Axe sizing according to one's height, weight and Arm lenght.

H

HARDBALL

Joined
May 6, 2001
Messages
923
Hi all,

This evening, I was sort of messing around with the assortment of Axes/Hatchets I acquired this past Spring/Summer from Yard Sales/Flea Markets. I began to wonder, which ONE (of twenty five or so) different size, style, weight Axes might I consider to be THE best all around (for lack of a better word) "Bushcraft" Axe to pack if I were to venture out into the Maine Woods. I also began to wonder how my body size comes into effect when choosing/fitting an Axe ? I am 6'3" tall and presently weigh about 267 pounds. I have Arms that are about a 37 inches long. At any rate, I am finding that I am liking at least 28 inch handle length with about a two pound (more or less) head. Also, as I am not getting any younger (I will be 59 years old in July 2014) and have a Shoulder issue, I do not like to carry/swing too much weight. So, I'm thinking along the lines of a Hudson Bay or Boys would be my perfect "one fits all" Axe for taking to the Woods. So, do you guys find that your body type/size plays into your Axe choice ?

HARDBALL
 
I'm 6 foot, 190 lb, and become 60 and I only use ones that are comfortable in my hands. I think it's best to try out as many different makes and models and types and lengths of handles that you can. Sooner or later one of them will grow on you. 'Guess and by god' is not a good way to enjoy an axe. My most often used axes (aside from a favourite Pulaski) over the past 30 years happen to have 2 1/4-2 1/2 lb heads and 25-27 inch handles. I really like the looks of a Hudson Bay pattern but suspect that 2 pounds, for me, would be too light, even more so if it had an overly long (28") handle.
 
HARDBALL said:
I began to wonder, which ONE (of twenty five or so) different size, style, weight Axes might I consider to be THE best all around (for lack of a better word) "Bushcraft" Axe to pack if I were to venture out into the Maine Woods.

........At any rate, I am finding that I am liking at least 28 inch handle length with about a two pound (more or less) head.
Click to expand...

Circumstances dictate which axe is best. For this circumstance I would choose the same as you, a boys ax. My current favorite is a vintage Craftsman. It's a good piece of steel and it has an absolutely dreamy haft with a great unclipped fawn's foot swell. I'm 52 years old, 6'0" and weigh 245. I'm still quite strong for an old man. I easily swing larger heavier axes. But for venturing out in the woods for bushcraft the boys axe is simply the best.

I had a 30" 3 pound Dayton that wasn't too bad for this role but I gave it to a close friend. I'm kinda missing it. Might have to hang another like it.
 
Hi guys,

Thanks for responding to my thread. 300Six.....interesting that you find the 28" handle "overly" long. Perhaps I just have Monkey length Arms lol. I haven't the experience using an Axe like you guys so, perhaps my choice in Axe size will change over time. I too think the Hudson Bay Axe looks especially nice! Square_peg.....Your vintage Craftsman sounds like a winner! I agree with you that the BOYS Axe (perhaps the Hudson Bay) Axe size would be THE one (ok two) size Axe I'd take if heading out into the great unknown and had to travel lighter. What did Lewis and Clark carry ?
Square_peg.....might you have long'ish Arms ? I'm thinking in terms of "sleeve length" size with 34-35" being more....common length whereas my shirt sleeve length is closer to (if memory serves) Monkey length at 36-37" length. Mind you, I find that the 28" Axe handle length is a good "portable-usable" length size Axe fit for my long'ish Arms. No doubt the longer handles 30-32" feel better to me.

Regards,
HARDBALL
 
I remember seeing a chart that showed how to measure for the right handle length for you. If I remember right you would tuck the end of the handle in your armpit and hold the head in your hand. It didn't say anything about the weight or the intended use. I have no idea were I saw this, it was awhile ago. But doing this, the boys axe with a 28 inch handle would be right for me. I'm 5' 7".

Tom
 
Hi Tom,

Oooh yea! I too recall seeing that chart as well! Ummmm.....where the heck did I see that chart ?
Well, I suspect ARM lenght is more important for finding the proper size/lenght Axe than a persons height/weight.
I'm a "fight" fan and I've seen many a fighter a HALF FOOT shorter than their opponent yet, still have the reach advantage.
Hence, Monkey Arms!

Regards,
HARDBALL
 
image-9.jpg


A trick to measure up the correct length of the handle is to place the tip of the handle on the floor and stand next to it. The pommel of the handle should reach the second joint of the middle finger. A splitting axe handle should reach the palm of the hand. A good handle has a downward bend, the lower grip portion should be well defined and the pommel nob should be wide and round.
Click to expand...

I can read this again and again...

http://nordiskaknivar.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-finnish-axe-by-marcus-lepola/
 
For me it really depends on the use, much like Pegs said. My very favorite axe to use is a 5.5lb Keech Timberman on a 32" handle. Right up there in the choppers is a Hytest Tazzie pattern that Frank very generously gave to me. I'd say it is pushing 5 pounds on 32". Those are the most efficient and enjoyable axes that I own. I am 6'2", wingspan is about 6'5", 29 years, and I'm built like a runner at 175 pounds.

If packing the axe around comes into consideration, everything changes. Those are my most efficient choppers, anyway.
 
For me personally it took experimentation and about 10-12 home-built axe head/handle combinations to find out what is most comfortable.

In my experience, the handle length turned out to be the most important. Not from a standpoint of reach or aim, but the amplitude of shock transferred to the hands.

I'll use the baseball bat analogy. When you hit a fastball with the bat's "sweet spot," most energy is transferred to the ball, and the feedback the bat gives is the lowest. This is due to harmonics.

You've seen pictorial representatives of soundwaves. When an axe strikes, shockwaves travel the length of the handle. At the moment of strike, some portions of the handle will have vibrations of higher amplitude than others.

More explanation at this site. If you have time to read it carefully, the science of shock and nodes will make more sense:

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/bend-sweet.html

If you don't have time to read the article, to put it simply, the "node" is where the shockwave crosses the axis of the handle. At this point, the shock can be close to zero. If your hands are at the node, you are closer to striking the "sweet spot."

Changing any handle dimension (including rigidity) will change the location of the vibration node.

I have actually experimented with this using accelerometers. My best results have come from about a 2.25 to 2.5 lb head with 24" hickory handle. Of course, there are plenty of variances from handle to handle, the hang, etc. And a ~2.5 lb head on 24" handle doesn't seem to balance great, but has a high effort vs. work ratio.

Having said all that... that's an extremely simplified explanation. I spent a lot of time with the calculator and accelerometers on axes, but I'd have arrived at the same conclusion with a 2.5 and 3.5 lb axe head, handles for each from 18" to 36", and plenty of wood to chop and/or split.

Alternatively, I've found the traditional Swedish axes to be weighted and sized for very good harmonic response, and they also have excellent balance. As an engineer, I can tell you that assembling a design like this is no simple feat. There are many reasons Gränsfors Bruk and Wetterlings can get $130++ for an axe, and it's due to a lot more secrets than just the steel composition and forging practices.
 
Hi Blasto,

Wow! Excellent response/information. Thank you for responding to my thread.

Regards,
HARDBALL
 
blasto9000 said:
For me personally it took experimentation and about 10-12 home-built axe head/handle combinations to find out what is most comfortable.

In my experience, the handle length turned out to be the most important. Not from a standpoint of reach or aim, but the amplitude of shock transferred to the hands.

I'll use the baseball bat analogy. When you hit a fastball with the bat's "sweet spot," most energy is transferred to the ball, and the feedback the bat gives is the lowest. This is due to harmonics.

You've seen pictorial representatives of soundwaves. When an axe strikes, shockwaves travel the length of the handle. At the moment of strike, some portions of the handle will have vibrations of higher amplitude than others.

More explanation at this site. If you have time to read it carefully, the science of shock and nodes will make more sense:

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/bend-sweet.html

If you don't have time to read the article, to put it simply, the "node" is where the shockwave crosses the axis of the handle. At this point, the shock can be close to zero. If your hands are at the node, you are closer to striking the "sweet spot."

Changing any handle dimension (including rigidity) will change the location of the vibration node.

I have actually experimented with this using accelerometers. My best results have come from about a 2.25 to 2.5 lb head with 24" hickory handle. Of course, there are plenty of variances from handle to handle, the hang, etc. And a ~2.5 lb head on 24" handle doesn't seem to balance great, but has a high effort vs. work ratio.

Having said all that... that's an extremely simplified explanation. I spent a lot of time with the calculator and accelerometers on axes, but I'd have arrived at the same conclusion with a 2.5 and 3.5 lb axe head, handles for each from 18" to 36", and plenty of wood to chop and/or split.

Alternatively, I've found the traditional Swedish axes to be weighted and sized for very good harmonic response, and they also have excellent balance. As an engineer, I can tell you that assembling a design like this is no simple feat. There are many reasons Gränsfors Bruk and Wetterlings can get $130++ for an axe, and it's due to a lot more secrets than just the steel composition and forging practices.
Click to expand...
I think you're playing up G-B and W. goods way too much but I can tolerate that; they've never pried away any of my hard-earned cash.
Had some difficulty 'wrapping my head' around your discussion and conclusions but did manage to digest what you were saying. Handles today, unfortunately are 'clubs' compared to what were commonly used years ago and I have some old axes complete with original handles that are so painfully thin (and yet become old, used and not broken) that I wonder if something obvious about balance, flex and vibes has been entirely lost over the past 60 years, coinciding with when professional folks started to gravitate over to chain-saws and begrudgingly relegated their trusty axes over to mere limbing, 'standby', emergency, and wedge duty.
 
I think a large part of the "club creep" comes with manufacturers being aware of the generally poor grain alinement and, comfortable in the knowledge that the vast majority of their axes will only be subject to occasional use by novice axe men (or women) they oversize the handle as a guard against breaking. Many consumers will judge an axe simply by how much abuse it will take, not it's balance, cutting ability, or even the quality of the steel; much the same way as they would judge, say, a shovel.

A shovel handle of course is meant to function as a lever, with the exception of when you step on the shoulder you're using the handle directly to push and pull the blade through material. An axe handle's primary function is to accelerate the blade so that the blades own inertia does the work on impact. Nobody chops by putting the blade up against a tree and pushing on the handle. A thin handle with proper grain, if used correctly, does this job best. Since the average consumer treats their shovel like their pick like their axe; they are catered too accordingly.
 
It is strange that nobody makes classic axe handles these days. You'd think with the current axe renaissance that somebody would. I'd love to see classically thin handles will big fawn's feet. Closest thing I've seen is the Velvicut handles. House Handle's octagons aren't too bad either but they're crudely done.
 
Somehow I don't think handle makers seek long-time user's opinions anymore. And novice buyers likely choose a 'club' version over a 'dainty' every time, thinking they get proportionately more strength and better value that way. And as Alocksly says; quality has gone down considerably with regard to grain orientation.
 
I've seen that armpit-grip axe length in the Canadian guy's bushcraft book: Mors Kochanski? Something like that.
My favorite boys' axe is also an old Craftsman, because of its very thin bit.
 
I found this description of the "kinetic chain" concept in an article about pitching.

"The kinetic chain involved in pitching encompasses a coordinated human movement in which both energy and momentum are transferred up through body segments to achieve maximum magnitude in the final segment. The concept of a kinetic chain is developed from the idea that the energy expended in the pitching process is created with large muscle segments and is transferred through the legs and trunk, out to the throwing arm, wrist, and ultimately to the ball. For example, the kinetic chain for throwing consists of the legs, hip, trunk, upper arm, forearm, hand, and the baseball. Pitching's kinetic chain includes a sequence of motions: the stride, rotation of the pelvis or trunk, upper torso rotation, elbow extension, internal shoulder rotation, and wrist flexion. The potential velocity at the distal end where the ball is released is greater if the body segments contribute to the total overall force. Less energy is required if the kinetic chain is executed properly; if the pitcher's mechanics are correct. And, the performance of the pitch - whether velocity, movement, or location - will be improved when the chain is unbroken. But if "the gate breaks" (i.e. one part of the body gets ahead of another, goes off center, etc.), then the chain breaks down and the summation of force becomes inefficient, robbing the pitch of (1) velocity, (2) movement, (3) location, or all three."

I think the kinetic chain concept applies to swinging an axe. Because everyones body segments differ in size, the final segment, the axe, will need to a specific length and weight to achieve maximum velocity. The chosen style of swing is also a big factor. For example I've found that my "roundhouse" swing requires a 36 inch axe but an overhead "executioner style" swing works best with a 28 or 30 inch axe.
 
The kinetic chain concept is the same in disc golf as it is in pitching a baseball. The power starts in your feet and moves up through the body gaining force at each joint in the chain. You're cracking the whip at the release of the disc.

Same thing with an axe. But some of the whipping force can be lost in the wrist and grip if they have to be too rigid. A large abrupt swell allows for a easier grip and looser wrist up until just before the moment of impact. This increases head speed as the end of the whip 'cracks'. Think of the knob on a baseball bat. It's too abrupt for an axe and would raise blisters. But you don't want too gentle of taper into the swell of your haft either. Vintage handle makers understood this. Modern makes don't seem to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top