R&D,18th c.American axe

Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
1,677
I can't think through what format we can communicate in,so this is to collect and roughly collate some general information,and exchange some loose thoughts and ideas.
Maybe at some point we can streamline this format/process,i only wanted to ask a few questions,and share some preliminary actions on this end.

So,at this point,to the best of my knowledge we're looking at 3 originals.They're Old Axeman's axes #1 and #2,and the "1905"-marked one posted by user Imalterna.
(it'd be stating the obvious to say "the more-the merrier":)).

We don't have any measurements of any of the above barring their Weight.Not a biggie,as between the weight and general proportions all the info is there;but,if anyone can throw a caliper around about any of the originals it won't hurt either.

That eye-shape is curious,definitely a distinguishing feature of these(seems to me,please feel free to express your own take on any and ALL being said here).

Presuming the above i went ahead and forged a preliminary drift.
Stock was a hex 1 1/8" across the flats(pavement breaker point),and what i got out of it was 2" wide by a fat 1/2",convex shape.

This is what it looked like forged,(the sledge next to it is 3 lbs;just as a thought,2+lb axe can kinda be imagined).
https://imgur.com/a/sOIeSWb

And here it is slightly cleaned up,anhd Above the drift that was used on that first trial;that drift is sized for a commercially available handles sold for lathing,half-hatchets,et c.
It is of course tear-drop shaped,just a touch Thicker at it's thickest,and just under in Width than the new one.
https://imgur.com/oKrhWmI

All in all,it should produce an eye somewhat flatter in profile than a cruiser or DB,2" long.(Thickness may vary,it can be adjusted artificially,by spreading the eye a touch by hand).

I also had a chance to process some stock,both 1/2" for folding,and 3/4" for slitting potential.
https://imgur.com/a/DsKBfkS
Everything,for starters,is in 2" widths.
 
If I remember correctly Bernie hanged his heads on boy's size handles. Maybe it would make sense to use 18th century design but with standard boy's size eye.It would probably require thicker HCS insert than that one you currently have access to.
 
The 3/4" for slitting is A529 that i've used before lots,it has no issues.

The 1/2" plate in the photo is that wagon tire.
It acted fine in all forging i tried,but as i expected has a problem with being welded back on itself.
It Did form a weld,but in destruction-testing it felt weak.I'm not sure about it at this point,common remedy for this is to weld a thin layer of higher-C material in between,i each weld.Not sure if it's worth the trouble,especially as i have lots of modern structural steel of that gauge.
(in the photo the white portion appears to be that color because it's granular,and the facets of individual crystalline grains reflect light in this,dispersed,manner).
https://imgur.com/5atZQZ5
 
If I remember correctly Bernie hanged his heads on boy's size handles. Maybe it would make sense to use 18th century design but with standard boy's size eye.It would probably require thicker HCS insert than that one you currently have access to.

Thank you,yes.
IF the insert is to go all the way to the eye,in a parallel-sided config.,yes.
In Bernie's #1 it doesn't,it comes to a point and ends short of the eye(judging by photo).

But you've got a good point there.
and i Am indeed short of HCS in any hefty gauge.

I do have this lovely chunk of Bohler K510(Austrian white steel),http://www.zknives.com/knives/steels/steelgraph.php?nm=k510
But,it's in a 13/16" round...
(I could do a combined insert)
 
rev-war-18th-century-hand-forged-inch_1_badd712be570bd3efd4be35dab908736.jpg

rev-war-18th-century-hand-forged-inch_1_badd712be570bd3efd4be35dab908736.jpg

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/rev-war-18th-century-hand-forged-inch-498947396
big-early-hand-forged-pa-style-lb_1_e12612faef7ed884de02bc374a218b08.jpg


big-early-hand-forged-pa-style-lb_1_e12612faef7ed884de02bc374a218b08.jpg

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/big-early-hand-forged-pa-style-lb-1955429600

desirable-ca-1770-revolutionary-war_1_cdd437ce8e59873177cfb32856d6d8eb.jpg

desirable-ca-1770-revolutionary-war_1_cdd437ce8e59873177cfb32856d6d8eb.jpg

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/desirable-ca-1770-revolutionary-war-1798900312
revolutionary-war-18th-century-hand_1_7b207f0c856d41c126b078d94ff5d3f9.jpg

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/revolutionary-war-18th-century-hand-1882283586

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/18th-century-revolutionary-war-small-1899069544
this one is 19th century
early-blacksmith-hand-forged-h_1_0b33277664a29cf8006596e2ddf48fbb.jpg

early-blacksmith-hand-forged-h_1_0b33277664a29cf8006596e2ddf48fbb.jpg

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/early-blacksmith-hand-forged-h-1895120003
 
Last edited:
Here's me Stohler, only pic I have apparently. I'll get some more with angles and dimensions.

One of the nice subtleties with this head is that the smith thinned out the lugs from both inside the eye and outside the head.

We lose a lot of a pattern when we look at pretty much just a lateral outline, or a ventral view. Something like the loft in lines that a boat designer would use would be helpful, if unrealistic. But I'm saying that more to illustrate the point that with photos it can be very hard to generate the contrast to see where and how mass is carried in the head.

I think if my sample of the era is helpful I would be willing to ship it to you. Some of those curves can only be experienced tactilely, frankly. Which is to say, perhaps the items need to be held to be appreciated in such a manner as to be useful in creating a derivative.

Screenshot_20190421-230539_Gallery.jpg
 
crbnSteeladdict...Wow...Just WOW.What a wealth of data...
I'll be coming back to these photos again and again,will no doubt spend hours staring at them,but already see Much that weighs toward slitting...
A huge separate thanks for top And bottom photos of eyes,crucially important,that...

Fmont,likewise,many thanks for that Stohler(i'm trying to access it,hoping it'll work,if not i may beg to re-send it,please).

Square-peg,thank you,very good to know that it's a possibility.
Type and size will depend on an executive decision(-s),as far as how to proceed with steeling the bit.
Generally,i'd imagine this being a historically guided exploration the plainer,carbon alloys would be appropriate...So 10xx series?..But,we have time,and i'm open to suggestions to say the least...
My facilities function on neanderthal level...(why do you imagine i find 18th c. so appealing?:)...(and BC would be even better!:),so i probably wouldn't be able to do justice to anything too high-tech in HT...
IS there,btw,a good argument where AISI 10xx could be improved upon?Do people ever have issues with that(properly HT'd,of course)?
 
Aye,i don't mind at all to just stick to plain old 10xx series...
And we're in this preliminary stages,i'm basically feeling about blindly with me hammer...And for that any kind of recycle-ables will do.
Today i'll try slitting 3/4" stock.
With the thickness of the drift pushing 1/2" it'll leave only 1/8" for each side of the eye,quite marginal,that...*
If it won't fly then next on the list for slitting is some 7/8" WI that i've a large stash of,and that is actually refined enough to be slitted.

*# 1 & 2 both have thick-ish mat'l left around the eye...(for those we don't have comparative top/bottom photos or measurements).Photos of some others appear as if almost the eye is an inverted cone,kirves-like...
Wonder if that is an accident,or my mistaken impression,or some influence of a very old Germanic style/method(via Pennsylvania settlers..)...
 
Well,here's a slit&drifted eye in a piece of 3/4" x 2" plate.
https://imgur.com/GOXq7jo

Top:https://imgur.com/a/UabFg8Y

Bottom:https://imgur.com/a/RYPTdec

Poll at this point(not steeled)is close to 1 1/2" long.
Eye 2" long by 1/2" at widest.
Poll and eye section together are about 5 cubic inches...Times 0.283...1.415 Lbs.

So,the general aim being 2.5 lbs,it leaves a pound for the blade and bit.
Poll can be trimmed to adjust for balance(obviously before it's steeled).

Thoughts?
 
That's really, really nice! I'm home again, I'll get some proper pics of mine with close-ups.
 
Thank you,Fmont,and that'd be super kind of ya...
(cross-sectional measurements of top and bottom of eye,but any and all lengths would be sweet).
 
Overall,the slitting and drifting process went ok.
The type of slitting chisel i use for this removes practically no mass at all(the "bisquit" was smaller than the opening and about 1/32" thick:)).
This is a small chisel-mark before starting.The end of the stock is upset a bit,just to counter all the distortion that's coming.https://imgur.com/gPhtj6J

Freshly slit:https://imgur.com/a/1BU4kf3

In the gradual process of inserting the drift the lugs can be drawn down:https://imgur.com/KUUTvFB
As you can see those lugs are smaller(and thinner)than on a welded model.
Drift cools the work making it a tedious process.
(In Conjunction with the top of eye appearing smaller in photos,the lugs on bottom side only reinforce my suspicion that these axes had a conical eye smaller at the top...

Business end of slitting chisel:
It's sharpened on all 3 sides,and the foot is flat,so it doesn't keep on walking to the middle of slit,keeping the ends going down in parallel.
Crap wrapped around it a piece of solder that i use to measure circumference(they used to use a strip of leather long ago).
https://imgur.com/eS4Txye

And here's the drift,wrapped around with that same piece.The difference between the end of solder and a little scratch/dent mark(lost my sharpie:) on left is the difference in circumference by which drift is larger than slitter.
https://imgur.com/0ZiYIoL
That difference in length translated into volume,is what i'll have to draw on for lugs,or whatever other changes of mass in the eye walls.
It makes it Predictable,quantifyable,or Can...

Mensuration is probably the most important function for forging...I'm Very bad at it,practically illiterate,and work by the seat of my pants mostly...(but sometimes get to feeling irresponsible,and repent, and start crunching these numbers...:(
 
Today i'll try slitting 3/4" stock.
With the thickness of the drift pushing 1/2" it'll leave only 1/8" for each side of the eye,quite marginal,that...*

I was gonna say, you eye walls won't be that thin because the slitter isn't knocking out a plug. It's just pushing material out to the eye walls. But you gotta hammer on the walls to keep things straight and that pushes some material out of the walls.

Have you heard of hot punch lube? My buddy Andy sells it from his online store, Quick and Dirty Tool Co. Mostly he makes and sells tongs. I could send you a can.

https://quickanddirtytools.com/collections/all
 
Last edited:
Square_peg,yes,i heard tell of lube.Never tried anything but some coal dust(and water from cooling tools themselves).
However,i don't really punch tight to the opening:Normally what i'm slitting is longer that the chisel,i move it back and forth along the slit.
That's the way they often do it in Scandinavia...So your chisel is never tight in the opening...(helps keeping it cool too).

i tell ya though,this here bizness will make you remember your age!:)...I think i like welding better!:)
 
I am reasonably sure that the above Stricker is the one I purchased and have posted it previously (https://bladeforums.com/threads/it-followed-me-home-part-2.1190276/page-235#post-17577834).
Here is one picture:



Pa. makers like Stoudt, Strauss, Stricker and Stohler had axe eyes that were narrower at the top. . .
My H.H.STRICKER head:

Lengths: 5 3/8", bit 3 1/4", poll 2 1/8".
Eye dimensions: top 0.36" x 1.41, bottom 0.45" x 1.68"
(since I made the handle, I am well acquainted with the eye and it is indeed a straight taper).
Weight: 1 lb. 9.4 oz.

J jake pogg , FWIW Even though it is not 18th centaury I would be glad to post any further photos, dimensions, etc. of the Stricker to help.


Bob

Just as an aside for all readers, I took the picture of the Stricker with the Dominicus since that was what I used to rough out the Hickory handle on the Stricker. I bought just the Dominicus head and I couldn't find what an original handle looked like, so when I made that handle, I tried to shape it like other brands with a similar head pattern. I don't know about the eyes in others with this pattern, but the Dominicus eye is a straight taper, larger at the top. To quickly end the story the Dominicus got a cross wedge added,
 
Bob,im so grateful for these measurements,Sir,thank you,most kind of you.
(and great to know that this particular axe is safe,and sound!:).

It is a particularly interesting one:All of these under discussion seem to me to have these features,the early versions of features, that later in American history became standard...
I may be imagining it,but the depth of eye seems to be increasing,and the high centerline,the convexity of blade, makes it's appearance.

Your Stricker has a pretty radical convexity,looks like,and in NO way it is an accident of forging or grinding...
(btw,practically All,with rare exceptions,are ground all over,which is mighty fine and a trait of responsible blacksmith then as now....however,it does obliterate many of a tell-tale traces of forging process...).

Grinding brings me to the point Square_peg raises,that i didn't respond to.
(my apologies for any lapses in comms;my bandwidth plays about,making this site in particular come and go;sometimes my "like" button doesn't work,or quote function,et c.).

But you gotta hammer on the walls to keep things straight and that pushes some material out of the walls.
Absolutely right.And that is where the difficulty with grinding comes in:How much of the bulge created by drifting was forged back in(or out longitudinally),and how much of it was ground flush in finishing?

And it brings us to the very pertinent issue:Do you guys think that these fell into two categories,distinctly convex(including the "boat-tail" tapering of poll),and the strict,flat-sided Wedge?
(## 1&2 are one each,both ground,both obviously Intentionally so...(and Old Axeman favors the convex one in use).
 
(since I made the handle, I am well acquainted with the eye and it is indeed a straight taper).
Weight: 1 lb. 9.4 oz.

That further confirms my growing suspicion.These axes were probably wedgeless,like early Kirves.(helps to not ruin that slight amount of wood with a kerf).

It's not surprising,this cross-over with Scandinavia.In spite of all hype today,"vikings this...",and vikings that,vikings were no fools,and subcontracted as much work as they could to professionals.
And professionals at that time concentrated around Rhine valley...from where later they migrated to Pennsylvania et c.

FWIW Even though it is not 18th centaury I would be glad to post any further photos, dimensions, etc. of the Stricker to help.

Of course,Sir,this designation is strictly provisionary.If anyone can come up with a better,more exact designation,i'd be happy.This one is quite broad...
 
Back
Top