R&D,18th c.American axe

This certain annoyance is increasingly nagging at me,how come my results seem so narrow and long(in plane),almost HB-ish.
When i glance over a number of originals,the general impression is that they're Kentucky/Delaware-broad,wassup with dat,i wonder...

Which brings me to the next logical step:Being so broad,how come they're so Light?

Here's a decent example:https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/antique-stohler-hand-forged-half-axe-411000788
And a part of description from there:
"...Has a head that measures about 5 inch across and has a 4 inch cutting edge, weighs about 2 1/2 lbs.. Head is in excellent condition with no damage such as bad welds, pitting , chipping etc, Head has some old flaws that was in the iron that Stohler used but not a defect as that was how it was when he made it.In my experance this is common with older Stohler axes.Please see my photos. Has the old style eye which is smaller at the top then at the bottom of the eye...."

Now this begs a math question-A steel object 4" x 5" in area,weighing in at 2.5 lbs,how Thick would it be?!
Weight into cubic inches gives us 8.83...und zo...4 x 5 x X = 8.83...the thickness (overall)would be less than 0.5"...
An axe is roughly wedge-shaped,so if 1" at poll going down to nothing at edge,that'd be somewhere in a ballpark...Nein?
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
Kevin,thanks,it helps a lot.

As to that-

Kevin Houtzager said:
the part where the eye is located is about the same length as where the taper starts.
Click to expand...

I can't even Begin to do calculus of curved sections,but even in actual experiment i'd not mind at All to forge a strict Wedge,i actually like the idea very much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
Kevin thanks again.Yes,i'll call on you if i may,when a few other factors will settle down in my bad brain(reverse-engineering old forgings makes it like a "Christmas ball" inside...after you shake it...(you got those in Holland?:))

I Want to do a full wedge,but am reluctant to change this paradigm that i've invested so much into up till now;or change it Too radically.

(this will be a composite,authenticity And ease of calc dictate it;however,loss to scale and several other factors,yes,make it less than linear to put it mildly).

I will have to go to a tri-partite poll(+steel plate) for these.Which already makes me having to forge another drift.
For the one i've used so far(flat-sided oval,2" long x 1/2" thick) will not bear gracefully on that middle part of poll laminate.
(I suspect that that is the cause for the popularity of a D-eye in Germanic forging,3-part poll composite).
That in turn would allow to make the eye a bit shorter,by adding some volume to it aft...

Here's a good example of what i'm thinking of right now:https://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-St...od-Tool-Lancaster-PA-Single-Bit-/293016376102

(is it dreadfully uncool to post this link?sorry if so...)
 
Kevin Houtzager said:
I'll make a template for you based on that as soon as you have eye dimensions figured out. The only thing I'm not accounting for is the actuall ears on the sides. The should be doable....
Click to expand...

:)
Kevin,thanks!...and Whoa!:)...(i've a mad engineer on my hands!:)

I'm afraid i can't forge to such exact specs:)...(not that it it Shouldn't be that way,but it ain't for Me fer sure:)

The eye shape is Incalculable...:)
We're looking at Stohler's work,and even that-loosely,we're exploring a long time period,with much variation.
But even Stohler alone obviously used a number of different drifts(and sometimes no drift at all;"air-forging" can work,in some cases).

Very generally,a good eye for these would be an elongated oval with one end truncated to a flat almost,but not quite,equal to oval's max width.
(if you're familiar with modern rifle bullets i think similar shape is called a "boat-tail",by Hornaday i b'lieve..).

The "sharp" end of oval is also(ideally)not sharp,but has a narrower flat.
Both the flattened ends serve to bear on the butt-ends of laminations,so's to minimize any wedging action they may exert on fresh welds.
(forge-weld is very strong in Shear,and weak in most other loading moments).
Likewise such shape suits the wood of the haft.

I'm sorry to've caused confusion bringing D-eye into it.It's not applicable exactly here.
(It is a very old(also Germanic,thus Scandinavian finds) idea back in the poll-less era...If you'd be interested,J.A. explored it with his usual degree of finess(he's a classically educated in smithing...( guess where..:))https://www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?/topic/17953-viking-age-axe-tutorial/&page=6

But,yes,we'll keep on this,i really do appreciate the solid scientific input,in spite of my joking!:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
I just saw an interesting step for thinning the eye's walls. Maybe forming lugged wedge with insert, thinning it out in eye area before slitting is the way to go?
starts 2:12
sorry for messing with your process
 
Last edited:
The eye dimensions should be approx. 1 25/64 inches by approx. 11/32. I scaled the handle based on the sellers dimensions, approx. calculated the handle's angle and used that to calculate it's height at the eye. Using my dimension vs an eye pics dimension I was able to find the ratio for the eye dimensions which I used for determining the width. Not perfect, but it's the best I can do.
 
Last edited:
The height of the poll is approx. 2 inches. The height with the ears is approx. 2 9/32 inches. so that would make the ear dimensions 9/32 x 1 25/64 or, in a rectangular form, 11/16 x 9/32. Hopefully this will help K Kevin Houtzager .
 
Last edited:
Thank you guys Very much.
crbnSteeladdict said:
sorry for messing with your process
Click to expand...
Nothing of the sort,quite contrary,it's Most helpful,as you and others have been in the past.
I'm familiar with this video,but will look at it again.

A17,beautiful computations,thank you.Caught me right as i was heading out to forge a drift...
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
A17 said:
The eye dimensions should be approx. 1 25/64 inches by approx. 11/32. I scaled the handle based on the sellers dimensions, approx. calculated the handle's angle and used that to calculate it's height at the eye.
Click to expand...

Ok,we're talking that flea-bay half-axe,i presume?

Egad...This is scary,an eye under 1 1/2" x 3/8" on a 2.5 lbs chunk of steel...:(

With correction to period,i'd say that stock available was a 1/2" strap(most common in tire-work,we even still produce rolled stock in 20' lengths(biggest tires being about 6' dia)).

So the poll was 3 layers of that,which with welding came in to under 1".
Middle layer compacting to under 3/8"(giving eye it's space and thus dimension).
Sides of eye drawn down more at bottom...

BUT...2" for poll height?!...With bit length 5"?!!!!...(no fehrschtain...:(

Sorry!My mistake,edge on that one is 4"(i've been looking at some similar ones where it Is 5").
5" long with a 4" edge...But still,that poll extends nearly as low as lugs...How could it be 2"?...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: A17
Well,today was a funny day...
Drift was no issue,i happened to be parting out a pick-axe anyway,and one end of it was just the right amount of mat'l.https://imgur.com/z1apXlT

Then i cut off two chunks of wagon-tire,1/2" thick by 2 3/4" tall(figured That for poll height),and 4 1/4" long:1"poll+1.5" eye+the rest blade sides(too long,as it turned out,forged out to 5" unwelded).

I started out by creasing the mat'l with an old military set i have,setting down a negative space that'll admit the drift later.https://imgur.com/QxYUr2z

Here it is,about done,drift offered up to it:https://imgur.com/JtM1LKu

And the rest was just plain forging.I set in the blade portion in front of eye a bit deeper,like in the original,and scarfed the edge for welding(edge at this point is a tad over 3").
(photo taking it's time...)https://imgur.com/a/GvDiE9U

And THEN the disaster struck!:) I knew that my run of luck has lasted a bit too long...
I always work corresponding parts together,same fire/same time.Best for uniformity.
well,it was SO uniform,that i made them both identical...vs Mirror of each other like i needed to!:)
Well,sometimes you eat the bear,and sometimes the bear eats you!:)
Better luck tomorrow...(maybe!:)
 
As far as the question of ideal balance goes, it depends on context. If all other parameters are ignored, the ideal lays wherever within the eye that the main length of the handle aligns with. This allows for a straight handle to be used, which is strongest, easiest to make, and uses the smallest amount of wood possible. However, other parameters may hold greater priority, such as total head weight vs. the required bit width, depth, and/or thickness, which means that if weight is held fixed then proportionally more mass has to be shifted into the bit if a deeper/wider/thicker bit is to be made without altering the amount of material used and changing the head weight. A bit-emphasized design of fixed head weight will have its balance point forward of the eye, and then you start needing an offset neck handle if you wish to preserve the balance. This may not be terribly important if the blows will be mostly downward, however. It mostly comes into play in axes that will be used to make horizontal cuts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top