Questions re: hickory for handles

littleknife said:
This sounds logical.
However, I would not dismiss easily the genetic changes. Industrial logging and changes in forest ecology due to human manipulation cis documented to lead to many genetic changes. The most likely change is that of variant distributions (gene allele frequency) in populations, with once abundant variants becoming rare and vice versa. Add to this the likely new mutations induced by human activity ( radioactive and chemical pollutions) and you might see significant effects. Most mutations are either harmful or mostly neutral, even though the ‘neutral’ effect is frequently defined only within the framework of known effects and known genetic interactions, as well as resulting in no KNOWN phenotypic change. Changing suitability for striking tool handle use is unlikely to be a tested outcome in hickory genetics.
But I completely agree with you that sloppy grading annd poor quality control in handle manufacturing are likely contributing to the negative experiences too.
Click to expand...
It would also be important to know whether the 2nd growth hickory was naturally regenerated or the result of planting tree farm starts which were selected for some specific trait.
In the NW forests are replanted with selected stock, grown on tree farms to favor specific traits. The resulting forest is not nearly as genetically diverse as a naturally regenerated forest.

Genes are most often linked to other genes, so when a particular trait is selected for or against some other genes of unknown importance are also selected for or against. There's inherently some risk in the system. If nothing else, reduced diversity can weaken a forest's resistance to an introduced bug or fungus. Since all trees in a tree farm planted forest are related, they will all have the same vulnerability to new pests. A more diverse naturally regenerated forest is more likely to have resistant strains within its population (gene pool).
 
Square_peg said:
http://cedarriverforge.com/Photo-index/axephotos/Growth rings - mechanical properties of wood.jpg
Click to expand...

Growth%20rings%20-%20mechanical%20properties%20of%20wood.jpg

Square_peg said:
Bernie sent me this example of why he doesn't like red/white mix handles. They can split at the change. The second image is the money shot.

Click to expand...
Red-White%20hickory%20split.jpg

Red-White%20hickory%20split2.jpg


To get the pictures to post I inserted an "s" into the URL:
ToKTY1g.jpg



Bob
 
Square_peg said:
It would also be important to know whether the 2nd growth hickory was naturally regenerated or the result of planting tree farm starts which were selected for some specific trait.
In the NW forests are replanted with selected stock, grown on tree farms to favor specific traits. The resulting forest is not nearly as genetically diverse as a naturally regenerated forest.

Genes are most often linked to other genes, so when a particular trait is selected for or against some other genes of unknown importance are also selected for or against. There's inherently some risk in the system. If nothing else, reduced diversity can weaken a forest's resistance to an introduced bug or fungus. Since all trees in a tree farm planted forest are related, they will all have the same vulnerability to new pests. A more diverse naturally regenerated forest is more likely to have resistant strains within its population (gene pool).
Click to expand...
I see folks are still working on bringing back the American chestnut. I won't live to see it but maybe the grand kids. Cross breeding for resistance ect..
 
quinton said:
No way in hell I would head out into the wilderness for an extended stay with a heartwood handle. Would you?
Click to expand...
Having ventured into the wilderness for extended stays many times without an axe, yes, I would. If I thought I was going to spend the rest of my life out there then I'd make sure I had a pure sapwood handled axe with me.

If I had to re-haft my axe today to finish putting up my winter firewood and the hardware store had the choice of a flawless red hickory haft or a white hickory haft with a couple pin knots and some grain runout then I'd re-haft with red hickory and use the axe for many years to come.
 
Providing the heartwood handle was nice and dense I'd be completely comfortable with it, and would certainly select it over sapwood of lesser density, all else equal. If I was on an extended stay in the woods I'd be extra careful about how I used it to minimize the chances of breakage regardless of how perfect the handle was because accidental impacts are the #1 way even perfect handles get busted, and I consider it a much greater risk. Furthermore I'm not going to go into the woods for an extended stay with an axe I haven't put through its paces yet. Once it's done some solid work without complaint I'll be confident it will hold up to continued use in the field.
 
Last edited:
I would take a sound red hickory handle myself just as much as a sound white one.
I admit, when buying an axe, if possible, I prefer white sapwood because mostly of the color. But I have quite a few heartwood handled, and even more mixed sapwood/heartwood handled axes, and I am talking about big axes, not hatchets.
My experience was that I have seen disturbingly large number of split handles in the stores, and those handles or hafted axes weren’t even used yet. Guess what, about half if not more of those split handles were pure sapwood.
Should I conclude from my experience that hickory sapwood is inferior to heartwood? Well no, because I may be a fool, but I am not always a fool. My reluctance to glorify my experience could have been due to the fact that most of the handles I have seen there were sapwood to begin with, so I do not have enough personal experience regarding the heartwood ones to the same extent as with the sapwood ones.
Also, most of the split handles were either not sealed at all or not properly sealed, so I assumed that the splits had to do something with uneven drying or not proper drying and not being properly sealed after drying. Almost all the handles appeared to be overdried.
But let’s turn to ‘science’. The same way there is limited and not-representative experience, which in fact most of the time when referred to is nothing else than opinion, conviction, belief which includes personal bias, based on personal experience, there is also bad ‘science’ and properly conducted science.
When people refer to ‘science’, they are mostly talking about opinion, conviction, belief which includes personal bias, based on their experience with how good science supposed to work.
So what is the difference then and is there one?
Of course there is, the point is how much one puts an emphasis on the ‘personal’, how much is one willing to believe only his own personal experience. Science tries to reduce the effect of single personal experience, good science tries to express the personal experiences of many in reproducible and controlled settings. Science tries to point out the limitations and conditional nature of the personal experiences and points out the specific presumptions and going on with the generalized conclusions behind the opinions and beliefs based on these experiences.
When doing experimental measurements in a scientific setting, one acquires and documents experiences. If the conditions are described properly, the measurements can be reproduced.
If the results differ and there was no intentional fraud conducted, then either the description was not proper or the subject was not the same or had not the same extent of samples.
If the raw results are similar yet the conclusions are different, then the data analysis wasn’t the same.
Science also supposed to be open to revisit earlier results, mainly by recognizing and admitting their conditional and limited nature.
Also, when science is ‘sold’ to the public, it is most frequently done by science politicians who are peddling their own biases and career / financial interests as ‘science’. They omit conditions, limitations and overgeneralize, they are preaching instead of educating.
Returning to our debate, I have no proof that the Forest Laboratory study quoted repeatedly was done and presented properly enough, but it seems convincing, it supports my limited experience and thus I chose to believe it.
In the same way I chose to believe that other members reported their own experience here truthfully and weren’t lying just to stir up a controversy.
So how to reconcile this situation?
I think one way is to trying to understand what ‘personal experience’ and ‘scientific study’ actually mean and find out what are the limitations and conditions of each one.
As I pointed out, many times when we talk about those we are actually talking about the opinions, beliefs and biases rather than the experiences they are based on or connected to.
At the end I think science the way I defined it beats personal experience most of the time, becuse the personal experience is just too limited, even if it’s the vast craftsman experience of Bernie. On the other hand ‘science’ should listen carefully to contradicting personal experiences too and try to understand why is that happening. If that experience is real and reported honestly, then this might point to the limitations of the generalization regarding a specific issue done by the ‘science’ at that time.
 
Last edited:
Old Axeman said:
70 years at the bench and still making hafts. I have a haft making observation. After covid changed things a few years ago I decided that I would spend some money (I think money is just plain evil stuff) on new tools. I bought a Veritas (Lee Valley Tools) Spokeshave (Flat Bottom) and a Veritas Scrub Plane. I also bought a Lie-Nielsen Tools Boggs Spokeshave (Flat Bottom) and a Scrub Plane. Like I said, I dont like money and wanted to get rid of it.
After a lifetime of using old Stanley/Bailey spokeshaves and a Stanley #40 scrub plane I needed to experiment a little. I REALLY like these new tools for haft making, even more so than my old Stanleys. The scrub planes are great for hogging off wood, that would be the red hickory of course. These scrub planes work great even with rough shaping curved hafts. They work good because a scrub plane is best used skew to the grain. This allows you to form gentle curves. You should try this. I have used this technique for many years with my old Stanley. I have to say that my all time favorite bench tools to use are the Drawknife and spokeshave.

I sure hope my wife does not read this post
Click to expand...
This is why I like this site so much.
It is so good to learn from the Masters.
Bernie, please believe me I am happy and prefer that you are not a scientist but a Master Craftsman.
While some experience might not be the ultimate thing in a science debate, your experience is all about creating beautiful things from wood, maintaining, restoring and repairing tools, researching and mastering their use, the history and traditions connected with them, and lastly sharing all this with those who are willing to listen and learn.
Anyway, there are too many scientists with little to show and there are so few Craftsmen who create beauty and function.
There are things science cannot create, only art.
Thank you Sir for your service and willingness to share your wisdom.
We are truly blessed to have you here!
 
Last edited:
I'm not much of a plane guy and I lack experience with them, I will keep an eye out for a scrub plane. I could sure feel the difference with a heavy after market iron in my old Stanley 151.

Paul Sellers niche is geared towards beginners on a budget. He does that pretty well even if he sharpens odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top