manual splitters question: do you use a chopping block?

[stoveguy2esw]

i usually left it on the ground to split , the area i split wood next to the wood crib is hard clay so it didnt generally get too mushy unless we have major rain, usually i didnt bother splitting when it was that nasty. occasionally if i had shorted rounds to split ( i usually got end billits from the local sawmill at 15 dollars a pickup truck load) i would set it on another short billit. i believe the target should be a little higher than knee high definately not at waist level. the golf swing analogy was a good one consider how much further you can hit the ball with a full backswing allowing momentum to build versus taking the club back half way and trying to develop that much power. another element to consider is with a beginner who has just bought his first maul and is not used to it , if the round is elevated , and a glancing blow is struck , the higher it is off the ground the greater the possibility of injury. if the round is sitting on the ground, the blade of the maul will hit the ground further away from the swinger. i would suggest to anyone just getting the hang of it to start on the ground first to get the feel of it , then maybe elevate, but not very high. its just safer to leave the round on the ground.


mike esw

 

[Mo Heat]

I've mostly changed over from splitting on top of a big approximately 1.5 - 2 foot by 1.5 - 2 foot round to splitting mostly on the groud for the large numbers of really big rounds that are difficult to manuever, especially big chunks of knarly white oak. Why struggle for a minute or two of excruciatingly backbreaking lifting risking a hernia when I can just start flailing away at them and successfully knock off huge chunks with each swing?

For the little 6 to 12 inch diameter pieces I may do one or the other, depending on whether my back, arms, or legs are hurting more, either works fine most times. Sometimes one works better than the other and vice versa.

A chopping block can help distribute the force over a larger portion of ground and provide an amount of inertial, but if it takes too much energy to get the round you are chopping up onto it, it's just not worth it to me. You also lose a bit of your swing up higher.

The ideal would seem to be a buried block, but again, sometimes I just don't want to move each big 'ol round, preferring instead to just split them where they sit and chunk (throw) the splits over to a common pile.

I'm sure all of you are likely correct in your situation and selection of techniques. I know I'm right in mine. Hopefully, that is not a problem for anyone. So I say that all of you wood chopping experts are wrong in some situations and right in others. So many variables allows for multiple and equally efficient solutions, different with each set of complex factors.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[ourhouse]

Most of the time I split it where it lies. I also have a stump where I split my wood and use that to split the hard ones with knots.

 

[DavidV]

only time I will use a block is if I can't get it to split without. usually a crotch or knot. I just don't see the advantage since I would have to stop swinging and pick up the piece and put it on the block. in that time I can usally split it where it stands. jjjjj

 

[Sandor]

I thought I knew how to split wood until I lived in WV.

Used to cut/split wood with my G/F brother.

Trees were felled, Bucked, then the axe started to swing all on the side of slippery mountains. He did not even stand them up on end, just hit them lengthwise on the ground. Larger pieces were uprighted. No wedges.

Minimal handling. Maximum production. Mess stays in the woods.

This guy was a freakin animal. Got a bad attitude after the 25th Bud.

I did learn alot.

 

[Corie]

If you saw my backyard, you would understand why I have to use a chopping block. Everywhere, and I mean everywhere, there are rocks. Some visible, some lurking 1.375 inches under the surface at the perfect depth to send a shard of splitting maul flying at mach 2.5 towards your face.

I have a big old nasty piece of a pine tree that I can't seem to destroy as my chopping block currently. I'm hoping it will just fall apart or sprout legs and run away from the repeated abuse so I can replace it with a HUGE and unsplittable chunk of mystery wood I have.

 

[colsmith]

Okay, don't trust the physics teacher, I'll try not to feel too hurt. Even though we have heavy clay here, the damp ground can still absorb a great deal of energy. Vectors and Newtons Laws and all that, I guess I won't go into it, and stick with the cracking a hard boiled egg analogy on a hard vs. soft surface (my students mostly didn't want to learn physics, so I liked examples.) If you mostly split wood on frozen ground that would explain our argument, frozen ground is much more firm. I have been splitting wood all year long since Feb., so mostly squishy ground (plenty of rain in WI this year.) About height, don't know that anyone was suggesting you must be 18" up to split. Just to be splitting on something solid and not the ground, could be just 6 or 8 inches if you like a longer swing.

As for safety, though, I am really sure on this one. "if the round is elevated , and a glancing blow is struck , the higher it is off the ground the greater the possibility of injury. if the round is sitting on the ground, the blade of the maul will hit the ground further away from the swinger. i would suggest to anyone just getting the hang of it to start on the ground first to get the feel of it , then maybe elevate, but not very high. its just safer to leave the round on the ground." On the contrary, if you swing at an elevated object, at point of contact the maul head will be at a greater distance from your body and feet than if you are swinging further down to the ground. If you were striking at waist height, the maul head would be at the maximum distance from you, whereas if you were swinging all the way through the arc towards the ground it would be very close to you. So as a new wood splitter, I feel much SAFER swinging at wood that is at a greater distance from my toes. Although oddly enough I have excellent aim thus far, and am keen on splitting wood. Hubby wants to buy a splitter and I am resisting, of course I make him do the really hard pieces. Also, on the bad back issue, you have to bend further over to swing at a lower object, so how does that help your back? Bending to pick up the pieces is not hard for me like swinging the maul, which is a real workout. (We have 8 and 12 lb. mauls.)

 

[ChrisN]

I am in complete agreement that placing the round on a solid surface is preferable to a softer surface. I most often split on regular, hard packed New England ground, not usually frozen. I guess I'm of the thought that the extra effort required to move rounds to an elevated chopping block is simply not as efficient as whacking them where they sit, if possible. Now I have to post my disclaimer, that physics ins't my strong suit, but isn't the key to generating maximum force developing maximum velocity of the maul head? So wouldn't it follow that the longer the arc of swing, the faster the head will be moving and more force will be applied to the round? As far as the safety aspect of raising the round goes, purely anecdotal experience has shown me that all in all splitting is pretty safe. though many years of splitting I have never come close to hurting myself. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone else hurting themselves either, (except when I was a tot in the 60's and 70's and people often used double-bit flat blade axes). My last thought is MAN.. your hubby must be a burly guy to be winging around a 12lb maul. Mine is 8lbs. I have a 12lb sledge that I use with wedges and I can barely hoist the monster over my head! ;-P

Anyway, the beauty of splitting is we all have our own preferences and they pretty much all work and keep us in tip-top shape! Also Marcia, I agree with you about foregoing the splitter. Unless you need to process lots and lots of wood quickly, or you have physical limitations, or you you live near an Elm forest (hehe), stick with the maul splitting. It's so much more satisfying to split manually.

In peace and good will, Chris

 

[quads]

Also, on the bad back issue, you have to bend further over to swing at a lower object, so how does that help your back? Bending to pick up the pieces is not hard for me like swinging the maul, which is a real workout. (We have 8 and 12 lb. mauls.)

I guess I probably would split on a block, if I could figure out a good system to do it that doesn't require handling the wood so much. What is your routine? You go out in the woods, cut down a tree, block it up, load the unsplit rounds, haul them back to your home, unload them, put them up on a splitting block, split, pick up the split pieces, and stack them?

Just sounds so much easier on the sore back to split the rounds where the tree was cut up, then haul them home to the pile. Squooshy ground or not.

 

[par38lamp]

I mostly split on top an elm round I scrounged. When the round I am splitting won't stand up, I do split on the ground. I do notice the energy of my swing being absorbed into the ground, especially when it is damp/wet. The round will actually bounce! And I can feel it in the sledge as it hits the wedge. Haven't tried it now that the ground is frozen.

This is on grey/red clay soil in St. Louis, MO.

 

[Gooserider]

As for safety, though, I am really sure on this one. "if the round is elevated , and a glancing blow is struck , the higher it is off the ground the greater the possibility of injury. if the round is sitting on the ground, the blade of the maul will hit the ground further away from the swinger. i would suggest to anyone just getting the hang of it to start on the ground first to get the feel of it , then maybe elevate, but not very high. its just safer to leave the round on the ground." On the contrary, if you swing at an elevated object, at point of contact the maul head will be at a greater distance from your body and feet than if you are swinging further down to the ground. If you were striking at waist height, the maul head would be at the maximum distance from you, whereas if you were swinging all the way through the arc towards the ground it would be very close to you. So as a new wood splitter, I feel much SAFER swinging at wood that is at a greater distance from my toes. Although oddly enough I have excellent aim thus far, and am keen on splitting wood. Hubby wants to buy a splitter and I am resisting, of course I make him do the really hard pieces. Also, on the bad back issue, you have to bend further over to swing at a lower object, so how does that help your back? Bending to pick up the pieces is not hard for me like swinging the maul, which is a real workout. (We have 8 and 12 lb. mauls.)

Well, I'm not going to argue with a physics teacher - seeing as how BOTH of my GF's parents are retired physics profs who Piled it Higer and Deeper at Oxford.... However I think you are reaching the wrong conclusion from the right starting point on your safety argument.

Yes, IF you connect with the log, the impact point will be furthest from the user if the log is on a block, BUT IMNSHO, the "good hits" aren't going to be a safety problem - the axe or maul sticks into the target and stops (or at least slows way down) The problem comes from the "bad hits" where the log or the striking tool does something you didn't want it to do.

I would argue that in every case where something goes wrong, the closer things are to the ground the safer everyone is. Some examples:

1. You missed - the tool continues the arc of the swing. The higher it is, the more likely the arc is going to go all the way around to the swinger's leg/foot.... On the ground or a short block, the arc is more likely to hit the ground first.

2. You bounced - The lower the tool is when it bounces (all else being equal) the less height it will have on the rebound, and again the more likely you are to hit the ground when the tool goes back down.

3. The log falls over - The higher the log is, the further it has to fall (so it's moving faster, and hits harder) and the greater the distance it can fall from where it started, or do extra bounces or flips to land on your anatomy. (Note that this can include splits coming off an otherwise "good hit"!)

4. A chunk of wood, a wedge, or something else goes flying - Again, all else being equal, the lower it starts from, the lower the peak of the trajectory will be, and the less distance the flying object will travel. The shorter the distance travelled, the less likely you are to hit something just because of lower range. Also if you DO get hit, the lower on your body the impact happens, the less likely it is to do serious damage. (Look at the way you are built - the more fragile bits (face) are higher, but you tend to wear heavier clothing (PPE) on your lower body.

There are *NO* perfect safety solutions, but I think the odds favor fewer problems with the "target" on the ground or a short block than on a tall one.

Tell me what kind of accident you are going to have, I'll tell you what the best safety gear is to be wearing for it....

Gooserider

 

[laynes69]

After I cut a tree up into rounds, I'll line up the rounds and walk down the line and split them by hand. If I run into larger pieces, they go into the trailer and into the log splitter. I feel If I split after its cut, I save time in the woods and when its stacked by the house, I have to do nothing else. Of course once I get new tires on my splitter, I may drag it behind my wood trailer and my tractor. Until then its good manual labor.

 

[cbrodsky]

As for safety, though, I am really sure on this one. "if the round is elevated , and a glancing blow is struck , the higher it is off the ground the greater the possibility of injury. if the round is sitting on the ground, the blade of the maul will hit the ground further away from the swinger. i would suggest to anyone just getting the hang of it to start on the ground first to get the feel of it , then maybe elevate, but not very high. its just safer to leave the round on the ground." On the contrary, if you swing at an elevated object, at point of contact the maul head will be at a greater distance from your body and feet than if you are swinging further down to the ground. If you were striking at waist height, the maul head would be at the maximum distance from you, whereas if you were swinging all the way through the arc towards the ground it would be very close to you. So as a new wood splitter, I feel much SAFER swinging at wood that is at a greater distance from my toes. Although oddly enough I have excellent aim thus far, and am keen on splitting wood. Hubby wants to buy a splitter and I am resisting, of course I make him do the really hard pieces. Also, on the bad back issue, you have to bend further over to swing at a lower object, so how does that help your back? Bending to pick up the pieces is not hard for me like swinging the maul, which is a real workout. (We have 8 and 12 lb. mauls.)

1. You missed - the tool continues the arc of the swing. The higher it is, the more likely the arc is going to go all the way around to the swinger's leg/foot.... On the ground or a short block, the arc is more likely to hit the ground first.

There are *NO* perfect safety solutions, but I think the odds favor fewer problems with the "target" on the ground or a short block than on a tall one.
Gooserider

In my limited experience splitting on the ground, I found that it was more effective if I bent my knees a bit as I came down with the maul such that the handle was still relatively parallel to the ground as it struck the log. Not sure if that is typical, but it seemed to help me - again, I think having the maul well aligned to the object being split is important. This means hitting with the handle parallel to the ground - either by raising the work object or kneeling a bit at the end of the swing. In that scenario, I would agree that a mishit is less dangerous when you kneel during the followthrough and have a lower point of impact.

-Colin

 

[colsmith]

quads said I guess I probably would split on a block, if I could figure out a good system to do it that doesn’t require handling the wood so much. What is your routine? You go out in the woods, cut down a tree, block it up, load the unsplit rounds, haul them back to your home, unload them, put them up on a splitting block, split, pick up the split pieces, and stack them?
Just sounds so much easier on the sore back to split the rounds where the tree was cut up, then haul them home to the pile.

We aren't very lumberjack-like. We scrounge wood mostly from trees already cut down, or in one case a huge tree fallen down in a storm, on city lots (except for our own trees.) We cut them up with our small electric chainsaw if the pieces need to be shorter to be transported home. We load wood into our truck, empty the wood into our yard, and eventually split and cut up further as needed in our yard. Because we are scroungers, we can skip wood that is enormous and heavy and needs splitting on the spot. Basically if the 2 of us can't pick up a piece to get it into the truck, it stays behind. If it is just too long we may cut it, but if it is say 3 feet across, forget it. In the past 4 days we have gathered 8 truckloads of wood, we estimate a total of 2 cords, maple, locust, and elm. We are trying to only take elm small enough to go in as rounds or thinner branches. We will have to cut a lot of the wood, much of it is too long. We are not even trying to split anything there. When we have gathered all we can, we will advise the nice couple to offer the remaining bits up to someone who has a splitter. There are large hunks of elm involved, and some huge trunk bits of locust, too. We told them early on that some pieces are too big for us, so they know that already.

We live near several cities, and the availability of free firewood seems pretty good so far, because I doubt many people IN the cities heat with wood. So that gives us a different routine. We do have trees in our own yard that we could cut down, but we are still arguing splitter or not, gas chainsaw or now. As for hubby being burly, he is almost 6'7" tall, uses the 12 lb. maul almost exclusively, but I use it too, on the bigger chunks. Tires me out, though. The 8 lb. maul is much easier on me. Today I loaded one truckload of wood by myself while hubby was supervising furnace repairs at a rental property. Then we did another load together, I am exhausted. We're taking tomorrow 'off' and baking cookies with a friend.

 

[quads]

Thanks for the info Some Like It Hot. I've just never been able to figure it into my routine without creating extra handling. I jump on the ATV, tractor, or in the pickup and head out into the woods. Cut down a dead tree (or cut up one that's already fell down) and then split the rounds where they lay. That way I don't have to wrestle with any unsplit rounds. After splitting I haul them home and put them in the pile. I have experimented with splitting on a block before (actually on tree stumps), and it does seem to split a little easier than under some circumstances on unfrozen ground. Anyway, sounds like it works well for the way you gather wood.

I never split elm. Any elm I ever came across was left to rot in the woods. Yuck!

 

[ertzog]

I'm currently using a knee high fat section of red oak that I roll to the spot where I'll be making the stack.

It seems to me I have better control when the strike point is closer to level, arms extended out. And if its a miss/glancing blow... you are starting with the head at the farthest possible distance from you - so you have the maximum time/chance to correct/keep it away from you.

And since its up in the air, I can make a bigger pile of splits falling where they want to, before it gets up to the level of the chopping block and I need to stop to stack.

For awhile, we had a big trunk section dropped into a hole.... nice and sturdy.. but you don't want to be tied down to working in a single place - that and you eventually split off the sides and or it rots out.

Having the hydraulic splitter for the beasty pieces... keeps you from being tempted into the kong style mega swings where you are asking for trouble.