Screwed up (then finally succeeded) with my first double-cross wedged hang

[Twindog]

To illustrate the metal vs fitted wood wedging systems, here’s a Helko Topline axe that is an absolute beast.

You can see a massive plastic wedge (I presume kerfed), with two giant circular metal wedges. There is more wedging hardware on the top of that haft than there is wood.

And that’s not all.

There is also a screw that on the side of the head that further attaches the head to the haft.

You’ll also see an overstike plate that I have removed for the photo. So the massive hickory haft has five screw holes, a giant plastic wedge and two large metal wedges.

But now look at the fit of the head:

Helko needs all that hardware because the haft is not well fitted.

Compare that to my fitting:

I don’t need all that metal hardware because the haft is well fitted. Of course, Helko has to compete in a commercial market, so adding metal hardware versus laborious, careful fitting keeps its axes competitively priced.

 

[Twindog]

Hey Twindog, what size eye is that handle? I think I have a twin of that head sitting on my workbench right now. Seems to be about a boys axe weight maybe a little lighter. They eye was a full size one though. I am just curious if you picked up a boys axe handle or a full size felling axe handle. I'm still now sure what I want to do with mine maybe a 20 inch haft since I already have a few boys axes. Nice looking head though! Good job!

It's a standard size single-bit eye, not a boys axe. But you are right that it's not a large head, more like a boys axe head in size. Because of the small size of the head, I went with a 28 inch handle. Normally, I like 36 inch hafts.

 

[Twindog]

Just for the record my post did not mention anything about a dowel or a screw.

You're right. That was me.

 

[jblyttle]

But now look at the fit of the head:

Helko needs all that hardware because the haft is not well fitted.

Shocking! Ah, Helko...lol. :thumbdn: Not the first time. Here is mine that they tried to cover with filler that fell out after the first use.

 

[Agent_H]

It looks really nice Twindog. Shame about the split- I'm sure it will work just fine but I know that sense of disappointment one gets after spending a lot of time on something to, at the last minute, have a flaw of some sort.

I had a similar experience with a hammer I just set with a cross wedge. Cherry handle that I goofed around with for long enough that when the split showed, I put it down, and walked around like I banged my shin on something while swearing.

Yeah, that is disappointing to have something get you at the end of a project.

That is a great looking Walters though. The dog too, for that matter.

 

[Twindog]

Shocking! Ah, Helko...lol. :thumbdn: Not the first time. Here is mine that they tried to cover with filler that fell out after the first use.

Yes, my Helko has some kind of filler at the poll end of the eye where the fit is poor. There is no filler on the other three sides because those sides are covered up by the over-strike plate.

 

[Twindog]

It looks really nice Twindog. Shame about the split- I'm sure it will work just fine but I know that sense of disappointment one gets after spending a lot of time on something to, at the last minute, have a flaw of some sort.

I had a similar experience with a hammer I just set with a cross wedge. Cherry handle that I goofed around with for long enough that when the split showed, I put it down, and walked around like I banged my shin on something while swearing.

Yeah, that is disappointing to have something get you at the end of a project.

That is a great looking Walters though. The dog too, for that matter.

Thanks, Agent. My poor dog has to listen to my own self-critiques when I screw up.

I had to laugh. Your shin story sounds a lot like my moments in the workshop.

I love that Walters. I think I'm going to rehang it on a smaller, 19-inch haft. That should make it more useful to me. And now that I know more about the issues I'll run into, my confidence level is rising (always a sign of pending doom).

 

[Twindog]

This is ultimately what I want to achieve:

 

[Agent_H]

This might be pure luck but my first cross wedges were the best.

Not sure of what I was doing, I set the main one first then did two smaller ones for the cross wedge. The cross wedges didn't go in as deep as putting it in first.

My second attempts were good also but cross wedge first then the main one - like you did there and COTS laid out for us in his project thread. The only difference was that I didn't drive the cross wedge in as hard and left it about .5" proud, split it with a wood chisel the drove the main one in as normal, cut them both a little over .25" so they were even - then held the tool in my left hand and solidly but evenly knocked it with a wooden dead blow until both sets of wedges started to mash a little.

It could be a lot of things but I'm always looking to get better and cross wedges are good looking and functional.

None of that may be helpful but they both have going a little easier on the crosswedge in common I suppose.

My experience is based on 7 attempts only so it could also be chance at work

 

[Twindog]

This might be pure luck but my first cross wedges were the best.

Not sure of what I was doing, I set the main one first then did two smaller ones for the cross wedge. The cross wedges didn't go in as deep as putting it in first.

My second attempts were good also but cross wedge first then the main one - like you did there and COTS laid out for us in his project thread. The only difference was that I didn't drive the cross wedge in as hard and left it about .5" proud, split it with a wood chisel the drove the main one in as normal, cut them both a little over .25" so they were even - then held the tool in my left hand and solidly but evenly knocked it with a wooden dead blow until both sets of wedges started to mash a little.

It could be a lot of things but I'm always looking to get better and cross wedges are good looking and functional.

None of that may be helpful but they they both have going a little easier on the crosswedge in common I suppose.

My experience is based on 7 attempts only so it could also be chance at work

Thanks, Agent. I'll give that a try.

When I try to noodle it out, it seems like luck is involved because as the wedges go in in one direction, they reduce the width available to the wedge(s) going in perpendicular. I cannot figure out how to anticipate how wide to make the wedges so they jam the wood haft and not the other wedges.

 

[quinton]

Thanks, Agent. I'll give that a try.

When I try to noodle it out, it seems like luck is involved because as the wedges go in in one direction, they reduce the width available to the wedge(s) going in perpendicular. I cannot figure out how to anticipate how wide to make the wedges so they jam the wood haft and not the other wedges.

Clamp the kerf closed, then make the cross wedge only as wide as the clamped tongue, in the exact location of where you wish to place the cross wedge. If the cross wedge is wider than the tongue, then the main wedge will only wedge the cross wedge rather than the haft.

Then, hang the head on the haft and insert the cross wedge just snug--split it with a knife or chisel in the center of the main wedge kerf. Then put in the main wedge and drive both sets of wedges home. Careful measurement calculations must be made as to depth of both kerfs, and wedge shape and thickness or you may split the haft.

 

[Twindog]

Clamp the kerf closed, then make the cross wedge only as wide as the clamped tongue, in the exact location of where you wish to place the cross wedge. If the cross wedge is wider than the tongue, then the main wedge will only wedge the cross wedge rather than the haft.

Then, hang the head on the haft and insert the cross wedge just snug--split it with a knife or chisel in the center of the main wedge kerf. Then put in the main wedge and drive both sets of wedges home. Careful measurement calculations must be made as to depth of both kerfs, and wedge shape and thickness or you may split the haft.

Thanks, Quinton. I'm still having trouble holding this in my mind. It seems that the width of the cross wedge(s) depends on how deep the main wedge goes in -- the deeper the main wedge is driven in, the less room for the cross wedge.

I'd also like to keep the final thickness of all exposed wedge bases the same width, but I'd have to know how deep all the wedges go in for that to happen. I thought this would be a challenge for my woodworking skills, but it seems my brain is the weak point.

 

[cityofthesouth]

OK so something I may have possibly left out is that I taper my wedges not only in the obvious direction, but the other direction as well (their length and width?). That helps it conform as it is spread, even though I still compensate by making the cross wedge equal in width to the wood rather than the eye (but it is necessary to do at least that much). I get the idea of having all of it come out nice and neat but for me it was strictly driven by the desire to get the best possible hang for hammers. It's also not terribly complicated. This gets into the idea that the simplest idea is often the best. In the pursuit of perfection, things either get complicated or expensive or both. Since we're talking 16ths or 32nds it seems to me that all you really need to do is take a hair more off the cross wedge. But alternatively, Square_peg's technique (or something like it) is probably the best if you're looking for uber tidy results. You drive the main wedge first, then you drive the crosses as already cut pieces (you ultimately drive 3 wedges instead of just two). Then you just drive them until things are nice and neat. My technique is geared for efficiency over appearance. But the wedges are compensating for how the handle was fit to begin with, and to me, when the wedges come out uneven or whatever, it shows me that I moved wood into the places it needed to be moved into. You can make the wood fit as well as the finest wood worker on Earth, but the guy who made the tool didn't bother making the eye nice and neat for you and the subsequent rust/abuse/neglect won't be doing much to improve on the situation either.

 

[Twindog]

OK so something I may have possibly left out is that I taper my wedges not only in the obvious direction, but the other direction as well (their length and width?). That helps it conform as it is spread, even though I still compensate by making the cross wedge equal in width to the wood rather than the eye (but it is necessary to do at least that much). I get the idea of having all of it come out nice and neat but for me it was strictly driven by the desire to get the best possible hang for hammers. It's also not terribly complicated. This gets into the idea that the simplest idea is often the best. In the pursuit of perfection, things either get complicated or expensive or both. Since we're talking 16ths or 32nds it seems to me that all you really need to do is take a hair more off the cross wedge. But alternatively, Square_peg's technique (or something like it) is probably the best if you're looking for uber tidy results. You drive the main wedge first, then you drive the crosses as already cut pieces (you ultimately drive 3 wedges instead of just two). Then you just drive them until things are nice and neat. My technique is geared for efficiency over appearance. But the wedges are compensating for how the handle was fit to begin with, and to me, when the wedges come out uneven or whatever, it shows me that I moved wood into the places it needed to be moved into. You can make the wood fit as well as the finest wood worker on Earth, but the guy who made the tool didn't bother making the eye nice and neat for you and the subsequent rust/abuse/neglect won't be doing much to improve on the situation either.

Thanks, COTS, that's an awesome reply. I've read your post about six times. I can do this, now.

What went wrong with the first attempt resulted in the cross wedge going too deep and splitting the haft. The reason is that the part of the left haft that goes into the eye was partly broken off from the factory, and I chipped it even worse when I resawed the kerf to make it deeper. The cross wedge had too much wood to move too far, so it went in deep and split the haft. In hindsight, I'd either go to a better cut haft or use a double cross wedge so that I would be moving wood from two splits rather than just one.

I get the thing about perfection. I'm not a craftsman, but I have it in my mind that on a relatively simple task like wedging an axe, if I know the issues and work carefully and slowly with the right tools, I can get craftsmanlike results -- it will just take me longer than a real craftsman. Some of these vintage heads are so beautiful that they deserve the effort.

 

[cityofthesouth]

Thanks, COTS, that's an awesome reply. I've read your post about six times. I can do this, now.

What went wrong with the first attempt resulted in the cross wedge going too deep and splitting the haft. The reason is that the part of the left haft that goes into the eye was partly broken off from the factory, and I chipped it even worse when I resawed the kerf to make it deeper. The cross wedge had too much wood to move too far, so it went in deep and split the haft. In hindsight, I'd either go to a better cut haft or use a double cross wedge so that I would be moving wood from two splits rather than just one.

I get the thing about perfection. I'm not a craftsman, but I have it in my mind that on a relatively simple task like wedging an axe, if I know the issues and work carefully and slowly with the right tools, I can get craftsmanlike results -- it will just take me longer than a real craftsman. Some of these vintage heads are so beautiful that they deserve the effort.

Well that's a fair point. There is an ebay seller who does crazy nice things with cross wedges in small axes and they do deserve the effort. As I am writing this post I visited his store just to look at the cross wedges and they aren't perfectly even - it has never occurred to me to look that closely before. The desire to do better is what leads to awesome things, so I fully support the effort.

 

[Square_peg]

But alternatively, Square_peg's technique (or something like it) is probably the best if you're looking for uber tidy results. You drive the main wedge first, then you drive the crosses as already cut pieces (you ultimately drive 3 wedges instead of just two). Then you just drive them until things are nice and neat.

That's close but I do it a little bit different. I drive the cross wedge first as one piece. Then I cut the main wedge into two pieces and fit them to each side of the cross wedge. The cross wedge is fit to the eye before the haft set for the final time. Like you, I taper my main wedge (pieces) so that they don't bind against the end of the eye. If I'm not cross wedging but using a single main wedge then the main wedge is dry fit to the eye before seating the haft. I don't want anything to stop the wedge other than the fit of the kerf. Oh, and I want the grain running the short direction across the wedge. It's strongest that way.

 

[cityofthesouth]

I only meant to keep the full main wedge he could do it differently but the more I think about it, I don't think that's a good idea. Functionally, it probably makes better sense to always do the cross first.

 

[Twindog]

Thanks, Square Peg and COTS, for those details.

My thinking is that the main wedge -- the normal north-south wedge that slips into the factory kerf -- is the most important because it pushes the haft splits in an east-west direction, where it jams into the sides of the eye, which offer the most surface area along the eye and therefore have the most holding power.

The cross wedge would jam the haft into the eye on a north-south direction. The north-south direction (front and back of the eye) doesn't have as much surface area to deal with, so it's more like insurance, and so the cross wedge serves the same purpose as the metal wedge driven in perpendicular to the normal main wedge, but with a kerf and so less likely to split the haft.

I think the whole point of the cross wedge is to add north-south wedging pressure to the dominant east-west pressure of the main wedge.

So because the main wedge is the most important, I was going to keep it intact and let the cross wedge be split into two wedges driven in separately. But I can see Square Peg's point and my sense is that driving in the cross wedge first would be easiest, maybe best.

But I was also thinking that I could drive in the main wedge first to where it almost is fully seated, stopping with maybe just 1/8th of an inch to go. Then cut the main wedge so it is 1/8th of an inch proud. Then drive in the cross wedges as separate wedges (either two wedges for a single-cross wedging or four wedges for a double-cross wedging. I'd drive in the cross wedges the same way, until they are just about fully seated, but not quite. Then I'd cut them to the same height as the main wedge.

Finally, I'd drive in all wedges the final 1/8th of an inch as a group. The cross wedges would bind against the main wedge because as the main wedge goes in the final 1/8th of an inch, it takes up lateral space needed by the cross wedges, jamming everything together as a unit, with a slightly mushroomed portion of the exposed haft and wedges jamming agains the eye in the north/south/east/west direction, as well as against each other.

What I haven't figured out yet is how to keep the final top widths of all wedges equal. I"m also still digesting Square Peg's use of the wedge grain for optimal strength.

 

[300Six]

This is ultimately what I want to achieve:

This is just me being the devil's advocate since cross wedging has never been a typical procedure (except by factories that lock the wood wedge in place via a small steel cross wedge) on domestic axe heads. This particular photo is of an oval eye hang and every little bit of taper a haft has within one of these (I wonder if this was set up as 'slip fit' such as is the case on most round eye and oval eye heads) is crucial. Two cross wedges and one main wedge carefully glue-set while being driven in, and then shaped with a rasp or file enables you to create a tapered handle from a parallel piece of wood.

 

[Twindog]

That's an interesting point, and I don't know the answer.

This is the page where the person made the double cross wedge. He says it took several attempts to get it right.

http://survinat.com/2013/04/wedging-ax-in-the-eye-5-wedges/




Here's a photo that Square Peg used in an old thread where he created a beautiful cross wedge. He used the cross wedge as a single unit, and divided the main wedge into two wedges, like he described above.