sager chemical question

Is a puget sound sager good on oak, hickory, maple and stuff like that?

Presumably the Puget Sound pattern was developed for felling the the large sprcies found in the Pacific Northwest of the US:

"Ax-head patterns were also adapted to the
timber that was available in the local area.
The double-bit ax was originally developed in
Pennsylvania (Figure 11). But the double-bit
axes with a long, narrow, heavy ax head and a
long handle, were developed for cutting large
trees in the Pacific Northwest. Some of the
patterns from this area were the Puget Sound,
the Young’s felling pattern, the Redwood
pattern, and the Humboldt pattern."
An Ax to Grind: A Practical Ax Manual pg 4

Many companies made this pattern.

Not sure how to define "good". So far I've never seen a reference that I would trust (.gov or .edu) that does a serious comparison of the efficiency of axe patterns vs wood types. If anyone has such a reference, I'd love to have it for my files. :)

Bob
 
Probably over kill on trees under 4 or 5 feet in diameter. Around here Puget Sounds were being used on Doug fir that probably averaged 6 feet or better in diameter.
 
I nominate you to test out this theory! Lay in a Connie or Jersey (of similar weight to the Sager) and time yourself how long it takes to go through a hardwood log and then 'go to town' on the same log with a Puget Sound. One of them will bite deeper but the other will break-out larger chips so it'll be quite interesting to hear and see what happens.
 
well, i'll test it when i get one, its $60 at LEAST for me and right now, its lookin like a christmas gift for me (meaning there's no way i can get it in the near future). IF i get one before too long, i'll post to this thread, if not, i'll make a new one, kelly perfect michigan against sager chemical. Clash of the titans
 
Fwiw, Sagers are probably the hardest axes I ever played with.
They will hold their edge...
 
PS falling axes have what ballisticians call "high sectional density." With 4-1/2 lbs of mass driving only a 3-1/2" cutting edge, the psi is higher than the same amount of mass behind a 5" cutting edge.

So in equal wood, the PS should cut deeper (but narrower.)

Whether that results in bigger chips presumably depends on the tendency of the wood to cleave and split.

PS handles tend to be very long. This not only allows longer reach, but presumably would affect the speed you can accelerate the head to. Which in turn affects the psi of the cutting edge on the wood. I *think* it's possible to get a 4-1/2lb head on a 44" haft whipping along to generate more energy than a 3-1/2lb head on a 36" haft. But takes more effort. At some point different head/haft combinations probably hit sweet spots where efficiency peaks. E.g. a 12lb head on a 1' handle probably is less effecient than on a 3' handle. But on a 7' handle would probably be useless. The sweet spot might be 40" or something. The sweet spot for a 2lb axe is probably 24" - 30" I'm guessing.

Please feel free to conduct a long series of costly experiments to prove what I just wrote.

Right or wrong it's genius stuff, and much easier to posit from my armchair than to validate via the drudgery of chopping a lot of wood before opening my mouth . . .
 
I just hung a PS axe on a 44" fletcher mattock handle from House Handles. It arrived lumpy and uneven and I had to do a lot of careful rasping to make it nice. But was only $12 or so. If I really needed something ideal I would make it from scratch.
 
well, it'll cost me $25 but i found one https://beaver-tooth.com/collections/double-bit-axe-handles/products/40-double-bit the things gonna be $100 just to hang,now i know why they're so expensive restored

The word 'restored' is being overused. Sure you can 'restore' a '55 Chevy Nomad but you can only aspire to clean up, re-haft and sharpen an axe. Getting an axe back into showroom condition cannot be accomplished unless it happens to be NOS to start with.
 
Back
Top