R&D,18th c.American axe

Also,i came across this curious old thread:https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/whats-this.1417138/

(Very cool link there among other things by Steve about Davistown museum).

In the photos in the beginning,the nasty looking stuff inside the Front of the eye is most definitely the inserted bit coming in clear into the eye.

It's done that way quite deliberately,as the always-weak forge-weld can take drifting a bit better,with drift bearing directly on HCS insert.

However,drifting is Very rough on fresh welds,and only survives by using strategy,and the best strategy is where all welds resist forces in Shear,that's what forge-welding does best.

(any and all of my work is more than likely to have similar,and worse,horseshit inside the eye,guaranteed!:))
 
So,it seems safe to assume that the reason for the lugs to be only on the bottom side is that's where more mat'l needed to be displaced,the eye getting smaller towards the top...

I went back to welding this morning,(my back has asked me to,politely,at this point),using that wagon tire.
It behaves well.(So far).Made a decent weld at poll,with a chunk of old file for intervening layer sandwiched between.
https://imgur.com/a/zNgBVzV
After hard-plating that weld should be plenty secure.
 
jake pogg said:
Also,i came across this curious old thread:https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/whats-this.1417138/

(Very cool link there among other things by Steve about Davistown museum).

In the photos in the beginning,the nasty looking stuff inside the Front of the eye is most definitely the inserted bit coming in clear into the eye.

It's done that way quite deliberately,as the always-weak forge-weld can take drifting a bit better,with drift bearing directly on HCS insert.

However,drifting is Very rough on fresh welds,and only survives by using strategy,and the best strategy is where all welds resist forces in Shear,that's what forge-welding does best.

(any and all of my work is more than likely to have similar,and worse,horseshit inside the eye,guaranteed!:))
Click to expand...
It looks like construction technique varied depending on the size of the axe. This is picture of Stohler 6 lbs broad axe.
J-B-Stohler-9-Broad-Axe-Shafferstown-Pa-_57.jpg

J-B-Stohler-9-Broad-Axe-Shafferstown-Pa-_57.jpg

J-B-Stohler-9-Broad-Axe-Shafferstown-Pa-_57.jpg

J-B-Stohler-9-Broad-Axe-Shafferstown-Pa-_57.jpg
 
Last edited:
That is an EXCELLENT photo,one of those rare ones that are terrifically meaningful.
Thank you.
I've seen this before,on polls of American broadaxes in particular.That is a tremendous time/fuel/physiology-saving device.
The welds suck(so happy i'm not alone!:),but it obviously don't matter.That tool had a Long run of it and looks like hanging together yet.

Incidentally,long time ago Japanese didn't even bother trying to weld such "shim" at poll into a solid.It was simply welded at the rear,butt-end of poll,and acted as a spacer against which haft was wedged.
 
Once again big thanks,crbnSteeladdict,for the photos above(after about 3-4 hours i can now see them all:).
That day(week?period?...)Stohler had rough-quality mat'l to work with.Look at all those closed but visible fissures...It appears to be nearly carbon-less stuff,as the degree of corrosion between that and edge/poll steel is stark(C promotes corrosivity under wet/acidic conditions).

Meanwhile i'm still beating my dead horse.Because of the one-sided lug config,and conical eye and all that,the forging necessarily must be corrected,be forced to be asymmetric.
That adjustment forces the preform into this "sway-backed" form.
Visible below at before and after folding photos.
https://imgur.com/a/ayIN3pE
https://imgur.com/a/rSyE0ST

That sway raises the line of the top side of the axe(corrected and flattened)or at least the toe(kept as a sweeping curve).

There's quite a difference in axes with an upswept line to toe from those where that line turns a strict 90 from,and relative to,poll.

In these older Stohler/Stricker axes i see both variations.
Fmont's Stohler is square as can be,and so is the "1905" job,while some others are Connie-like in their flare.
 
As an aside,a friends highly recommended this book:
American Iron, 1607-1900 (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology)

If i'd have gotten off my duff earlier,i could maybe talk some sense in regards to what Stohler at least Could've been using.As it is i just mumble generalities...:(
 
Square_peg said:
I feel your pain, brother. Literally.
Click to expand...
Och,aye...As they say in Scotland...But as one wise old injun around here used to say:"We're all here to wear out".And we're doing a Fine job of it!
So here's to wearing out with minimal pain...

I did process some WI for another slitting job.Here's the contraption i'm harvesting it from,clamped to the table.
It's(was,a part of) an old "Go devil",or an articulated skid on skis,rigged with cross-chains,a giant steel bob-sled.
Military used it to haul runway metal to start building the air strip here in the 40-ies.An interesting combination of forging,fabrication and god knows what else,hardware reused from all periods...
https://imgur.com/a/cMQS4E8

Here's the chunk i cut from it,it's a fat 7/8" thick,and i made it 2"x 5",so pushing 3 lbs...
It's wrought,of a very refined structure,very few inclusions...So can be slit(i've done it before).Nice stuff,Stohler would be envious!:)
https://imgur.com/a/xRN4xir
 
Classy old Stricker photos pilfered from fleabay:https://imgur.com/pdkOYws(hope all 3 photos are there).
Length overall 6"
Edge l. 3 5/8"
Weight 2.43 lbs

Poll appears to be 3-layer composite+plate,like Stohler broadaxe above.
Hard to tell if bit inserted all the way to the eye,but possibly so.
Nice wedge shape,that poll would have to be 1" thick or better.
Blade ground to a very modern convex shape...

Beautiful axe,LOTS to think about there...
 
The photo made it through fine. It does look very compact there. Are you saying that you wish you'd pushed the steel more toward the top and bottom than toward the bit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
Exactly.
The length overall did't seem excessive...(7 1/4" now,before any sort of edge shaping).
Yet,somewhere,something got lost...Proportions seem way off.
Weight on a crude airline cargo scale 2 lbs...
 
I hope you can see in the top photo that the steel runs all the way to the eye. I wish I had documented the shape better before I hung it. The eye is somewhat rectangular, and traces of a little cold shut where the eye meets the steel. Generously cheeked.

seeing how you are doing this has already been so incredibly enlightening as I look at this piece. How some of the nuances were forged, etc.

This is 5.5" long on the dot from the apex of the edge. The poll is just a touch over two inches from top to bottom. The eye is 1 5/8" x 1/2", sides of eye roughly 1/8". It's 5/8" wide just behind the eye, and 1 1/8" from back of the eye to back of the poll.

I'll try to lay this out a little bit better so that it's not a bunch of convoluted measurements. I'll try and have a picture with dimensions up later tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top