as it happens i use various axes for splitting and kindling tasks. before i got the echo 600 i used them for felling and so forth but with the chainsaw that's largely moot now. my brother in law just gifted me a husqvarna forest axe. it's largely the same tool as my gransfors bruks scandanavian forest axe, 25"/26" handle, sub 2# head, but it's a narrow and curved face. taking the husky out to split small kindling it did an even finer job than the GB. the other axe i have with a curved face is an old 3.5# plumb and it's pretty well the same deal, very nice for splitting wood. the question for you guys is does this paradigm hold, that the curved face is good for splitting, starting the motion with less steel into the cut, and the flatter face better for felling and chopping when you are taking good full swings.
If I understand your question then yes, a shallow angle from the blade tip is fine for cutting but a wider angle from the blade tip is better for splitting. The shape that wider angle takes varies from one manufacturer to the next but all intended splitting axes are wider than a felling type axe.
thanks oldman47 i thought that would be the case. there's a tendency among people who like axes for splitting not to be too particular. i don't mind splitting with shallow angle axes as it's more a function of head weight and speed. you find shallow angle axes from back in the day with deformed heads from getting hammered during splitting work. any axe will do the job. it is however particularly satisfying to have <just> the right tool to do the job. a lot of those mushroomed axes are from the pre war depression period. i wonder what they would think of someone like me with an axe collection and searching for what would be most fun to use at the moment. that was likely not their mind frame back then. they would blow a gasket if they saw our chainsaw collections.
I've heard that said, about the gradual split entry of the curved face, but it made little/no sense to me. No matter what you do with a straight maul face, ferinstance, generally one corner's gonna go in first. So, I'm calling that stuff a red-herring. Not an interesting area of study, IMO. Much more influential, IMO, are edge sharpness and taper behind the edge. Convexity (chubby cheeks) there matter a lot too. Best splitting tools i've encountered have very sharp edges and essentially flat tapered faces behind the edge. In that regard, Mueller (Austrian) maul opened my eyes. Needless to say, good metallurgy, forging and heat-treating are mandatory for making a good head that'll retain an edge. Also, axes are potentially very dangerous tools for splitting wood. To keep them from getting stuck, some folks overdo the swing. They've been known to pop through the billet and break a leg. Happened some time back to a fellow I met up in Onchiota NY- not a pretty sight, much pain. I forgot to mention that axes are much thinner (smaller angle between faces) than mauls. They're about half the 30degree angle of mauls. (Then marketeers come along and conflate the two- thanks a bunch.)
axes are potentially dangerous and always wanting to come back on your leg. if you have the normal splitting before stacking it's work for a maul. i wind up with a lot of kindling duties splitting straight grain pieces into fire starting material. axes are great for this. the lighter axes are more accurate and do a better job as you get into splitting finer pieces. as you point out, the swing should be a moderate effort. the house is holding heat much better with the new IS stove and it's usually possible to simply allow it to go out without the house getting really cold very soon. i must be using several times the kindling than was previously needed. the splitting work is hugely enjoyable so no complaints.
I use splitting maul or fiskars to split, cutting axes to cut. But as I'm reading this, I'm thinking about the elm that I am fighting with every step of the way. Bottom line is that stuff doesn't split, it tears. And even then, there are often strings to be cut. I'm starting to wonder if I might be better off switching from splitting tools to cutting tools for the elm. Maybe just maybe a heavy felling ax would get through better than a splitting ax. I'm cutting to 12 inch lengths now and it is still a struggle.
This bulletin raises two important issues. First: a sharp edge and straight cheeks in a maul are desirable features. I own a Mueller and I can confirm that. Second: there is a particular technique in splitting firewood, when used properly, that makes the whole process safe. A maul/axe describes an arc as it is swung from waist height, up over the head and then down towards the object to be struck. The natural tendency is for the head of the implement to move towards the legs on the descent as it continues the arc. However, if a person drops the hips and bends at the knees, as the maul comes down, the arc straightens out and its flight moves more or less parallel to the body. This has two effects: it prevents the maul/axe from coming anywhere near the legs and secondly: it adds considerably to the power exerted on the implement, because body weight is being used to drive the maul faster and harder. Nearly everybody that I have seen on youtube, who are splitting firewood, keep the legs straight on the descent. This is both dangerous and inefficient. Another point: a splitting block should always be used to stop the continued movement of the maul once it has split the round and, of course, to stop it from going into the ground and damaging the edge. Discuss.
Nothing to discuss: you've stated everything correctly. With proper technique one need not be particularly strong to split firewood. The block height ideally is adjusted to fit the combination of person, billet length, and splitting implement.
I'm not sure that Straight Cheeks are that desirable in a splitting tool. A ridge would serve to open the split without surface area causing drag. Geometry has a role to play. Look at the different types of wedges used to split wood and you can see how there are many ways to get it done. Technique, body mechanics and staging all play a role also.
What I was saying is that I've found experimentally with Mueller's help among others, that straight (planar) maul cheeks are VERY desirable, because they work. Fact is that the only way that wedges have proven useful to me is when inserted into the kerf I've noodled into the side of a round. And ... everything I've seen written on the subject of those "wood grenades" isn't exactly singing their praises. Mebbe I'll try mine someday. After seeing what a Mueller 3 kg maul could do, I took a 7" disc-grinder to some box-store-bludgeons to mimic the Mueller's head shape. Night-and-day improvement. Just too bad some of them were made of pretty crappy, mild steel. Confirmed to me that flat faces work. And at 30 deg angle. I'd never base my calculations on as-delivered wedge geometry. Mine are now much more effective IMO after grinding away the convexity near the edge. Why? It works. Good enough for me. Did the same with a Council Tools maul- it's now one of my favorites.
This is what I've found also. Most of those wedges will never start in the round without a cut made by a saw. They will have a tendency to pop out before they start splitting. I think a finer point is going to drive in easier than a blunt point. An edge will be the same. All the box store wedges and splitting mauls ive bought have had to be reshapen before they worked well.
I've been watching a lot of re-runs of "The Woodwright's Shop" lately, and I'd really like to give one of these a try. It's a traditional woodworking tool called a "froe". You start the wedge into the round using a mallet, and then the handle can be used as a lever to assist with the actual splitting. Otherwise, I've mostly given up on using wedges. Once you start using a chainsaw to make a kerf for the wedge, you might as well keep going and just noodle it the rest of the way.
have you noticed all the sizes shapes for splitting stuff, yet drive one TINY finish nail in some trim and it splits all the way down the board..... solution, split firewood with finish nail.......
When the maul does'nt work it is time for the wedges and the sledgehammer (up to 20 pound weight if necessary). A wedge with a blade and a wide head which twists as it is driven in (as in the first picture) is, in my opinion, the best one to start an opening in a really difficult round. The 'wood grenade' type with the point at the end and a more or less circular profile, performs poorly in this instance, because it exerts force equally in all directions, instead of concentrating along one line of potential weakness. A lot of wedges have a narrow head and don't open up a difficult round sufficiently for it to split. However, it is at this point that the 'wood grenade' sometimes comes into its own, since its wide head is usually capable of completing the job. Does this make sense?
My dad had a froe by the woodbox for a while, I think we mostly used it for making kindling rather than splitting larger pieces. The handle kept your hand out of harms way while splitting small pieces.
