non-scientific chopping test

B

beckerhead

Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
582
Just got an urge while taking a break from deer hunting to give a few of my choppers a little impromptu test. I found a relatively clear, and uniform seasoned cedar blow down, and gave each tool 40 chops. I rested in between and while I am NO accomplished chopper myself, I did manage to put most of the blows where I wanted them. The pieces involved were an Ontario Marine Raider Bowie, a small Gerber pack ax, an 18" convexed Ontario machete, and a cheap Olympia hatchet.

Here's the lineup
051.jpg


1st up was the little Gerber. When it landed clean it was decent, but the stubby handle, and super steep grind led to a number of glancing blows.
052.jpg


Next up was the Ontario Bowie. A nice chopper, but the size of the log was not ideal I think for this tool.
057.jpg


3rd in the roundup was the Ontario machete. I feel it performed quite well, and the big plus was the fatigue factor, or lack thereof. It swung nice and easy, and only wedged once.
053.jpg


Last was the Olympia hatchet. I did a bit of re-profiling on it before camp on the belt sander, and it showed. Still not where I'd like it to be, but compared to past use, it was surely better. Fatigue was a factor, and yet it still outperformed the others by a small, but noticeable margin.
054.jpg


Here are a couple of shots to show overall results.
058.jpg

059.jpg
 
Forgot to add, on material up to about 2" I would opt for the Bowie or the machete. The control, and ease of use would trump the better bite of the hatchet for me, YMMV.
 
Nice demonstration. It goes to show how different tools can achieve similar results. Then again, 40 chops is a drop in the bucket compared to a week long camping trip.
I own the Ontario 12" cutlass, and I like it, except for the handle. I wouldn't want to chop for an hour with it. I've been looking to replace it with micarta.
Thanks for the info and pics.
 
I just settled on the 40 as a fair amount to show a result, and not kill my arm doing it. Again, a large log, even cedar when dry is not an easy chop, and most cedars are so knot laden it can be a booger as well. I need to do a green wood test as well, I feel that the machete would maybe close the gap a bit there, but not sure.
What I also know is that the machete and bowie are more usable, and for me, a safer chopping tool. The skinning, slicing, draw knifing, etc. offered by those does give a good bit of weight to choosing them over the hatchet.
On dry wood between 3 and 6 I would probably use my folding saw.
 
It's hard to go past 40 chops each for 4 tools. If you get tired, the last tool seems less effective than it may actually be.
What's most interesting to me is that in the right hands, certain tool can excell. It also depends on the situation, environment, and woods.
Best thing a guy can do is experiment a bit and find out what works for him. Like the Nessmuk trio worked for Sears and many others, even though the Bowie knife was also around.
I like to see all these tools in action, I love wood and steel.
 
BloodyGumsKahn, My Becker is a Camillus BK7, and clearly wouldn't be a contender in that lineup. If I had a BK9, or a Brute, maybe a Machax then oh yeah, we would be rockin' some choppin'
 
Love the comparison. It does raise an interesting question.

How do you guys propose a scientific or citizen-scientific (meaning not in a lab, at home) chopper test?
 
Not sure how to run a legit comparison really. When you look at the differences in weight, length, geometry, handle type, and such, it poses a real problem. If the angle of attack, and speed of swing is normalized then it will always be one tool prevailing.
What I feel has to be considered, and don't know how it would figure into a repeatable type test are fatigue, and ergonomics.
I used the heaviest tool last, in my little way of trying to close that gap in my test. And still the weight of the head, and small contact area allowed it to sink deeper, and knock out bigger chunks. There is no doubt I was swinging faster, and putting more of my own follow through on the 1st lighter tools, and yet to no avail.
But as I stated earlier, on smaller stuff, I would be much more comfortable using the bowie, or 'chete. Especially if kneeling, or bending to cut saplings for example. In those uses, I see the handle ergos and small contact area of the hatchet/small axe as a liability, not an asset.
Also, on a 2" sapling you have 2" of your bowie, 'chete, axe, etc. contacting the work. But on a 10" log you have more of your long bladed tools edge contacting the work, and still only 2 1/2"-3" of the hatchet, so there is another tricksy factor there.
Would love to see some ideas about a prospective test though.
 
Joezilla said:
Love the comparison. It does raise an interesting question.

How do you guys propose a scientific or citizen-scientific (meaning not in a lab, at home) chopper test?
Click to expand...

Testing a variety of materials of varying size and hardness, chopped with a specific set of tools by a control group of people, say 3 people. With that you can get a lot more “data”. So you get that it wasn’t the results of just one person doing it, you weren’t just testing all the tools on one piece of very hard or nearly petrified wood or weren’t just chopping very small material where one tool would almost always be better than another

Then you could make observations such as:

The machete performed the best by all 3 users on all materials except very hard, dense woods, where the 19” Wetterlings prevailed.

Then each user can make their opinions based on their own personal factors that the reader can relate to or not.

User 1: Although the machete performed the best overall, the majority of my use will be hardwoods where the machete might not prove strong enough over time. For this reason I will still take a short axe.

User 2: I usually prefer 10” heavy bladed chopper, but the performance and weight of the machete just trumps all for my uses when focusing strictly on chopping. Since I always carry a shorter fixed blade, I don’t need this chopping tool for standard knife tasks.

User 3: Blah blah blah

Thanks for the post OP.
 
beckerhead said:
BloodyGumsKahn, My Becker is a Camillus BK7, and clearly wouldn't be a contender in that lineup. If I had a BK9, or a Brute, maybe a Machax then oh yeah, we would be rockin' some choppin'
Click to expand...

You don't have a BK-9? Bad beckerhead! You do realise you can buy one for under $70 including shipping don't you? I bought a BK-7 and liked it so much that I bought a BK-9 about a month later, it chops pretty well.

beckerhead said:
Not sure how to run a legit comparison really.

Would love to see some ideas about a prospective test though.
Click to expand...

One problem with comparing 40 chops is that some tools are lighter & quicker and can deliver more chops per minute. I'd like to see a second test where you compare 1 minute of chopping between the different choppers.
 
Gadget, the # of hits vs. timed was to avoid the quicker, more hits per minute thing you mentioned to just try to measure the tool performance itself. It would however, help equalize the fatigue factor I think. Good idea.
 
I love that the Machete did so well, dollar for dollar I always believe it to be the best compromise tool to take into the bush.

As for Joe's question regarding a level playing field for a test, I think it the one done here is about as good as it's going to get. The tools were all used in the same manner on the same test material the same amount of times.

Fatigue is the only real X factor here besides maybe a predilection towards one tool over the other.

I saw another recent chop off in a sub forum thread that seemed, in my opinion, to weigh one brand over the others tested even though the pictures did not seem to bear that out.
 
Zombie Zeke said:
I love that the Machete did so well, dollar for dollar I always believe it to be the best compromise tool to take into the bush.

As for Joe's question regarding a level playing field for a test, I think it the one done here is about as good as it's going to get. The tools were all used in the same manner on the same test material the same amount of times.

Fatigue is the only real X factor here besides maybe a predilection towards one tool over the other.

I saw another recent chop off in a sub forum thread that seemed, in my opinion, to weigh one brand over the others tested even though the pictures did not seem to bear that out.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I believe you need to test on the same type of wood, and have the same amount of strikes to get an accurate test sample.

I also saw that comparison. ;)
 
Scs., Yes as I said, for me, I am much more comfortable using the knife or machete, and also see them as being more comprehensive in their application. In my neck of the woods the heavier built Ontario machete is a real jewel. I did convex it, and sanded the handle down quite a bit, and for banging into a stand site, full of saw briars, and cane it is aces.
 
beckerhead said:
Gadget, the # of hits vs. timed was to avoid the quicker, more hits per minute thing you mentioned to just try to measure the tool performance itself. It would however, help equalize the fatigue factor I think. Good idea.
Click to expand...

I like both though - keep the results of the 40 chops, but also do a comparison of a minutes chopping. We could see results like - this chops more per chop and can get through 60% of this branch in 40 chops, but because it takes longer to swing this other one could chop just as much in the same time even though it takes 50 chops.

But yeah - hard to cover everything. Generally I am less concerned about the number of chops as the length of time, but also the amount of effort would be great to know if there was an easy way of measuring that. If one tool takes less time & less effort to do the job, even if it requires more blow then that is the tool I would prefer. The chances are that the axe would still win though - but maybe the machete is closer in performance if measured in time or effort, not just the number of blows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top