# Best maul?



## musch (Oct 31, 2006)

What do you guys use?
I am looking for something sharp, well balanced, durable.
The usual hardware store stuff is pretty lo-tek.
Any suggestions?


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Oct 31, 2006)

I love my monster maul. That and the occasional use of a cheap 8 pound maul does it for me. Now that I'm used to the monster, the 8 pounder is too light.


Some folks here really like this beast:









Some discussion on it here:

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=34201


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Nov 1, 2006)

I use a regular lo-tech 6 lb maul with a fiberglass handle. What I don't like about the Vario is the wooden handle, an expensive one that you have to special order. No going down to the hardware store for a quick replacement. Now put that out with a fiberglass handle and price it on par with a good regular maul and I'd have one.

Anyone use one of those Slide Hammer splitters? Seems the slide part would have to weigh a bunch to offset the speed you have swinging a maul.


----------



## Freakingstang (Nov 1, 2006)

BlueRidgeMark said:


> I love my monster maul. That and the occasional use of a cheap 8 pound maul does it for me. Now that I'm used to the monster, the 8 pounder is too light.



My thoughts exactly


----------



## JBFab (Nov 1, 2006)

I purchased a Fiskars splitting maul last year, 






I am extremely impressed with this unit, it cost me about $40 USD, but worth every penny. Very light, and I see no way that the handle could possibly be broken, its actually some type of light gauge metal.


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Nov 1, 2006)

JBFab said:


> I purchased a Fiskars splitting maul last year,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have thier ax with is very light nice for taking with me in to the woods with my chainsaw, very sharp work well, I have let to see their maul, I would be very interested in seeing it. I use the standard hardware store 8 pound maul, I too like the idea behind the Vario but the wood handel is a big no no, make it fiberglass like Haywire Haywood said

I would like to try a monster maul but I can not find it locally, which means shipping it with tends to cost as much as the maul itself. I found a smaller 8 pound version locally but if I am going to buy one I want the big one.


----------



## stihlgoin (Nov 1, 2006)

*Call me old fashioned*

For past 6 years I have been using an old "12 pound" maul that I inherited from my grandpa. Well he called it a 12 pound so I assume the old ones may have some variations from the newer ones. I have only replaced the handle twice so I guess for the price I cant complain.


----------



## Doctor Dave (Nov 1, 2006)

JUDGE1162 said:


> I have thier ax with is very light nice for taking with me in to the woods with my chainsaw, very sharp work well, I have let to see their maul, I would be very interested in seeing it. I use the standard hardware store 8 pound maul, I too like the idea behind the Vario but the wood handel is a big no no, make it fiberglass like Haywire Haywood said
> 
> I would like to try a monster maul but I can not find it locally, which means shipping it with tends to cost as much as the maul itself. I found a smaller 8 pound version locally but if I am going to buy one I want the big one.




I've broken fiberglass handles as well as wood. Then again, I take my boy scouts cutting firewood to raise money for camp. They are harder on handles than beavers on willow trees. I dop like the feel of a good hickory handle better than fiberglass. If they would just hit the round (or wedge) with the head ...

I'd like to find an all-metal monster mall for them to use; however, it might be too heavy for some of them. The Scouts are actually most useful for forming a line to load and unload---13 and 14 year olds just aren't used to hard work (like splitting) for more than 10 min at a time. Now, back in the day...


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Nov 1, 2006)

Doctor Dave said:


> I've broken fiberglass handles as well as wood. Then again, I take my boy scouts cutting firewood to raise money for camp. They are harder on handles than beavers on willow trees. I dop like the feel of a good hickory handle better than fiberglass. If they would just hit the round (or wedge) with the head ...
> 
> I'd like to find an all-metal monster mall for them to use; however, it might be too heavy for some of them. The Scouts are actually most useful for forming a line to load and unload---13 and 14 year olds just aren't used to hard work (like splitting) for more than 10 min at a time. Now, back in the day...




They do make smaller monster mauls, it seems like the only type I can find for sale around me, I have seen an 8 pound all metal monster maul (even with a short handel) which might be good for them, not sure if 8 pounds is to heavy but it has to be better then the 12 pound ones


----------



## Foghorn (Nov 1, 2006)

I like my Timberwolf; the only problem is it's really heavy @ 400+lbs:hmm3grin2orange: 

Seriously I have an old 10lb all metal maul that will bust anything a maul can bust, and then I have a 4lb maul(a Christmas present to my wife last year  she loves it). The 4lb maul I got at lowes or homedepot; it's got a plastic handle and is great for busting smaller stuff...


----------



## Dr. Hackemoff (Nov 1, 2006)

JUDGE1162 said:


> I have thier ax with is very light nice for taking with me in to the woods with my chainsaw, very sharp work well, I have let to see their maul, I would be very interested in seeing it. I use the standard hardware store 8 pound maul, I too like the idea behind the Vario but the wood handel is a big no no, make it fiberglass like Haywire Haywood said
> I would like to try a monster maul but I can not find it locally, which means shipping it with tends to cost as much as the maul itself. I found a smaller 8 pound version locally but if I am going to buy one I want the big one.



Hey Judge, as you wish...

http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/12265

The HelkoTomahawk series. I'm looking to buy one soon myself!


----------



## MS-310 (Nov 1, 2006)

Dr. Hackemoff said:


> Hey Judge, as you wish...
> 
> http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/12265
> 
> The HelkoTomahawk series. I'm looking to buy one soon myself!



so what is the best one????(D) Tomahawk 1300G Universal Axe $53.99 is that the same as the one that BlueRidgeMark has but with an glass handle?
Dam I want to find an good AXE so how do you think that 12 pound monster maul works???


----------



## Dr. Hackemoff (Nov 1, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> so what is the best one????(D) Tomahawk 1300G Universal Axe $53.99 is that the same as the one that BlueRidgeMark has but with an glass handle?
> Dam I want to find an good AXE so how do you think that 12 pound monster maul works???



Careful, their website might be honked up. The big [email protected] splitting axe is 2300 grams and $64.99. The picture doesn't match the description quite right. 

I would guess that one would work as well or better than any standard eight pounder. We need a champion/volunteer to perform some comprehensive testing.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Nov 1, 2006)

MS-310 said:


> is that the same as the one that BlueRidgeMark has but with an glass handle?
> 
> Let me clarify - I don't have the Helio - RaisedByWolves does.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Nov 1, 2006)

Cool... fiberglass handle... now get the price down in the $25 range.  

Ian


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Nov 1, 2006)

Yeah don't hold your breath on that I would settle for the $40 range


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Nov 1, 2006)

Dr. Hackemoff said:


> Hey Judge, as you wish...
> 
> http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/12265
> 
> The HelkoTomahawk series. I'm looking to buy one soon myself!





LOL, that was just what I was thinking!



So far Im having good luck with mine and it has taken a few shots to the "Over strike guard" with no Ill effects. I was disappointed to see that they had a new line out with fiberglass handles so soon after buying mine, but then I realised....... All their parts are interchangable!  



The way the head mounts is supposed to distribute the load in a less damaging pattern than the traditional swedged handle.


But if I do break it, Ill upgrade the handle to the fiber model, Mostly cause I think it looks cool!


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Nov 1, 2006)

Do you think the overstrike protector will fit the fiberglass handle? It looks as if they don't come standard with them.

Hi, you can call me Ian, but Overkill is my middle name.


----------



## ciscoguy01 (Nov 1, 2006)

*Mauls*

I have 3 mauls I use regularly. A 16lb triangular head maul, and 2 smaller headed mauls, 1 10lb and 1 6lb. All are pretty good, I prefer the 16lber for everything. That baby will split anything under the sun in a couple wacks. I've had it since I was like 16, am 33 now. I've beaten so many blocks with it that I have to bend it back straight every now and again. You NEVER will worry about replacing this maul again. You'll have to check around where you can get them as I'm not sure. Hope this helps...


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Nov 2, 2006)

ciscoguy01, I see you have a lot of birch in that wagon, have you had good experience burning it, I see on the BTU tables they tend to be low value, I cut some for clearing work an plan to burn it, figured why waste it but was looking to see how you liked it.


----------



## NORTHERN NYer (Nov 2, 2006)

I like to burn the birch pictured decent quick heat, but I really like the smell of it burning. The birch in the pic(we call it white birch, not sure) I try to use the same year its cut(6-9 months), seems to rought really quick and gets light as a feather. The best I have found is the yellow birch, better btu's from it and still the same nice birch smell. It can be a bear to split though if you get a log with alot of limbs and knots. I would take birch over alot of other wood out there. Just my opinion.


----------



## Dr. Hackemoff (Nov 2, 2006)

Haywire Haywood said:


> Do you think the overstrike protector will fit the fiberglass handle? It looks as if they don't come standard with them.
> 
> Hi, you can call me Ian, but Overkill is my middle name.




I believe either the toughness of the handle doesn't require the use of the overstrike protector. More info:

http://www.helko.de/produkt/tomahawke.htm


----------



## ciscoguy01 (Nov 2, 2006)

*Birch*



JUDGE1162 said:


> ciscoguy01, I see you have a lot of birch in that wagon, have you had good experience burning it, I see on the BTU tables they tend to be low value, I cut some for clearing work an plan to burn it, figured why waste it but was looking to see how you liked it.



Hey dude, I've always had good luck with birch. It's considered a hardwood I guess, but I believe it's one of the softest of the hardwoods. It does make beautiful tongue and groove or cabinetry. For burning, I like it. Only bad thing is if you knock it down and don't split it right away, it seems to rot quite quickly, because of the bark I believe. It produces a hot hot fire, kinda like popple, but burns alot longer for me. It's always splits extremely easy, once split dries pretty fast. You can bust it up small and it's great kindling to build your fire with. It's a good overall wood I think. Of the 20 or so cord of wood I get a year, probably 8 or so is birch. I'll take all I can get. Hope that helps guy. I guess you know it's very prevalent up here in the dacks... Also, I save all the bark, it's awesome to start your fires with.


----------



## ciscoguy01 (Nov 2, 2006)

*Yup*



NORTHERN NYer said:


> I like to burn the birch pictured decent quick heat, but I really like the smell of it burning. The birch in the pic(we call it white birch, not sure) I try to use the same year its cut(6-9 months), seems to rought really quick and gets light as a feather. The best I have found is the yellow birch, better btu's from it and still the same nice birch smell. It can be a bear to split though if you get a log with alot of limbs and knots. I would take birch over alot of other wood out there. Just my opinion.



That is white birch. Yellow birch is a little less common, but is here also. That's a much harder wood, it seems to me, and when it gets bigger, no joke, it looks red red like cherry on the inside. Yellow birch is beautiful wood for anything.


----------



## STIHLSamantha (Nov 2, 2006)

me being a short lady with a short arm length, i require a smaller maul but with a heavier head. my husband and i managed to find a nice small maul but the head was too light....so we added some weight to the head using pipe welded to it, a closed screw top, and two small pennies in the center for good luck splitting power....one with his birth year on it and one with mine....check it out...it splits like a gem! I will never split with another till this one falls apart...the only down fall is that the screw parts will rust, so i have to keep it out of the rain and snow...not like the other mauls and splitting wedges we have. Tell me what you think...haha....


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Nov 2, 2006)

Hey! That's cheating! 


Doesn't that make it a bit top heavy?


----------



## STIHLSamantha (Nov 2, 2006)

haha, yeah it does...but that was the idea....i needed something heavier than what the maul originally was so that way it would carry through the wood i was splitting better....i've been using it ever since we modified it, and my accuracy and number of swings have improved greatly....not only that, it is very very comfortable to swing with....the handle is light but the top does it's job....not only that...but once it gets a little light, the top un-screws so i can add more weight into the compartment...i can't help it...i'm a cheater....haha...


----------



## chainsaw1 (Nov 2, 2006)

Where can i find a Vario 2000 at i did a serch and nothing turned up?


----------



## SRT-Tech (Nov 2, 2006)

http://www.hartvilletool.com/product/11718


----------



## musch (Nov 2, 2006)

Thanks for all the helpful responses. I will get a vario, and see how that works. 
 
As for the birch topic. 
There is a lot of it here in southern wisconsin, and it is almost included among firewood piles. It seems to dry fast, and it burns fast and hot too.
I like to use the dried bark, and smaller pieces as kindling for other wood like maple and oak. 
Its a real nice wood to burn, but if you load up a stove with it, it tends to overburn some, hard to damper down if seasoned right. JMHO.

:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## ciscoguy01 (Nov 2, 2006)

*Birch*



musch said:


> Thanks for all the helpful responses. I will get a vario, and see how that works.
> 
> As for the birch topic.
> There is a lot of it here in southern wisconsin, and it is almost included among firewood piles. It seems to dry fast, and it burns fast and hot too.
> ...



Yea, you really gotta starve it if you burn alot of small pieces. BTW, I love wisconsin dude. Was there for a couple weeks a yr or so ago in Menomenee falls near milwaukee, we went all over the place, Black River Falls was my fave for sure. Very pretty country... And I'm a big Pack fan


----------



## Rspike (Nov 3, 2006)

*Helko Vario - 2000*

Yep , That what i ended up getting about a month or so back after reading RaisedByWolves post on them. 
Great splitter. I got the "36058 (A) Helko 2300G Heavy Splitting Axe "
There on sale this week i noticed and my shipping was $9.
I used the Helko Vario - 2000 splitter to fine tune my wood pile in the early fall and late spring for smaller splits and warmer weather. 

Thanks for the heads up RaisedByWolves.


----------



## chainsaw1 (Nov 3, 2006)

Thank you for the link i just ordered my Helko 2000. That will go nice with my 22 ton spliter.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Nov 3, 2006)

No problem RSpike!




Glad to here you like the axe.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Nov 3, 2006)

No problem RSpike!




Glad to here you like the axe.


----------



## musch (Nov 8, 2006)

Got the Helko Tomahawk 2300g axe today.
Works awesome. I cant believe that a 5# axe can outperform a 8# maul.

Thanks a lot guys.


----------



## logbutcher (Nov 9, 2006)

*Birch Firewood*



musch said:


> There is a lot of it here in southern wisconsin, and it is almost included among firewood piles. It seems to dry fast, and it burns fast and hot too.I like to use the dried bark, and smaller pieces as kindling for other wood like maple and oak. Its a real nice wood to burn, but if you load up a stove with it, it tends to overburn some, hard to damper down if seasoned right. JMHO.:hmm3grin2orange:



Paper/White Birch gets more common the further north you are. Our coastal Downeast woodlands have too much of it since the forests were cut off pre-WWII and grew up with spruce and fir mixed w birch as a "pioneer" species. The "doghair" spruce woods were so thick and skinny that deer wouldn't go through. Birch grows fast and small first after clearing. Birch is close to 1/2 of the wood we burn, then red/"soft" maple, some brown and green ash, then little red oak. You burn the trees you got, Alaska and Canada burn a lot of spruce/fir.
On our place, the spruce and fir are sold for pulp and sawlogs. The hardwoods for heating here. We cut and do TSI (Timber Stand Improvement)for later harvesting,mostly in the winter : easier to move around on frozen ground, and it's cooler to work the woods.
Birch rots or pooches  fast, so the bark needs to be slit when the tree is dropped...easy to do before bucking. Run the lower tip of the saw along the bark to open it up for drying. I use the thin splits for starting, then mix the thicker splits for longer fires. It's a soft hardwood for heating but we use what's there. . 
Send us your surplus oak, hickory, hard maple.....now. Will NOT work for free firewood. :spam:


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 6, 2006)

*Update*

I bought one of those Super Splitters at wally world this weekend. The only thing I don't like about it right off is it's light, only 4lbs.  So naturally I had to drill and tap the back of it and add on an extra pound of 1.25" solid square stock to the back of it with 5/16 grade 8 bolts. I'll get to try it this weekend on some standing dead oak over at a co-worker's house. If it isn't heavy enough, I'm going to get some 1.25" 3/16 wall square tube, weld some ends on it, and pour it full of molten wheel weights before I bolt it on. That should add 2-3 lbs.


----------



## ray benson (Dec 6, 2006)

When the maul doesn't go completely through the wood, the exposed bolt heads would be damaged from hitting the maul with a sledge.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 6, 2006)

I've never in my life hit a maul with anything.

Ian


----------



## ray benson (Dec 7, 2006)

Wow, you are fortunate. Some of the wood in our area you must beat the heck out of it. Sometimes burying the maul and wedges in it to get it split. Especially the elms, cottonwoods,and any gnarly pieces. Here is part of my splitting tools. The center wedge is almost a foot long with a 3"x3" face.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 7, 2006)

I'm too fat and out of shape to be wrestling with that array of torture instruments... anything that won't split within 5 or so blows from the maul gets split with the chainsaw. I like making a big pile of curly fries.  

Ian


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 10, 2006)

The super splitter is not so super apparently. Did this in about 15 minutes. we'll see how good their lifetime warranty is. I hope they don't notice those 2 threaded holes in the back... LOL it did seem to work well while it lasted.


----------



## SRT-Tech (Dec 10, 2006)

Haywire Haywood said:


> I'm too fat and out of shape to be wrestling with that array of torture instruments... anything that won't split within 5 or so blows from the maul gets split with the chainsaw. I like making a big pile of curly fries.
> 
> Ian




yup, what he ^ said! i give the wood 2 Whack-A-Moles with the maul, if it does'nt start splitting i fire up the saw.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Dec 10, 2006)

I had some a few weeks ago that were bouncers... hit it with everything I had and the maul just bounced off... they got the saw treatment.

Ian


----------



## SRT-Tech (Dec 10, 2006)

yea i got pissed off today at a couple of rounds after shattering a big steel wedge in them. Even my buddies hydraulic wood splitter groaned trying to dent the rounds. Grabbed the saw and ripped the rounds into quarters....the wood did a real number on my cutters  shoulda just left that wood where i found it......what a waste of time, chain, gas... :angry2: 

it was chinese elm i do believe.....


----------



## ciscoguy01 (Dec 10, 2006)

*Elm*



SRT-Tech said:


> yea i got pissed off today at a couple of rounds after shattering a big steel wedge in them. Even my buddies hydraulic wood splitter groaned trying to dent the rounds. Grabbed the saw and ripped the rounds into quarters....the wood did a real number on my cutters  shoulda just left that wood where i found it......what a waste of time, chain, gas... :angry2:
> 
> it was chinese elm i do believe.....



Was it green or dry dude??? I've always heard dry wood is much tougher to split than green or frozen. I myself prefer frozen wood, it really pops apart for ya...


----------



## SRT-Tech (Dec 10, 2006)

it was greeeeeeen, so green you still smell the chainsaw exhuast fumes on the bark. came from a swampy area near a university. I had one of the logs inside the house and collected about 2 liters of water that oozed out the ends. 

i hear ya on frozen wood, hell on the chain cutters, but oh so nice to blast apart with the ax!! (of ocurse the wood i picked up today you'd need freaking dynamite on it...)


----------



## WVhunter (Dec 11, 2006)

Haywire Haywood said:


> The super splitter is not so super apparently. Did this in about 15 minutes. we'll see how good their lifetime warranty is. I hope they don't notice those 2 threaded holes in the back... LOL it did seem to work well while it lasted.


I bought mine at Lowes and the same exact thing happened, the first block I split with it. I took it back and they gave me a new one.


----------



## zemmo (Dec 11, 2006)

I got my mega maul in the mail today, and I have to say, it really works. I only weigh around 140, and I'm old and broken down to boot; I don't find it works very well if I swing it all the way around like I do with my 8 lb maul. But if I just hoist it in the air and then bring it down as hard as I can, it works very well indeed. Even though I'm not getting nearly the velocity as with the 8 pounder, it seems like the sheer mass and consequent momentum (and perhaps the steep angles) work to split difficult wood (emory oak, pinyon pine) much more easily than my other maul.

BTW the oak down here in NM splits easier when it's dry; the pine when it's green. Go figure. Nothing here splits like wet birch at 40 below, all one has to do is wave a maul in the general direction of the round and it's done.


----------



## Brushwacker (Dec 11, 2006)

About 25 to 30 years ago I experimented with just about every design and weight of maul and axe I could find. I wasted a lot of money on a lot of stuff that just didn't cut it efficiantly. The monster maul by far split the tougher hardwoods with less effort if used properly. It seems like weight has the most to do with getting through with less effort combined with the steep angle it rarely sticks in the wood which takes additional time and effort. The metal handles do send a lot of shock to your bones and joints which eventually can lead to problems. I wrap my handles with carpet padding or innertube and a combonation of tape to take care of that. I like to keep an heavier single blade axe with a curved wood handle for those easy to split straight grained smaller logs and rotate with the monster. The axe comes in handy for the small branches occasionally missed by the saw and for split logs still connected by a few strands also. It seems like fiberglass handles absorbs some of the shock that would otherwise go to the wood so I don't use them much.
Birchbark is airtight so birch needs split or the center will usually rot. All the birch I ever used burned very well when properly seasoned.


----------



## zemmo (Dec 11, 2006)

The Collins mega maul I got has a rubber sleeve over the handle which seems to lessen the shock considerably. Unfortunately, it also rotates and even slips off, up to a couple of inches anyway. I'm going to try to glue the sleeve on so it will stay in one place. 

Birch will definitely rot if it isn't bucked up, but I have had no trouble with rounds rotting if less than around 8". I have burned around 20 or 30 cords of it. I get it by the logging truck ( around 11 cords they say) and buck and split it whenever I get around to it. Burns great, half again the btu per cord as white spruce. Keeps my cabin warm at 60 below.


----------



## TechAlG (Dec 12, 2006)

ciscoguy01 said:


> I have 3 mauls I use regularly. A 16lb triangular head maul, and 2 smaller headed mauls, 1 10lb and 1 6lb. All are pretty good, I prefer the 16lber for everything. That baby will split anything under the sun in a couple wacks. I've had it since I was like 16, am 33 now. I've beaten so many blocks with it that I have to bend it back straight every now and again. You NEVER will worry about replacing this maul again. You'll have to check around where you can get them as I'm not sure. Hope this helps...



I have a similar 16 pounder...one of the neighbors made it in his vo-tech welding class for my dad. Cost $40. It has a 14 lb head, and a heavy steel handle. Might be worth checking with local vo-tech schools to see if they would be willing to make them. They work great; split everything I've ever thrown it at. Does take some time to get used to swinging it though. 

Everybody I work with pays money to go to the gym...I figure, why bother? I get enough of a workout anytime I want...just bring out the old maul, and let er rip.


----------



## musch (Dec 12, 2006)

*update.*

Well, I've split several cords of wood now with the Helko Tomahawk, consisting of maple, oak, some pine, box elder, hickory, birch and a few other things that I cant identify.
Just as good as the day I got it. And it only weighs like 5 pounds.

Thought I'd let y'all know.


----------



## zemmo (Dec 13, 2006)

Has anyone used both the megamaul and the Helko? We need a direct comparison.


----------



## computeruser (Dec 13, 2006)

musch said:


> Well, I've split several cords of wood now with the Helko Tomahawk, consisting of maple, oak, some pine, box elder, hickory, birch and a few other things that I cant identify.
> Just as good as the day I got it. And it only weighs like 5 pounds.
> 
> Thought I'd let y'all know.



Just looked up the Helko. Very interesting. Which model are you using? I am currently maul-less after five years of using some borrowed mauls and really need a couple new ones, ASAP.

On a related note, does anyone have any experience with the splitting maul from Gransfors? I know that they're expensive as heck, but since mauls and axes can last a lifetime with proper care and feeding, I guess price isn't that big of an issue when it's all said and done.


----------



## musch (Dec 13, 2006)

I looked at the Helko Vario, opted for the Tomahawk, since it was a composite handle. I like it a lot.
the exact model I have is the 2300g "splitting axe" which is in my mind, a maul.


----------



## cashlz (Dec 13, 2006)

*Old School Maul*

This has quickly become my baby. 
I have split red oak, white oak, locust etc... with this gem. A bit pricey but it also makes for a good conversation piece and is sharp as hell. It also holds an awesome edge. The Brand is Gransfor Bruks and it is hand forged in Sweden.


----------



## sedanman (Dec 13, 2006)

I have a Granfurs splitting maul. A friend of mine tried it out and was hitting rounds in the center. I warned him that that was a good way to break the handle, he scoffed, swung a few more times and broke the handle. I am waiting for a new handle from Sweden. I bought a Vario 2000 in the mean time and actually prefer it. I will fix the Granfurs and use it from time to time but the Helko is my "go to" maul now.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Dec 13, 2006)

Yeah that Tommy 2300 is NICE!



Just as soon as I can brea, I mean, as soon as I accidentially break the handle on mine Im going for the fiber handle.


----------



## zemmo (Dec 19, 2006)

OK, I ordered a 2300 Helko, we'll see how it stacks up against the mega-maul. My money for the tough stuff is with the mega. Should have the Helko in a few days, and have lots of green Emory oak to test with. That's about as tough a wood to split as I've ever come across.


----------



## zemmo (Dec 21, 2006)

Got the Helko and spent an hour testing it against my other two mauls: one, an 8 lb, fiberglass-handled model from Bailey's; and two, the 12 lb "mega-maul". In all honesty, I had an opinion about how the test would go...I would use the Helko until I got to a round I couldn't split (which I didn't think would take long) and then break out the monster and let it triumph. I was splitting rounds of Emory oak that I cut yesterday, the largest around 14" in diameter and maybe 16-18" long. I also split a few with my old fiberglass maul, just as a constant. 

Of course it's impossible to control all the variables in a test like this. Ideally, one would split a round, then reassemble it at the molecular level, and hit it in exactly the same place with the same force with another maul. Of course the variables of force, placement, variation in wood make this somewhat less than a rigorous scientific treatment, but here it is for whatever it's worth:

To my great surprise, I never tried a round I couldn't spllit with the Helko. The toughest, biggest, most twisted specimens took maybe 10 whacks, but they always split. I then started experimenting with the other mauls, doing my best to do equal comparisons. Quickly, I discovered that both the mega and the Helko "mauled" my old maul. I soon quit took it out of the rotation. 

Differences between the two finalists were dramatic. I swung the Helko all the way around, and one could really whip up the velocity with the 5 lb head and long handle. The more I used it, the more I liked it, including the shape of the handle, which I had a poor first impression of. The mega is just plain old 1940's tech, and feels like it's solid, welded steel (why, and so it is). Nothing fancy, but just brutally effective. I just raise it straight above my head and then add whatever force I can to the considerable mass. Man, there's no give in that thing. A completely different splitting experience than with the Helko. 

So which maul is the big winner. I still think the mega, but it's close. The Helko doesn't do the job unless one really whistles it up, and as I started to tire I think it was easier to use the mega. But I really like the Helko, it's a great tool and a keeper. I'll be using them both, lots of wood to split. If I manage to post the jpgs you'll notice that both heads are in some ways similar: a fairly sharp edge, and steep angles. The mega is just a simple triangle, while the Helko had much more complicated geometry, it seems to be hollow ground. Split on friends...


----------



## peacegame98 (Dec 21, 2006)

i split alot of ash pop oak and maple and i always have used a splitting axe with a sledge or maul backup ... i am faster with the axe and and can split all day .. with it


----------



## Pcoz88 (Dec 23, 2006)

*Here's one I found on line*

Splitting Maul (35") Professional Grade by Iltis Ox..It's $99.99 from Germany.It said it is the Best of the Best splitting mauls out there.:jawdrop: Iam not saying it is ,thats just what the web site said.


----------



## zemmo (Dec 23, 2006)

Pcoz88 said:


> Splitting Maul (35") Professional Grade by Iltis Ox..It's $99.99 from Germany.It said it is the Best of the Best splitting mauls out there.:jawdrop: Iam not saying it is ,thats just what the web site said.



Send one down and I'll be happy to test it!:biggrinbounce2: :biggrinbounce2:


----------



## kattcutter (Dec 27, 2006)

No one uses the Chopper 1?





<BR>





I've used several different mauls/axes over the years, & this thing outperforms anything I have ever used, hands down! The "split-assist" action of the small "spreader" lever wedges works like a dream.


----------



## Bowtie (Dec 27, 2006)

kattcutter said:


> No one uses the Chopper 1?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Can a person still buy those?


----------



## kattcutter (Dec 27, 2006)

Sure can! 

Google search "Chopper 1". It is well worth the $$$ I spent on it, I have used mine for 5 + years, & replaced the return springs once.

regards, katt


----------



## HOT SAW (Dec 29, 2006)

*maul*

I like the mauls that you step on the hydrolic foot peddel and it splits as much wood as you can put on it.


----------



## par38lamp (Dec 29, 2006)

I just recieved a Harbor Freight 8 lb maul, and happy with it. I used a 8 lb maul from Lowes (borrowed), and I think I like this one better. Edge was level and sharp enough. The handle is different in that it flares out at the top, so the head cannot slip off the end. I imagine a new handle might be hard to get.

On a side note, I have two Farbor Freight wedges. A 4 lb red one that, well, is a small wedge. The "twister" wedge they normally sell for $15, $9 with coupon, is teriffic. Made in Germany, and really works. East to start, and works as designed. This is compared to the 4 lb, a 10 lb one from Sears, and a welded and filled axe head.

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=90873


----------



## Brushwacker (Jan 1, 2007)

kattcutter said:


> No one uses the Chopper 1?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Back in the 80's I bought and tried using a chopper 1 with a fiberglass handle. Mabe they changed something ,or your wood is quite differant then mine, or you haven't tried a good maul. When I used the chopper 1 very often especially in dry hardwoods it would penetrate enough to stick tight in the wood without contacting the levers enough to split it.Then it was a fight to get the bit out of the wood. When it did split the smaller wood would often fly apart violently endangering anything in its path. IF I remember right I paid about $35 for it and sold it for $8 within a short time after testing it out. I would rather use a regular curved handle axe as that thing,but the best in most situations for me is the monster maul with a well padded handle so far .I would try the mega if I get the oppurtunity as I have'nt tried anything new for many years.


----------



## kattcutter (Jan 1, 2007)

> Back in the 80's I bought and tried using a chopper 1 with a fiberglass handle. Mabe they changed something ,or your wood is quite differant then mine, or you haven't tried a good maul. When I used the chopper 1 very often especially in dry hardwoods it would penetrate enough to stick tight in the wood without contacting the levers enough to split it.Then it was a fight to get the bit out of the wood. When it did split the smaller wood would often fly apart violently endangering anything in its path. IF I remember right I paid about $35 for it and sold it for $8 within a short time after testing it out. I would rather use a regular curved handle axe as that thing,but the best in most situations for me is the monster maul with a well padded handle so far .I would try the mega if I get the oppurtunity as I have'nt tried anything new for many years.



I usually don't have a problem with the Chopper 1 sticking in the wood; course, every axe/etc. will stick once in awhile. Unless I would happen to be splitting really wet/sticky/sappy wood (which I don't make a habit of doing), the chopper will penetrate far enough to contact the levers just fine for me. 

You are correct, the wood does have a tendancy to fly apart violently, so I watch out for that. I bought mine at a yard sale for $10, around 5 years ago, & have been very pleased with it. Sometimes when I am splitting very large chunks, I will take "slices" around the perimeter of the piece, instead of going across the heart, so I don't run into a sticking situation, or beat up the handle.

I guess it comes down to what works best for your individual situation. :biggrinbounce2: 

regards, kattcutter


----------



## Lou (Jan 1, 2007)

I use a clark splitter now... Used to use single blade axe. When it got get stuck in log pick EVERYTHING up strike dull side of axe on a second log. The weight of the captive log does all the work.


----------



## zemmo (Jan 1, 2007)

Lou said:


> I use a clark splitter now... Used to use single blade axe. When it got get stuck in log pick EVERYTHING up strike dull side of axe on a second log. The weight of the captive log does all the work.



Yeah, except for picking up EVERYTHING and whacking it on another log. This doesn't sound like how I want to spend my winter vacation...


----------



## Lou (Jan 2, 2007)

I looked like Arnold from the rear (well from waist up). Once I started my back problems went away. Something to be said for good hard physical exercise. Bent over that low rider Clark brought them back. Good thing you can roll them onto splitter no need to pick up.


----------



## Sodboa (Jan 4, 2007)

*Splitting Black Locust*

Speaking of splitting...

I have a large black locust in my backyard that I am going to take down. How hard is it to split and cut really? Is it better to cut green and split green or split dry?

I've heard horror stories about it, but then I see people lump it in with all the other hardwoods without a comment.


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Jan 4, 2007)

It cuts ok, I really have not found too many trees that don't cut it is slower than softer wood but if you only got one it is not a big deal, not sure I would want to deal with cutting it all day every day but a singel tree is not bad

Splitting, it is tough no doubt but doable at least striaght logs, for big knots or "Y" use a ripping chain on your saw, infact you could rip all the logs.

I split everything by hand, I find black locust not really any harder to split then Elm (diffrent reasons) but if you every split a large Elm you can handel black locust.


----------



## joe4str (Jan 4, 2007)

*Black Locust*

Black locust is easy to split and makes a superior firewood. In fact, it is a preferred species for split rail fencing in the southern Appalachians. Burns long and hot if dry.


----------



## bytehoven (Jan 4, 2007)

I have a question regarding the surface of the axe, maul or wedges.

Does anyone treat their blade surfaces to keep them slippery so they split better?

I have a couple of wedges that have rusted up pretty good and I need to sand them down. I wondered if treating the surface with spray silicone or (?), might not only keep them from rusting up again, but also help through tougher wood?

When I get a piece that won't easily split, I cut. Infact, since getting the MS361 I have made it a practice of atleast cutting my stuff in half and then splitting with a smaller axe and sledge.

What's the best height for a splitting pedistal? I kept a nice 5' x 20" log I have been planning to bury in the gound a couple of feet to use as a splitting platform. I was going to use a concrete tube, but too often the axe or maul might reach the concrete surface.


----------



## habanero (Jan 4, 2007)

bytehoven said:


> I have a question regarding the surface of the axe, maul or wedges.
> 
> Does anyone treat their blade surfaces to keep them slippery so they split better?
> 
> I have a couple of wedges that have rusted up pretty good and I need to sand them down. I wondered if treating the surface with spray silicone or (?), might not only keep them from rusting up again, but also help through tougher wood?...



The only treatment I use on my maul to keep it shiny is constant use. 

If you're going to store it any time, though, it is always a good idea to wipe it down with an oily rag before storing it. Every time I use my spade, I clean it up, drizzle a few drops of used motor oil on it, and wipe it down. It scours better now then when I bought it. 

As far as making it split better, I can't imagine any lubricant is going to help much unless you are applying it before every hit. I'd think that would get pretty tedious in a hurry.


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Jan 4, 2007)

bytehoven

I read some where might have been here, about people mixing used motor oil with sand in a 5 gallon pal and sticking your axes, muals, etc in the sand oil mix when not in use, this serves two uses, first the sand removes and rust and the oil protects it from rusting.

As it helping you split, I really don't see that happening


----------



## NWnewguy (Jan 6, 2007)

*Current splitting lineup*

I am currently using a 8lb maul with a pretty good taper that I got at a farm sale for a couple of bucks. It does a pretty good job on most rounds. It seems like the older mauls had a better geometry than most of the ones you can buy today. My other splitter is a Stihl brand splitting axe that weighs 4.4lbs and does really good on rounds of 9" in diameter or less, bigger than that and I don't even try. I really don't like hitting the same piece of wood more than once.


----------



## JamesJems (Jan 8, 2007)

*Yup...Gransfors is a joy in the hand*



computeruser said:


> ... does anyone have any experience with the splitting maul from Gransfors?



Yup. Although not their heaviest maul. I use their large splitting axe. There's a photo of it on my avatar.

I swear by it. 3.5 lbs of the finest Swedish steel. How can a 3.5 lb axe do the work of a larger maul? Because I can swing it much, much faster. And since Force=Mass x Acceleration, in the long and short run, I win. 

I own this Gransfors and 2 other Wetterlings. Finest tools I own.


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Jan 8, 2007)

Everyone quotes the whole

Force = Mass x Acceleration, but do you really think that you can swing an 8 pound mual twice as fast as a 16 pound mual? I doubt it!!!

Yes there are tade offs but in most case you will deliver more force with a bigger mual the next question is can you keep doing it, yes a bigger mual tend to wear you out faster.

In in the case of a moster mual at 20 pounds or 24 pound just drop the mual and the dead fall (just gravity) will cause it to go fast enough to beat out an 8 pound mual as you would need to swing the 8 pounder 3 times faster then the 24 pound moster.


----------



## zemmo (Jan 8, 2007)

JUDGE1162 said:


> Everyone quotes the whole
> 
> Force = Mass x Acceleration, but do you really think that you can swing an 8 pound mual twice as fast as a 16 pound mual? I doubt it!!!
> 
> ...



I think momentum is more to the point than force, in such a discussion. And outside of a gravitational field, I think one probably could swing a 4 lb maul twice as fast as an 8 lb maul. But since gravity alone is accelerating an object at 32 ft/sec/squared, the heavier maul benefits more from gravity. Of course the operator does more work to get the heavier maul up in the air so gravity can act on it, which is why using a heavy wedge is more tiring. I was just splitting again today, and for the tough rounds, I repeatedly find myself going for the 12 lber.


----------



## JamesJems (Jan 8, 2007)

*All is not as it seems...*

Zemmo, all is not as it seems. 

Objects of any size have a terminal velocity of 32ft/sec/squared. Yes, we all know that. but there's no way a light maul or a heavy maul can go that fast with gravity on it's own. Not from a swing height of say, 8 feet (your height plus length of the handle).

What I'm trying to say is that gravity alone doesn't yet kick in in all it's glory...several more feet of movement are required to reach that magic number. Which means we have a rather complex physical equation dealing with momentum, inertia...changing velocity...it gets ugly pretty quickly.

A more useful equation might be measuring the Kinetic Energy stored in the axe head at the moment it hits the round.

KE=Mass/2 x square of the velocity (V-squared). Now this equation yeilds some surprising results when you think about the differences you can swing a heavy object as opposed to a light one. 

We might all be surprised to discover that we can swing a light axe not just twice as fast as a 10-16 lb maul, but, with proper technique, probably more like three times as fast....and this part is crucial to shortening the task of getting through x-amount of rounds in an hour: you can swing a light splitting axe far more frequently to make it do more work.

That's the crucial part. I just finished splitting some 16-18 inch Fir Rounds. After the initial split is done, I can split each half into burnable chunks at a rate that far exceeds a heavier maul. With this question on my mind, I was hitting split-halves at the rate of about 1.5 hits per second. (full swing obviously not needed with clear fir).

You know that delightful wham-wham-wham we all get when we use the right tool on clear, knot free wood? The kind of work that makes us smile? yeah...that kind of feeling. 

Couldn't do it with a monster/heavyweight maul. Consequently, I can do more work faster. And that's what we're all after, right?


----------



## zemmo (Jan 8, 2007)

JamesJems said:


> Zemmo, all is not as it seems.
> 
> Objects of any size have a terminal velocity of 32ft/sec/squared. Yes, we all know that. but there's no way a light maul or a heavy maul can go that fast with gravity on it's own. Not from a swing height of say, 8 feet (your height plus length of the handle).
> 
> ...



I was thinking about the kinetic energy equation after my last post, and the formula you mention. I'm just not sure that it's applicable. It's been nearly a geologic age since I studied physics, and I'd love to hear the take of a real physicist. 

But I don't believe that the KE formula predicts penetration (which is what we are talking about, the penetration of the head of a maul into a block of wood. In firearm ballistics muzzle energy is calculated by the KE equation, thus one can have a very light, very fast bullet with the same muzzle energy as a slow heavy bullet. A 300 gr. bullet at 1500 fps, versus a 40 grain bullet at 3500 fps. Just guessing that these examples would yield a similar muzzle energy, they should be close enough for an example. 

BUT, the penetration of these rounds in any medium, will not be identical. Given the same shape, the heavier, slower bullet will penetrate much deeper. Inertia (the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion), is dependent on momentum, not kinetic energy. 

About the actual speed one can swing a light maul compared to a heavy maul, I don't even have a guess, and no accurate way to measure. 

The easier the splitting the less the heavy maul is needed, and since it stays as heavy as ever (heavier than needed for easier splitting), I agree with you that easy splitting is easier and faster with a lighter tool. Wet birch at 40 below is the easiest I've ever seen, you just wave a maul at the round, you don't even have to hit it. EXTREMELY satisfying   

The twisted oak I was splitting today made me smile, but grimly, as sweat poured onto my safety glasses. But hey, outdoors on a beautiful NM winter day, it's a hell of a lot better than being in Cleveland--or in an office. 

If you know any real physics nerds, I'd love their take. Good splitting, no quitting...

PS Objects don't have a velocity of 32 ft per second per second, they have an ACCELERATION of those values. Terminal velocity depends on a number of variables, shape, density, duration of fall, etc.


----------



## hoss (Jan 8, 2007)

I recieved my helko heavy splitting axe about 3 weeks ago. I have had the chance to split 3-3.5 cords of mixed red oak, white oak and honey locust. I also own a monster maul and have to say, I definatley prefer the helko. It is amazing the power that is packed in the 5lb. head on this thing. I could be wrong but the curved handle actually DOES feel like it generates a more powerful swing. I am about 6'2" and weigh about 260lb. so lifting the monster maul is not a factor, I just think the helko splits better. For what it's worth.:biggrinbounce2:


----------



## SRT-Tech (Jan 9, 2007)

bytehoven said:


> I have a question regarding the surface of the axe, maul or wedges.
> 
> Does anyone treat their blade surfaces to keep them slippery so they split better?
> 
> I have a couple of wedges that have rusted up pretty good and I need to sand them down. I wondered if treating the surface with spray silicone or (?), might not only keep them from rusting up again, but also help through tougher wood?



yes, i use Bostich Top Cote on the splitting instruments (and chainbar/chain too)

works very well.


----------



## musch (Jan 9, 2007)

SRT-Tech said:


> yes, i use Bostich Top Cote on the splitting instruments (and chainbar/chain too)
> 
> works very well.



I use mine almost daily, and never see any rust on it. 

don't leave it outdoors either.


----------



## SRT-Tech (Jan 9, 2007)

its not a rust issue, the topcote prevents sticking. flies thru the wood a hell of a lot faster than untreated. 

my tools are also brought inside the apt every day and the handles are wiped down with tung oil daily.


----------



## JUDGE1162 (Jan 9, 2007)

zemmo said:


> I was thinking about the kinetic energy equation after my last post, and the formula you mention. I'm just not sure that it's applicable. It's been nearly a geologic age since I studied physics, and I'd love to hear the take of a real physicist.
> 
> But I don't believe that the KE formula predicts penetration (which is what we are talking about, the penetration of the head of a maul into a block of wood. In firearm ballistics muzzle energy is calculated by the KE equation, thus one can have a very light, very fast bullet with the same muzzle energy as a slow heavy bullet. A 300 gr. bullet at 1500 fps, versus a 40 grain bullet at 3500 fps. Just guessing that these examples would yield a similar muzzle energy, they should be close enough for an example.
> 
> ...



While I am not a physicist, I am an engineer. I see you point with the KE, however I am not sure if it applies to splitting wood as much as force, think about it when you buy a mechanical wood splitter do you buy it for its KE value or the force (tons) it applies to the wood. It is really force we are talking about here and if you are interested in KE and momentum then you can see that a heavier object at a much slower speed has a much higher KE then a small object at a very high speed. The basic example a ping pong ball going 300 mph or a 5 pound rock going 30 mph which rather you get hit by they have the same KE, but I rather take my chance with the ping pong ball.

And JamesJems, you can not swing an 8 lbs ax twice as fast as a 16 pound ax and there is no way you can swing an 8 pound ax 3 times as fast as a 16 pound ax. I get your point about the object not reaching terminal velocity of 32ft/sec/squared but gravity is working on both object and both objects will reach about the same speed due to gravity. Which in this case let say is 1/4 of the terminal velocity. In general, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on. In general on earth under normal non-vacuum condition terminal velocity is around 120 mph or 175 feet per second so let say our ax/maul is moving at 1/4 of this or 40 ft/second or 30 mph due to gravity alone and both ax/mauls are moving at the same speed. 

Now think about it how fast can you real swing your ax from the top of the swing to the time it takes to hit the wood, low long does it take, 1/2 a second,1/4 a second? Basically if you can swing an 8 pound ax in 1/4 a second does it really take you a full ½ a second to swing a 16 pound ax or could you swing a 4 pound ax in 1/8 of a second NO it is not psychically possible. This is why a 20 pound monster maul works, because even if you in part no effort to the swing just basically drop it (let gravity alone do all the work) it does not take 2.5 times longer for the maul to fall compared to how fast you can swing a lighter ax. So even if you have a quick swing and it takes 1/4 a second to swing an 8 pound ax, it does not take 0.625 of a second for the 20 pound maul to drop. Just try it for you self lift an object over you head and drop it, it takes less than ½ a second for it to hit the ground. Just for the record according to timber sports it takes a little more than ¼ of a second to swing an ax on average which mean even if you do put any effort in your swing you are imparting almost as much force with a 16 pound ax as you do full force swing with a 8 pound ax.

JamesJems bring up another issue how much force do you need for 10 inch round, yes a 16 pounder is a bit of over kill, and there are two parts of a swing the first part the lift, which is much quicker and easier with a smaller ax then with a monster ax and that your cycle time is faster even if your swing speed is about the same and with smaller wood you can split faster and with less effort with a small ax then with a big one, but if you split bigger wood like I do (16 in tend to be the minimum tree size and 20 inch or larger is common) more force is need and you can split much faster with a bigger ax.


----------



## JamesJems (Jan 9, 2007)

*messy variables*



zemmo said:


> and I'd love to hear the take of a real physicist.



Yeah...me too. I wonder if we could recruit someone...



zemmo said:


> But I don't believe that the KE formula predicts penetration



Neither do I. I was thinking about this last night while doing dishes. God...there's just so many variables. Type of wood, condition of wood, temperature of wood, slickness/friction of axe,...there's just so many.



zemmo said:


> In firearm ballistics muzzle energy is calculated by the KE equation, thus one can have a very light, very fast bullet with the same muzzle energy as a slow heavy bullet.



yep. that's what I was thinking about too.




zemmo said:


> BUT, the penetration of these rounds in any medium, will not be identical. Given the same shape, the heavier, slower bullet will penetrate much deeper. Inertia (the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion), is dependent on momentum, not kinetic energy.



Yep. I agree. 



zemmo said:


> Wet birch at 40 below is the easiest I've ever seen, you just wave a maul at the round, you don't even have to hit it.



Thankfully, I don't get -40 F here in the PNW...just rain. Lot's of it. There's so damn much rain here, our island it sinking!


----------



## zemmo (Jan 9, 2007)

Yuck, I'll take 40 below over tons of liquid water anyday.


----------



## habanero (Jan 9, 2007)

Can we all stop saying 32 ft/sec^2 is a velocity? It is the acceleration of gravity, not terminal velocity. Terminal velocity has to be calculated, and is based more or less on the resistance to movement of an object moving through a medium (or more specifically where the force of that resistance balances the force applied through acceleration). In our case, it is dependent almost exclusively on the wind resistance of the maul head moving through air. All objects do fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but not in the real world.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend anybody-it's just the misuse of scientific terms is at the top of my list of pet-peeves. And no, I'm not a physicist, but I am a chemist.


----------



## zemmo (Jan 9, 2007)

habanero said:


> Can we all stop saying 32 ft/sec^2 is a velocity? It is the acceleration of gravity, not terminal velocity. Terminal velocity has to be calculated, and is based more or less on the resistance to movement of an object moving through a medium (or more specifically where the force of that resistance balances the force applied through acceleration). In our case, it is dependent almost exclusively on the wind resistance of the maul head moving through air. All objects do fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but not in the real world.
> 
> Sorry, I don't mean to offend anybody-it's just the misuse of scientific terms is at the top of my list of pet-peeves. And no, I'm not a physicist, but I am a chemist.



I agree. The first step to clear thinking is to call different things by different names. You missed this fragment of my earlier post:

"PS Objects don't have a velocity of 32 ft per second per second, they have an ACCELERATION of those values. Terminal velocity depends on a number of variables, shape, density, duration of fall, etc."


----------



## habanero (Jan 9, 2007)

zemmo said:


> I agree. The first step to clear thinking is to call different things by different names. You missed this fragment of my earlier post:
> 
> "PS Objects don't have a velocity of 32 ft per second per second, they have an ACCELERATION of those values. Terminal velocity depends on a number of variables, shape, density, duration of fall, etc."



Sorry, I did indeed miss that fragment. Didn't mean to be redundant.


----------



## zemmo (Jan 9, 2007)

habanero said:


> Sorry, I did indeed miss that fragment. Didn't mean to be redundant.



No worries. What's your take on momentum vs KE in a maul head?


----------



## habanero (Jan 9, 2007)

zemmo said:


> No worries. What's your take on momentum vs KE in a maul head?



My take is that it is an extremely complex system that is almost impossible to sort out by theoretical calculations alone (at least without a good dose of computer modeling). 

I think emperical testing would be a way to get a better picture. One could conceivably build a test rig to test various designs-which would actually not be terribly difficult. Everything from a controlled drop to a rotary actuator could be used to replicate a maul strike. Then it is just a matter of applying the rig with a few different maul heads to actually see what happens.

But, there're lots of problems with such an empirical test. To try to keep the post to a moderate length, I won't go into detail. Consistent wood, environmental conditions, maul head condition (new, used, shiny, painted, etc.), and wood type come to mind as the three biggest sources of error-but there are dozens more. The best that could ever be hoped for would be to say a certain head works best under certain, perhaps limited, sets of conditions.

I believe maul choice comes down to a matter of personal preference-which is why there are all the different types of mauls still in use. If it were easy to decide which was better (assuming one has a clear advantage over another), that one would dominate the market. I personally own a couple 6 pounders, an 8 pounder, and a 13 pounder. I probably do 95% of my splitting with the 13 pounder, and use the 6 pounder for kindling work and when wifey thinks she wants to try splitting a bit.


----------



## zemmo (Jan 9, 2007)

habanero said:


> My take is that it is an extremely complex system that is almost impossible to sort out by theoretical calculations alone (at least without a good dose of computer modeling).
> 
> I think emperical testing would be a way to get a better picture. One could conceivably build a test rig to test various designs-which would actually not be terribly difficult. Everything from a controlled drop to a rotary actuator could be used to replicate a maul strike. Then it is just a matter of applying the rig with a few different maul heads to actually see what happens.
> 
> ...



Good post, and I agree completely.


----------



## gamblingbob99 (Oct 11, 2009)

*Fiskers 28" Maul*

greetings I read many of the posts on the Fiskers Maul. Well I ordered one and received it yesterday. My initial concern was that the maul was too light 4 1/2 pounds . I am not sure how people can say this is a great maul when it will not touch my oak or the maple I have. The handle is way too short unless you are like 5' tall come on guys I was really excited about the comments on this maul. It is going back and I will continue to use my 8 pounder. Please do not waste your money on this maul it's simply to light to do any real splitting.


----------



## slofr8 (Oct 11, 2009)

gamblingbob99 said:


> greetings I read many of the posts on the Fiskers Maul. Well I ordered one and received it yesterday. My initial concern was that the maul was too light 4 1/2 pounds . I am not sure how people can say this is a great maul when it will not touch my oak or the maple I have. The handle is way too short unless you are like 5' tall come on guys I was really excited about the comments on this maul. It is going back and I will continue to use my 8 pounder. Please do not waste your money on this maul it's simply to light to do any real splitting.



It must depend on the individual and the situation because I love the Fiskars SS. I'm only 5'8" 160 LB.
I cut mostly Beech, Maple and Popple. I've tried an 8 Lb maul and find it to big. I used a 6 LBer for years and liked it. All the Fiskar hype got me curious so I bought one. I used to split every thing on the ground but with the SS and its sharp blade I use a block and tire. The handle and weight seem just right for me. If it doesn't go through it stays stuck in the wood a little more because of the sharper edges on the part that spreads the wood but I'll round those off a little on the grinder. Bottom line is I can get more done with less effort which is all I was hoping for.
Just goes to show I guess. 
To bad it didn't work for you.
Dan.


----------



## Iron Mike (Oct 11, 2009)

gamblingbob99 said:


> greetings I read many of the posts on the Fiskers Maul. Well I ordered one and received it yesterday. My initial concern was that the maul was too light 4 1/2 pounds . I am not sure how people can say this is a great maul when it will not touch my oak or the maple I have. The handle is way too short unless you are like 5' tall come on guys I was really excited about the comments on this maul. It is going back and I will continue to use my 8 pounder. Please do not waste your money on this maul it's simply to light to do any real splitting.



Well... some people need instructions to fart.


----------



## howellhandmade (Oct 11, 2009)

I've used the Helko Tomahawk for several months, along with a standard 6-lb. maul that I've had for years. The Helko is nice to keep inside for splitting bigger pieces or making kindling, but if I could only have one maul I'd keep the 6-lb. The Helko is light and has a nice, crisp feel, like a well-struck 5-iron, when it encounters wood that it can split. But if the round is too tough, it bounces off with a punishing shock. And more pieces are too tough for it than for the 6-lb.


----------



## howellhandmade (Oct 11, 2009)

WVhunter said:


> I bought mine at Lowes and the same exact thing happened, the first block I split with it. I took it back and they gave me a new one.



It should be noted that what is shown is not a Fiskars Super Splitter, but a Chinese knockoff design that appears to be cast rather than forged, and not particularly well at that.

Jack


----------



## chainsawaddict (Oct 11, 2009)

gamblingbob99 said:


> greetings I read many of the posts on the Fiskers Maul. Well I ordered one and received it yesterday. My initial concern was that the maul was too light 4 1/2 pounds . I am not sure how people can say this is a great maul when it will not touch my oak or the maple I have. The handle is way too short unless you are like 5' tall come on guys I was really excited about the comments on this maul. It is going back and I will continue to use my 8 pounder. Please do not waste your money on this maul it's simply to light to do any real splitting.



I love the fiskars personally, Im 6'3" and 190. It takes a little getting used to, but I have been successful splitting green ash, elm and burr oak with it. I thought the handle was too short when i first got it, but I just got a taller 'stump' to set the rounds on and it works damn well. The elm is the hardest to split, but it is working.

I am curious though how it works compared to the helko vario. that thing looks pretty sweet, and does have a heavier head and a longer handle...

Anybody think its worth the extra $$$ over the fiskars?


----------



## Iron Mike (Oct 12, 2009)

View attachment 111734


View attachment 111731



Good thing nobody told me that the Fiskars maul is junk before I bought one.


----------



## chainsawaddict (Oct 12, 2009)

Iron Mike said:


> View attachment 111734
> 
> 
> View attachment 111731
> ...



i dont even know where my maul is now...opcorn:


----------



## Brushwacker (Oct 12, 2009)

gamblingbob99 said:


> greetings I read many of the posts on the Fiskers Maul. Well I ordered one and received it yesterday. My initial concern was that the maul was too light 4 1/2 pounds . I am not sure how people can say this is a great maul when it will not touch my oak or the maple I have. The handle is way too short unless you are like 5' tall come on guys I was really excited about the comments on this maul. It is going back and I will continue to use my 8 pounder. Please do not waste your money on this maul it's simply to light to do any real splitting.



Its a differant tool. If you use an identical technique it will not work to well.
I'm 6'. Position your legs fairly wide apart putting you closer to the ground and your lower extremities a little farther from harms way in case your aim is off and the head glances off in the wrong direction. I swing mine straight in front of me , similar to the monster maul , only more speed but not as hard as I can, go for accuracy. I have had it bounce out of knots and come back at me close to my head that is why I stress accuracy and control verses maximum power in the swing. It doesn't matter to me how it rates using physical formulas. It is by far the most forgiving hand splitting tool I have used, to my body. I would say it has the best power to weight ratio of any I have used although a monster maul will split knots and stringy tough wood better but its much more strain on the body, which if you split a lot of wood for many years it will wear you out much faster. I've had many 6,8, and a 10 pound mauls. 10 wasn't bad, about all 6 was good for was easy stuff and the 8's I had hardly got used. My tool of choice was the monster maul until I tried the Fiskars super splitting axe. I'm sure if I had used it the last 25 years verses the monster maul my body parts would be in better condition today.


----------



## KodiakKen (Oct 12, 2009)

*almost scared to post here*

all these high priced gransford bruks and fiskars..I did a tree job when in the military with a borrowed saw and a borrowed 8 pound maul. well the homeowner decided to grab the maul while I was bucking and 2 hits..thump..the head was on the ground. son of a *****...well he was my ncoic and was a cool guy but on a sunday we couldn't find a good store open except sears..couldn't find a regular sledge handle in there so he bought a 6 pound maul..I thought it looked ridiculous..skinny handle great big plastic collar in case you miss..I use it to this day..I am 6'3'' 270 pounds and honestly I split maybe one month a year..so I am not conditioned to the motion but nevertheless I can swing the 6 pounder all day. I bought a grasford 8 pounder because I am a Stihl nut and I hate it. not enough taper for a maul. if you give er hell and don't split it..it is buried. I have run my 6 pounder against a 12 pound monster maul and granted the kid couldn't aim and overshot about as much as he hit..he was winded long before me.. just my .02..find some like minded people close and use what they have and then go to garage sales or old auction houses and buy something like it made from good steel.. good luck


----------



## Huge Salad Fork (May 19, 2010)

JUDGE1162 said:


> While I am not a physicist, I am an engineer. I see you point with the KE, however I am not sure if it applies to splitting wood as much as force, think about it when you buy a mechanical wood splitter do you buy it for its KE value or the force (tons) it applies to the wood. It is really force we are talking about here and if you are interested in KE and momentum then you can see that a heavier object at a much slower speed has a much higher KE then a small object at a very high speed. The basic example a ping pong ball going 300 mph or a 5 pound rock going 30 mph which rather you get hit by they have the same KE, but I rather take my chance with the ping pong ball.
> 
> And JamesJems, you can not swing an 8 lbs ax twice as fast as a 16 pound ax and there is no way you can swing an 8 pound ax 3 times as fast as a 16 pound ax. I get your point about the object not reaching terminal velocity of 32ft/sec/squared but gravity is working on both object and both objects will reach about the same speed due to gravity. Which in this case let say is 1/4 of the terminal velocity. In general, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on. In general on earth under normal non-vacuum condition terminal velocity is around 120 mph or 175 feet per second so let say our ax/maul is moving at 1/4 of this or 40 ft/second or 30 mph due to gravity alone and both ax/mauls are moving at the same speed.
> 
> ...



Using either kinetics (force analysis) or energy methods produce the SAME RESULTS. Choosing whether to do a force analysis or energy analysis is all about which is easier and which is more appropriate. You should know this as an engineer.

It seems like you don't trust the energy methods and part of the reason is because of your fuzzy math. To have equal kinetic energy to a 5lb rock going 30mph a ping pong ball (2.7g = 0.00123lb) would have to be going 1914mph! That's over half a mile a second. I don't think any of us can really fathom a speed like that. Finally this isn't particle mechanics. You are comparing a rock which is not very deformable to a ping pong ball which is. This might be appropriate to illustrate the importance of deformability, but everyone is comparing mauls. They are all made of steel. 

To properly use Kinetics to compare mauls you need to look at it this way: Force applied to the wood = mass of the maul head * the DECELERATION of the head going from max velocity just before hitting the wood to stopped after it hits (or a much slower velocity after it splits it). Even this is a simplification as the axe is not a particle, it is mostly a rotating body. All of this talk of gravity, the force you are applying to the head and terminal velocity is mostly irrelevant. There are forces you are applying to the head that lead to an acceleration, that is combined with gravitational acceleration, that leads to a velocity. All the results of such an analysis simply lead you to the velocity of the head before it strikes the wood. 

I think energy methods are much easier for mauls, mass is known and velocity can be understood relatively (we all know we can swing a helko faster than a monster). However kinetics can be used to determine where the energy goes once the head strikes the wood. Some goes to penetration, some to prying it in twain, some is lost to friction (the secret to the fiskars). 

For log splitters kinetics are much easier because you are using a controlled pressure applied by well understood hydraulics. This and the fact that most people have no bearing on quantities of kinetic energy are why they are rated in force.


----------



## howellhandmade (May 19, 2010)

Huge Salad Fork said:


> Using either kinetics (force analysis) or energy methods produce the SAME RESULTS. Choosing whether to do a force analysis or energy analysis is all about which is easier and which is more appropriate. You should know this as an engineer.
> 
> It seems like you don't trust the energy methods and part of the reason is because of your fuzzy math. To have equal kinetic energy to a 5lb rock going 30mph a ping pong ball (2.7g = 0.00123lb) would have to be going 1914mph! That's over half a mile a second. I don't think any of us can really fathom a speed like that. Finally this isn't particle mechanics. You are comparing a rock which is not very deformable to a ping pong ball which is. This might be appropriate to illustrate the importance of deformability, but everyone is comparing mauls. They are all made of steel.
> 
> ...



One of the higher quality first posts.

For anybody who wants to try a Helko Tomahawk, and also has a Fiskars and thinks it is junk, I'll trade straight across, assuming the Fiskars is in decent shape.

For the guys having trouble splitting with the Fiskars, I'd say that if it has a weakness it's dealing with wet, spongy wood that is capable of deforming and absorbing the energy of the blow without cleaving. Maple can be one of these, but I love mine for oak and locust.

Should add, even with spongy wood, good results can be obtained with the Fiskars by splitting shakes off the outside of the log rather than burying the maul in the center.

Jack


----------



## thefeckerwest (Dec 11, 2015)

kattcutter said:


> No one uses the Chopper 1?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thefeckerwest (Dec 11, 2015)

kattcutter said:


> No one uses the Chopper 1?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That maul head in on the wrong way round.


----------

