# Monster Maul dimensions.



## Chevy Power (May 13, 2014)

I work as a heavy steel fitter/welder and have access to scrap pieces of thick steel,"burn" tables, and torches.  Basically to make one of these on my lunch break or after work is no big deal.  I can make an educated guess on how to make one but I want to try and make a duplicate of the original everyone raves about.  The one with the flattened handle, thee "original".  If someone has one sitting around I would appreciate the dimensions of the wedge and the length of the handle.  

I get some pride out of making my own tools and any help I can get is appreciated.  

Thank you!


----------



## Chevy Power (May 15, 2014)

Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## TimJ (May 16, 2014)

I can tell you this..........the maul in the picture will not split very well. The taper is all wrong


----------



## Ashful (May 16, 2014)

I have a buddy with a vintage original.  I'll ask him for the dimensions.


----------



## Jags (May 16, 2014)

I have access to one at the cabin.  If I remember too (and that is no guarantee) I will try to get pics and specs.


----------



## Chevy Power (May 16, 2014)

No big hurry many warm days ahead before I plan on doing a lot of splitting.  My dad borrows a log splitter once a year but I can chip away at my pile of wood here and there.


----------



## tsquini (May 17, 2014)

Truper plitting maul which is similar has a 27" Handel


----------



## Bigg_Redd (May 17, 2014)

Chevy Power said:


> dimensions of the wedge and the length of the handle.



The handle is about 10" too long

The wedge is about 8lbs (or so) too heavy.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Ashful (May 17, 2014)

True!  I borrowed and used one... once.


----------



## Applesister (May 17, 2014)

I was watching a youtube video here and came across a guy with a webside called wranglerstar.com                                                               He repairs old tool handles. Cool to watch. Im inspired to replace some axe handles of some old broken axes we have here. I saw that triangle shaped thing and ondered what it was. Anyway did a search or repairing handles here and found nothing. But I found a link to a company called Tennessee Hickory. They sell hickory replacement handles and their catalog is laid out with every tool named, which has been very helpful. My Dad was in the steel business too and we have alot of old broken tools with an unknown use sitting around and now Im learning the proper names.


----------



## Applesister (May 17, 2014)

I did a search here and found nothing on replacing axe handles, but dont know if I quieried properly. The catalogue for Tennessee Hickory has all dimensions laid out for all the impliments. But Im curious about this maul photo posted. I'll be watching.


----------



## Ashful (May 17, 2014)

Monster maul has a piece of pipe welded to the head, as a handle.  I found it very annoying, since it is round, and you can't feel the rotation of the head.

I prefer axe and maul handles which are curved, with a proper butt at the end if the handle.  I dislike the mauls that use sledge handles, but even those are better than the original Monster Maul's round pipe handle.


----------



## yooperdave (May 19, 2014)

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Sports-Outdoors-Boat-Anchors/zgbs/sporting-goods/3398541

Chevy, hope this helps you decide to make a conventional boat anchor on your lunch break and not one of those experimental types that you posted above!


----------



## Ashful (May 19, 2014)

Joful said:


> I have a buddy with a vintage original.  I'll ask him for the dimensions.


Here you go:

"The two 'splitting faces' (if that's a term) are 6 1/8" x 3", and the back of the head is 4" x 3".

"Overall length measures 31 1/2" (the handle was replaced, but should be close to original length)."


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

Chevy Power said:


> No big hurry many warm days ahead before I plan on doing a lot of splitting.



Good, cuz I forgot all about it.

(cool - now I don't have to remember it)


----------



## Bspring (May 19, 2014)

We should also point out that you will get way more benefit by increasing the velocity than the mass.


----------



## tsquini (May 19, 2014)

Bspring said:


> We should also point out that you will get way more benefit by increasing the velocity than the mass.


You are correct. That is a great point.


----------



## Ashful (May 19, 2014)

E = (m*v^2)/2


----------



## Coach B (May 20, 2014)

That was all I used for the first 8 or 9 years I burned. I couldn't get those little axe thingies to bust anything, but the monster would get er done! My 71 year old FIL still uses his weekly during the winter. Now that I'm 40 I have evolved a bit in my wood splitting.


----------



## tsquini (May 20, 2014)

Hitting a baseball works the same way. Bat speed is more important than mass. That is why as the season progresses usually bat weight decreases.  Players get tired,  to maintain speed they decrease weight.


----------



## Chevy Power (May 27, 2014)

Joful said:


> Here you go:
> 
> "The two 'splitting faces' (if that's a term) are 6 1/8" x 3", and the back of the head is 4" x 3".
> 
> "Overall length measures 31 1/2" (the handle was replaced, but should be close to original length)."


Thank you so much.  Once I get one made I will post up a picture.


----------



## Chevy Power (Jun 3, 2014)

Here are a few pictures.  Did not have a piece of pipe handy for the handle.  I have some 1 7/8" O.D. but it feels to big, I am thinking 1.5" for the handle.  I ended up making this out of a piece of 4340 from a large piece of fork (from a new front end loader fork).    It is some hard stuff so it should work great for the maul. It ended up being 2.9" wide and 4" thick.  From the point at a right angle to the back is 6".





The piece to the left is the other half of the chunk of steel I made this from.


----------



## Osage (Jun 4, 2014)

Looks like it should work great! For all the naysayers this 4 cords, and all the wood from nearly 40 years of burning , was split by a worthless monster maul. 
Are there better mauls out there? Probably, but the old monster will get the job done.
If I would change anything on mine I would move the handle more forward.
Great job, build another one and I might buy it.
Plus you can still use it for a boat anchor on the off season. How many other mauls can you say that about!


----------



## CombatChris (Jun 4, 2014)

F = MA

It's not always about KE.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 4, 2014)

CombatChris said:


> F = MA
> 
> It's not always about KE.


You remember your physics 101.  However, you're applying it incorrectly, as "a" varies depending on "m" and the shape of the head.  The dominant factor here is indeed E = (1/2)*m*v^2.


----------



## CombatChris (Jun 4, 2014)

Joful said:


> You remember your physics 101.  However, you're applying it incorrectly, as "a" varies depending on "m" and the shape of the head.  The dominant factor here is indeed E = (1/2)*m*v^2.



Well, let's think about some hypothetical. True, "A" is to a degree affected by "M" since a tool with more mass will swing slower. But let's look at KE vs F. If we half the weight, we have to double the speed to get the same 'F'- but if we do so we've gained 'KE'. There are going to be diminishing returns on what you get by cutting M in favor of A to get KE. Say we get down to 3lbs. Or 1lbs. Or 1/2lbs. We're going to see that no matter how light a tool is, a human is only going to be able to swing it with so much V. But if we make the tool heavier, all you've got to do is lift it and gravity will help out on the down-stroke. If we go from 4lbs, to 8lbs, to 16lbs and 32lbs, the V will go down some, but it's not going to be halved with each increase. You're going to gain a whole lot of F with those huge masses.

There's one way to test this... someone make us a 32lbs Maul! I'm guessing steel with a lead core so we don't make the surface area too-too large and throw another variable into the mix  We would have to keep the cutting edge the same for all these tools and same to get a good measurement.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 4, 2014)

CombatChris said:


> Well, let's think about some hypothetical. True, "A" is to a degree affected by "M" since a tool with more mass will swing slower.


Here you're talking about v = int(a,dt).  Acceleration is not affected by the fact that you're swinging slower, but by the fact that the mass and shape of the maul head is a dominant factor in how it decelerates upon impact with the wood.  It is the deceleration of the head upon impact with the wood that is the "a" in your equation, in determining the effectiveness of your splitting tool.  The F=ma equation is simply not applicable, here.

There are many folks who split by hand here, and the overwhelming consensus opinion agrees with the physics.  A lightweight X27 will out-split any monster maul, in well-trained hands.  Similar momentum (p = m*v), but vastly different energy (E = (1/2) m*v^2).


----------



## CombatChris (Jun 4, 2014)

Joful said:


> Here you're talking about v = int(a,dt).  Acceleration is not affected by the fact that you're swinging slower, but by the fact that the mass and shape of the maul head is a dominant factor in how it decelerates upon impact with the wood.



Question then: What about similar, or identical (theoretically of course) where you could make an X27 head out of some material with 2 times the mass? 5 times? 10 times? Then mass and velocity will be the only variables in the experiment. Of course assuming that the material was of equal hardness, and we're not swinging lead around.


----------



## Jags (Jun 4, 2014)

Just whack the sucker.


----------



## Chevy Power (Jun 4, 2014)

I have looked at the x27 and I would like to own one, and I hear great reviews from everyone.  I do appreciate the physics behind it and less work = more fun, but less money = less fun too.  Its raining out side or I would have given it a test run.  Found a handle today and finished it up, still needs a coat of paint.  Seems to be a good weight. Best of all I can say I made it and it cost me nothing.  
_
_


----------



## Jags (Jun 4, 2014)

Suggestion:  Round the back corners off.  If for some reason you get that thing stuck half way into a log they may try to dig in and prevent you from getting it back out.  It wouldn't take much, you just wont want them to be sharp corners.


----------



## Chevy Power (Jun 4, 2014)

Jags said:


> Suggestion:  Round the back corners off.  If for some reason you get that thing stuck half way into a log they may try to dig in and prevent you from getting it back out.  It wouldn't take much, you just wont want them to be sharp corners.


That is a great suggestion.  I will be sure to do that thank you.


----------



## Woody Stover (Jun 5, 2014)

Joful said:


> I have a buddy with a vintage original.  I'll ask him for the dimensions. Here you go: "The two 'splitting faces' (if that's a term) are 6 1/8" x 3", and the back of the head is 4" x 3". Overall length measures 31 1/2" (the handle was replaced, but should be close to original length)."


Mine is an original Sotz Monster Maul. I can't remember the exact year I bought it, but circa '86. The handle (only) is about 31.5, like your buddy's. The splitting faces the same as well, but the back of the head is more like 3 x 2.5" Weight is about 15#.







Joful said:


> Bigg_Redd said:
> 
> 
> > The handle is about 10" too long. The wedge is about 8lbs (or so) too heavy. I hope this helps.
> ...


Says a guy who's probably never seen a Monstah, and a guy who's used one once. 


TimJ said:


> I can tell you this..........the maul in the picture will not split very well. The taper is all wrong





Coach B said:


> That was all I used for the first 8 or 9 years I burned. I couldn't get those little axe thingies to bust anything, but the monster would get er done!





Joful said:


> A lightweight X27 will out-split any monster maul, in well-trained hands.


Not true in most cases. All of these splitting tools have their strengths and weaknesses, and a lot has to do with how the energy is transferred and applied to the wood (haven't delved into the equations, but I have the feeling that F=MA would turn out to be closer to what's going on.) The X-27 is fine if the wood splits easily, like the Walnut you have. In harder-to-split wood, it will get stuck because its mass stops too quickly, and the angle is too narrow to get the round splitting apart. Sure, you can start chipping slivers off the outside, but by the time you get the round whittled down you've expended just as much, or more, energy than if you would have with two swings of the Monster. If the Monster gets started, it's wide angle will start splitting the wood apart and you can feel that the mass keeps moving through the wood. On anything but the easiest Fiskars wood, I start with with the wedge-head 4# ax and step up the firepower to 6#, 8# and finally the Monster if needed. The Monster will bust wood that the 8# can't touch. If I had to give up any of my splitting tools, the Fiskars would be the first to go; It just doesn't have the arse needed to split most wood with a minimum of swings. See the Coach B quote above. 

_I was just getting back into the Monster after it sat in the shop for years, then this happened:_




I talked to a welding shop about re-welding the handle and then welding a small piece of angle iron for reinforcement on the bottom of the handle, where it had originally split. When I brought it back to get the welding done, the guy decided to put a piece of round stock inside the handle instead. I had my doubts and sure enough, with all that weight near the head I couldn't get any speed at all on the "release," to use a golf term. I haven't yet gotten around to taking it to my buddy's and doing the job right. Really looking forward to getting it up and running again, and bludgeoning some tuff stuff into submission. 
_Here's the full arsenal, except the 8# on the right has been replaced by an older one I found in the shop:




I love the shape of the old 8-pounder, compared to the standard shape you see on most mauls, like the 6# on the right; The narrower initial angle gets deep into the round, _then_ applies the outward splitting force. I've also beveled all the cutting edges to narrower-than-stock starting angles.







_


Chevy Power said:


> Found a handle today and finished it up


So, what are the dimensions of the "Proto 1?"  Head, handle length, weight etc. If the pipe is the same size as the original (looks to be 1-3/8",) then your head is definitely narrower. Obviously the original pipe isn't as thick as Sch. 40 or it wouldn't have broken like that. Sch. 40 was probably too heavy to get enough speed with? Different head dimensions or handle materials would yield different results. Maybe you can come out with a complete line of "Protos." Titanium handles?


----------



## Chevy Power (Jun 6, 2014)

Quite the collection you have there, my handle is down inside the larger sleeve near the head and "plug welded" in two places to hopefully keep it from breaking like yours did I also put quite a chamfer on the outer sleeve to allow the weld to penetrate into the smaller piece inside.

Dimensions are 2.8" x 3.85" on the back of the head
6" on the face

Handle is 1.56" dia x .125" wall
Length is 30" including the 4" long 1.9" dia sleeve 
Overall tool length is 33.85
And weight is 14lb 6oz


----------

