Haft length for ~3.5lb double-bit axe?

K

killa_concept

Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,161
So I'm looking over a few double-bit axe heads and the majority I tend to find seem to be in this weight and around ~10" long. I'm curious as to what haft length would be best for this head weight. Would you require something longer like a 36" to make it balance properly or could you get away with a 32"? I'd ask about a 28", but I'm pretty sure those are definitely for lighter heads.

The reason I ask is because I'm about 5'4" and find the idea of a 36" handle to be off-putting for my size...
 
Last edited:
Generally for a 3.5lb head and above, you would use a 36 inch handle. That being said however, use the handle that is comfortable for you. The balance of an axe is of no use if it does not feel right in your hands. It used to be fairly common for people to customize their axe handles.

http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/
 
For safety and performance reasons, ANY full sized axe, I try to get a 36" haft, single or double bit, regardless of weight.
 
Being you are 6" shorter than the average man maybe the 29" GB Double bit throwing model would be perfect? The GB double bit head is 3lbs and is the same on the 29" throwing as the 35" felling that I ordered.
 
Try it out with a 36" and if you do not like it, cut it down or buy a different one.
Simple as that.
 
Thanks for the suggestions all! It's certainly a pain living in the city where a place with a selection of decent axe handles is so hard to find... I think a 32" would be safe enough for me length wise due to my height, but I'm just wondering if the leverage would make it awkward. I guess I'll get the head first and then figure out the handle length afterward...

psp7 said:
Being you are 6" shorter than the average man maybe the 29" GB Double bit throwing model would be perfect? The GB double bit head is 3lbs and is the same on the 29" throwing as the 35" felling that I ordered.
Click to expand...

Well right now I'm trying to get a vintage axe to restore before dishing out $250 on a GB double bit. No doubt that I probably will get one eventually, but being a poor college kid, $250 is quite the commitment and I'd prefer to know for sure that I like the design of double-bits beforehand.
 
since it is will be a double bit ax the handle is straight, therefore can be cut if you don't like it at 36". Also you can cut an inch at a time.
 
killa, if it helps any I measured the balance point on my GB Double felling axe and it balances on the web of my hand right at 28". So that means 4/5th of the length of the handle is the balance point given its total is 35" GB lists the head a 3lbs, with a total axe weight of 5lbs 4oz according to my digital fish scale. The point where it balances is the exact point where I naturally place my right hand for the start of a swing, while my left hand is by the end of the handle(knob). I'm right handed. So if GB trims off 6" for their throwing axe version 29" that must put the balance point near the base of the axe head, I'm guessing. Possibly better for throwing? Hope you can get a nice head. Make sure it wasnt burned out as that affects the temper of the steel. Many old woodcraft and camping books teach this manner of replacing a broken axe handle by burning it out:eek:. Its probably best you find a head with wood still in it as you will know it wasnt heated in a fire.
 
Well instead of starting up a new thread, I guess I'll just update this one.

Right now I'm in possession of a 2.5lb as well as a 3.5lb DB axe head. I'm also planning on getting a 3.5lb SB axe head...

Now, I've already decided that a 28" haft will be optimal for the 2.5lb DB as I want that to be a cruiser, but I'm still really torn on the 3.5lbers. I think it would be best to get the same length helves for them, just so my full sized axes are consistent and it's easier to switch between the two... but I'm really torn between 32" and 36" lengths. They'll be used for felling, limbing, bucking and maybe some splitting - and again, my height is 5'4" to put things in perspective. When measuring it out, if I were on top of a log bucking, it seems like the 36" haft might actually be too long...

The longest axe I have right now is a 25" GB Scandi, so I don't really have a full sized axe to use as a judgment point. Has anyone here ever used an axe with a ~32" haft?
 
Last edited:
I have a 3.5 pound axe head, I wasn't sure which handle to get so I took the head with me and sized the hole with the handle and a 32" was just to small a 36" handle feels to long but the axe head opening and handle fit really snug... So I went with a 36"
 
The 710 said:
I have a 3.5 pound axe head, I wasn't sure which handle to get so I took the head with me and sized the hole with the handle and a 32" was just to small a 36" handle feels to long but the axe head opening and handle fit really snug... So I went with a 36"
Click to expand...

A wee bit bit late of a bump, but you have me curious - are you meaning the 32" was too short or that the eye size was too small? If the latter, I think it was a manufacturer defect.. 28" is almost always the transition point from boy's axe eye sizing, so anything past that should fit a full sized eye..

And since this post, I've come to realize that handle length is about 50% based on stature and 50% preference. At 5'4, I absolutely hate using 36"ers.. just about all my axes are hung on 28-32" with my favorite being a 3lb Keen Kutter Jersey on a 28" straight octagonal. To me, it feels perfect and is an absolute joy to use for everything from felling to finer tasks like shaving feather sticks.. but when any of my 5'10+ friends handle it, they say it feels awkward, head heavy and too short.
 
killa_concept said:
A wee bit bit late of a bump, but you have me curious - are you meaning the 32" was too short or that the eye size was too small? If the latter, I think it was a manufacturer defect.. 28" is almost always the transition point from boy's axe eye sizing, so anything past that should fit a full sized eye..
And since this post, I've come to realize that handle length is about 50% based on stature and 50% preference. At 5'4, I absolutely hate using 36"ers.. just about all my axes are hung on 28-32" with my favorite being a 3lb Keen Kutter Jersey on a 28" straight octagonal. To me, it feels perfect and is an absolute joy to use for everything from felling to finer tasks like shaving feather sticks.. but when any of my 5'10+ friends handle it, they say it feels awkward, head heavy and too short.
Click to expand...

Ya the eye size on the 32" handles were all too narrow and the 36" were just a bit wide but I am gonna work it down to fit. The 36" handle seems kinda to long. This axe head has about a 5" edge on it.
IMAG1558_zpsfc692792.jpg
 
killa_concept said:
They'll be used for felling, limbing, bucking and maybe some splitting - and again, my height is 5'4" to put things in perspective. When measuring it out, if I were on top of a log bucking, it seems like the 36" haft might actually be too long...
Click to expand...

I'm 6 feet tall and I find a 36" haft a little longer than I want for bucking or scoring while standing on the log. I'm currently using 33" and 34" vintage hafts for that work (hard to find them that length anymore). 30" feels a little too short for me in that role. Bucking from on top is when I'm the most fussy about haft length.

I prefer 36" hafts for felling larger trees and for splitting duties. The extra length generates more head speed and makes the tool more efficient. But I'm comfortable doing these tasks with shorter axes provided the length and weight are proportional. I've hung 3-1/2 and 3-3/4 pound SB axes on 30" hafts and I find those a little clunky. I'd stick to less than 3-1/2 pounds with 30" hafts. A 3 pound on a 30" haft feels good to me. I like that size/length for limbing, too.
 
I'm 5'10 and I like a shorter handle. I'm about to hang a 4 pounder on a 28", if I can find one that accommodates the larger eye. One reason, I already have a 36" 4 pounder. Being a construction surveyor I've pounded lots of stakes in the ground with a hammer. When I was younger I always used an 8 lb. sledge. Then a 6, now a 5, 40 years into it. I discovered when I had to pound a lot of stakes it was better on the body to change up the lengths of the handles. In the 8 lb. days I'd settled on about a 20 in length complimented by a 16 incher. I worked with a 12 inches now and then as well. The point is, I don't think balance has much to do with it. Not for me anyway.
 
I like the 30-34" range on a full-sized axe for bucking (what I mostly do in trailwork). I do not stand on top of the logs to buck. I've gone as small as 28" on a 3 lb jersey axe. I'm 6'4".

I find that a 36" for splitting purposes is a good length. You may find that by working a 36" haft down you can seat the axe further down (right near the shoulder) and wind up with a 33-34" axe.
 
The 710 said:
Ya the eye size on the 32" handles were all too narrow and the 36" were just a bit wide but I am gonna work it down to fit. The 36" handle seems kinda to long.
Click to expand...

Odd - might I ask the handle brand? I actually live in the city and the only place that even stocks hickory handles is my local ace hardware which has a VERY limited collection of Link handles. The quality on them were overall pretty good actually - most weren't overly thick, a lot were all sapwood and only a few had unreasonable grain orientation. However, the selection jumped from 14" hatchets to 28" boys to 36" full sized SBs and DBs with no intermediate options. So I tend to have to look to online sources for my handles..

And were you saying the width was too thin or the length of the eye too short? Because width can easily be worked out by bringing the head all the way down to the shoulder (where it tends to thicken out) and sawing off the excess.. a good wedge can take care of the rest if any width gap still exists.
 
Length of eye was to short on the 32" handles... I know I can widdle down a 36" to fit, only thing is that it looks too long of a handle for that head..
 
Yeah that's very peculiar.. especially if their whole stock of 32s were like that. Only explanation I could think of is that they were maul eyes. Those tend to a wee bit thicker an eye but slightly shorter length wise. But why on earth they would have 36” single bits and only 32" mauls is beyond me... splitting is the only task where I can justify the extra length of a 36"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top