3 ms·
Being pedantic, but generally you shouldn't use an axe for splitting wood. Mauls are much heavier and meant for the purpose.
by silisili 4y ago
Being pedantic, but generally you shouldn't use an axe for splitting wood. Mauls are much heavier and meant for the purpose.
- drewzero1 4y agoA maul would be the proper tool when you've already got the log cut up into firewood length, and you can enter into the end grain. I think what GP is describing is to split the log before cutting it to length, which (as far as I'm aware) is also an unorthodox technique. A maul wouldn't be acute enough to cut into the face grain.
- silisili 4y agoAhhh, thanks. I must have read it wrong and kinda was wondering why a long description for basic wood splitting. I think you're right, they're splitting an entire tree lengthwise. I've never attempted such a thing, so have no idea what would work best. I'd probably start it with an axe, then try to finish with a maul, but that's a complete guess. But it's just pedantry anyhow, as many people in the US use 'axe' to mean everything from hatchets to mauls to fireman's axes. I do wish people would use the correct terms in general, as it causes a ton of consumer confusion. There's a really light felling axe I like, and every bad review is a broken handle trying to split giant pieces of wood.
- ConstantVigil 4y agoI'm not sure if this is going to be seen, but I was temp banned or am still shadowbanned or something? Either or. If you do see this, yes, you are both right that I would be best to be using a maul. But not everyone has a proper splitting maul available, and mine was kind of missing that day... So I used my 20$ timber store 'everything' axe. I should have been more specific, as you make a point of. I call it that, cause I'm not sure which kind of axe it really is, but it gets used for pretty much everything, lol.