Handle Dimensions

G

G-pig

Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
1,052
For those who make their own handles or thin down the ready made club handles, do you have any go to dimensions? In roughing mine out, I usually go for twice the width from front to back as the thickness from side to side. That usually means that after shaping and thinning with the hatchet and stump and a little bit of draw knife work that I end up with a handle that is about 3/4" and 1 1/2 inch wide. This is still a blank, as I usually thin them to about 5/8 or less, and 1 1/3 of an inch (or something) from front to back. This is the only instance where I ever use calipers in my shop, because I can set them up to the tell me when I have reached the desired thickness by allowing clearance.

I would certainly like to see more attention given to dimensions, as well as the shape (controversial as it is). As much as I love to see self made handles, I don't see many made with attention to some of the traditional dimensions and shapes.
 
I usually just go by feel when thinning down commercial handles. I really like your idea about using calipers. I'm going to start looking for a decent pair for my axe kit.
 
They need not be decent-- they could be all bent up and long as it will stay where you put it and allow you to gauge uniform thickness through out the length of the handle.

Feel is good, but not every has had enough exposure to really dimensionally sound handles for their "palate" to really tell for sure, which is why I had to start using calipers and learn more about the traditional dimensions and whatnot.
 
Here are some historical axe dimensions.

Axe%20handle%20dimensions.jpg


I've seen another document online with figures for historical axe handle dimension. I can't seem to find it now. I do recall that the handles were much thinner than what you find now. I agree with you about thinning handles down to 3/4" or 5/8" thick. They feel good at that size.
 
I had never given it any thought, until now. I grabbed some dial calipers and went to measureing. Round handles are around 3/4"-13/16" wide and octagon are closer to 5/8"-11/16". These were handles that I thinned.
I just happen to have a couple handles I think are right out of the 1800's, one octagon and one round. They measure very close to what I came up with on the handles I thin down. I measured half a dozen in all and they just don't very by much. The difference really is round verse octagon.
 
I don't think that handle dimensions (except for length and shape) are all that critical as long as they are comfortable in "your" hands. Up this way Garant (axes and handles) went from making handles that were 1 3/8 thick/wide (just behind the head and and at the butt) to using 7/8 as a flat finish in those locations. Remainder of these handles is oval like old times. For sure this was a cost-cutting measure and I do not like them (in fact I've never bought nor used one). I have some 50s and 60s era (I think) made in Canada axes (Walters) that have really slim factory handles. By today's standards these look fragile and dainty but the lumber graders and handle makers of the time sure knew how to choose their material and the blanks started as 1 1/2 inch thick material.
 
300Six said:
I don't think that handle dimensions (except for length and shape) are all that critical as long as they are comfortable in "your" hands.
Click to expand...

Of course I'd rather use a slight too stiff handle that fit my hands over a too thin one that would tend to try to cut into my hands. But being thin and a bit whippy certainly does help with shock. so, yet again, I think that it's a matter of balancing traits.
 
G-pig said:
Of course I'd rather use a slight too stiff handle that fit my hands over a too thin one that would tend to try to cut into my hands. But being thin and a bit whippy certainly does help with shock. so, yet again, I think that it's a matter of balancing traits.
Click to expand...

Its a little more complicated than it seems. If the handle gets to thin for its depth you loose some stability and it won't bend, or I should say it bends the wrong way, side to side. I did this on a boys axe once. Not a comfortable haft and it just does not feel right.
 
garry3 said:
Its a little more complicated than it seems. If the handle gets to thin for its depth you loose some stability and it won't bend, or I should say it bends the wrong way, side to side. I did this on a boys axe once. Not a comfortable haft and it just does not feel right.
Click to expand...
I did not report back to the forum in order to promote 'skinny' commercial handles from 50 years ago but only to tell of their existence and to presume that handle makers of the time knew exactly what they could dispense with structure/weight-wise and yet still produce a strong handle. Me being a teenage product of the 60s am unable to appreciate just how thin Walters Axe, Hull PQ could make commercial handles and still exude confidence in the use of their product because they were branded for all to see. I have a couple of these but have never swung one against a tree or tried to use one as if it was an 'ordinary' axe only because they are so thin compared to more familiar modern handles.
 
garry3 said:
Its a little more complicated than it seems. If the handle gets to thin for its depth you loose some stability and it won't bend, or I should say it bends the wrong way, side to side. I did this on a boys axe once. Not a comfortable haft and it just does not feel right.
Click to expand...

It's a lot more complicated than it seems, yes. White ash for instance, the flexibility of two dimensionally identical ash handles is going to change if one has parallel grain and the other has perpendicular grain. I make all of mine with perpendicular grain now, and very thin (under 5/8"). Also shaped more like a rectangle with rounded corners instead of the typical oval shape.
 
G-pig said:
It's a lot more complicated than it seems, yes. White ash for instance, the flexibility of two dimensionally identical ash handles is going to change if one has parallel grain and the other has perpendicular grain. I make all of mine with perpendicular grain now, and very thin (under 5/8"). Also shaped more like a rectangle with rounded corners instead of the typical oval shape.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting take on it G-pig. If I am reading you right you like real thin handles, and then you are makeing them with the grain running opposite to conventional wisdom?
If that is the case you are helping with the shock by grain alignment and also the side to side stabilty.
 
garry3 said:
That is an interesting take on it G-pig. If I am reading you right you like real thin handles, and then you are makeing them with the grain running opposite to conventional wisdom?
If that is the case you are helping with the shock by grain alignment and also the side to side stabilty.
Click to expand...

That's the theory. I have straight grained ash handles that are incredibly whippy from side to side.
 
G-pig said:
That's the theory. I have straight grained ash handles that are incredibly whippy from side to side.
Click to expand...

It's that side to side that I don't like if I thin to much. And you get more hand shock.

Well I must say you are takeing hafts to a new level. Or maybe reinventing the wheel.
Have you gained this knowledge of wood properties just by making hafts?

You have made me a little curious. I think I will cut an elm this fall and try a straight haft with the grain running opposite.
 
garry3 said:
It's that side to side that I don't like if I thin to much. And you get more hand shock.

Well I must say you are takeing hafts to a new level. Or maybe reinventing the wheel.
Have you gained this knowledge of wood properties just by making hafts?

You have made me a little curious. I think I will cut an elm this fall and try a straight haft with the grain running opposite.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, definitely. It gets worse the longer the handle gets-- I've got a thin, 32" straight grain ash handle that is almost unusable because of the side to side flex.

You could say that I'm re"discovering" the wheel, in a day and age where people use square wheels because they wouldn't roll anything around enough to notice the difference. I wouldn't have learned about the properties of wood that pertain to axe handles in any other way besides, you guessed it, making axe handles :)

I'd be curious to know how that works out. Ash is a pretty exceptionally whippy wood, but I don't know much about Elm. Just got to judge it all by what you know and keep figuring stuff out.
 
I just put the calipers on a couple Michigan single bit 3 1/2 pound axes. One recent re-haft I did with a recently made handle and one with an old octagon 1950s era handle. They were both 1.39" deep at the narrowest point around 7 inches up but the old handle there is .85" wide while the newer handle is .88". At 22" up the old handle is .78" while the new one is .83". They both feel good to me with not a whole lot of difference but the octagon feels thinner. More difference in my Hudson bays all with factory 24" handle. A pre-1923 Peavey Mfg. is 1.25"x.84". A 1950's Collins 1.34"x.86". A 1980's Hults Bruk 1.33"x.88". At 12" up is more of the same. P-V 1.30"x.74", Collins 1.32"x.75", HB 1.43"x.87". Doesn't seem like a big difference but the Hults Bruk feels like a club compared to the slender Peavey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top