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#.
The handle is about 10" too long. The wedge is about 8lbs (or so) too heavy. I hope this helps.
True! I borrowed and used one... once.
Says a guy who's probably never seen a Monstah, and a guy who's used one once.
I can tell you this..........the maul in the picture will not split very well. The taper is all wrong
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!
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.
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?
We would have to keep the cutting edge the same for all these tools and same to get a good measurement.
