Why the axe design? Why not larger hawks?

Falci makes some of their own axes and has some others made for them by Rinaldi. All of Rinaldi's axes are their own production. :)
 
Seems to me the thread is asking, why isn't an orange more like an apple? Early axes (tomahawks) met needs of their time/culture, and the American poll axe is an evolution that is designed to meet different needs (lumber industry, more complex housing). If you could wedge a tomahawk eye and call it easy, then you have in fact, just done virtually as much work as would be needed to handle an axe. You may have started this thread with curved handles in mind, but we know that people who needed field expedient tools probably used straight handles on poll axes. To say you could just wedge a tomahawk though is not really the same either. Both the depth of the eye, plus the lengthened teardrop shape produce more contact and a better bond once wedged for tool made to do considerably more work than a hawk. But in the end, the reason an axe eye is different is because it's not a tomahawk and it was made to meet different needs. It's an evolution of axes designed to meet the demands (and the industry) of its time. If you feel that the ease of replacing a tomahawk handle is a benefit for a woods tool, then you are experiencing what I'm saying first hand. It would be to suggest that an easily replaced handle is of greater benefit than all of the other considerable benefits of an axe, which I am sure some people would enjoy arguing with you about. Axes aren't really thrown, the handle is of greater importance and made from material as good as is available. I am sure that early people would choose the best material they could for handles, but there is a vast list of "requirements" and "rules" for American poll axe handles that I am betting didn't necessarily apply to more primitive tools.

If part of the question is axes vs hawks for woods use, I'd just say that field expedient handle replacement is lower on the priority list for users who prefer axes, when put up against the various other perceived benefits an axe provides.
 
I just read something about this...??? If I recall correctly, the thinner profile of the head allows the ax to be more efficient at cutting larger pieces of wood than the 'hawk. The elliptical shape of the eye does not loose any strength in the direction that the strength is needed for the haft. The 'hawk will work for smaller pieces of wood, feather sticks, etc. a well as an ax/hatchet. And it will be easier to replace the handle in the field. But, my TrueTemper ax will split my cord wood better than any 'hawk that I (personally) have seen.
 
cityofthesouth said:
Seems to me the thread is asking, why isn't an orange more like an apple? Early axes (tomahawks) met needs of their time/culture, and the American poll axe is an evolution that is designed to meet different needs (lumber industry, more complex housing). If you could wedge a tomahawk eye and call it easy, then you have in fact, just done virtually as much work as would be needed to handle an axe. You may have started this thread with curved handles in mind, but we know that people who needed field expedient tools probably used straight handles on poll axes. To say you could just wedge a tomahawk though is not really the same either. Both the depth of the eye, plus the lengthened teardrop shape produce more contact and a better bond once wedged for tool made to do considerably more work than a hawk. But in the end, the reason an axe eye is different is because it's not a tomahawk and it was made to meet different needs. It's an evolution of axes designed to meet the demands (and the industry) of its time. If you feel that the ease of replacing a tomahawk handle is a benefit for a woods tool, then you are experiencing what I'm saying first hand. It would be to suggest that an easily replaced handle is of greater benefit than all of the other considerable benefits of an axe, which I am sure some people would enjoy arguing with you about. Axes aren't really thrown, the handle is of greater importance and made from material as good as is available. I am sure that early people would choose the best material they could for handles, but there is a vast list of "requirements" and "rules" for American poll axe handles that I am betting didn't necessarily apply to more primitive tools.

If part of the question is axes vs hawks for woods use, I'd just say that field expedient handle replacement is lower on the priority list for users who prefer axes, when put up against the various other perceived benefits an axe provides.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more at work than just eye style or thin vs. thick bit...or even straight vs. curved handle. In both French and Italian tradition, most eyed tools use a slip-fit eye. Here are a few videos showing some of these sorts of tools in action:

A SMALL Italian "Calabria" pattern axe, with a straight slip-fit handle but a geometry more resembling an American axe (more of a wedge shaped taper from the bit to the eye.) This is in the same size and proportion range to a tomahawk, with a 350g head.

[video=youtube;gafXPHI1Ct4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gafXPHI1Ct4[/video]

Here's the same pattern, but a full-blown axe sized rendition with a 1300g head.

[video=youtube;cXu-Kwa9KoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXu-Kwa9KoQ[/video]

Now here's a typical (common throughout Italy) axe with a bit geometry that--top down--resembles that of a tomahawk (THIN bit, little to no poll) but the handle is curved to offset the hands, bringing them more inline with the axis of rotational balance.

[video=youtube;RsnN4r_xSmw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsnN4r_xSmw[/video]

Bo T said:
I just read something about this...??? If I recall correctly, the thinner profile of the head allows the ax to be more efficient at cutting larger pieces of wood than the 'hawk. The elliptical shape of the eye does not loose any strength in the direction that the strength is needed for the haft. The 'hawk will work for smaller pieces of wood, feather sticks, etc. a well as an ax/hatchet. And it will be easier to replace the handle in the field. But, my TrueTemper ax will split my cord wood better than any 'hawk that I (personally) have seen.
Click to expand...

Many slip-fit eye tools have pretty narrow eyes. Those with wider eyes often have long bits and an offset handle, which sets that wide eye so far back from the edge that it never gets in the way of chopping tasks, and yet the hands are aligned in a balanced position relative to the head. As far as "splitting tomahawks" go, how about this one? (French-pattern splitting maul) :D

image.jpg
 
A proper axe handle has a large swell. To slip over that you'd need an awkwardly large eye. Such a large eye would get in the way of doing axe work. Ever try bucking a 12 inch trunk with a cutter mattock? Heck, even a Pulaksi's adze can get in the way or cause the axe to bind.

Hawks are fine for small tools but the design has its limitations.
 
The advantage of the slip-fit eye is that you can easily remove the handle, and (barring a poor haft or breakage) the head can't ever go flying off the end. The easy removal is what makes replacing the handle easy, although shaping the handle itself takes longer. It also allows you to use the same head on multiple handles of different lengths. This does come at the disadvantage of a swell being minimal when present. Wedged handles have the advantage of being able to be made any shape you may fancy, but have the drawback of being NOT difficult to fashion a new handle for, but being difficult to prepare the head for rehafting. Also, a saw is required for cutting the kerf for the wedge, so a slip-fit eye allows you to use nothing more than the head to fashion a new handle. Advantages and disadvantages to both types.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
...Also, a saw is required for cutting the kerf for the wedge, so a slip-fit eye allows you to use nothing more than the head to fashion a new handle...
Click to expand...

An axe handle could be split at the end for the wedge, instead of sawn. The Foxfire 9 book shows an old-timer making an axe handle this way (he's the local handle maker/seller). I imagine that a batonned knife could do an okay job of this (haven't tried it).

As I recall, he really pounds the handle in tight before wedging (maybe to keep the split from lengthening too much when the wedge is installed?)
 
Yeah, it's technically possible to split the end of a handle for a wedge...but there are risks with that in my opinion, at least. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top