What would YOU do with this axe?

Glenn Bailey said:
Here’s an update on the beaten Rixford Kentucky R55.

As a reminder, “Mushroomed like crazy, top of the eye is bent. It’s horrible given how beautiful this pattern looks on a 3 lber.” I’m guessing it’s originally a 3 lber as it doesn’t have that much wear and weighs 2.86 lbs. My challenge was centered around the abuse and what that meant for it’s future. Once again, Josh’s comment haunted me “I'd swing it man!”.

I decided to play the “put your most abused axe on your most abused haft” game. OK, I made that game up, but it has worked astoundingly well for me in the past. So, I have this 30” broken haft, split vertically from the top down. A while back I saturated it with wood glue and clamped like a madman hoping that this last ditch effort might work. Messed up haft meet messed up head. Regarding the “what it could it bring to the ‘users’ table that was unique” criteria, it is clearly a chopper, and all my choppers are 30-32”. This particular 30” handle is at 28” hung; light and whippy. It brings something new.

You can see the split in the haft, and the head speaks for itself. But, it really punches above its weight cutting really deep into some seasoned red maple logs. I took some hard swing and the handle held true. I think this was a perfect fit given the damage to the haft. The lugs on the Kentucky really help hold things together. It probably won’t get heavy use, but it’s an absolute joy to swing.

Thanks again for all your comments. Another puzzle solved!

EmDbsu5.jpg


DZhQ3xG.jpg


ZQRmsr9.jpg


7EzE8Lw.jpg


bAThuXD.jpg


dy7Z3MI.jpg


Additionally, I now have a matching set of SB and DB (originally) 3lb R55s cutters on (originally) 30” hafts.

LHZ4PWS.jpg


2NKQroC.jpg
Click to expand...

What a fantastic pay out on all your work. They look great and in my opinion...there are no bad RIXFORDS
 
How to fix this poor, abused, Rixford boys axe?!

Here is the problem I need help with- it appears that the top of the eye was hammered and mushroomed inwards (ignoring all the other mushrooming). I need to clear that out to re-haft. I don't really have many power tools, angle grind would be tops for what I have available. Should I try to hammer the fold out with a screw driver from the other end? Try to use the angle grinder from the top in that small space? File from the top (again, small space)? What would you do (if you had only simple tools available?)

Thanks for all ideas!!!

jYgSULU.jpg



CxopglN.jpg


MOHLiid.jpg


oGogJ4h.jpg


lxtboTV.jpg


YUWHIzH.jpg
 
Glenn Bailey said:
How to fix this poor, abused, Rixford boys axe?!

Here is the problem I need help with- it appears that the top of the eye was hammered and mushroomed inwards (ignoring all the other mushrooming). I need to clear that out to re-haft. I don't really have many power tools, angle grind would be tops for what I have available. Should I try to hammer the fold out with a screw driver from the other end? Try to use the angle grinder from the top in that small space? File from the top (again, small space)? What would you do (if you had only simple tools available?)

Thanks for all ideas!!!

jYgSULU.jpg



CxopglN.jpg


MOHLiid.jpg


oGogJ4h.jpg


lxtboTV.jpg


YUWHIzH.jpg
Click to expand...
Round and Half Round files. Dowel with sand paper glued to it might do the trick as cheap option.
 
Last edited:
Boy, I see some amazing finds in here; Also some oddities- I didn't realized they made wedge-shaped sledgehammers. :D

I'm seeing some of the tops of the eyes aren't quiet filled with haft- what's going on there? Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I always thought the eye of the axe should be filled with haft. I have a very old and horribly abused E&S (which I further abused through modification), and I happened to notice that the eye length on the top is about 1/4-1/2" longer than on the bottom, which of course makes that impossible to fit with the standard single wedge methods.
 
EngrSorenson said:
Boy, I see some amazing finds in here; Also some oddities- I didn't realized they made wedge-shaped sledgehammers. :D

I'm seeing some of the tops of the eyes aren't quiet filled with haft- what's going on there? Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I always thought the eye of the axe should be filled with haft. I have a very old and horribly abused E&S (which I further abused through modification), and I happened to notice that the eye length on the top is about 1/4-1/2" longer than on the bottom, which of course makes that impossible to fit with the standard single wedge methods.
Click to expand...
#CustomWedgeSizeMatters
Check Yankee Josh Yankee Josh posts; he often rehangs Maine axes.
https://bladeforums.com/threads/what-did-you-rehang-today.1064461/page-315#post-19467030
 
Last edited:
EngrSorenson said:
Boy, I see some amazing finds in here; Also some oddities- I didn't realized they made wedge-shaped sledgehammers. :D

I'm seeing some of the tops of the eyes aren't quiet filled with haft- what's going on there? Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I always thought the eye of the axe should be filled with haft. I have a very old and horribly abused E&S (which I further abused through modification), and I happened to notice that the eye length on the top is about 1/4-1/2" longer than on the bottom, which of course makes that impossible to fit with the standard single wedge methods.
Click to expand...
crbnSteeladdict said:
#CustomWedgeSizeMatters
Check Yankee Josh Yankee Josh posts; he often rehangs Maine axes.
https://bladeforums.com/threads/what-did-you-rehang-today.1064461/page-315#post-19467030
Click to expand...
Also, look at some of @muleman77's older posts, he used to put full size axes on boy's axe handles and would use oversized wedges.
 
EngrSorenson said:
Boy, I see some amazing finds in here; Also some oddities- I didn't realized they made wedge-shaped sledgehammers. :D

I'm seeing some of the tops of the eyes aren't quiet filled with haft- what's going on there? Maybe my ignorance is showing, but I always thought the eye of the axe should be filled with haft. I have a very old and horribly abused E&S (which I further abused through modification), and I happened to notice that the eye length on the top is about 1/4-1/2" longer than on the bottom, which of course makes that impossible to fit with the standard single wedge methods.
Click to expand...
What you noticed is indicative of Maine axes especially but more generally the majority of well made vintage ones. They drifted the eyes to be not only wider but longer on the top. That larger area works to increase surface area (marginally) but more importantly provides a clamping force holding the head down on to the haft. The "taper" of the eye.
Emerson Stevens often left a "bump" in the center of the back of the eye. As you mentioned that further limits the amount of tongue you can fit up through the eye. If you just make sure your wedge is sufficiently long to completely fill the eye and you'll never have an issue. I haven't at least.
I do use yellow and white birch for wedges. They are quite strong, but yet are elastic. They squeeze in and conform to gaps and imperfections while retaining plenty enough strength to keep that eye full front to back.
For me personally the more taper in the eye that I see the more esteem it's maker has in my eyes.
While no taper necessitates leaving the tongue proud, there's no such thing as too much taper.
 
Yankee Josh said:
What you noticed is indicative of Maine axes especially but more generally the majority of well made vintage ones. They drifted the eyes to be not only wider but longer on the top. That larger area works to increase surface area (marginally) but more importantly provides a clamping force holding the head down on to the haft. The "taper" of the eye.
Emerson Stevens often left a "bump" in the center of the back of the eye. As you mentioned that further limits the amount of tongue you can fit up through the eye. If you just make sure your wedge is sufficiently long to completely fill the eye and you'll never have an issue. I haven't at least.
I do use yellow and white birch for wedges. They are quite strong, but yet are elastic. They squeeze in and conform to gaps and imperfections while retaining plenty enough strength to keep that eye full front to back.
For me personally the more taper in the eye that I see the more esteem it's maker has in my eyes.
While no taper necessitates leaving the tongue proud, there's no such thing as too much taper.
Click to expand...

wow. I came here just to see an interesting thread, and I learned so much. Intuitively I’ve left hafts proud because I imagined the eyes of axe heads were essentially parallel, top to bottom. I see why it makes sense to flair the sides of the eye, as that provides more surface once it’s wedged. Front-to-back flair doesn’t make as much sense to me, but I’m hardly an expert. Thanks for the replies everyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top