What are the performance differences between Tomahawk eye vs Axe Wedge eye

Thunderstick, tomahawks had all type of eyes, look at this page,

http://www.furtradetomahawks.com/the-iroquois-spike-tomahawks.html

The steel tomahawk was a evolution of the trade axe. Most of the first trade axes and the oldest trade axe recorded in North American history are Biscayne axes, carpenter type Basque axe. Look at these,

http://www.furtradetomahawks.com/biscayne-trade-axes.html

[video=youtube;4jpw-PbR3wg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jpw-PbR3wg[/video]

I have experience with these type of axes, I have tried to learn its history and I have rehafted normal and oval eye axes and cilindrical eyes on other type of tools. I think I know what I'm speaking about.

Thinking about you have written, I don't think you have ever used a conical cilindrical eye axe and your post telling "If the handle breaks in the woods, you could burn out the eye in a campfire" makes me think you don't have much practical experience in axe manteinance.

There is a simple way to see what type of axe is easier to rehaft. I apologize if I don't use correct terms, English is my third language and I don't dominate completely the technical side of it.

Today globally normal type eye,

1.-Take out the broken handle, it can take you a bit because it has not a prefered exit way.
2.-Take a piece of wood and give it the shape you need.
3.-Take a saw an cut the handle were you are going to insert the wedge. Note, you need a saw.
4.-Take a piece of wood and fabricate a wedge.
5.-Fit the handle in the head.
6.-Insert the wedge in its position.

Slip-fit type eye,

1.-Take out the broken handle. It will be easier than the wedge type of eye because it is conic. Hit from the bottom side of the eye till it gets out.
2.-Take a piece of wood and give it the shape you need.
3.-Fit the handle in the head.

As I have posted in other topic all axemakers could implement conic eyes in their axes and they could sell them with a normal handle. This way when a handle breaks you could rehandle it with any handle you want or can. I have sent emails to (in my opinion) the best axe manufacturers explaining my point of view and I haven't had any response. I don't know, my emails can be in the "crazy axe fan" bin or the need to buy them any new handle, or even an entire new axe, can be a purely commercial decision. I think the second one is the true, take Fiskars as a example.

Square_peg, I like your idea. Its a good method when you are in a hurry, but it will not stand the pounding a normal handle can suffer. I'll read and take part in your topic as soon as I can, this topic has consumed almost all my time.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the replies. I learned a lot. please dont hesitate give more replies if is there is more information and insight to be had.
 
"Thinking about you have written, I don't think you have ever used a conical cilindrical eye axe and your post telling "If the handle breaks in the woods, you could burn out the eye in a campfire" makes me think you don't have much practical experience in axe manteinance."

That's correct just burn it out ... I would have thought someone with practical axe experience would have known of this ... http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2011/04/removing-axe-handle-in-woods.html

No matter what type of tomahawk eye is considered, the secured/wedged head is superior for working. I primarily take an axe into the woods to use it not to change its handle. If your tomahawk uses anything other than an oblong or round handle you will spend more time making a slip joint than I who only needs to fit the one end to the head and not the whole shaft to slide thru it. Seldom would an axe handle become an imminent survival situation, but if its a matter of survival it can be made and wedged. As mentioned, the world found better ways than a slip joint to secure a head.
 
Last edited:
It really depends on the technology and tools available to the individual using the tool, honestly. There's a reason why slip-fit eyes were (and still are) popular amongst Central/South American laborers. They're still the single most common type of eye there. Also, there's a reason why such handles are used on tools like pickaxes, many sorts of hoes, etc. that tend to get chewed up a lot. Now, it sounds like you personally don't encounter circumstances that make such an eye design advantageous, and that's fine. A wedged handle is better for you. But there ARE reasons for using a slip-fit rather than a wedge, and they remain a popular style in much of the world today. I wouldn't be so hasty to paint appropriate tool selection with a broad brush. :)
 
Also, if you've had experiences with slip-fit tools loosening I'm prone to believe that you haven't been fitting them properly. You don't just slide the head on and go; you tamp it on tightly. I've never had a head loosen on me with a slip-fit eye.

How much hands-on experience do you actually have with slip-fit eyed tools?
 
I know you can burn the eye and I know its easier to do it in a slip-fit eye, but it's a very bad way to take out the handle. The eye is the axe weakest point, diferentially hardening it, as I have said, is a bad idea.

I respect any preference anybody can have, but your preference does not make it the better option for all, thunderstick if you prefer wedged haft eye, no problem. You affirmate wedged eye is superior for work, I ask you the same question as FortyTwoBlades, how much hands-on experience do you actually have with slip-fit eyed tools? Take in account there are many type eye types, conical and cilindrical ones included.

You say that most manufacturers use your prefered eye type so this kind is the best. It is not a good logical way to think, if you extend this thinking way you can reach weird conclussions as high heeled shoes are the most ergonomic human walking implement.
 
Ugaldie, In checking out your tomahawk links, it seems that many wedge hatchet heads were adapted (forged) to a marketable head. The slip fit eyes are (seemingly) larger across the eye?

42', After thousands, tens of thousands strikes with a pick ax...the head will loosen. The wood compresses upon impact, it dries out a little, it descends upon your upper hand. You can put tape directly under the head to keep it from falling, but it will loosen.
 
Bo T said:
Ugaldie, In checking out your tomahawk links, it seems that many wedge hatchet heads were adapted (forged) to a marketable head. The slip fit eyes are (seemingly) larger across the eye?

42', After thousands, tens of thousands strikes with a pick ax...the head will loosen. The wood compresses upon impact, it dries out a little, it descends upon your upper hand. You can put tape directly under the head to keep it from falling, but it will loosen.
Click to expand...

Tamp it in place. The reason for loosening with a pickaxe is usually crushing of the wood from extreme leverage and pressure being applied in the wrong direction. Tamp the head on and it'll hold firm. Using a solid surface, upend the tool and give the head end of the handle several good hard raps on it. the head will snug down TIGHT. I've delivered tens of thousands of strikes with a pick mattock and not had it loosen. If the wood shrinks from drying out, just tamp it again and you're good. But if that happened with a wedged eye you have a truly loose head that runs the risk of flying off. That's how we get those antique heads with the eye stuff full of nails and washers. :D
 
A number 6 or 7 pick eye will easily slip over a handle with a substantial swell. That's why picks can use that system. But a pick is never driving in to wood all the way to the eye so the fat eye doesn't cause any problem with a pick. But a fat eye on an axe is a problem.

Incidentally, a miner's or drift pick uses a kerf & wedge system like a double bit axe. I'm working on one of those now and will post pics when finished.
 
Square_peg said:
A number 6 or 7 pick eye will easily slip over a handle with a substantial swell. That's why picks can use that system. But a pick is never driving in to wood all the way to the eye so the fat eye doesn't cause any problem with a pick. But a fat eye on an axe is a problem.

Incidentally, a miner's or drift pick uses a kerf & wedge system like a double bit axe. I'm working on one of those now and will post pics when finished.
Click to expand...

See also, adzes, eye hoes, etc.

And again, a fat eye on an axe is never (that I've seen) in the same range as a pick eye, and are not substantially larger than wedge eyes. Furthermore, most axes with thin bits that do not smoothly transition into the eye have bits so deep that you'd never drive a blow so deep as to bottom them out. You'd stick the blade badly long before that would happen, and the edge angle on pretty much all axes is greater than the angle of the edge shoulder to eye. As such the eye is sitting within the "wedge space" created by the edge angle, and shouldn't cause significant issues in deep chopping. The only time that becomes problematic would be in splitting, for which a thin-bitted design is poorly suited on the basis of bit geometry anyhow.

I don't have a Pulaski personally, but I'm willing to bet I could do some deep chopping with one just fine so long as the mattock blade was within the umbra of the edge of the axe. :)
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I don't have a Pulaski personally, but I'm willing to bet I could do some deep chopping with one just fine so long as the mattock blade was within the umbra of the edge of the axe. :)
Click to expand...
"Should you choose to accept this mission the tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds". Go for it; wasn't long for me to become an ardent convert once I had one in my hands.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Also, if you've had experiences with slip-fit tools loosening I'm prone to believe that you haven't been fitting them properly. You don't just slide the head on and go; you tamp it on tightly. I've never had a head loosen on me with a slip-fit eye.

How much hands-on experience do you actually have with slip-fit eyed tools?
Click to expand...

All the comments I'm making are primarily within the context of a tomahawk with a slip fit handle and a belt axe of a similar size - 18"-22". With the original poster using the word "tomahawk eye" in comparison with an "axe wedge eye" I'm assuming this is an apples to apples comparison for this specific context. None of my comments were directed to any other tools--such as adzes or picks. I know how to fit and tamp the head of a tomahawk very tight. I have a traditional "Shawnee" tomahawk. I like it for throwing, but it would not hold a candle to one of my belt axes as a working tool after doing many side by side comparisons. I have found that over a regular work session, even if you start out with a very tight handle, sometimes you may need to tap the handle a few times to keep things snug. Even if you don't need to tamp the handle occasionally, the performance of this typical tomahawk design does not allow it to work as efficiently as a belt axe with the same size handle. I respect the right of others to prefer the slip joint for whatever reasons they are ... but I firmly believe that in an objective comparison of a typical 18-22" tomahawk to a typical 18-22" belt axe (conventional or Hudson Bay), the axe will show show itself superior in every respect. I don't consider handle replacement carrying much weight at all in the consideration as I would evaluate the tool on the basis of efficient work and not how fast I can replace handles.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Tamp it in place. The reason for loosening with a pickaxe is usually crushing of the wood from extreme leverage and pressure being applied in the wrong direction. Tamp the head on and it'll hold firm. Using a solid surface, upend the tool and give the head end of the handle several good hard raps on it. the head will snug down TIGHT. I've delivered tens of thousands of strikes with a pick mattock and not had it loosen. If the wood shrinks from drying out, just tamp it again and you're good. But if that happened with a wedged eye you have a truly loose head that runs the risk of flying off. That's how we get those antique heads with the eye stuff full of nails and washers. :D
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the way to set the head. A pick axe is meant to lift and pry in order to dislodge rocks or break up caliche. I've never broken a handle but I've loosened the head. And I concur, if you use an axe or hatchet enough, the head will become loose also. The difference is in which direction it travels when it slips.

I have tried chopping with a Pulaski, and I've found the results to be poor relative to a good single or double bit axe. I think we are really talking efficiency at a given task. I wouldn't hesitate to use a Pulaski to chop a tree if that is what I had.
 
Indeed, a Pulaski wouldn't be my first choice for such work, but I just don't think that the mattock blade would get in the way all that badly so long as it was in the umbra of the edge angle. Efficiency vs. resiliency is always a concern with design, but also generality vs. specificity of application. A Pulaski is a generalized too with a specific intended setting.

As far as eventual loosening of axes goes, when it happens with a slip-fit handle all it takes to tighten it up again is to tamp it again, and the head won't ever go flying off the end of the handle unless it breaks or was undersized to begin with. Wedged handles still can and do loosen, and perhaps models like the Hudson Bay that are notorious for it would even be a good match for the handle style (perhaps sold with a wedged handle outfitted on it but a slip-fit eye style like Ugaldie suggests.) Chopping performance is just one aspect of total performance and suitability of the tool for a user and their tasks. I'm not saying that one style is inherently better than another--quite the opposite in fact. There are just good reasons why both styles have been popular in the past and continue to be so today.
 
A pulaski is actually a very good chopper. Most of the time it serves as well as any axe. I use one often enough to know. But occasionally when working a deep cut the adze will cause it to bind when it forces the bit over.

One such occurrence was when I was cutting this 27 Doug Fir.

Tom%20with%20Pulaski2.jpg
 
FortyTwoBlades, it's a pleasure to find someone how knows about axe eye issues beyond the wedged one. I have never met anyone before you in english speaking forums.

I think conic oval slip fit eye is the best eye even when the head is secured with a wedged handle. The wedge and the conical shape eye will pressure each other tightening them.

To try to make my explanations more visual, here you have an axe of one of my familiy member. It's a Tomas Erviti basque axe, they stopped forging axes more or less 30 years ago, this example has at least 50 years of hard use. This axe has the eye I'm refering to.

_MG_2931.jpg
_MG_2960.jpg_MG_2970.jpg
_MG_2974.jpg

Images are not perfectly centered but they are useful. As I have told its beech handle has never been changed, it hasn't got any loosening and it is in perfect working shape. As you see in the last photo the wood has gone drying and the head loosening, to tight it the user only has had to hit the bottom of the head. If the axe is used constantly you can sometimes see that the head has gone seating itself though years without any user help. This axe's actual user doesn't remember if he ever tightened it.
 
Last edited:
Here you have another old axe, a Tomas Erviti axe again but a carpenter (Byscaine) one. Its old, my father in law told me he remembers the axe was at home in the 60'. It was rehanded in mid 90', more or less, and it has had very little usage last years.

_MG_2807.jpg
_MG_2802.jpg_MG_2814.jpg_MG_2853.jpg

As you can see it is a piece of steel wrapped in iron, San Mai as people likes to call it today, sadwiched as always has said. At first the eye was more oval, but someone used it as a hammer and now is somewhat deformed. I have posted those photos to confirm what has been said about this type of axe. The eye is proportionally very wide, but the bit is so deep the eye doesn't disturb you when you are working. Take a look, the bit is so deep that the edge angles point outside the eye.
 
Last edited:
Tapered oval is definitely the way to go. I do think that some of the higher quality vintage north American heads also have a narrower eye at the back than at the front.
 
Yeah, truly round eyes are just kind of a bad idea for tools like axes, period. Doesn't matter the eye classification if the shape itself is crummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top