Fitting a handle through hourglass eye?

[FixingINSweden]

Hello.

I usually fit handles to restored axe heads. And I know, technically, this is not an axe. But I really need help nonetheless. Fitting a new wooden handle on a hatchet, axe or hammer is pretty much the same thing (one would think). But this time I'm confused and really need some guidance. The eye is hourglass shaped - badly. The bottom and top hole: 30mm. The waist 22mm. How do you fit a handle through that?

Is it possible to shrink the wood so that it later swells and fill the top. Or do you use heat to make the wood more moldable? Or do you shape the handle to fit the waist and then hammer a wood wedge and a steel wedge from the top. Or do you go at it from both sides with a wood plug and wood glue?

Perhaps this is common knowledge in the hammer forums, if you could find them. But this is my first forging hammer and I'm clueless. I'm guessing you shape the handle to fit the waist and then use the double wedges. But it would be nice to know that in advance before I destroy my custom handle.

If this post violates the rules, I'm really sorry, and I'm prepared to fall by the sword if so. Or have it moved to the correct sub forum.

All others - please help if you know how it's done!

 

[jake pogg]

Frankly,i fail to see much of a problem-4mm each way is not That difficult to fill.

I'd proceed as usual,kerf that handle to somewhat below the waist,and wedge the top.

If you find that waist excessive you can always take a file and remove some of it,but this appears to be a totally legit,Swedish-pattern hammer,and the handle looks like it's been made for it(?).

Looks good to me,i'd just do it,and not worry too much if the eye doesn't get filled completely.

You Can cross-wedge it if you feel it's necessary but i'd not ruin that nice handle with any metal wedges.

 

[FixingINSweden]

Thank you for your reply. This is my fathers hammer. The handle was broken and I promised him that I would fit a new custom handle on it. I have made the handle myself from Bokträd. Don't know the translation, perhaps it's Beech Wood. I broke one drill bit trying to remove the old wood from the eye. Had to burn it out in the end. The real reason I wonder how to fit the new handle - it had an amazing fit from factory - the best I have ever seen. It didn't even have 1 micron left to fill at the top. Also cut extremely flush to the curved metal head. Now knowing that the hammer did have a waist in the eye I'm perplexed at how they managed to fill the holes with wood back at factory. I would love to replicate that if possible, hence me posting this question here. Any ideas?

The hammer did have a steel wedge on it. See pic.

 

[Hickory n steel]

As long as it fits all the way down on the handle whe bottom will be filled, and if you leave a little sticking out the top it should expand well and fill when wedged.
Just make sure your wood wedge is sized right.

I've done a couple with hourglass eyes that don't look perfectly hung, but they have been serving me a few years at this point.

It's not as hard as it may seem.

 

[FixingINSweden]

As long as it fits all the way down on the handle whe bottom will be filled, and if you leave a little sticking out the top it should expand well and fill when wedged.
Just make sure your wood wedge is sized right.

I've done a couple with hourglass eyes that don't look perfectly hung, but they have been serving me a few years at this point.

It's not as hard as it may seem.

Thank you for your comforting words. Do you think that's also what they did back at factory? Or did they have a clever way for making such a perfect fit? I will try the wedge method. And I will have my wood wedge account for the sloped part down to the waist. At the moment my wood handle is extremely dry. I usually use oil after the hanging process. Do you think I should use oil before hand this time around?

Thanks again.

 

[Hickory n steel]

Thank you for your comforting words. Do you think that's also what they did back at factory? Or did they have a clever way for making such a perfect fit? I will try the wedge method. And I will have my wood wedge account for the sloped part down to the waist. At the moment my wood handle is extremely dry. I usually use oil after the hanging process. Do you think I should use oil before hand this time around?

Thanks again.

Using oil first certainly can't hurt.

I would guess that like most manufacturers , they probably used a hydraulic press to insert the handle.
This would allow a slightly oversized handle.

 

[FixingINSweden]

I will give it

Using oil first certainly can't hurt.

I would guess that like most manufacturers , they probably used a hydraulic press to insert the handle.
This would allow a slightly oversized handle.

I will give it a shot. Hopefully today. I'll post some pictures on the process if anyone is interested, or if someone in the future need reference on what to do (or NOT to do case may be). I registered here yesterday and I must say, what a great forum. I live in Sweden but this place is packed full of good information. If you guys have other great places on the internet feel free to PM me a tip. I'm an axe guy mainly (knives comes second). And I haven't found a good axe forum yet (besides this one). Again, feel free to throw me a link.

And thank you for your comments. If someone else have a different solution to this "eye-waist-problem" I would love to hear about it. I'm guessing I will do many more hammer hangings in the future - and life is a learning curve.

 

[jake pogg]

I can't add much to what Hickory n Steel says above,says it well and to the point.

More generally speaking:Any eye design is to whatever degree proportionate to specific wood that it'll be hafted with.

In a factory setting,with strict control of sizes of parts,and the Great pressure of the press used for fitting,they can achieve a very close fit.
Some part of this is psychological,having to do with sales-you don't want the product to look "sloppy".
Something that helps them with that is that they also probably control the moisture content of wood,that allows them to do such things as to shove such an essentially you may say Rude steel wedge into the end-grain.

When doing it by hand you exercise a different set of controlling factors,in a way a finer one.
Technically speaking that metal wedge may well have contributed to the handle breaking:The wood serves to transfer energy,and any abrupt changes in density inside would serve to locally concentrate the stress,and so to possibly damage the wood fibers.

A craftsman adjusting all these factors by hand can potentially do a much finer job of it than the factory process.
And the looks,like the maybe not 100%-filled eye,may well be secondary to the actual quality(and longevity) of hang.

 

[jake pogg]

P.S.

Maybe a bit more to the point:That eye was engineered for the wood And the process they used(including that wedge).
Nothing says that if you had to that you could not Re-engineer it.
Meaning that using a file you could make the variance less,therefore the stresses on the wood filling that eye.

European Beech is lovely wood,and plenty sufficient for hafting many a tool.But was the original handle also beech? It's possible that that eye was shaped to accomodate much tougher wood,like hickory,or some other wood with different characteristics.

8 mm combined difference,in such short eye,is ok but not strictly necessary.
Even 1-2 mm would hold a tool-head,many a compression-fit eyes differ only by 2-3 mm.

So i'd personally not be scared to take a rat-tail file and mellow that eye out

 

[FixingINSweden]

P.S.

Maybe a bit more to the point:That eye was engineered for the wood And the process they used(including that wedge).
Nothing says that if you had to that you could not Re-engineer it.
Meaning that using a file you could make the variance less,therefore the stresses on the wood filling that eye.

European Beech is lovely wood,and plenty sufficient for hafting many a tool.But was the original handle also beech? It's possible that that eye was shaped to accomodate much tougher wood,like hickory,or some other wood with different characteristics.

8 mm combined difference,in such short eye,is ok but not strictly necessary.
Even 1-2 mm would hold a tool-head,many a compression-fit eyes differ only by 2-3 mm.

So i'd personally not be scared to take a rat-tail file and mellow that eye out

I hear you guys. Can't expect to get factory results in a home shop. I get it. Have put the hours in today, as seen below. And there is A LOT of empty space on top to fill. I will give it a good wedge and then that's that.
I have given the handle the waist dimensions, for it to be able to fit through the hole. I will get a oak or beech wedge in later next week. Have some last shaping and sanding on both the handle and the steel, before its final resting place.

Thanks for taking your time guys.

 

[Glenn Bailey]

I've been quietly following this thread- fascinating! I know, and have experienced, less than a fraction of what Jake and Hickory have, so keep that in mine.

I was onboard with everything until I saw these last pictures. If it were me and I was making this for my dad I would re-evaluate the plan. It looks like there is the real possibility cracking the wood from the top of the waist (I love that description) if you put that fat of a wedge in that short of space (top of the waist to the top of the eye) on hard wood.

An assumption here is that you want to use this handle. Widening the waist, as Jake suggested a couple of times, might have been my first choice before shaping the handle to the hole.

From this point I probably would try and see if I could fashion a wood egg-shaped ring to fit on top fill out the outer portion of the space. Not sure how I would keep it from popping out, but I would try. Maybe keep it .5 cm from the top of the eye so the top .5 cm could keep it down? Point is, I would worry about the handle cracking from the top of the waist to the top of the eye given how much space needs to be made up.

Additional context- I'm thinking about this 100% about a project for your dad (so form/function plays a big roll), and 2 days and 5 years ago I lost my dad, so my views are influenced by that as well. (the things you would have done different/better if you had the chance to do it again)

 

[FixingINSweden]

P.S.

Maybe a bit more to the point:That eye was engineered for the wood And the process they used(including that wedge).
Nothing says that if you had to that you could not Re-engineer it.
Meaning that using a file you could make the variance less,therefore the stresses on the wood filling that eye.

European Beech is lovely wood,and plenty sufficient for hafting many a tool.But was the original handle also beech? It's possible that that eye was shaped to accomodate much tougher wood,like hickory,or some other wood with different characteristics.

8 mm combined difference,in such short eye,is ok but not strictly necessary.
Even 1-2 mm would hold a tool-head,many a compression-fit eyes differ only by 2-3 mm.

So i'd personally not be scared to take a rat-tail file and mellow that eye out

I've been quietly following this thread- fascinating! I know, and have experienced, less than a fraction of what Jake and Hickory have, so keep that in mine.

I was onboard with everything until I saw these last pictures. If it were me and I was making this for my dad I would re-evaluate the plan. It looks like there is the real possibility cracking the wood from the top of the waist (I love that description) if you put that fat of a wedge in that short of space (top of the waist to the top of the eye) on hard wood.

An assumption here is that you want to use this handle. Widening the waist, as Jake suggested a couple of times, might have been my first choice before shaping the handle to the hole.

From this point I probably would try and see if I could fashion a wood egg-shaped ring to fit on top fill out the outer portion of the space. Not sure how I would keep it from popping out, but I would try. Maybe keep it .5 cm from the top of the eye so the top .5 cm could keep it down? Point is, I would worry about the handle cracking from the top of the waist to the top of the eye given how much space needs to be made up.

Additional context- I'm thinking about this 100% about a project for your dad (so form/function plays a big roll), and 2 days and 5 years ago I lost my dad, so my views are influenced by that as well. (the things you would have done different/better if you had the chance to do it again)

Jake Pogg: I didn't see your PS-post before I posted earlier. But the original handle looks like Hickory to me (see pic). It's pretty heavy for its size still. I'm going to cut it in half again and use the bottom part as a file handle. No waste here.

Seeing your last post you have given me something to think about - filing down the waist. So my plan is: wedge as is. If that doesn't look (or feel) good I'm going to cut the top of the handle off and start again (we prefer short handles anyway), and this time by filing the waist and then hang the handle like I'm used to. If the handle breaks I can always make a new one, so no worries there. Sounds like a plan right?

Glen Bailey: What a fantastic post. Sorry to hear about your dad. I wanted to make the handle fit perfectly like you say, as it's a gift of sorts to the old man. And that's why I posted here in the first place. But thinking about it it's a combination of both - but perhaps function over appearance wins here - he really doesn't need a pretty hammer he can't use.

That egg shaped ring idea might have legs. It's an interesting idea. I think, in theory, it should work and make it look nice. I'm also thinking wood glue in combination. Usually the wood fails before the glue, it's a really potent fastener after all. But it might be easier to just file the waist and reshape the handle. I'm going to sleep on it. You guys have given me something to really think about here. And I really appreciate it a lot.

 

[cityofthesouth]

I have struggled somewhat with this problem since I started posting here. I ultimately started using a cross wedge technique in order to expand the wood in 2 directions instead of just 1. However, that method didn't actually work 100%. The shallow nature of the eye results in a short, more obtuse wedge that likes to get spit out during use. Glue might solve that issue. But my guess is that this is why tubular wedges are as widely used as they are with round eye hammers. I've made a full circle on metallic wedges. Conventional enthusiast wisdom is to never use a metal wedge. At the end of the day, you know what I found works real good when my sledge and big ball peen handles want to loosen and spit my wedges out? Yeah, I just pound a metal wedge into the wood wedge and never fool with it again.

I just tried a diagonal wedge in a maul I hung the other day (first handle I've ever had break - bad wood). I got the diagonal wedge concept from an old claw hammer I saw. With a rectangular eye, a diagonal wedge makes a lot of sense. I thought maybe I could do the same thing with an oval. Well, it kinda worked but not really. I 'm pretty much done splitting wood now so it won't see any use for months but if it doesn't stay, metal wedge. I think the big deal with metal wedges is that you are basically splitting the handle when they are used in the traditional way. I just drive them into my wood wedge and get the same effect without damaging the handle itself.