Thoughts on a Collins Hudson Bay style axe head

M

mhutch

Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Messages
88
Finally! After a few years of looking for old axes at garage sales and flea markets, I finally found a Hudson Bay pattern that wasn't priced like some ebay seller who thinks he has a gold brick. I bought it without even giving it a close look. It has zero rust and a beautiful patina--better than any other axe head I've found so far.

dxz4tw.jpg

From the top:
abmk1y.jpg

From the bottom:
1623zud.jpg


But now onto the issues. First, someone clearly pounded on the poll. Damn thing looks like a lead-nosed bullet entering a block of gelatin. But the eye doesn't appear to be deformed so I don't think it's an issue. Normally I'd grind off the mushroomed edges so they didn't stick out so much but I don't want to ruin the patina on this one. Not a big deal, really.
The next issue is what I'm a little confused about, maybe even disappointed in. From a birds eye view, the profile honestly doesn't appear as well-refined as I had expected for an old axe that usually gets so much attention and admiration. I wasn't alive back then so I don't really know but I've read enough on the internet to get the impression that back when axes were made the "right way" they had thin bits and concave cheeks that gently tapered to the eye. This is what I've seen on every video/blog post/thread that discusses what a "proper" axe head profile should be. It's also what I've observed on any of the high end modern axes like Gransfors, Wetterlings, etc...But it is entirely possible that this whole thin profile idea is just a bunch of internet bullshit and an axe doesn't really need to be ground that way. It's a crazy idea, I know, but the internet could be wrong. And that's what I am here to find out. Thoughts on the profile of this thing? Has anyone else seen a lot of Hudson Bay patterns? Did they look like this? Better? Worse?
 
Those were made by Mann Edge Tool Co. and are of medium quality for the period which is good quality today. It's the exact same axe as a Norlund from the same factory.

Thin cheeks like those are great for limbing and light bushcraft work which is what they're designed for. The thin cheeks don't do as well at bucking or splitting which your axe is really too light for anyway. So recognize it for what it is and use it and enjoy it for what it's intended for.

And I would absolutely file the poll flat. There's nothing sacred about these things. Just tune them up to do their job.
 
Square_peg said:
Those were made by Mann Edge Tool Co. and are of medium quality for the period which is good quality today. It's the exact same axe as a Norlund from the same factory.

Thin cheeks like those are great for limbing and light bushcraft work which is what they're designed for. The thin cheeks don't do as well at bucking or splitting which your axe is really too light for anyway. So recognize it for what it is and use it and enjoy it for what it's intended for.

And I would absolutely file the poll flat. There's nothing sacred about these things. Just tune them up to do their job.
Click to expand...

Thin cheeks? Hell, I was comparing it to my Gransfors hatchet and an old Hults Bruks I have, and I was thinking this one seemed a bit chunky and unrefined. If it were yours and you didn't care about the patina, would you grind the cheeks down and make it thinner, or make any other changes to the profile?

As for the poll...I'm on the fence and leaning against it. I've never found an old head with a patina like this so I don't want to sand that off but from the standpoint of pure functionality I realize it would be a good idea. Honestly I don't know if this thing will end up getting much heavy use. I already have a good hatchet and a 2-1/4 lb Hults Bruks on a 22" handle so those two are really everything I need for any backpacking/canoeing/hunting that I do. This one was not a purchase based on any need--it's a collector's item. I can always grind it down later if I decide I want to make it a workhorse.
 
I wouldn't thin it at all.

Here's one I used to own. I'm not big on the pattern so I sold it.

HB%201.jpg
 
I'd take a hammer and carefully pound back down as much of that poll material that you can, then use an angle grinder or file and take down the rest.
You should be able to avoid ruining any of the patina on the rest of the head.
BTW if you find any axe heads that are rusty, a softer wire wheel used with care will remove that rust revealing a nice patina underneath.
 
mhutch said:
Finally! After a few years of looking for old axes at garage sales and flea markets, I finally found a Hudson Bay pattern that wasn't priced like some ebay seller who thinks he has a gold brick. I bought it without even giving it a close look. It has zero rust and a beautiful patina--better than any other axe head I've found so far.

dxz4tw.jpg

From the top:
abmk1y.jpg

From the bottom:
1623zud.jpg


But now onto the issues. First, someone clearly pounded on the poll. Damn thing looks like a lead-nosed bullet entering a block of gelatin. But the eye doesn't appear to be deformed so I don't think it's an issue. Normally I'd grind off the mushroomed edges so they didn't stick out so much but I don't want to ruin the patina on this one. Not a big deal, really.
The next issue is what I'm a little confused about, maybe even disappointed in. From a birds eye view, the profile honestly doesn't appear as well-refined as I had expected for an old axe that usually gets so much attention and admiration. I wasn't alive back then so I don't really know but I've read enough on the internet to get the impression that back when axes were made the "right way" they had thin bits and concave cheeks that gently tapered to the eye. This is what I've seen on every video/blog post/thread that discusses what a "proper" axe head profile should be. It's also what I've observed on any of the high end modern axes like Gransfors, Wetterlings, etc...But it is entirely possible that this whole thin profile idea is just a bunch of internet bullshit and an axe doesn't really need to be ground that way. It's a crazy idea, I know, but the internet could be wrong. And that's what I am here to find out. Thoughts on the profile of this thing? Has anyone else seen a lot of Hudson Bay patterns? Did they look like this? Better? Worse?
Click to expand...


Keep in mind, those cost more than many other patterns simply because they are harder to find. And people ask prices that are higher because some people are willing to pay them. It's not any different than anything else- relative scarcity and desirability have a direct connection to price. There is a reason that Black Ravens don't cost $25.
 
And in all honesty I'm definitely a part of the crowd that makes things that way. I have no fixation on the Hudson Bay pattern due to its usefulness--it's just an aesthetically-appealing tool with a good history, and the fact that it is highly sought after and talked about has given me the crazy idea that it must somehow be great.
 
Hickory n steel said:
I'd take a hammer and carefully pound back down as much of that poll material that you can, then use an angle grinder or file and take down the rest.
You should be able to avoid ruining any of the patina on the rest of the head.
BTW if you find any axe heads that are rusty, a softer wire wheel used with care will remove that rust revealing a nice patina underneath.
Click to expand...

Any risk in hammering on the poll? How do I ensure that I don't deform the eye or anything? Do you hit it directly with the hammer or use the hammer to pound on a block of wood or something?

I've honestly never heard of anyone doing this so please excuse my questioning.
 
Woodcraft said:
Then I am confused by your op.
Click to expand...

Likewise I'm a bit confused by your...confusion. I mean, I can imagine this thing is from the 60's/70's or earlier. Maybe I should have specified earlier-- I am unaware of a reliable way to estimate age accurately for an axe like a Collins. I've got an old Collins homestead axe from the 80's with a stamp that looks just like this one but I've also seen axes with a similar stamp that people claimed to be from the 50's. So I don't really know. It's mostly speculation. If anyone has ways to determining the age of something like an axe head with a range of accuracy within 5-10 years...I'm all ears.
 
if norlund went to the 80s ,maybe not even 20 years they made that pattern
i feel for you if thats the best head you have found
 
mhutch said:
Any risk in hammering on the poll? How do I ensure that I don't deform the eye or anything? Do you hit it directly with the hammer or use the hammer to pound on a block of wood or something?

I've honestly never heard of anyone doing this so please excuse my questioning.
Click to expand...
All you need to do is hammer on the mushroomed out material on the top bottom and sides of the poll.
Since you'll only be contacting the mushroomed out material there's no risk of deforming the eye, just make sure you wear eye pro in case anything comes off and don't use anything too heavy.
 
mhutch said:
Likewise I'm a bit confused by your...confusion. I mean, I can imagine this thing is from the 60's/70's or earlier. Maybe I should have specified earlier-- I am unaware of a reliable way to estimate age accurately for an axe like a Collins. I've got an old Collins homestead axe from the 80's with a stamp that looks just like this one but I've also seen axes with a similar stamp that people claimed to be from the 50's. So I don't really know. It's mostly speculation. If anyone has ways to determining the age of something like an axe head with a range of accuracy within 5-10 years...I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying in the op you are disappointed in the profile and geometry of this axe and you expect better from a vintage axe made when axes were made correctly.
But you do not know when this axe was made.
 
Square_peg said:
Those were made by Mann Edge Tool Co. and are of medium quality for the period which is good quality today. It's the exact same axe as a Norlund from the same factory.

Thin cheeks like those are great for limbing and light bushcraft work which is what they're designed for. The thin cheeks don't do as well at bucking or splitting which your axe is really too light for anyway. So recognize it for what it is and use it and enjoy it for what it's intended for.

And I would absolutely file the poll flat. There's nothing sacred about these things. Just tune them up to do their job.
Click to expand...
Dependent on the weight these the Hudson Bay is extremely interesting to me. It seems to be an improvement over the hawk. But still a belt ax. As I have seen it advertised as a trappers and belt ax. As you have pointed out the shallow eye may be an issue. And what use is an ax like this? I imagine it now in the Bushcraft world. But historically it must have fed the fire on the line or at camp. Perhaps a hunters or trappers ax. So it would be a splitting ax. As well as other small tasks. After reading reviews and consideration of the shallow eye problem I landed on the Wetterlings version. The convex cheeks and deep eye combined with the thick head leave me shouting it's praise. (We all know by now how I feel about short handles so I will graze past.) But to get to the point. I recall a claim that Wetterlings used a 1970s pattern to make the new Hudson Bay. So.......
Would the 1970s be the heyday of the Hudson Bay pattern?

(My next project is to unhang my Wetterlings Hudson Bay and hang it on a good boys handle)
 
The earlier Collins Hudson Bay was made by approximately 1900 and was marked Collins Legitimus. They were always marketed towards campers, trappers, and the like. They were not logging axes. They were designed for small wood so were a flatter profile. Later Collins changed the axe stamp to the block style like yours. This was about WWII but I'm unsure of the exact year. So I would guess WWII to 1966 would be the age. The poll was designed for hammering tent stakes, trap anchors, etc. but some people get carried away with the hammering. The poll is not hardened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top