I have heard the question asked how a Fiskar's splitting axe does against large logs, and also I have heard the question asked as to how they compare against a splitting maul. Since my neighbor had a large Maple tree removed from his back yard with slices measuring roughly seven feet in diameter and had the wood kindly deposited in my yard, I took advantage of his graciousness and purchased an 8-lb maul at my local hardware store with a fiberglass handle; I already have a Fiskar's splitting axe.
For the most part, I was breaking chunks off of the wood of roughly equal size with both tools. But, the splitting axe was much lighter, so I could squeeze more swings into a given unit of time, thus allowing a faster splitting rate. Also, the sharpened edge of the axe allowed it to form a crack quickly and efficiently.
The maul would take a few extra swings to form a crack on tougher pieces of wood, but once the crack was formed, it would quickly blast its way through the crack via sheer momentum. Also, if you split wood for exercise, as I do, then the added mass gives a harder workout.
There were a few tough spots around twisted grains or knots which were a little challenging, and this is where I think that a symphonic approach worked best: The axe would start the crack and split, and the maul would blast its way through the wood when the axe started having difficulty, due to the wood's depth.
Finally, there is side-splitting, which is the technique of splitting a lot along its length. Without a doubt, the splitting axe was superior in this chore, as it allowed me to create an effective crack running the length of the log; the maul just mashed instead of forming a crack. Again though, if the log is large, the maul can then help to blast through the formed crack to split more efficiently (although I have always used wedges and a sledge hammer for this previously).
In conclusion, each tool has its strength and both would be beneficial in the chopper's arsenal. However, if I were to suggest a tool to first purchase, or a tool for the most frequent use, I would indubitably pick the splitting axe. Of course, others may have their own opinions.
For the most part, I was breaking chunks off of the wood of roughly equal size with both tools. But, the splitting axe was much lighter, so I could squeeze more swings into a given unit of time, thus allowing a faster splitting rate. Also, the sharpened edge of the axe allowed it to form a crack quickly and efficiently.
The maul would take a few extra swings to form a crack on tougher pieces of wood, but once the crack was formed, it would quickly blast its way through the crack via sheer momentum. Also, if you split wood for exercise, as I do, then the added mass gives a harder workout.
There were a few tough spots around twisted grains or knots which were a little challenging, and this is where I think that a symphonic approach worked best: The axe would start the crack and split, and the maul would blast its way through the wood when the axe started having difficulty, due to the wood's depth.
Finally, there is side-splitting, which is the technique of splitting a lot along its length. Without a doubt, the splitting axe was superior in this chore, as it allowed me to create an effective crack running the length of the log; the maul just mashed instead of forming a crack. Again though, if the log is large, the maul can then help to blast through the formed crack to split more efficiently (although I have always used wedges and a sledge hammer for this previously).
In conclusion, each tool has its strength and both would be beneficial in the chopper's arsenal. However, if I were to suggest a tool to first purchase, or a tool for the most frequent use, I would indubitably pick the splitting axe. Of course, others may have their own opinions.
![[Hearth.com] Personal Observations Comparing a Splitting Axe to a Splitting Maul](/talk/data/attachments/7/7609-dd96980bfbc36582e240a6b8e9604d6f.jpg?hash=8O9szUFJtD)
