Quick question. Has anyone ever seen a Maine-made axe with an inserted bit?

joshiecole said:
This makes me feel even sillier. I've probably searched these terms more than 20 times and somehow never managed to spot it.
Click to expand...

In order to gather the best possible information to sell to the man, google learns from its users. :P But in all seriousness, two users can do the same search on their own personal computers and get different results. Interesting thread though - I've never seen the dual process. I have just taken the impression that the inserted method was the older of the two. So if the company is old enough, then chances are they sold axes with inserted bits at some point.
 
Inserted was the older method. Overcoat was a faster method. Prior to Bessemer, carbon steel was at a premium and the insert method saved on carbon steel. Once high carbon steel became readily available then the time savings of the overcoat method made more economic sense for the manufacturer.
 
Depends on how it was done, but in theory inserted bits maintain their hardness at the edge further back into the bit while a thin overcoat would be quickly sharpened through even though it would have the appearance of a good axe when new.
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
I wonder why the insert is supposed to be better. Would also be nice to see the pictures.
Click to expand...

If you use the same weight of high carbon steel, far less of that steel will be utilised as edge, in comparison to an inserted bit where all of it is edge. Having now forge welded overcoat bits as well as inserted bits, I was surprised by how little hard edge you end up getting in the overcoat. And I purposefully used more high carbon steel in the edge than traditionally used. Both can make a good axe, but you certainly get more edge with the inserted method.
 
It also depends on how much of the bit is made of steel vs. iron and how deep your weld really goes.
 
Well, in the four I have the overcoat goes to an inch or inch and a half on the inner and probably two and a half on the outer. I don't really see what benefit there'd be in having more than an inch and a half considering the geometry of the axe would be way off at that point anyway. I don't think it's safe to assume they would use the same amount of steel for both methods. Don't the Forest Service specifications have a depth of hardness requirement?

When the steel is hardened does it not go all the way through? Or you just mean that the iron would not be hardened to the same extent? If I remember the video correctly it looked as though E&S hardened right back to the start of the overcoat weld.

The only thing I can guess is that the insert may resist shock more due to the iron shape around the weld. But that's just a wild guess. Perhaps also it's better in the wood.
 
Last edited:
By how deep the weld is I mean how deep the channel and tongue of the weld go, because the deeper the tongue in an overcoat, the less edge steel you'd end up with, and the deeper the channel in an inserted edge, the deeper the steel will run into the head.
 
I get the logic of it. I'm just thinking in terms of what is left of the axe after losing an inch to an inch and a half of steel on a 4 to 4.5 inch blade. You only have three inches for that geometry and I don't think it'd make a very good axe.

Although I guess I'm making assumptions based on my axes. There's be more potential on axes with a longer bit, just seems to me there's be more hardened steel used is all, in proportion with the longer bit.
 
A lot of axes would be relegated to splitting duty as they wore down. Likewise sometimes the customer concerns of how deep the steel went would override the logic of when the axe would have been retired and would be used as a marketing point. :D
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
I don't really see what benefit there'd be in having more than an inch and a half considering the geometry of the axe would be way off at that point anyway.
Click to expand...

It's a good point. So long as there is hardened steel back to a point where the axe geometry becomes unusable then that's enough hardened steel.
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
Well, in the four I have the overcoat goes to an inch or inch and a half on the inner and probably two and a half on the outer. I don't really see what benefit there'd be in having more than an inch and a half considering the geometry of the axe would be way off at that point anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree from a practical point of view, once you've used up a certain amount of edge, it's time to re-steel or buy a new axe. And frankly, I cant see that it's likely a modern user would ever actually wear out a high carbon bit of either method as long as it is sensibly sharpened.
 
Did this North Wayne Tool co make double bit axes? I have an ancient double I refinished and handled and the only thing I could find were NE last letters top line and P? R? then MAN next line on the right side of the head look like they are hand stamped so maybe just an owner, then there is a P on one side and 55 other up under the inside bottom of the head tight to the handle. This would be around a turn of the century, very early 1900s. It may have been used in throwing but one side was used to hammer something one time, other then that it is in unbelievable shape, very well taken care of until it sat to rust and handle rot out. I replaced the handle but had to cut a bunch off and whittle a TON to get it to the 30" overall and very thin grip it was of the original. Any info? I guess I should have posted my own thread, sorry just kinda got into it. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top