Nessmuk double bit belt axe revisited.

Hey guys, thanks for the input!
Regarding Texascarl's thoughts on blade shape, it's certainly a possibility. Losing the upper curve would greatly simplify casting. One of the problems we're having with the design is placement of the risers. A flat line across the top would make it a lot easier to grind off the stubs. On the other hand, I really like the look of it now. I don't think it will be as functional with the more narrow head, at least not for everyone. The narrow profile will penetrate more, but in my experience it is more likely to get stuck on the wood. I usually want to make a cut across the stick rather than into it. Depending on your style of cutting, there may be an advantage to using the part of the edge that slopes back to the handle as he says, but for other styles it's a disadvantage. I was roughing out a handle for an early trade axe a couple of days ago and I tried the method shown in Wille Sundqvist's book "Swedish Carving Techniques". He uses an axe with an edge that slopes away from the handle. It looks really awkward until you try it. The idea is that the edge contacts the wood with a slicing action rather than straight on. I didn't grind a new head, but just used a "broken wrist" grip so the edge sliced in at an angle. It worked well enough I'll probably either grind a head, or make a seriously bent handle for a woodworking axe. Anyway, the full curve gives you both options. I don't think weight will be much of a problem. The single edge version (the Allan Hunter's Belt Axe) is about 11 ounces with the 14" handle.
We thought about a striking surface on the side of the head, if only as a place to put the risers. I don't think I like the idea. I really want to differentially harden the heads for durability, and it's not practical to do this with center striking surface. It looks awkward and I'm not sure it would be that useful. I have these surfaces on one or two of my hammers and I can't recall ever using them. You can usually find a rock anyway. In a pinch you could use the side of the head even without a defined striking surface.
I think we're going to go with the same handle as the hunter's belt axe. As mentioned it's a lot easier than having a new handle turned. I like the tomahawk style better than the ball peen hammer style. There are no wedges to fool with, it cannot come off, doesn't get loose, and, as was mentioned in the earlier Nessmuk thread, it's a lot easier to replace in the field. Down the road I may see if I can get them in longer lengths for two handed use, but I a bit dubious. The Slasinski 'hawks come with 22" handles, and are about the same weights as the current project. (The "Kid's 'Hawk" weighs less than 14 ounces, the Flared 'hawk just over 15 ounces, with handles) Most customers cut the handle back. Even with the light weight they find the long handles awkward to carry. Any other thoughts on this?
 
Lose that 'side hammer' idea, a good axe means you can cut a billet to drive any stakes and pegs. I like the idea of a longer handle that we can shorten if needed. I'd request that you keep the axe head as light as possible with this longer handle in mind.
 
Ragnar :

I don't think it will be as functional with the more narrow head, at least not for everyone. The narrow profile will penetrate more, but in my experience it is more likely to get stuck on the wood.
Click to expand...

This is really dependent on the type of wood. For really soft woods like pine, where you can get 2"+ of penetration with the GB Wildlife Hatchet, there isn't much of a demand for a thinner bit and the thicker profile allows you to move very fluid in the wood. However on harder woods you are left wanting.

While lot clearing recently I have been doing chopping comparisons with a couple of thinned out blades and the GB Wildlife hatchet (GBWH). The wood that I chopped up was windblown, and often partially rotted so I didn't want to stack it with the fresh cut wood, and it rots easier when it is in bits (plus I was looking for an excuse to do some bucking anyway).

I used a really thinned out Rogers Rangers Tomahawk from ATC and a small Wetterling. I had no problems with binding on both, which isn't surprising as the penetration was lousy as the wood was like the rock. Both slightly outperformed the GBWH. The Wetterling is also lighter and with a shorter handle which makes it performance more significant. The bit is also really sloppy (square), which I'll clean up later on.

In short, there isn't a right or wrong on bit profile, you might want to consider a soft and hard wood version. With handle length, there is no harm is allowing an option as well.

-Cliff
 
Texas Carl, you're right about the billet! I'll have to think about the handle length some more. Just to show I do appreciate the benefits of a longer handle, here's an image of a canoe axe I made up 20 or so years ago. It's just over 24" and under 2 pounds (with duct tape). As Jimbo says, it light enough for one hand, and long enough for two hands. I probably wouldn't take it backpacking, but it's fine for the occasional canoe portage. It's always served me well.
The longer handle may be better on the Snow and Nealley project, since it looks as if that one is going to be a bit larger if it comes off at all. If it does, that will give us three styles of double bit belt axes, which ought to pretty well glut the market. ;-)
Cliff, I meant the width of the blade (top to bottom), not the thinness (edge profile). On the ones I grind I can vary each side but I suspect
the buyer will still want to do some fine tuning.


canoeaxe.jpg
 
I've got to agree that the Swedish carving techniques using a special hatchet really work. I have the GB carvers hatchet and it's incredible. I'd suspect that there's a lot more to this axe than meets the eye, and that they didn't just come up with the design. The key factors for me are the balance and handle cross section. Those techniques might work with your original design, or might not - it'd take some experimenting to get the front curve right. If it did work though it would sure be worthwhile!
My liking for a longer handled hatchet is just based on what I do around here. Even with regular hatchets I find a 16" handle to do a vastly better job than a shorter one. Lots of people are into short and more easily carried though... I guess the idea is not to design something that no-one buys.
A question with the Nessmuk hatchet. Does it have a concave face behind the bevel?
 
It is much the same arguement for the width or length of the edge. On softer woods you can go really wide (6"), and still get very high penetration. However on hard woods you need a very short edge in order to get decent enough penetration so you are not constantly having to enlarge the cuts. So it depends on the wood you are cutting. You could even try bits of two diffent widths, on the same axe. You could still center head balance it.

-Cliff
 
Cliff has a very novel idea. I've never seen anything like that!
It might also be an idea to have a normal blade and a carving blade - if the latter works with a thinner handle and with the balance of the hatchet. The carving axe is a very useful tool!
 
Jimbo, as a result of all this I've revisited the above pictured axe (which had been in the pantry for a while) and I have to agree, sort of. I really like the longer handle on an axe of 1 1/2 - 2 pound total weight and enough handle to grip properly. With the tomahawk-style small diameter handle I think it works less well.
On the other hand, the tomahawk style handle is easier to trim to your preferred length. Yet again, on the other hand (as Tevia would say) with a target weight of one pound on the current project, it's difficult to enlarge the eye much more for a larger diameter handle, and the current size might be a bit weedy and fragile if it were much longer.
An asymetrical double bit head sounds interesting, but it would probably be pretty ugly. Like it or not, appearance does count. I think I'll leave that for anther time. If these come off and actually sell, I can see doing one with one side sloped back to the handle like Texascarl likes, and the other mirrored out to slope away from the handle like a carver. It would look really unusual but would probably work really well. Yet, as Bill Moran once remarked, if you come up with a really new pattern for a knife (or axe) it's probably been tried and doesn't work.
As to the blade profile, which Nessmuk do you mean? The Fort Meigs is slightly convex throughout. The Classic is (likely to be) fairly straight and narrow, as shown in the image posted earlier.
-R
 
You have to remember that in the past we've come up with some pretty inovative designs..
designs
I especially like the "Swiss Army Axe"...
 
Yes, I was thinking ugly as well, however functionality would be high, and for those that appreciate that aspect, the beauty would shine through pretty quickly.

-Cliff
 
Jimbo, I like the Swiss Army axe, but it lacks the laser sighting, you know, like on high tech miter saws.
Here's a few asymetrical designs. the first is your basic design. The second is for backpackers, and the third is for woodworkers. ;-)
d-axe2.jpg

d-axe1.jpg
d-axe3.jpg
 
Those are nice designs IF people know what the purpose is. It took a leap of faith when I got the GB carver's hatchet. I even knew that it "should" work - but I didn't know of anyone with one so that I could try it out and find out how well. Most people have trouble understanding the purpose of broad hatchets and other classic designs.
You could end up with a situation like the case of the GB mini hatchet where it didn't well sell until a bunch of people extolled its virtues.
Up here, cutting wood is no problem - and I have to remind myself that lots of people can't just go out and chop on wood. Their axe use is limited to splitting some campground wood. So while wood chopping and shaping is a big part of what I do in the bush for recreation, that might not be the case for many.
I guess that design sticks at the point of whether people can see its purpose and whether they see a use for it in their activities. I don't know..
 
Right, we do it backward these days. In the old days people needed a tool, and designed one fill that need. If it didn't work right, it got changed until it did. The man who made the axe handle was usually the man who used it. Now we have designers who don't actually use the tools they design, and buyers who don't use them enough to know what they should look for. It's no wonder we get handles shaped like 2X4's and heads like splitting mauls. I've been going through my old axes (some really old) in the last few days and it's striking how much more functional they are than newer ones. Many of the heads look odd in the modern world, but when you put a handle on them they work just fine.
This seems to be general with hand tools. Old tools fit the hand, new tools fit the production schedule.
I did these designs as a joke, but the more I look at the last one the more I like it. I think I'd raise the upswept blade even further so you could choke up on the handle and get your hand behind the beard on the left edge. I doubt it will ever see production, but I might make one up for myself, just for grins. It kind of reminds me of a Gill Hibben knife.
 
I just looked at Jw Sears pic of his axe from woodcraft adn camping, the blade was much stumpier than what you show, yours is closer to a norse hawk than what he wanted, I get the impression that the Nessmuk had a round poll and the blades were no more than 3 or four inches away from the poll. if you look at the pic and compare the pocket axe to the knives (Assuming they were drawn to scale) you can see that the axe is quite small compared to our standerds, sort of like a double bitted version of the mini hatchet from gransfors brux(SP)

Just my $0.02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top