What vintage axe should I buy for splitting

[Zacharias]

I'm writing this on my phone so sorry for any grammar issues.

I've been looking for an American-made vintage ax that I could buy and restore, for wood splitting specifically.
I have a lot of Swedish axes and want to change it up a bit. I don't want a maul since I don't really enjoy using them as much.
Anyhow, I'd really love some suggestions for what ax to get.

Have tried a few collins axes and I have really fallen in love with them but and brand goes.

 

[Storm W]

If you are into axe technique the longer the blade the more popping action is better with a longer blade so double bits are great. Other than that heavy heads are better. I have 4.5 to 5 lb Connecticut and Jersey patterns but probably something with a high centerline is going to work best. Any of the old brand names like Pumb, Kelly, Flint ect. Are great but a lot of old blades are nice.

 

[Brent Halverson]

Get a maul. The only reason you would not enjoy using one as much is because they split far better than an axe does? Or more likely it is that in today's society what is fashionable and trendy takes priority over what is practical.

 

[Hickory n steel]

Get a maul. The only reason you would not enjoy using one as much is because they split far better than an axe does? Or more likely it is that in today's society what is fashionable and trendy takes priority over what is practical.

That is not necessarily true.
With the right technique I've seen a well balanced 4lb double bit split as good as any maul.
They're lighter, faster, and less tiring to swing around.

As a teenager we had a maul, and I had my great grandfather's axe that was handed down to me to rehab / rehang and once I had that axe to use I never even looked at that maul again.

 

[Brent Halverson]

That is not necessarily true.
With the right technique I've seen a well balanced 4lb double bit split as good as any maul.
They're lighter, faster, and less tiring to swing around.

It is the shape of a maul that makes it better at splitting, not the weight. If you take the same weight axe and maul heads and without handles and drop them on identical pieces of wood, the maul will split the wood because it is much wider than the axe head, it is actually a splitting wedge with a hole in it made to fit on a stick. It's width pries the wood apart, where in the same piece of wood a narrow axe would just get stuck. There are silly splitting mauls sold to fools that weight ten pounds, but a maul of five to six pounds is all that is needed to do work much more efficiently than any standard chopping axe ever will. When I was in my early teens and probably 120 pounds in weight, 45+ years ago, my father had me splitting wood with a maul all summer long so much that I had perpetually torn and bleeding hands even with leather gloves on. So if anyone has trouble splitting wood with a standard light maul of six pounds they are either a very small pre-pubescent girl, or maybe an old man in their 80s, which in case yes, they should not do any more than split kindling with a hatchet or other light tool. Nothing you said has any basis in reality, fact or physics.

 

[the-accumulator]

I'm no expert at splitting with an axe or a maul, but I know that the type of wood being split should be part of the conversation. Rounds of well cured oak with perfectly straight grain I can almost split with a butter knife. White elm, on the other hand, (which is most of what I have available) is hard to split with a Briggs and Stratton! Elm doesn't actually split; it shreds! If I was talented enough to use the twisting technique when splitting easy oak, I would try an axe. When I split some oak a few days ago, I used a relatively small modern maul with much success. But the knotty rounds I saved for the B&S! Just my opinion... T-A

 

[Hickory n steel]

If you take the same weight axe and maul heads and without handles and drop them on identical pieces of wood, the maul will split the wood because it is much wider than the axe head, it is actually a splitting wedge with a hole in it made to fit on a stick. It's width pries the wood apart, where in the same piece of wood a narrow axe would just get stuck

I think you'll find that in the experiment you've described that most often the sharp axe bit would bite while the maul bit would just barely bite if at all then fall over.

The type of wood and type of axe and mauls being tested will determine which is the better choice, some times a maul can be a more dangerous less efficient tool that requires more energy then necessary to swing.

 

[Square_peg]

Rafting axe.

 

[G-pig]

It is the shape of a maul that makes it better at splitting, not the weight. If you take the same weight axe and maul heads and without handles and drop them on identical pieces of wood, the maul will split the wood because it is much wider than the axe head, it is actually a splitting wedge with a hole in it made to fit on a stick. It's width pries the wood apart, where in the same piece of wood a narrow axe would just get stuck. There are silly splitting mauls sold to fools that weight ten pounds, but a maul of five to six pounds is all that is needed to do work much more efficiently than any standard chopping axe ever will. When I was in my early teens and probably 120 pounds in weight, 45+ years ago, my father had me splitting wood with a maul all summer long so much that I had perpetually torn and bleeding hands even with leather gloves on. So if anyone has trouble splitting wood with a standard light maul of six pounds they are either a very small pre-pubescent girl, or maybe an old man in their 80s, which in case yes, they should not do any more than split kindling with a hatchet or other light tool. Nothing you said has any basis in reality, fact or physics.

 

[thunderstick]

For our native woods a long bit will stick. A shorter bit that thickens rapidly with a high center will split the native eastern woods the better than any other axe profile that I have tried. A 6# maul with an axe handle that is properly profiled and sharpened has proven to be the most efficient for me on our species.

 

[Ed Ricketts]

Another vote for a well designed splitting maul. It need not be of excessive weight.

 

[Miller '72]

I'm writing this on my phone so sorry for any grammar issues.

I've been looking for an American-made vintage ax that I could buy and restore, for wood splitting specifically.
I have a lot of Swedish axes and want to change it up a bit. I don't want a maul since I don't really enjoy using them as much.
Anyhow, I'd really love some suggestions for what ax to get.

Have tried a few collins axes and I have really fallen in love with them but and brand goes.

You process firewood from rounds?
Get a sharp axe 3½lbs plus.
A rafter would be sweet (square peg suggested). I primarily use a Heavy Wide Dayton or a 4lb Kelly Works Best Made double bit when splitting down from rounds (Hickory & Steel suggested a nice dbl bit as well).
After that a 3½lb axe will do the rest for me.

Grab about 3 splitting wedges.
Find yourself a good 4-8lb drilling wedge driver hammer.
Try a maul.

Use the axe and teach yourself to flick it.
Break the round at the edge and work a line in.

Use the wedges to break the rounds into quarters.

Try the maul, find what you like.

I have not used a splitting maul in years, I do use the axe and the wedges with a hammer when needed on the hardwoods.
Thats what I like and works for me.


Have you found and watched on you tube...An Axe to Grind..?
I can not recommend the full video enough and companion soft copy manual.

Let us know...updates!

 

[Square_peg]

I think part of what's going on here is that people are giving their best advice based on their own experiences with their own local wood. So we all have different experiences.