjoyed maintaining and just collecting hand tools. We had a dedicated shop and every wall was decorated entirely with new(ish) and vintage tools. Dad kept early evenings and some weekends busy with maintenance including sharpening and new handles or fabricating parts, etc... Thinking back and although I didn't know it, this was his "time". No one ever said, that I can remember...SCAT but never the less we just got the vibe that Dad was busy so best if we make ourselves scarce (thus avoiding work as well).

Around 1993 the farm was purchased for open space by the County with State money. Before I moved on for good many pictures were taken. As part of the deal, working machinery...tractors, carts, milking machinery and including hand tools had to be taken off the property. The pics show many axes and most "seem" to have curved handles. I say "seem" because most of the photos are black and white against grey metal walls. Enough can be made out though to see the ratio of curved to straight handles is roughly 5:1. The straight handles are almost entirely on Double Bit axes.

I'm posting this hoping to give the thread new life but also to let you know this discussion of handles is geographically influenced as well. My Uncle by marriage still runs a 190 acre Dairy operation outside of Kent, CT. Like most farms they have a tool and maintenance barn and the majority of the handles (regardless of use) are straight handled. I haven't taken a serious inventory but would also add that many of the handles are significantly longer than I would be comfortable with. If I had to bet, many of the single bit axes have handles around 40". I probably could did one up somewhere but you won't find any hatchets laying around the area either. Tons of mauls and sledges but that's to be expected with the amount of heavy machinery. A bunch of times things need "sprung" from tight spots to be repaired - tractor cotter and axle pins particularly. We used to collect the used motor oil and put it through a dedicated spreader to be spread over the dirt drive and the field roads to keep the dust down. (EPA...what EPA?). That trailer tongue never once came off without several heavy whacks from a sledge...

Anyway, nice rambling post to continue the discussion.
 
Dudley Cook overstates his supposed problem with curved axe handles (one of the lesser flaws in his book). Peter is absolutely correct in his critic of new fat axe handles. Thinner is better. But modern handle makers have homeowners for customers not lumbermen. A broken handle is the primary concern - not efficiency of work with the handle as was the case in the heyday of the axe.

A curved handle generates more force. Plus it allows the wielder to work longer with less hand and wrist fatigue. This is why lumber companies supplied their men with curved axe handles. Production was paramount. There are other factors involved here, too. The curved haft, especially when combined with a large unclipped fawnsfoot, allows a more relaxed grip right up until the moment of impact. That looseness allows the user to generate more snap at the end of the swing, increasing the efficiency of the swing. That was the key to the success of the curved axe handle.

I've discussed this on other posts to this forum in more detail.

All that said - I like straight handles, too. Any axe or tool that has two striking ends should have a straight haft. The disadvantage of the straight haft grip can be somewhat overcome by having a large abrupt swell on the end of the straight haft. I've posted numerous pics of my own straight hafts with this large swell.

Lastly, I'd like to see a series of tests done with straight and curved haft axes. A series of parallel lines would be laid out at intervals along several long logs. Axe users would be asked to strike directly on the line at the usual 40°-45° angle. Each user would do the test with both straight and curved hafts of the same length on similar weight axes. The degree of miss for each type of handle would be measured. This would reveal the actual accuracy of the different handle types. A more arduous test would have to be done to determine which handle type facilitated more actual work in a day.
 
The good thing about overly thick axe handles? You can thin them down just how you like 'em. :cool:

Keeps the spokeshave and cabinet scraper makers in business, right? :D
 
^Good post [referring to square peg], thanks for typing it out. This is my first time in this thread, and you brought up some advantages of the curved handle that seemed to be missing from the earlier posts.

The photos where old axe experts are holding the straighter section of huge curved haft suggest to me that there is a very specific advantage to the curve, which is the ability to choose between grips. A slightly choked grip could allow more accuracy, while sliding your leading hand to the very bottom of the grip would give you the ability to put more power in because of the longer reach as well as the ability to pull towards yourself. Anyone can understand this from using any chopping tool, knife or machete, whatever.

I prefer the (well shaped) curved haft because of the wrist angle and work like Ross mentioned. I have stiff wrists and I feel like the joint is over-pronating if I have to put that extra couple of degrees before making contact. This could probably also be corrected with a better form, though, bending knees more, etc.

As for spoke shaves, I'm kicking myself for buying a new "Stanley" for $35. It's crap. I just moved to Maine and the flea markets/antique stores have an overflowing abundance of old quality spoke shaves for $10-12 with good blades. I'm sure you axe guys know that already though.
 
I like my handles to have kind of an S shape to them. I think it slows the swing up a little in the beginning only to be imparted at the end.
I reserve the right to be dead wrong.:D

On the left is a reshaped House handle, middle is vintage(that I like alot) and on the right is a more modern Kelly that is thin enough, just lacks the shape.
a6170488-1377-42a4-8a91-b60c73a27883_zps8e79b273.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Dudley Cook overstates his supposed problem with curved axe handles

Lastly, I'd like to see a series of tests done with straight and curved haft axes. A series of parallel lines would be laid out at intervals along several long logs. Axe users would be asked to strike directly on the line at the usual 40°-45° angle. Each user would do the test with both straight and curved hafts of the same length on similar weight axes. The degree of miss for each type of handle would be measured. This would reveal the actual accuracy of the different handle types. A more arduous test would have to be done to determine which handle type facilitated more actual work in a day.



I agree regards Cook and his position. It is not his supposition I find frustrating but rather his method of delivery...strikes me as "his way or the highway". Not much room for disagreement with his rhetoric (more personal than professional). I qualify this by adding that he likely has more experience wielding the axe (as an adult) than I do.

The idea of your comparison test would be interesting. I've no idea how you would alleviate the variables...there are so many from person to person. You would have to use a machine almost similar to what they use for golf ball striking. The intricate mechanics to do either series of motions are similar.

I would offer the following. I have one finger left that has not been broken (blame ABA for 14 years and an outdoor lifestyle). I also have had both hands operated for Carpal Tunnel. So that said, I find the curved handle distinctly more comfortable to grasp for any length of time. It's no secret I strongly prefer a Double Bit Axe (which square peg has been forced to offer much to much advice on ;) ) however if given the choice the Single Bit with a slight curve would serve me considerably better as the day wore on.
 
I agree. I'm also wondering how you could test the real difference. I suppose you could test something such as "Is the difference considerable enough to affect performance?" There still seem to be too many variables to consider when you apply your testing to more than one individual person.
 
To Peter Vido's credit he does state in the full article on his website that he has discovered after many days work that he gets more work done in a day with a straight haft. I don't doubt the accuracy of that statement or the amount of work that went into finding this out. Cook not Vido made the definitive statements about the straight haft.

My favorite axes to swing are my vintage handled single bits with nice slim handles and large abrupt fawnsfoot swells. Most comfortable to me. But I have 50-year old hands and wrists worn by many years of tools use.

As always YMMV.


My old Marshall-Wells. My favorite handle.

IMG_0301a.JPG
 
One of my favorites. 28" fawns foot swell with a slim handle.

Hults Bruk Agdor Montreal pattern axe

DSC_0854.jpg


DSC_0850.jpg


DSC_0856.jpg


Tom
 
Square Peg, that handle is beautiful! It just calls out to you.

I gave my very young grandaughter a stick this week end when she could not reach a wind chime. No words needed to be spoken, she knew exactly what to do with it. Swinging sticks(clubs ect) is probably in are DNA.
 
Swinging sticks (clubs, etc.) is probably in our DNA.

Give a small child any object. The first test will be putting in it the mouth to see if it's edible. Failing that test it will immediately be put to use as a hammer.
 
Why would they start the cut so high in the first pic? That tree doesn't look nearly as large as the second tree. It seems like that would waste a lot of wood.
 
Why would they start the cut so high in the first pic?

Many trees start their lives growing on 'nursery logs' or 'nursery stumps', the rotting remains of trees that came before them. Over time the roots of the new tree grow down over the stump, encapsulating it. All the wood encapsulating the old stump is worthless.

If you're cutting trees by hand with saw and axe then you don't want to have to cut it again to get rid of the part that the mill won't accept. So they banged on the trees with the polls of their axes, sounding out where the bad wood ended. Then they cut above that.

Here in Washington I've seen roots reaching the ground from atop nursery stumps 20 feet high.

Nursery_Log_at_Schooner_Trail.jpg
 
The flared butt is mostly lost as off-cuts when the tree is processed by a mill plus a butt section is awkward to position on a saw platform... and the fellow chopping is not particularly eager to chop through way more than he has to. Lumber itself was very nearly free (ie no cost) for hundreds of years and it was largely the labour and effort involved that determined the price. Up this way the Brits insisted that all export timber be squared on site and have uniform dimensions (something like 12 x 14"). You can imagine the huge amount of waste involved simply because of that.
 
Back
Top