Finnish/Earlier Scandi axes - Kirves

Good question jake pogg! As I had no idea whatsoever about the acceptable level of wear I checked all the old Finnish wood felling manuals I have (6 pcs, from 1940 to 1957) and none of them gives a slightest hint about this:(

The manuals do give exact instructions about sharpening techniques and angles, but when to stop sharpening remains a mystery.

Personally, I´ve never bought an axe with a worn out cutting edge, improper shape due to excessive sharpening / wear or smashed poll. Simply put: buying battered scrap metal or severe rust doesn´t interest me, even if it is called kirves (or gun).

As for a wear template I´ve never heard of such here in Finland, but that´s just me. Hopefully somebody can help you.
 
Thank you Very much for looking through your references,and for that expanded answer.

I've though about this before but never remembered to ask. Here's a recent one offered for sale here in the US.

It's an old 12.1,originally bought on Finnish ebay,and very typical in that it's severely worn...Or at least looks like it to me.

Hope this link works:

https://imgur.com/o9bl9yf
 
On my unused SA P stamped Billnäs 12.1 the same measurement is 180 mm / 7":eek: That axe it the picture above has certainly been (ab)used in its lifetime. Also, nominal weight for 12.1 is 1,6 kg i.e. 1600 g.
 
I think a tool to determine wear is not necessary in this case. I picked up once in an abandoned train yard in Porvo an old 12,2 and used in for years. At a certain point I could feel a difference when sharpening and sense an edge would not hold up. It was time to retire the axe and in hangs on those old cabin walls now in Sweden.
 
veeteetee said:
On my unused SA P stamped Billnäs 12.1 the same measurement is 180 mm / 7":eek: That axe it the picture above has certainly been (ab)used in its lifetime. Also, nominal weight for 12.1 is 1,6 kg i.e. 1600 g.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for this exact data. Just as i suspected,that poor axe is quite beyond any acceptable limits of geometry....:(

Sadly,there's not a great awareness of this here in US,and that head is now being offered for sale for $245...

Ernest DuBois said:
I think a tool to determine wear is not necessary in this case. I picked up once in an abandoned train yard in Porvo an old 12,2 and used in for years. At a certain point I could feel a difference when sharpening and sense an edge would not hold up. It was time to retire the axe and in hangs on those old cabin walls now in Sweden.
Click to expand...

Sure,Ernest,you're right-it's not only the tool itself,but the user and their experience and the nature of the particular tool's duty. That's shape-wise.

Hardness/edge-holding ability differs,as many axes had an ample reserve of steel (that one above still has quite a bit left,the transition line is plainly visible).
One detail however: Chances are that back then the edge material was "plain",low-alloy steel,one attribute of which was that it was "shallow-hardening". That means that the thicker the section,the more chance that the hardness as h.t.'d would exist differentially,from harder at surface to less towards the middle.
So even the plainly-visible steel edge left did not mean that it was in practice serviceable.
(Today Mn is added to most alloys in part for "through-hardening" principle,making that issue less or resolving it altogether).
But yes,in practice an (experienced) user would know as attempting to sharpen.
 
jake pogg said:
Thanks again for this exact data. Just as i suspected,that poor axe is quite beyond any acceptable limits of geometry....:(

Sadly,there's not a great awareness of this here in US,and that head is now being offered for sale for $245...



Sure,Ernest,you're right-it's not only the tool itself,but the user and their experience and the nature of the particular tool's duty. That's shape-wise.

Hardness/edge-holding ability differs,as many axes had an ample reserve of steel (that one above still has quite a bit left,the transition line is plainly visible).
One detail however: Chances are that back then the edge material was "plain",low-alloy steel,one attribute of which was that it was "shallow-hardening". That means that the thicker the section,the more chance that the hardness as h.t.'d would exist differentially,from harder at surface to less towards the middle.
So even the plainly-visible steel edge left did not mean that it was in practice serviceable.
(Today Mn is added to most alloys in part for "through-hardening" principle,making that issue less or resolving it altogether).
But yes,in practice an (experienced) user would know as attempting to sharpen.
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say that, essentially, in such a case the cutting edge usefulness is able to be reextablished?

Back to the piilukirves, on mine in any case the cutting edge insert is visible sandwiched in between the mailable cheek material looking down from the top, (as well as along the bevel of course). I wonder in there is any similar indication on this pristine example veeteetee has exhibited.
 
Ernest DuBois said:
Do you mean to say that, essentially, in such a case the cutting edge usefulness is able to be reextablished?
Click to expand...

Well,If there is indeed steel left,And it's properly heat-treated Throughout,one Can,i suppose,grind down the bevels until the proper angle is achieved...
The balance of the tool will be different,the length of course (eye to edge),but sometimes it is done.
In some types of work it's even desirable,an example would be the Round notch in log-work,where a very short blade is to the advantage. (Although most such work today is done using a chainsaw).

Kirves is a very special pattern of an axe,as we all know. It's a very universal tool,as it was used by it's makers and the original users,as chopping,hewing,And splitting could be done with it effectively.
My suspicion always was that as the wear grew increasingly more severe,barring the full re-blading* the tool was often relegated to splitting duty mostly,eventually-only.
Essentially becoming a splitting maul,ending it's life outside by the splitting stump.
(Until some far descendant,more internet-,than tool-savvy,got a bright idea to put it for sale on ebay!:)

* we've discussed it here before how in the times past about any local forge could restore a worn axe-head,it was a common service offered,indeed the tools were designed around that. But as the time went by and the Industrial Age made the tools both cheaper and much less used in the same time such services became difficult to impossible to obtain...
 
Along these lines, but in regards a totally different axe beast, I've contended that this variation in hardness is a principle cause we typically see this deformation among old time breitbeilen with the belly 0f the cutting often brought way back to the point that what I'm calling a "wave blade" gets formed. Namely that the central portions of that edge are under-hardened getting ground back faster than sections at the toe and heel.
 
A17 said:
It looks like there's 1-1.5" of hardened steel left in the bit so based on that I'd say it's still usable. That being said, I've never handled one (although I'd love to) so I don't know if the bit is too fat.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many of you here remember AgentH? In an act of incredible generosity he's gifted me an older 12.2, (there're probably photos of that very axe in this very thread).
It had the wear Very similar to that one above (and to So many stateside ones), and i must say that you can definitely Feel the lack of penetration,the tool is basically past being a felling/bucking axe...(a close friend now uses it on his trapline for assorted chores and Loving it).

Billnas has steeled the edges of most of their axes very amply,with a great degree of reserve steel,though i don't think it was ever meant to be completely used up (or the angle of convergence of bevels would by then be that of a cold-chisel or thereabout).

Below is a photo sent to a friend years ago by Jacob Neeman,i think it's from that small museum at Billnas historical works (this photo is somewhere in this thread too,but would be very tough to find).
It's the process stages,of course.
One can see just how far the steel goes;also how thin and wide the original blade would be spread:

https://imgur.com/gaJ1EEJ
 
veeteetee said:
On my unused SA P stamped Billnäs 12.1 the same measurement is 180 mm / 7":eek: That axe it the picture above has certainly been (ab)used in its lifetime. Also, nominal weight for 12.1 is 1,6 kg i.e. 1600 g.
Click to expand...
Had to check and I have another almost unused SA stamped 12.1 w/o haft: the head weighs 1692 g and the measurement is 180 mm.
 
yeah, it seems to me that these 12s, whether the 1,2 or 3, are not conceived to such a degree of subtlety. One way or the other one they are work horses meant for the basics without too much thought or concern and it can explain why most come down to us in such used-up conditions. When you want something with less bulk or finer edge qualities otHer patterns are available like the one I'm calling the Larson since in so many of his paintings of workshops this is the axe depicted. Oddly enough this source can tell us so much more by providing a context.

This progression picture reminds me of a much more detailed version that James Austin always provides on his blog.
 
Ernest DuBois said:
yeah, it seems to me that these 12s, whether the 1,2 or 3, are not conceived to such a degree of subtlety. One way or the other one they are work horses meant for the basics without too much thought or concern and it can explain why most come down to us in such used-up conditions. When you want something with less bulk or finer edge qualities otHer patterns are available like the one I'm calling the Larson since in so many of his paintings of workshops this is the axe depicted. Oddly enough this source can tell us so much more by providing a context.

This progression picture reminds me of a much more detailed version that James Austin always provides on his blog.
Click to expand...
You are quite right, as can be seen in the pictures: Billnäs 12.1 is a "suomenhevonen" (Finnhorse), heavy and massive, the Gränsfors Bruk Forest Axe is more delicate and lighter:
DSCN9963.jpg

The cross section of the heads reflects this, Billnäs is capable of splitting, GB not so much:
DSCN9965.jpg

In handling, the two axes are a world apart - or actually not, just the Gulf of Bothnia 😁
 
Ok, seems that I'm late to the party. This was intented as a reply on the queation of 'replacement standard' :

I don't think such general standard exists. As a tool they get used as long as they get the job done, or beyond the that point ;)
 
One recent acquisition, a Billnäs 30/5 hewing axe head, "tervapiilu".

Billn-s-30-5.jpg

The head was covered in fine rust and underneath there was a beautiful patina.
DSC-5637.jpg


DSC-5640.jpg
DSC-5642.jpg


The head is sharpened for right-handed user i.e. the left side is straight:
DSC-5651.jpg


Finna.fi public domain has several pictures of these axes in use. They were used to make so-called "egyptinparru" i.e. Egyptian rafter/beam, which were exported in millions to Middle East, right until 1960s.
EE56-C36-C-A136-4671-A086-0-B098-A736256.jpg


museovirasto-205f6ac2-9e9d-4a7d-b875-e731a2467ed3-0-original.png


museovirasto-a9592919-c03f-4ee4-9508-dc2a71e715c7-0-original.png


Those were real men👍
 
While browsing finna.fi I found this picture (from Nurmes museum collection) showing a "tervapiilu" and on the foregound the humongous Billnäs 1, which weighs 3 kgs / 6,6 lbs:
knp-65818.jpg


Billn-s-1.jpg


Billnäs 1 compared to the more familiar Billnäs 12.1:
DSC-0361.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top