R&D,18th c.American axe

Gents,the time is nigh for me to pry myself out of the forge,this time for realz,before i'll seriously jeopardize my "real job".
There'll be assorted grinding and HT-ing,by'm by(the first i'm particularly worthless at,nor have any proper equipment for,i'm a hot-work shop very one-sidedly,so it won't be very interesting).In a few months,hopefully,i'll resume from this point onward.
What did we all learn on this journey so far?
Seems like,many of these axes were made in that time when the last of the smaller forges were giving way before the irrepressible onslaught of very large companies.
I think that as they were getting steam-rolled they imparted much to what eventually became these several iconic American axe patterns,that in turn practically changed the very axe-paradigm all over the world,with their huge bit-length,convex cheeks,and much more ample eye-volume.
But back then the Industry was just getting going,and they still had many attributes of older,more hand-made processes.
They likely Were the transition.
I'd cautiously venture to say that they were based on the availability of rolled stock,probably strap in 1/2" or 3/8" thickness(from before-,during and after the growing capacity of US to produce it's own;iron for tires was always an important staple).
In Eric Sloane's "Noah's Diary"(18-teens) the smith buys all his material as tire stock,using remnants for all other projects.

I initially started playing with 2" starting width,and it seemed a bit on a skimpy side.Axes` were looking too narrow for the period(or they would've have to been smaller/shorter).
This last one was at 2 3/4",and that 3/4" increase in width created a fairly radical change in all physics,so that's something to file for the future experiments.
That smaller/narrower eye was most likely re-designed sometime soon after,as the mass of axes increased...

Speaking of eye dimensions,that height of eye(dictated by a long edge?)was just So much more conveniently/economically achieved by welding vs slitting,that welding remained a standard procedure for well over a hundred years hence,serious changes in technology nonwithstanding...

I some obscure,imaginary reality how cool would it be if someone did an in-depth historical study of this...(and how i'd love to be on the testing/forensics crew of something like that!:)
 
Jake, thank you so much for taking us along on the journey! What an incredible wealth of information gleaned through deduction and exercise (mental *and* physical :)). And thanks for being so helpful in sharing your thoughts and insights along the way! It's rare these days to run into an individual as generous with his or her time and skills as you have been. It's been a delight and a real treat to see you work on this. So again, thank you!

I hope you find time to pick this back up when time allows!
 
Fmont,kind of you to say that,and likewise,i thank you and many others for generously sharing the information and knowledge,and very importantly-for your Interest.
That is what's keeping this axe culture Alive,and where would we be without That?!
So Many thanks!
We shall resume,in the Fall. But I'll squawk here and there before,on HT particulars.
It'll be challenging to HT these due to the two-ended issue(i presume the poll-plate was hardened,it shows dissimilarity of alloys on some older examples,and sometimes characteristic chipping).
Also in my rushed mode i neglected to run tests on some of the blading mat'l that i used,and will try to get around to it now(After the fact...typical...:),and mayhaps there'll be some curious effects/photos...
 
Seems like so far in all the prototyping i'm coming up with balance point anywhere from the front edge,to about a 1/4" inside the eye...

That's about typical. And we've had many discussions here about the balance point of axes. I'm starting to think perfect balance may not be as good as having it very slightly heavy toward the toe so that axe orients more naturally during bucking work. Perfect balance is certainly preferable for felling work.

Sorry,my reception bad today,here's a better one anyway:https://imgur.com/D8hj2cF
(end of forging;though it's still thick,i'll start grinding from this point,to look for crappy welds and other inquiries).

Hot dang! That is terrific!

Quick,before imgur turds out on me again i'll upload top and bottom views...

Top:https://imgur.com/GR6mPWa
(the void is where the two outer layers of WI have squashed past and lipped over the steel insert,another reason for that trim).

And bottom:https://imgur.com/sbWEVy8
I guess i left that drift pretty square aft,not narrowed it some,as originally intended to.

You are really creating fine axes now.
 
Speaking of eye dimensions,that height of eye(dictated by a long edge?)was just So much more conveniently/economically achieved by welding vs slitting,that welding remained a standard procedure for well over a hundred years hence,serious changes in technology nonwithstanding...

That's a good lesson learned. The whole thing has been fascinating for me. Surely one of the most interesting threads we've had in this forum.

Thank you so much for sharing it all with us.
 
Thanks Jake. I know I am coming back to the party late, got tied up with non axe stuff. I dont like non axe stuff. I wanted to give you dimensions on what you call my axes 1&2. I will still do that when I get a chance. And, I still will get photos of the other period axe, with dimensions, to SP to post. I am really enjoying seeing your work on this and everybody's input.
 
Old Axeman,i so appreciate your kind words,and input.Thank you.
Yes,i can relate to this-
got tied up with non axe stuff. I dont like non axe stuff.
-couldn't put it better...And this is the beginning of busy,dense,non-axe period for me...:(
But we shall resume,when and as we can,and make up for lost time too then!
And such fallow periods are great for rebuilding energy,And gathering data;so when we reconvene-we'll Really go for it!:)

I've only had a shortest spell at the forge,but would like to show this one photo to whomever it may interest(and many of you may know this,so please disregard).
https://imgur.com/a/vpXS9uw

In hardening steel the Hardness itself is not an only important factor.Another one is Grain size.
If overly large,even the correctly hardened steel will have undue brittleness,and potentially crumble in use.
Grain enlarges in the process of repeated and prolonged heating to high temperature(welding heats especially).
To refine it back to acceptable parameter the process is applied called Normalizing.
(Acceptable grain-size is where the individual granules of steel are not visible with the naked eye,but blend together in this typical light-grey/silvery "satin" texture;as an analog a fresh break on an old worn-out file is about what it should look like).

So in testing for suitability of edge material i test for hardenability in general,as well as how well this given alloy responds to Normalizing.

In that photo there's two breaks on one and the same piece of that pick-axe that i used on some of these axes.
One on left of photo is quenched(in water)as that pick-axe was;the grain size is very poor.
But,after the usual 3 cycles of mormalizing the grain is significantly reduced.
(it's far from Perfect,but i was in a rush and fudged through the process;in any case the point is that it Does respond to the grain reduction by this method).

My camera and skill with it are crap,and things look better,more contrasting,in real life,but just wanted to share this as a (poor)illustration of a principle,for those perhaps not familiar with this effect.
 
I had a bit of time to mess with the last axe,do some pre-HT grinding.
Surprisingly few lousy seams,and the balance seems in the ballpark:https://imgur.com/EvKFabk
In two important parameters i went outside bounds:L overall is almost 6"(vs to original's 5"),and,having run to the local store to use their electronic scale-the weight is 3.12Lbs...
Darn it,that's what,near 30% overweight?!
I didn't take a photo of this,but i struck tow lines with a sharpie on that fround top surface-straight lines from corners of poll to the cutting edge,in a strict wedge...
If i were to take that much off by grinding,i May be closer to desired 2.5 lbs....(with my inadequate grinding facilities it'd take forever...:(

The length is not that big a deal,would've been an easy adjustment in pre-form.
Weight is more of a`serious issue.
I'm inclined to think now that the smaller originals were put together out of 3/8" thick material,vs 1/2".

I need to build a swinging-seat grinder,or some other powerful means of no-nonsense removal of mass...or learn to be a better smith!:)
https://imgur.com/IO8VglH
 
I need to build a swinging-seat grinder,or some other powerful means of no-nonsense removal of mass...or learn to be a better smith
Ha, Ha, Ha, that last will save you grief and serve you better. Getting these reductions right in the initial stage is truely key to the whole process as I have observed it recently at close range.
 
I need to build a swinging-seat grinder,or some other powerful means of no-nonsense removal of mass...or learn to be a better smith!:)

Do you have access to a 7" angle grinder and some 16 grit discs? For a portable unit they remove an awful lot of mass quickly.
 
That 2.5 lb. weight never sounded right to me. I suspect that number is in error

Really?...So you think most of these older moderate-sized single-bits we see are closer to 3#?

You're right,and i ought to look about for a 7"-9" range disc...(4 is all i have anymore).
The originals are all ground,which gives them that slick,fine profile,totally obscuring the true as-forged shape,alas...
 
Jake-The weight on what you have called axe 1 & 2 is 2.5 lbs + or -. I weighed them before I hung them and then later sent the photos to S P to post a while back. Even though it's been a while, and I am not very good at keeping written records, thats how I remember it. The body is going fast now, but the memory is still OK ! (I think)
 
Jake-The weight on what you have called axe 1 & 2 is 2.5 lbs + or -. I weighed them before I hung them

Thank you Sir!!!!

IF(!) i'd been a responsible creature i'd start making a chart,a few orderly columns with weight and any dimensions available for as many originals as possible...

Here's them lines representing a full,true wedge,as drawn on top:
https://imgur.com/ANsyQhg

That'd probably loose a few ounces...But what troubles me more than the weight is that Convergence angle of the forged blade(before bevels are ground for sharpening).
What were the average values for that?
(in essence it shapes the chip-breaker action...)
 
wonder if they had convex cheeks

Yes.
Many of them(if not most?...).

Out of ## 1 & 2 discussed above,#1 does(and is said to be a better tool).

Now i've got some hard questions:)...:

Was this general period the very beginning of convex blade?

Does the convexity Stem from grinding,is that how the idea came about?
(In the Middle Ages and earlier grinding was notoriously difficult and inefficient;most locales relying on local varieties of softer sand-stones;which,according to some friends participating in archaeo-metallurgical studies,Sucked...to put it plainly.Industrial Age quickly changed that).
 
Back
Top