Military Hatchet?

[thimble farm]

Any thoughts on this one would be appreciated. Has the old style "US" on head, hand forged and appears to have steel bit in it-hard to see from pictures.

5.125 inches x 3 inches. Light weight. Came from North West Ohio. I put the haft on it.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Getting that epoxy out of it is gonna' be a bear when that handle breaks.

Looks like a M1910 hatchet. A number of different makers produced them and with the stamp only saying "US" it's probably circa WW1. By WW2 they were having the manufacturers include their company mark on them as well.

 

[thimble farm]

Getting that epoxy out of it is gonna' be a bear when that handle breaks.

Looks like a M1910 hatchet. A number of different makers produced them and with the stamp only saying "US" it's probably circa WW1. By WW2 they were having the manufacturers include their company mark on them as well.

I am familiar with the M1910 hatchet. This is not one of those. The "US" on my hatchet is very thin and individually stamped, which is not found on M1910 hatches. Plus, the dimensions are different. Thanks

 

[JLRubicon]

I am familiar with the M1910 hatchet. This is not one of those. The "US" on my hatchet is very thin and individually stamped, which is not found on M1910 hatches. Plus, the dimensions are different. Thanks

What you are not familiar with is the proper way to hang a hatchet head. I'd suggest finding some good YouTube videos on how to properly do it. I would be very concerned to use that hatchet in the condition it is in. Safety first.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Doesn't look individually stamped and I'm not seeing where you're finding evidence of it being a forge-welded bit. Depending on the specific maker the US stamp was a little different. It doesn't look far off from this one to me. There's a lot of variation in them. There are countless permutations of them.

 

[Hickory n steel]

What you are not familiar with is the proper way to hang a hatchet head. I'd suggest finding some good YouTube videos on how to properly do it. I would be very concerned to use that hatchet in the condition it is in. Safety first.

I did this a time or two as a teenager when I first got interested in axes...etc but had no computer and didn't know anything about them.
My most used hammer was an early HART 25oz framer that my dad gave me, I essentially epoxied a stick into the eye and used it without thought.
I eventually learned and hung it right though.

 

[thimble farm]

Doesn't look individually stamped and I'm not seeing where you're finding evidence of it being a forge-welded bit. Depending on the specific maker the US stamp was a little different. It doesn't look far off from this one to me. There's a lot of variation in them. There are countless permutations of them.

Thanks for the further comments but it is older than the M-1910

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Any interest in explaining the reasoning behind that assertion, or posting additional photos? I don't see anything about its appearance that would clearly indicate it being older than the 20th century.

 

[Hickory n steel]

Thanks for the further comments but it is older than the M-1910

That's exactly what I would have thought as a teenager before I had begun learning enough to know how to hang an axe / hatchet or hammer.

 

[Hickory n steel]

I am familiar with the M1910 hatchet. This is not one of those. The "US" on my hatchet is very thin and individually stamped, which is not found on M1910 hatches. Plus, the dimensions are different. Thanks

Your hatchet head looks like it was sharpened quite a lot, and as far as I know the specs for things like axes / hatchets and GI picks were not very exacting.

I couldn't find any specific contract specifications online, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just had to use a standardized handle and fit into the standardized canvas carrier.
Here's a group I found online.

I see quite the variation here.

 

[garry3]

I did this a time or two as a teenager when I first got interested in axes...etc but had no computer and didn't know anything about them.
My most used hammer was an early HART 25oz framer that my dad gave me, I essentially epoxied a stick into the eye and used it without thought.
I eventually learned and hung it right though.

Epoxy drives right out for me as do most glues like Gorilla glue. Construction adhesive being one of the tougher ones but it softens right up with a little heat.

 

[thimble farm]

Any interest in explaining the reasoning behind that assertion, or posting additional photos? I don't see anything about its appearance that would clearly indicate it being older than the 20th century.

Any interest in explaining your expertise in US surcharge marks and their variations through the ages?

 

[crbnSteeladdict]

Thanks for the further comments but it is older than the M-1910

The only reason we are here is to broaden our knowledge. Military heads with your stamp are usually described as WW1. Could you share your reasoning behind thinking it is older than 1910.

 

[kvaughn]

Any interest in explaining your expertise in US surcharge marks and their variations through the ages?

Any interest in explaining why you're questioning the people you asked the question to?
Your obvious lack of skill in hanging this old head doesn't leave you with much credibility to do so.
Did you spray paint that black?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Any interest in explaining your expertise in US surcharge marks and their variations through the ages?

Happily.

I have read much on the topic from archaeologists and historians as well as personally examined many antique tools over the course of my career and am well versed in telltale changes in construction methods and tooling marks that may roughly indicate the period of a piece through American history. As crbnSteelAddict mentioned, the typical attribution for heads marked with a U.S. stamp ONLY is for around WW1 providing the pattern is not out of place for the period, which this is not. WW2 saw a change in the required marking practice where the military then wanted the manufacturer's name also clearly marked to they could better identify any issues with the equipment, whereas prior they had wanted a U.S. stamp with no other markings. Prior to that no specific standards existed and axes and other similar such sundry tools were sourced by the branches of the military as needed and largely by means of individual contracts provided to suppliers according to provided instruction, commonly in the form of a supplied pattern, but others simply by description. Because of the methods of manufacture in those early periods it was generally pretty easy for the manufacturer to produce to suit, but it's very likely in many cases that they would simply have been asked for something like "single bit axes, head weight 3.5lbs, with hickory handles" without any other specification, and the manufacturer would just churn out what they felt best matched the description in a way they thought would please the purchaser while turning them a good profit. It wasn't until later that more standardization began to occur with regards to widespread contracts and sourcing in items that weren't part of a soldiers personal carried equipment.

The styling of that particular head and handle along with that marking are completely in line with other axes of the WW1 period from what can be seen in the photos. Without evidence that indicates it's from a different period, and without well-documented provenance, the most likely answer is that it's one of the many thousands of WW1 axes that were made by various makers still using what was a mostly hand-operated open die forging process.

If you have an interest in providing details like the head weight and dimensions and any other details that are any sort of counter-evidence, I'm all ears and eager to learn. But that information has been anything but forthcoming and I find that curious. If you have good reason to believe it's not an M1910 that should be fairly easy to disprove, I should imagine. All I have to go on so far is the few photos provided, and no further details, which is precisely why I asked for them. If you want a positive ID, that's kind of important, eh?

 

[EngrSorenson]

Any interest in explaining your expertise in US surcharge marks and their variations through the ages?

If FortyTwoBlades tells you something, you can believe it.

You don’t even know how to haft an axe.

 

[thimble farm]

Happily.

I have read much on the topic from archaeologists and historians as well as personally examined many antique tools over the course of my career and am well versed in telltale changes in construction methods and tooling marks that may roughly indicate the period of a piece through American history. As crbnSteelAddict mentioned, the typical attribution for heads marked with a U.S. stamp ONLY is for around WW1 providing the pattern is not out of place for the period, which this is not. WW2 saw a change in the required marking practice where the military then wanted the manufacturer's name also clearly marked to they could better identify any issues with the equipment, whereas prior they had wanted a U.S. stamp with no other markings. Prior to that no specific standards existed and axes and other similar such sundry tools were sourced by the branches of the military as needed and largely by means of individual contracts provided to suppliers according to provided instruction, commonly in the form of a supplied pattern, but others simply by description. Because of the methods of manufacture in those early periods it was generally pretty easy for the manufacturer to produce to suit, but it's very likely in many cases that they would simply have been asked for something like "single bit axes, head weight 3.5lbs, with hickory handles" without any other specification, and the manufacturer would just churn out what they felt best matched the description in a way they thought would please the purchaser while turning them a good profit. It wasn't until later that more standardization began to occur with regards to widespread contracts and sourcing in items that weren't part of a soldiers personal carried equipment.

The styling of that particular head and handle along with that marking are completely in line with other axes of the WW1 period from what can be seen in the photos. Without evidence that indicates it's from a different period, and without well-documented provenance, the most likely answer is that it's one of the many thousands of WW1 axes that were made by various makers still using what was a mostly hand-operated open die forging process.

If you have an interest in providing details like the head weight and dimensions and any other details that are any sort of counter-evidence, I'm all ears and eager to learn. But that information has been anything but forthcoming and I find that curious. If you have good reason to believe it's not an M1910 that should be fairly easy to disprove, I should imagine. All I have to go on so far is the few photos provided, and no further details, which is precisely why I asked for them. If you want a positive ID, that's kind of important, eh?

Thank you. Your response is telling and confirmed my initial opinion.

 

[EngrSorenson]

Thank you. Your response is telling and confirmed my initial opinion.

I believe you’re best suited for some other forum. I suggest one that relishes confirmation bias.

 

[Gato do mato]

Happily.

I have read much on the topic from archaeologists and historians as well as personally examined many antique tools over the course of my career and am well versed in telltale changes in construction methods and tooling marks that may roughly indicate the period of a piece through American history. As crbnSteelAddict mentioned, the typical attribution for heads marked with a U.S. stamp ONLY is for around WW1 providing the pattern is not out of place for the period, which this is not. WW2 saw a change in the required marking practice where the military then wanted the manufacturer's name also clearly marked to they could better identify any issues with the equipment, whereas prior they had wanted a U.S. stamp with no other markings. Prior to that no specific standards existed and axes and other similar such sundry tools were sourced by the branches of the military as needed and largely by means of individual contracts provided to suppliers according to provided instruction, commonly in the form of a supplied pattern, but others simply by description. Because of the methods of manufacture in those early periods it was generally pretty easy for the manufacturer to produce to suit, but it's very likely in many cases that they would simply have been asked for something like "single bit axes, head weight 3.5lbs, with hickory handles" without any other specification, and the manufacturer would just churn out what they felt best matched the description in a way they thought would please the purchaser while turning them a good profit. It wasn't until later that more standardization began to occur with regards to widespread contracts and sourcing in items that weren't part of a soldiers personal carried equipment.

The styling of that particular head and handle along with that marking are completely in line with other axes of the WW1 period from what can be seen in the photos. Without evidence that indicates it's from a different period, and without well-documented provenance, the most likely answer is that it's one of the many thousands of WW1 axes that were made by various makers still using what was a mostly hand-operated open die forging process.

If you have an interest in providing details like the head weight and dimensions and any other details that are any sort of counter-evidence, I'm all ears and eager to learn. But that information has been anything but forthcoming and I find that curious. If you have good reason to believe it's not an M1910 that should be fairly easy to disprove, I should imagine. All I have to go on so far is the few photos provided, and no further details, which is precisely why I asked for them. If you want a positive ID, that's kind of important, eh?

Good morning, brother.
This may not be the right topic, but I wanted to take advantage of your knowledge.
I have an axe like this (I bought it as a replica), but I can't find any information about the original axe with my poor English.
Could you give me some information?
Thank you.

 

[I'mSoSharp]

T thimble farm , with the greatest respect I think you'd find it easier on this forum (& Viking Sword) if when you want to know what something is you simply ask "what is this".
Instead you've already convinced yourself what you want it to be then expect everyone who disagrees to give you evidence why it isn't!
That's the wrong way round and not how identifying something works.

You've misidentified items in other threads you've started on here, then expects folks to tell you why it isn't what you want it to be, rather than simply letting folks identifying what it actually is.

Previous (wrongly titled) threads you started~

T

Post in thread 'All Iron Spike Tomahawk'

Sep 5, 2024

Manufactured and hand forged are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Until drop-forging took over all manufactured axes were being produced by open die forging.

sorry. I thought that you meant machine made.

• thimble farm

T

Thread 'Converted Spike Tomahawk?'

May 6, 2024

Hello:

Would appreciate any comments on this piece in my collection. I wonder if it started out as a pipe tomahawk, bowl was removed and spike welding on.

Vargo's Book "The Spike Tomahawk" shows a similar example on p. 76, found in NY.

My piece is 8 inches (head) and weights 15 oz. Hand forged and spike is blunted. I made the haft.

Thank you

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=237199&d=1715007547

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=237200&d=1715007547...

• thimble farm
• Replies: 3
• Forum: Axe, Tomahawk, & Hatchet Forum

T

Post in thread 'Spike Hammer ID'

Mar 25, 2024

old haft given the oxidation around the head, but not original

• thimble farm

To get a better response a simple title of "what is this?" will work so much better for you.

Good luck.

.