"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Glen Able" writes:
| I guess it's a good time to put up fences now before everything starts
| shooting up and getting in the way (actually, might wait a month or so
until
| Buddleias etc. get razed to the ground).
|
| Anyway, I anticipate living a long and rich life full of DIY fencing
| adventures, so I'm interested in getting tools to help with digging
post
| holes.
|
| The 6" diameter hand augers (£70) look useful. I guess the resulting
hole
| would be good for 3" posts, but would it let you get in enough concrete
| round a 4" post?

What you you want to set them in concrete for? The only useful
way to use concrete is as a collar in the top 6" - if the soil
is packed down around the post, the bottom will not shift. And
concrete the whole way down makes them a real pain to remove.

Well, I was actually asking for people's experiences of the hole digging
tools (anyone?) but ok, I'm up for a critical look at the concrete issue

From my browsing, it certainly seems that the majority of sources seem to
think that concrete is somehow the 'proper way' to do things, but I've not
seen anything to convince me it's actually necessary.

Having thought about the mechanics of it, I guess you can't simply say that
soil can't hold a post firm, because even if you concrete the whole thing,
you're effectively just making the post fatter and then relying on the
surrounding soil to hold it - although the increased size would mean you'd
be putting less pressure on the soil.

If you do just pack the hole with soil, won't it be a bit weak near the
surface where the soil can easily move outwards? Which might let the post
start to wobble, even if it is held firmly at the bottom. Is this why you
suggest a concrete 'collar', or is that intended to keep water off?

cheers,
G.A.