A while ago I read Old Jimbo's advanced axe selection page http://www.oldjimbo.com/survival/aas.html here is a brief except
"It came as a big shock to me when researching axes to find out that most single bit falling axes are designed wrong: not poorly - wrong. Originally single bit axes had straight handles, and when curved handles came into fashion it didn't affect fallers because they'd already moved to double bit axes which have straight handles. The first book to get to learn about this is Dudley Cook's "Keeping Warm with an Axe". It's reprinted with other titles now. The first advantage of the straight handle is that the grain of the wood is continuous through it. Take a look at any curved handled axe and you'll see that very little continuous grain goes all the way through the handle. That's why it's so important to have vertical grain in the handle of your axe. In the old days fallers would thin down the handles of their axes to increase spring and reduce shock. This is more than just a myth, as you'll see nowadays if you talk to people who use impact tools on a continuous basis. Their maladies are more painful than typists with repetitive stress. Talking of straight handles is sort of academic because you can't get a single bit with a straight handle, and you can't put a straight handle on your single bit because you can't get one unless you make your own(double bit handles won't fit). Learning about straight handles is the start to learning about axe performance though."
I went straight out to buy Dudley Cook's ax book. I have just read through his section on straight vs curved handles and I have to say I believe it is very opinionated and wrong. Old Jimbo has pointed out how accurately the gransfors axes work with their curved handle and many of us know from personal experience that a curved handle can and does work well. Cook's assertions about real foresters only using double bit axes with straight handles is equally wrong. I do not know if there was any truth in it in the US (I wished he would give some references when he makes such assertions) but in the UK serious professional foresters only used single bit axes with curved handles (early photos in Herb Edlins "woodland crafts of Britain" and axes in collection of the "Museum of English Rural Life" ).
I love Whipples drawings but let's question the thinking behind this one and see if we can construct an alternative theory as to why a curved handle does work well.
Now my feeling is that for a right handed user the left hand on the fawns foot provides the pivot point of the swing and the fine adjustment of direction is provided by the right hand which is gripping further up on the straight section of the handle and by the triangulation of the two hands working together, if you accept this then the whole "doubling length of fore section" theory fails. It would also seem to me that if you fitted a straight handle to the lower axe the central line would be above the one of the curved handle by perhaps an inch, perhaps this is the main purpose of the curved handle, it does in fact reduce the effective fore section by that inch. Cook goes on about the short grain of a curved handle but using the picture above the short grain is at the back near the head and the front at the fawns foot, neither of which are weak points.
I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this.
"It came as a big shock to me when researching axes to find out that most single bit falling axes are designed wrong: not poorly - wrong. Originally single bit axes had straight handles, and when curved handles came into fashion it didn't affect fallers because they'd already moved to double bit axes which have straight handles. The first book to get to learn about this is Dudley Cook's "Keeping Warm with an Axe". It's reprinted with other titles now. The first advantage of the straight handle is that the grain of the wood is continuous through it. Take a look at any curved handled axe and you'll see that very little continuous grain goes all the way through the handle. That's why it's so important to have vertical grain in the handle of your axe. In the old days fallers would thin down the handles of their axes to increase spring and reduce shock. This is more than just a myth, as you'll see nowadays if you talk to people who use impact tools on a continuous basis. Their maladies are more painful than typists with repetitive stress. Talking of straight handles is sort of academic because you can't get a single bit with a straight handle, and you can't put a straight handle on your single bit because you can't get one unless you make your own(double bit handles won't fit). Learning about straight handles is the start to learning about axe performance though."
I went straight out to buy Dudley Cook's ax book. I have just read through his section on straight vs curved handles and I have to say I believe it is very opinionated and wrong. Old Jimbo has pointed out how accurately the gransfors axes work with their curved handle and many of us know from personal experience that a curved handle can and does work well. Cook's assertions about real foresters only using double bit axes with straight handles is equally wrong. I do not know if there was any truth in it in the US (I wished he would give some references when he makes such assertions) but in the UK serious professional foresters only used single bit axes with curved handles (early photos in Herb Edlins "woodland crafts of Britain" and axes in collection of the "Museum of English Rural Life" ).
I love Whipples drawings but let's question the thinking behind this one and see if we can construct an alternative theory as to why a curved handle does work well.
Now my feeling is that for a right handed user the left hand on the fawns foot provides the pivot point of the swing and the fine adjustment of direction is provided by the right hand which is gripping further up on the straight section of the handle and by the triangulation of the two hands working together, if you accept this then the whole "doubling length of fore section" theory fails. It would also seem to me that if you fitted a straight handle to the lower axe the central line would be above the one of the curved handle by perhaps an inch, perhaps this is the main purpose of the curved handle, it does in fact reduce the effective fore section by that inch. Cook goes on about the short grain of a curved handle but using the picture above the short grain is at the back near the head and the front at the fawns foot, neither of which are weak points.
I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this.
