Rig Axe

[Hickory n steel]

Better too fat than too thin. You can take wood off with very little effort and it gives you more leeway in how you choose to tune it up.

Yes, link at least tends to use decent wood.
The grain orientation is often bad but that doesn't matter as much in a single handed swinging tool.
Now the scout style fawns foot hatchet handles my hardware store gets are always terrible.
One time I got a really good one, but otherwise whenever I look the ends are way too skinny like somebody took a belt sander to the swell and fawns foot.

 

[garry3]

I just purchased a link riggers axe handle today and it was a fat club of a handle, every link handle I've had was fatter than a V&B.
The worst part is that it was $20 at the local hardware store.
Probably 6 years ago they were about $6.50 for handles, then before I knew it they were $14.99, and now $19.99.

I had my riggers axe strapped to the rack on my bt200x mini bike and lost it out trail hopping a few months back, it was recovered though and kind of left in the shed where I found it the other day in need of a new handle at that point.


I probably should have taken a before pic ( the head, and the new handle ), but it was at least 1/8" fatter all the way around.
I had to take quite a bit off, it doesn't show up well but I went octagonal with it.
View attachment 1779355

It shouldn't surprise me. Even the new Vaughan handles picked up some fat compared to what I'm accustomed to.

IMG_4688[1]


I need varius hammer handles so will be checking a Lumber yard I haven't been in awhile and see what I can find. I need mostly California framing hafts but I will check on Rigging hafts while I am there.
I do have a House rigging haft but I consider it terrible. It's just made wrong.

 

[garry3]

Better too fat than too thin. You can take wood off with very little effort and it gives you more leeway in how you choose to tune it up.

Ya, that has never happened to me and I have never heard anyone say his new haft is to thin. It used to be just change them out and they were good to go.

No doubt it takes longer on a lathe to make a thin haft than it does a fat one. Never mind the fat shoulders that hide the poor eye fit. It's all about the bottom line.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Ya, that has never happened to me and I have never heard anyone say his new haft is to thin. It used to be just change them out and they were good to go.

No doubt it takes longer on a lathe to make a thin haft than it does a fat one. Never mind the fat shoulders that hide the poor eye fit. It's all about the bottom line.

Undersized tongues/shoulders are usually the issue in the "too thin" department, and I do see those complaints pop up a lot. Personally I don't really trust any company to make a handle exactly the way I want to run it personally, so having some wiggle room in the tuning is useful to me. One could theoretically have handles produced fully finished but the cost would be above what the market would bear these days, at least for a model as mundane as a rigger's hatchet.

 

[Hickory n steel]

Undersized tongues/shoulders are usually the issue in the "too thin" department, and I do see those complaints pop up a lot. Personally I don't really trust any company to make a handle exactly the way I want to run it personally, so having some wiggle room in the tuning is useful to me. One could theoretically have handles produced fully finished but the cost would be above what the market would bear these days, at least for a model as mundane as a rigger's hatchet.

Yes having room to shape it down is what you want out of any other cost effective option available today.
They can do it right which costs too much, start with a smaller piece of wood, or start with a fatter piece and spend less time on it.

It's not the grip area where it's going to be too thin it's the swell or the tongue, but I will say it seems the manufacturers are much better with a simple hammer handle than they are an axe handle.
Usually the shape is there, but it's just too big.
They can barely get the shape even close with an axe handle, and there's normally not even enough meat to work with when it comes to the swell / fawns foot.

 

[garry3]

Undersized tongues/shoulders are usually the issue in the "too thin" department, and I do see those complaints pop up a lot. Personally I don't really trust any company to make a handle exactly the way I want to run it personally, so having some wiggle room in the tuning is useful to me. One could theoretically have handles produced fully finished but the cost would be above what the market would bear these days, at least for a model as mundane as a rigger's hatchet.

Under sized tongues are a QC issue. But if the shoulders are large enough it hides it.

And we get things like this....



When it should look like this...





New hafts should be made more like this...

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Again, they could do that. It'd just cost more. Sometimes much more. The last 20% of finishing usually requires 80% of the labor, and the labor is the most expensive part of the process.

 

[garry3]

Again, they could do that. It'd just cost more. Sometimes much more. The last 20% of finishing usually requires 80% of the labor, and the labor is the most expensive part of the process.

Sure they could do it. They did it for more than a hundred years.

There just isn't enough competition or demand. Link wants $30 for a Rigging axe haft and it costs two bucks more for a new one, handle and all.

Is that about high production costs? No it's not.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Oh the total equation definitely involves production costs. The prices on the Link website are MSRP levels, though, and they mostly want to sell to retailers rather than individual customers. So the pricing on the website is MSRP value such as to both not undercut their dealers and to lower the number of folks buying through them directly so they don't have to fulfill as many small orders, and the ones they do are more worth their time. Cost to dealers is about half what they show on the site.

 

[catspa]

Say Garry, mention of Vaughan on another forum led to this comment:

Roughly 20 years ago the heads on Vaughn Rig Builders changed from forged to cast. The forged heads were close to their advertised 28 ounces. Their cast heads vary and can be up to 1/2 pound over their advertised weight. Their heaviest at 2 1/4 pounds make a great back yard odd job and firewood tool but are nearly worthless as framing hammers. Rigging hatchets are a variation of framing hammer. Their full size axe heads probably changed to castings about the same time.

Does your “blue paint” one seem cast, and is it actually 28 oz? I thought the new ones were still drop forged.

Parker

 

[Hickory n steel]

And we get things like this....



When it should look like this...

Well nobody really makes a California framer like HART did in their heyday.
They were going to put all the effort into finishing the smooth rounded off heads and half-ass the hang of the handle.

 

[crbnSteeladdict]

Say Garry, mention of Vaughan on another forum led to this comment:

Roughly 20 years ago the heads on Vaughn Rig Builders changed from forged to cast. The forged heads were close to their advertised 28 ounces. Their cast heads vary and can be up to 1/2 pound over their advertised weight. Their heaviest at 2 1/4 pounds make a great back yard odd job and firewood tool but are nearly worthless as framing hammers. Rigging hatchets are a variation of framing hammer. Their full size axe heads probably changed to castings about the same time.

Does your “blue paint” one seem cast, and is it actually 28 oz? I thought the new ones were still drop forged.

Parker

I might be wrong but this video does not seem to be 20 year old

 

[catspa]

Yah, that’s drop forged, alright. Dang, another dude is wrong on the internet.

I particularly like the secret recipe quench. Thanks.

Parker

 

[Hickory n steel]

I might be wrong but this video does not seem to be 20 year old

Theres also a factory tour video by Tubalcain that shows their tools being drop forged.

 

[Square_peg]

The first time that someone used my rig axe, about 40 years ago, they gave it back to me in two pieces. Since then, I NEVER let anyone use a wooden handled hammer of mine. "Lemme see your hammer" is about like someone saying "Lemme see your knife." What they mean is, "Lemme F*** your tool up." If you have a nail set more than 1/2 inch deep, you really need to know how to use a hammer, or just get a better tool to extract it.

When someone asks to borrow my hammer I tell them I'd sooner loan them my toothbrush. That usually ends the conversation.

 

[Square_peg]

I believe that Rigging Hatchet is the most common term in the industry. But in the nomenclature used on job sites it's always "Rigging Axe". At least that has been my experience, so much so that " Rigging Hatchet" sounds strange. It should probably be noted that construction workers can butcher the English language but it's also how slang finds it's way in dictionary's.

FYI, It seems that Link handles are the only source I have come across for correct replacement handles. House doesn't do it right. Maybe there are others that do? Don't even bother with an ash haft should you come across one, it won't last half as long as hickory on these axes.

My experience with these terms mirrors yours. But we've both been working constructon in the PNW. Use of terms can vary by region. It was 1998 when I coined a new word and began referring to knee pads worn in the construction industry as 'Lewinskys'. It was at least 10 years before I heard the term repeated by a construction worker from the east coast.

 

[catspa]

When someone asks to borrow my hammer I tell them I'd sooner loan them my toothbrush. That usually ends the conversation.

So listen, can I borrow your toothbrush? I need to clean up my Quadrajet carb…

Parker

 

[Spey]

Reference Photo of my early 80's Vaughan Riggin'Axe (as we called 'em), AKA Rigging Hatchet. Handle just under 18" fitted.
2lbs 2.25oz O.A. (as photographed)

My understanding, back then, was that the design and nomenclature born of the logging industry. Those large rafts of floating logs are held by chain, nailed via a Rigging Hatchet. GrandFatherInLaw owned and ran a Puget Sound log mill, but unfortunately before my time :-(

Early handles were much more ergonomic off the rack (more slender with a nice swell at mid-choke and full grip). Handle shape helped greatly in making square impact. I used to freshen up the grip from time-to-time drawing a cross-cut saw backwards whilst sliding down the handle (marks on the handle).

Sunk 10's of thousands of sinkers before it became an Outlaw Hammer (outlawed by OSHA in California, then Washington followed - stupid !! and sad :-(.

Large diameter face meant you could focus on your nailing rhythm vs accuracy, and was really well balanced which really helped with accuracy and long sessions. Bit very useful for splitting plates (separating laid-out married plates before assembling), and for shaping stakes when plumb & lining before slab pours, and lifting/moving lumber like using a Pickaroon. About the only thing I did not like (compared to other hammer designs), was it sucked for nailing hanger-nails (but nailing hanger-nails SUCKED regardless, and also when nailing in spaces where a longer hammer-pole would be advantageous (but a good Craftsman could adapt easily ;-) Don't believe I ever used the nail-nick, as always carried/used a CatsPaw when needed (when someone F_cked UP)

Easily one of my favorites for pounding steel to wood.

 

[catspa]

Nice, thanks for posting that. I like that handle shape also. Is it just the picture, or is the poll cocked down slightly?

Parker

 

[Spey]

Parker (great question ^^),

Both the poll-to-head (poll slightly angled on head), and poll-to-handle are angled slightly in favor of the hammer poll use; much the same as a bit can be angled on an axe. In my experience this creates a condition where, as the hand leads the head to target, at impact the head is square to the nail head at impact (hammer face perpendicular to the centerline of the nail). IN my mind, this is part of what made this style hammer excel in being able to set & sink at 16d or 20d nail. This is also one of the reasons (along with the wide, long bit) why this style of framing hammer was not best design for applications mentioned above, like nailing hanger nails, and for toe-nailing joists (times when I would select a different hammer for varied applications).

Diagram from An Axe To Grind: A Practical Axe Manual (fs.fed.us - aka ForestService Federal US) illustrating how an axe handle is angled towards the bit (primary working side), similar to how I find hammer head polls (primary working side) function best when angled in similar fashion:

EDIT: Please understand that in the diagram above, there is zero consideration for the functionality of the hammer poll in the diagrams ;-) Additionally the hafts in diagram are curved vs. straight on the Vaughan being discussed in the thread.

My Vaughan (measurements are to centerline of handle):


If I lay/rest the head flat/square to a flat surface (as if hammering), my fingers just clear the flat surface. So, psychologically, making contact is akin to my fist making contact with same surface. In my experience; when hammers do not have this type of handle cant, I find the first strike of a nail tends to push the nail head away from user :-/