Thick and thin

[G-pig]

In lieu of anything actually useful, I want to at least make myself clear on the topic.

These are Maine made axes, sometimes relegated to the roll of splitting because they are "thick". These are what I would call "thin" (the left one especially).

These are later True Temper kelly boys axes. These were never taken down from the factory and are thus what I would call "thick". The camera couldn't zoom enough to illustrate it greatly, but the one on the right is a good example.

Thickness or thinness is pretty much contingent upon the first 4-5MM most importantly, and the marriage between that zone and the subsequent 1/2" to 1 1/2". Most axes can be made thick or thin in a matter of 20 or 30 minutes with a file.

 

[G-pig]

Better pics without the ad in the OP.

 

[M3mphis]

Sweet. I'll have to post a profile shot of my Keech as well.

Those look like good choppers to me!!!

 

[G-pig]

Racing axes are a good example of a thin-to-thick taper that makes a good chopper.

I was explaining the other day how chopping is more splitting than severing fibers. You need initial cutting penetration but then wedging to pop the fibers apart. A thin axe delivers good penetration (sometimes) but does not pop the fibers as well. More penetration does not bode while for cleanly chipping out the cut. The deeper the bit goes the more it loses its pep to pop the chip. one that flares out further up the cheek prevents binding, pops a better chip via regulating depth of cut, and is easier to learn to use in some instances.

 

[Steve Tall]

I dare say the Roselli axe is thick:

from http://holtheathwoodentreen.blogspot.com/2012/08/axe-file-no1-roselli-allround-axe.html

 

[G-pig]

I dare say the Roselli axe is thick:

from http://holtheathwoodentreen.blogspot.com/2012/08/axe-file-no1-roselli-allround-axe.html

It has a thin edge though, people use them for carving all the time and some report they are great choppers. I don't have one (probably never will) although I should given my enamoration with fat tapered axes.

 

[Square_peg]

I dare say the Roselli axe is thick:

I'd be worried about glancing blows.

 

[M3mphis]

I would love to try one of those Roselli's. I bet they perform pretty darn well.

 

[M3mphis]

I'd be worried about glancing blows.

I can see how you may get more glancing when chopping into a "V" of any significant depth. I'd love to try one to find out. For carving and hewing actions, I doubt you would have glancing issues because the leading edge is actually fairly thin. Really though, I doubt glancing would be bad in any case. Take a look at the GB Small and Scandi Forest axes:

This is woodtrekker's image, not mine. Notice that the primary bevel is pretty close to the Roselli. I won't belabor the point any further as that's the entire notion of G's post.

 

[G-pig]

The Roselli does have more of a "bevel" than I prefer on a wedgier axe. If I had one I might well take that high point at the top of the bevel off.

We do have to realize that a thinner, long bitted axe can and does glance (often more than a conversely shaped one). Especially in felling cuts, the eye can hit and that obviously does not bite the wood. This happened a lot for my neighbors trying to cut a face cut in a 24" Maple a few days ago. It happened to me as well. It has a lot to do with whether or not the person swinging is used to the shape or not, but that goes for all glances. These wedge patterns and Maine patterns have a more continual shape from poll and edge and dont have problems with corners of notches sneaking into the hollows of the face.

Thanks for the pics M3mphis. Not only are GB's too thin in the upper cheek; I think they are too thickly beveled as well. If you radically thinned one I think it would probably make a nice (expensive and labor intensive) carving axe for rough removal.

Good discussion here. Exactly what I was hoping would stem from my lazy post.