Thoughts on a Collins Hudson Bay style axe head

I think it's post '66 - Mann era. Collins axes still had convex cheeks until the Mann era. That's when the Homesteads and Commanders went flat.
 
Woodcraft said:
You seem to be saying in the op you are disappointed in the profile and geometry of this axe and you expect better from a vintage axe made when axes were made correctly.
But you do not know when this axe was made.
Click to expand...

Ah ya, my first post was a bit tongue-in-cheek but I sometimes forget that determining tone and detecting sarcasm is a bit, uh, difficult through the keyboard.

As for disappointment, eh, maybe a little. The reality is I'm not a heavy user so having a perfectly-profiled axe head is not all that necessary. With how little I rely on these things, any of them will work so long as they're sharp. I meant to poke fun at how the armchair bushpeople on the internet worship the Hudson Bay pattern like it's somehow superior. Here it is and to me it doesn't look like it'll function any better than my other axes.

And then on the other hand are all the self-bestowed "experts" who discuss all the fine details of what a "proper" axe head profile should be. So in seeing this thing I'm half wondering should I be disappointed that it isn't more refined and carefully sculpted? Or is it the case that all the internet expert discussion on how an axe head must be shaped is largely baseless? It's all just a bit funny to me.

As for the age, I assumed it had to be made before the 70's or so, which is around when axes started going downhill from what I've read. Doubt this one was made before WWII--the stamp is pretty sharp and very similar to an old Homestead axe I have. And though I haven't seen any of the older Hudson Bay axes like the Collins Legitimus, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they are a bit more refined and sleek than this one. The only axes I have that I know are from the 30's or earlier are more-refined-less-chunky-looking than this one, like the folks who made them put a little more care and effort into them. But who knows. I'm just speculating based on what I've read which may or may not be accurate. If the steel is good then this one will certainly do what I need it to.

Anyway, my plan for this axe will be to leave the profile as is, sharpen it, and see how it stands up against my old Hults Bruks that has the thin-bit-concave-cheek curvature that's all the rage.
 
Square_peg said:
I think it's post '66 - Mann era. Collins axes still had convex cheeks until the Mann era. That's when the Homesteads and Commanders went flat.
Click to expand...

That would be my guess. The cheeks on this one are slightly convex but overall it's pretty chunky and very similar to an old Homestead I have that I'm sure is from the 70's or even 80's.
 
mhutch said:
Ah ya, my first post was a bit tongue-in-cheek but I sometimes forget that determining tone and detecting sarcasm is a bit, uh, difficult through the keyboard.
Click to expand...

There should be an agreement as to a sarcasm font.
mhutch said:
As for disappointment, eh, maybe a little. The reality is I'm not a heavy user so having a perfectly-profiled axe head is not all that necessary. With how little I rely on these things, any of them will work so long as they're sharp. I meant to poke fun at how the armchair bushpeople on the internet worship the Hudson Bay pattern like it's somehow superior. Here it is and to me it doesn't look like it'll function any better than my other axes.
Click to expand...
As was mentioned by others it depends on the intended use. That said as I was pointing at earlier it is intended to be used to feed the fire. So splitting small stuff. A splitting ax can definitely benefit from both a thicker ax overall, and the release allowed by convex cheeks when splitting wood. Unlike the YouTube wannabe warriors when the rest of us split wood we tend to run into some nasty stuff. It all isn't straight grained stuff that parts for you if you ask nicely;). Perhaps it was intended to be an all around. IDK, I would want convex cheeks regardless. (Heel to toe)
mhutch said:
And then on the other hand are all the self-bestowed "experts" who discuss all the fine details of what a "proper" axe head profile should be. So in seeing this thing I'm half wondering should I be disappointed that it isn't more refined and carefully sculpted? Or is it the case that all the internet expert discussion on how an axe head must be shaped is largely baseless? It's all just a bit funny to me.
Click to expand...
It should work well for what it is intended to be used on, or you should be disappointed.
I hate flat cheeked axes. I've used them. They suck. I've listened to the excuses, I've listened to the disclaimers, I think it is all bs. As far as Felling bucking limbing and splitting are concerned, flat axes suck.

mhutch said:
As for the age, I assumed it had to be made before the 70's or so, which is around when axes started going downhill from what I've read. Doubt this one was made before WWII--the stamp is pretty sharp and very similar to an old Homestead axe I have. And though I haven't seen any of the older Hudson Bay axes like the Collins Legitimus, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they are a bit more refined and sleek than this one. The only axes I have that I know are from the 30's or earlier are more-refined-less-chunky-looking than this one, like the folks who made them put a little more care and effort into them. But who knows. I'm just speculating based on what I've read which may or may not be accurate. If the steel is good then this one will certainly do what I need it to.

Anyway, my plan for this axe will be to leave the profile as is, sharpen it, and see how it stands up against my old Hults Bruks that has the thin-bit-concave-cheek curvature that's all the rage.
Click to expand...
I was thinking/guessing late 70s early 80s. But that would be at best a guess.
I am interested to see the conclusion of the comparison.
 
I saw a "like new" Norlund with a split handle on a vendors table this past weekend at a flea market. As I was reaching to pick it up, the vendor quickly said "that's $75". The head, whilst not pitted, must have been really rusty because it had been cleaned really well with a wire wheel, so much so that as I was quickly placing the axe back on his table, I saw the quench line was clearly visible right at the bevel.
 
quinton said:
I saw a "like new" Norlund with a split handle on a vendors table this past weekend at a flea market. As I was reaching to pick it up, the vendor quickly said "that's $75". The head, whilst not pitted, must have been really rusty because it had been cleaned really well with a wire wheel, so much so that as I was quickly placing the axe back on his table, I saw the quench line was clearly visible right at the bevel.
Click to expand...

$75 at a flea market. That's rich. Jeez just pay rent and open a shop. It's not thst they can't get that in certain markets (nationwide), but it's funny to think that they can expect that at a flea market.
 
Yep, I quickly learned that places like ebay or most antique stores are NOT the places to find deals. I quit wasting my time on anything other than garage/estate sales and flea markets, and so far I haven't been disappointed.
 
Last edited:
I doubt any Collins hb's were made past 1966. Mann used the Collins molds to produced the new Norlund brand which is the same axe. Only difference is the higher polish, more expensive black paint, nicer sheath on the Collins. Norlunds had a rougher finish grind, spray on blue, cheapo sheath, orange sticker to hide a bad wedge job. Lot's of marketing like ads and pictures of Indians and canoes in the packaging for the cheaper to produce Norlund. Why would Mann continue to make the Collins hb at a higher cost to compete with itself with a more expensive product when they already had to compete with Snow & Nealley. This is like the Winchester pre-64. The nicer more expensive to produce Collins hb I believe was discontinued in favor of the Norlund. Remember it's the same company; Mann owning both. Find an ad past the mid-sixties promoting the Collins hb then I'll believe Mann had idiots running the company.

Also hbs have flat cheeks or mostly flat cheeks, not convexed enough to notice in use. It's the nature of the design. If you want convexed, buy a vintage boys axe.
 
The Collins and the Norlund are very similar but not all are exactly the same. The little notch on the underside is lacking on the
Norlund and only lacking in some of the Collins axes. I believe the Collins HBs that lack the notch are probably the most recent as they are a deviation from the earlier legitimus marked patterns that all have the little notch.

The Collins logo inside the rectangle is definitely the most recent of the Collins HBs. The legitimus marked ones are earlier and the Hartford/legitimus marked ones earlier than that. I believe Collins was the first to commercially market the HB pattern to campers and trappers in the early to mid teens.

Modern day confusion over the Hudson Bay axe pattern and it's purpose often stems from the fact that few people are camping the way that people used to camp and even fewer are trapping.
 
Last edited:
halfaxe said:
Also hbs have flat cheeks or mostly flat cheeks, not convexed enough to notice in use. It's the nature of the design. If you want convexed, buy a vintage boys axe.
Click to expand...

grafton said:
Modern day confusion over the Hudson Bay axe pattern and it's purpose often stems from the fact that few people are camping the way that people used to camp and even fewer are trapping.
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of the flatter cheeks? Better for splitting? That would make sense given its intended use I suppose.
 
mhutch said:
What is the purpose of the flatter cheeks? Better for splitting? That would make sense given its intended use I suppose.
Click to expand...
Weight saving would be another reason. The heads only weigh 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 lbs. on the original axes. Convex cheeks have less sticking in the wood and pop chips better, something that makes a difference chopping wood all day. Hudson bay axes are not for chopping wood all day. They are made for carrying long distances and setting up camp or setting traps. The bits are narrow with an abrupt taper toward a narrower poll so convex cheeks would not have any real benefit, and would be difficult to produce.
 
halfaxe said:
Convex cheeks have less sticking in the wood and pop chips better, something that makes a difference chopping wood all day. Hudson bay axes are not for chopping wood all day. They are made for carrying long distances and setting up camp or setting traps.
Click to expand...

You have to split wood at camp. The second you stop splitting movie grade straight grained wood and hit a knarly piece,or a punky piece, you will appreciate convex cheeks when you roll your ax out.

The second that trapper has to buck a small tree that fell across, or a large branch in the way, he will appreciate convex cheeks.

I know I sure do on mine!




 
Looking at this Collins HB the toe is badly worn and the bit as well. Looks like whomever owned it before used it as a grubbing tool judging from the shape the bit is in. Prior to all of the use, abuse and grinding I imagine it had a nice keen bit. A fair amount of filing work will put it back to a good working state, but never quite what it was.

Wetterlings axes are generally quite thick and their patterns tend to be more Classic Maine style wedges. Gransfors Bruks axes have relatively thin bits and extremely flat cheeks but aren't as thin as everyone makes them out to be. Their eyes tend to be excessively large making for a steep transition around the eye and also making the bit appear thinner by comparison. My guess is that their drifts where made to create eyes suitable for timber locally available for handles.

Best way to find out what's what with axes is to go out and use them. Compare several and you'll tend to get a feel for what works well and what doesn't. Personally I perfer my high centerlines, flat axes just don't work as well. Others have argued that it doesn't make a difference, but I'd rather trust my own personal experience than go by what others state on the internet.
 
I think to understand the Hudson Bay axe you have to set aside from your mind things like firewood prep and felling/bucking of medium to large timber. Certainly those are tasks that can be done if needed but there are 101 other uses for the camp/trapline axe that are more meaningful when trying to grasp its true purpose. I have listed in detail some of those uses on other threads here. If you don't trap or use traditional camping methods and equipment you will likely not "get it". Today, most people when they think of using an axe, automatically they go to firewood, felling, bucking and splitting. That's not the right place to go when discussing the Hudson Bay axe.

The shape of the cheeks makes little to no difference for the kinds of tasks the tool is needed for. You often don't need to split wood in camp and a tree across a trail means very little to a trapper on foot or in a canoe. It is just as likely to be ignored as it is cleared.

Im general terms, pounding and cutting small diameter stuff covers most of the uses the HB is intended for. It's for when you need an axe but don't necessarily want to carry one. It is a compromise between usefulness and compactness/weight. It's home is a pack basket not a lumber camp.
 
Last edited:
grafton said:
You often don't need to split wood in camp and a tree across a trail means very little to a trapper on foot or in a canoe. It is just as likely to be ignored as it is cleared.
Click to expand...
You have never trapped a day for fur bearing creatures in the Northeast US. Not a day.
 
Lighten up Woodcraft, don't take everything personal. We are all here to learn more about axes. Grafton probably is the world's expert on the history and development of vintage North American camping equipment. I am starting to wonder about someone who loves convex cheeks so much he posts pictures of a Wetterlings axe with flat cheeks and says he loves the axe so much because of its wonderful convex cheeks. I was not going to say anything about it but what is up with that?
 
halfaxe said:
Lighten up Woodcraft, don't take everything personal. We are all here to learn more about axes. Grafton probably is the world's expert on the history and development of vintage North American camping equipment.
I am starting to wonder about someone who loves convex cheeks so much he posts pictures of a Wetterlings axe with flat cheeks and says he loves the axe so much because of its wonderful convex cheeks. I was not going to say anything about it but what is up with that?
Click to expand...
The Wetterlings Hudson Bay has convex cheeks. I will give you a minute to correct yourself then I am going to plaster this thread with pictures from multiple angles.
Secondly a good trapper keeps a clean trail in and out. And anyone who has ever spent the night outside in the Northeast winter processes wood for the fire. (Unless they are using modern warming methods. Those do not require an ax.)
It's not personal. I'm just stating facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top