Husqvarna Hatchet 2011 Model Review

Husqvarna made a big impact on the axe market when it introduced its line of moderately priced, good quality axes. The hatchet has become a very popular model. You can see a review of it here.

Husqvarna does not manufacture their own axes. It typically contracts with several Swedish axe manufacturers. Until recently, one of their largest contractors was Wetterlings, which with the assistance of some other companies, gave us the above model we came to know. This year however, Husqvarna changed axe manufacturers to Hults Bruk, another Swedish company. This is reflected in the changes of the 2011 axe models. Here I will review the new Hatchet, which is sold under the number HVA 576 92 64 01.

Specifications:
Manufacturer: Husqvarna
Axe Head Weight: 1.25 lb
Axe Length: 15 inches
Axe Head Material: Undisclosed Swedish Steel
Handle Material: Hickory
Cost: $40.00

Just like the last model, this one is also priced in the $40 range, making it a mid-range axe in terms of cost.

In this review I will compare the new Husqvarna hatchet to both the old model as well as the Gransfors Bruks Wildlife Hatchet. It should be noted that the old Husqvarna hatchet I will use in the review is of exceptional quality. It does not appear to have been made by Wetterlings at all, judging by the strike patterns. Other examples of that model that I have seen have had much more pronounced imperfections. Here are the two Husqvarna hatchets next to each other.

And for those of you who are not familiar with the old model, here is the new Husqvarna hatchet next to the Gransfors Bruks Wildlife Hatchet.

The handle of the Husqvarna hatchet has fairly good grain. It is comparable to what I have seen of the previous model. It is however much larger. It is over two inches longer than the old model, and significantly thicker. The handle is still very comfortable to use, but the size difference is noticeable. The difference is handle size also accounts for a weight difference between the two axes. While the head weights seem to be about the same, the extra length and thickness of the new handles makes for a heavier hatchet, coming in at 2 lb 1 oz overall, as compared to 1 lb 10 oz overall for the old model.

The head design is excellent. The overall shape and geometry is excellent. This particular design has been in use by Hults Bruk for a long time as their Agdor pattern of axes. The bit is thin, the cheeks have good curvature, and the head is fairly well balanced. The axe came somewhat sharp. If was serviceable, but no where nearly as sharp as a Gransfors Bruks. Ten minutes with the sharpening stone however gave me a shaving sharp axe. I have heard some complaints with respect to this axe that the grind of the bit did not appear to have been polished, and that you can see the grind marks. While true, this in no way effects the performance of the axe. The head is attached to the handle using a wooden wedge and a circular metal pin, and the attachment was very secure.

The hatchet came with a leather sheath. I am not a big fan of this particular design as it can slide off due to the lack of a strap going over the handle. That being said, the sheaths on the new model appear to be consistent, as opposed to the variety of sheaths used on the old model.

In terms of performance the old and new models seem to be well matched. Thirty swings with either axe gave me the results you see below. The chopping power seems to be identical. Similarly, due to the similar head geometry, the two hatchets split and carve with about the same efficiency. That being said, I had hoped for some added performance from the new model due to the extra weight.

Overall, I think we have an axe that is a worthy successor to the Husqvarna hatchet. The price has remained the same and so has the performance. I know that nostalgia will soon hit, and we’ll start reminiscing about how perfect the old model was, but the truth is that in terms of quality and design nothing has changed. This is a $40 hatchet. It will have imperfections, just like the old model. They are typically minor and can be easily fixed with some work. If you are looking for a good practical tool, then the Husqvarna axe is still a good choice. If you want a show piece, then perhaps a $40 hatchet is not the best bet. You may get lucky and end up with a perfect example, but odds are, you will not.

Enzo Trapper Review

Recently the nice people at Omaha Knife allowed me to test one of their knives, the Enzo Trapper. The Enzo knives typically come as kits which you have to assemble. Since that is far beyond my skill level, I opted to test one of the finished knives they sell. After testing it I liked it so much that I actually ended up purchasing it from them.

 

Specifications:
Knife Length: 8 1/4 inches (210 mm)
Blade Length: 3 7/8 inches (98 mm); Cutting edge length: 3 5/8 inches (93 mm)
Blade Thickness: 1/8 inches (3.5 mm)
Blade Width: 1 inch (25.5 mm)
Blade Material: O1 tool steel; also available in D2 steel
Blade Hardness: HRC 57-59 on the Rockwell Scale
Type of Tang: Full
Blade Grind: Scandinavian/single bevel
Handle Material: Micarta
Sheath Material: Leather
Cost: $115.00

The Enzo knives are not cheap. They run well over $100. The kits are a bit cheaper, usually around $80. I expect quite a bit from a knife that costs so much.

When compared to the Mora 1, the Enzo Trapper has a slightly longer overall blade. However, because the blade is also wider, and as a result has a more pronounced curve, the actual flat cutting area ends up being smaller than that of the Mora. Also, the blade is not sharpened all the way back to the handle like it is on the Mora 1. The blade of the Enzo Trapper is thicker than that of the Mora, and feels much more secure. That being said, it is not overly thick. The grind, just like on the Mora 1, is Scandinavian/single bevel. The handle of the Enzo Trapper is longer and thicker than the Mora 1. I found it to be very comfortable. The knife does have a small lower finger guard that I wish was not there, but that is just a personal preference. What surprised me most about the knife was how small and easily maneuverable it felt in my hand. I had always expected the Enxo knives to feel chunky and heavy. This one however does not. It is almost like holding a Mora 1. This was the biggest selling point for me-it is a robust knife that offers the level of control I would expect from a much lighter blade.

When tested the knife performed very well. The blade is more than thick enough to handle splitting pieces of up to three inches in diameter, which is about the largest wood the length of the blade would allow.

Similarly, truncating was not an issue. I did not see any damage to the edge.

Making feather sticks and carving in general was not a problem. I tend to like a narrower blade, but this one performed very well.

The knife sheath is made out of leather. It is not anything too impressive, but gets the job done. It has a simple belt loop, and is very basic in all respects.

Overall, I came away from  he testing very impressed with the knife. Like I said before, I ended up deciding to buy it after the test. The biggest upside to this knife is hard to explain. There are many knives of similar size and thickness, but his one just feels right in my hand. It is not overstated, it is not overly designed, nor is it too robust for its size. It fits in my pocket, feels light in the hand, and performs all the tasks I require of a small knife.

Enzo also makes a Camper version which has a blade of about 5 inches, which I am very curious to try. The Enzo models generally come in either O1 tool steel or D2 steel.

Group of the Construction Corp US Military, 1864

This photograph was taken by Isaac H. Bonsall in 1864. It depicts a rail road construction site in Chattanooga Tennessee.

On the lower right hand corner of the picture you will notice two axes. They both appear to be either Jersey or Rockaway pattern with full size curved handles.

Cheap, Lightweight Backpacking Food Part 4-Dehydrating

As you have seen in my prior posts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), when in the woods I carry mostly dry food such as rice and instant mashed potatoes. Those foods are cheap, easy to find, and most importantly light weight. There is however a way to add more diversity to that menu, and it can be done without spending too much money. I am talking about dehydrating your own food. With a dehydrator, you can prepare anything from meat to vegetables and add it to your rice. Dehydrators very widely when it comes to price, mostly based on how much volume they can handle at one time. The base models work just as well.

Here I decided to dehydrate some chicken. I picked the breast meat because it has the least fat. Fat is the enemy of dehydration, as it will not dry and can cause your food to spoil. The less fatty the meat is, the better.

I cut up the chicken and cooked it in a non stick pan without using any oil. The cooking makes the food easier to prepare in the woods, and also removed a lot of the fat that may be contained in the meat.

When cooked, wash off the pieces of meat in some hot water and remove any remaining pieces of fat that might be stuck onto the chicken. Then cut it up into small pieces.

Place the meat on the dehydrator, and let it run. The drying process will take hours.

The end result will be a bunch of small, rock hard pieces of meat.

Gather them up and store them in a dry place. I am not sure what the recommended keep time is for dried meat, but I have had this particular batch for months without any problems. This method of preserving food lends itself very well to backpacking as it significantly reduces both the weight and volume of the food.

To prepare it, simply add it to boiling water and rehydrate. You will not get meat that looks exactly like it did when it was fresh, but it will add good variation to your meals.