-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
As requested... the Axe thread.
- Thread starter SpearHead
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 19,806
then i'll chop them both down
:barf:
:barf:
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 19,806
almost done! another couple of weeks!
Matteo Escobar
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2002
- Messages
- 4,142
A 7.5 to 9" knife may very well do things that a hatchet can't. But come on.....a hatchet can definately CHOP better than a knife. It's just silly to say that a 7.5" blade can CHOP better than a hatchet with a 24" handle.
Spearhead, it's clear where your alliengce stands, but get real.
It's not a knock on Busses, just a fact.
Spearhead, it's clear where your alliengce stands, but get real.
It's not a knock on Busses, just a fact.
Matteo, you weren't paying attention to what he was saying, were you??? Spearhead said that applied WITH THE SAME FORCE, a knife BY VIRTUE OF DESIGN AND EDGE GEOMETRY will penetrate deeper... Take a BM or Swamp Rat BR and a small hatchet... Find a small log and hit it with both with EQUAL force... Guess which one goes deeper??? I know, 'cause I've DONE it with a BR and a hatchet... The BR sunk in good, while the hatchet made a cut, but not much penetration... 
Spearhead isn't saying a knife is the OVERALL better tool for, say, chopping down a tree, at least, that's MY take on it (Where ya at, Spearhead???)
... The axe gains much from it's user-efficiency (you're letting the weight of the axe head do most of the work for you)... The knife will, however, sink deeper into the wood... If you can have ONLY the axe or knife, go with the knife, 'cause if it's a Busse or Swamp Rat, it will take all the abuse you can hand out, while axes can break at the head/handle junction... Just my $.02, and maybe not altogether right (I understand it in my head, but typing it out after drinking several Guinesses can be more difficult)
-Mark
Spearhead isn't saying a knife is the OVERALL better tool for, say, chopping down a tree, at least, that's MY take on it (Where ya at, Spearhead???) ... The axe gains much from it's user-efficiency (you're letting the weight of the axe head do most of the work for you)... The knife will, however, sink deeper into the wood... If you can have ONLY the axe or knife, go with the knife, 'cause if it's a Busse or Swamp Rat, it will take all the abuse you can hand out, while axes can break at the head/handle junction... Just my $.02, and maybe not altogether right (I understand it in my head, but typing it out after drinking several Guinesses can be more difficult) -Mark
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,049
yes... spearhead was pretty clear in what he said...
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 19,806
not to knock jerry OR spearhead but i to have tried both.
a bottle of ultra will out penetrate a can of cbl when applied with equal force.
it has nothing to do with a long neck vrs. a pop top, it is all in the grip geomety.
now in a survival situation you may want to forget the penetration and stay with the can. glass is VERY dangerous while stumbling around in rocks and such.
thats just my take, but when the chips are down my wife will always trade safety for more penetration.
speaking of hatchets... anybody see my x-wife?
a bottle of ultra will out penetrate a can of cbl when applied with equal force.
it has nothing to do with a long neck vrs. a pop top, it is all in the grip geomety.
now in a survival situation you may want to forget the penetration and stay with the can. glass is VERY dangerous while stumbling around in rocks and such.
thats just my take, but when the chips are down my wife will always trade safety for more penetration.
speaking of hatchets... anybody see my x-wife?
I agree with skunk. Around the house I'll be using Guinness in bottles, but out in the field I have to make do with those rotten 'Pub Cans'. They make great choppers because the little CO2 pad in the bottom helps give them a more mass forward balance.
To further the levity, and keep this thread from turning back to painfully 'serious', I offer the folliwng analogy:
If you apply the same amount of force at the hitch area, a BMW 735 will tow the same load as an F250 diesel. Dually. Only the BMW will do it in relative comfort. It also has a better radio.
I hope this was helpful. Thank you.
To further the levity, and keep this thread from turning back to painfully 'serious', I offer the folliwng analogy:
If you apply the same amount of force at the hitch area, a BMW 735 will tow the same load as an F250 diesel. Dually. Only the BMW will do it in relative comfort. It also has a better radio.
I hope this was helpful. Thank you.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Matteo Escobar :
Yes it is, no one is saying that however. In addition, an axe with a 24" handle isn't a hatchet, unless you are a brother to Goliath, few people use axes that size like hatchets, one handed, mainly wrist driven. A handle that length allows the use of an axe swing, telescoping off hand for guidance sweeping down the handle, with a strong piviot and drive off the hips and bringing in power from the shoulder and back. Now you can get around 1.5 times the penetration of an optimal 10" bowie depending on the weight of the axe head. For dedicated felling axe work I prefer longer handles, 36"+ as it lets me work more comfortable closer to the ground. The smaller trees (3"<) I just saw down, it takes seconds with a quality saw, or knife.
The latter is one of the more important points about wilderness use of axes. Most of the work done should be with smaller wood for a variety of situations. On such wood you can not bring the power of the axe to use as the tree isn't rigid enough to take the force of the hit. To cut them effectively you need a much slimmer profile which can penetrate with less force. The most efficient way to cut the smaller wood is to just saw them down, it takes little physical effort or time. If they are slightly bigger (3-4") and the wood a little dense, but still not able to be axed down because of poor rooting, a knife can be used to clear the front wedge which makes felling safer that without it, and requires usually a few cuts on the back to cause the tree to fall. With a saw used for the under cut the waste wood will clear like balsa.
As well simply consider the fact that in a survival situation would conserving calories not be a prudent tactic. yes an axe allows the use of larger muscle groups which have much higher glycogen stores and a much lower fatigue rate, however there is still a lot more energy burned. This in some situations can be a very critical factor. And of course none of this is meant to apply a useless label to an axe, axe are quality wood working tools, and I would be very happy to have one in such a required situation, in some areas they readly excell over long blades. I don't take my Battle Mistress with me when cutting the winters wood for the stove for example, nor when I section the larger felled trees or split the rounds for burning.
-Cliff
Yes it is, no one is saying that however. In addition, an axe with a 24" handle isn't a hatchet, unless you are a brother to Goliath, few people use axes that size like hatchets, one handed, mainly wrist driven. A handle that length allows the use of an axe swing, telescoping off hand for guidance sweeping down the handle, with a strong piviot and drive off the hips and bringing in power from the shoulder and back. Now you can get around 1.5 times the penetration of an optimal 10" bowie depending on the weight of the axe head. For dedicated felling axe work I prefer longer handles, 36"+ as it lets me work more comfortable closer to the ground. The smaller trees (3"<) I just saw down, it takes seconds with a quality saw, or knife.
The latter is one of the more important points about wilderness use of axes. Most of the work done should be with smaller wood for a variety of situations. On such wood you can not bring the power of the axe to use as the tree isn't rigid enough to take the force of the hit. To cut them effectively you need a much slimmer profile which can penetrate with less force. The most efficient way to cut the smaller wood is to just saw them down, it takes little physical effort or time. If they are slightly bigger (3-4") and the wood a little dense, but still not able to be axed down because of poor rooting, a knife can be used to clear the front wedge which makes felling safer that without it, and requires usually a few cuts on the back to cause the tree to fall. With a saw used for the under cut the waste wood will clear like balsa.
As well simply consider the fact that in a survival situation would conserving calories not be a prudent tactic. yes an axe allows the use of larger muscle groups which have much higher glycogen stores and a much lower fatigue rate, however there is still a lot more energy burned. This in some situations can be a very critical factor. And of course none of this is meant to apply a useless label to an axe, axe are quality wood working tools, and I would be very happy to have one in such a required situation, in some areas they readly excell over long blades. I don't take my Battle Mistress with me when cutting the winters wood for the stove for example, nor when I section the larger felled trees or split the rounds for burning.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,196
hehehehehehe.
It seems that I have inadvertantly created a reading comprehension exercise here.
Yes, some of you (Xelloss, Seth, Cliff) have taken my meaning rather well... by reading just what I said and not attempting to cloud the issue with peripheral factors.
The reason for the thread, for those who may have missed the beginning of all this, is simple. I refuse to have people try to pass their feelings off as proof of anything. Just because you prefer to do things a certain way or because someone wrote that they felt it was better to do something a certain way, does not make it true. These people rely on their straw man arguments to sway people by sounding well read or very experienced. When faced with such a situation, I find it helpful to boil the argument down its fundamental parts and work forward from there.
In this case, the theory offered was that axes are more efficient chopping tools than knives. On one level, this is an apples and oranges comparison. And as such, to debate it, you have to find a common denominator. That common denominator is the cutting edge. But in order to compare the two, you have to strip away the leverage issue, differences in overall design, intended use, individual situation, etc. Anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics knows that in order to solve an equation you have to reduce the number of variables to a managable level and work forward from there. And that is what I did. I made everthing constant but the blade design.
Once you have done that, and assuming that everyone is willing to see reality for what it is and not read into the thesis or results, then you can go back and debate intelligently about what conditions and other variables will shape your decision about which tool to use. But not before.
As to my "allegiance"... yes I know who my friends are but that is not the point. I gain nothing (and neither does anyone else) by letting stupid statements lie around fermenting. My loyalty lies with the fact based truths. Because, from those I can extrapolate information that I can use and apply to various situations.
If you feel that my thesis is in error, feel free to present the corresponding anti-thesis. If it is supportable I will happily and civily entertain it. But if you take the tack of supporting it by saying "the classic writers all say so...", I will laugh at you and prove you stupid. Law student or not.
It seems that I have inadvertantly created a reading comprehension exercise here.
Yes, some of you (Xelloss, Seth, Cliff) have taken my meaning rather well... by reading just what I said and not attempting to cloud the issue with peripheral factors.The reason for the thread, for those who may have missed the beginning of all this, is simple. I refuse to have people try to pass their feelings off as proof of anything. Just because you prefer to do things a certain way or because someone wrote that they felt it was better to do something a certain way, does not make it true. These people rely on their straw man arguments to sway people by sounding well read or very experienced. When faced with such a situation, I find it helpful to boil the argument down its fundamental parts and work forward from there.
In this case, the theory offered was that axes are more efficient chopping tools than knives. On one level, this is an apples and oranges comparison. And as such, to debate it, you have to find a common denominator. That common denominator is the cutting edge. But in order to compare the two, you have to strip away the leverage issue, differences in overall design, intended use, individual situation, etc. Anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics knows that in order to solve an equation you have to reduce the number of variables to a managable level and work forward from there. And that is what I did. I made everthing constant but the blade design.
Once you have done that, and assuming that everyone is willing to see reality for what it is and not read into the thesis or results, then you can go back and debate intelligently about what conditions and other variables will shape your decision about which tool to use. But not before.
As to my "allegiance"... yes I know who my friends are but that is not the point. I gain nothing (and neither does anyone else) by letting stupid statements lie around fermenting. My loyalty lies with the fact based truths. Because, from those I can extrapolate information that I can use and apply to various situations.
If you feel that my thesis is in error, feel free to present the corresponding anti-thesis. If it is supportable I will happily and civily entertain it. But if you take the tack of supporting it by saying "the classic writers all say so...", I will laugh at you and prove you stupid. Law student or not.
Cobalt
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 1998
- Messages
- 17,721
I have used both extensively along with the kukri. I have found that when it comes to chopping into heavy lumber the hatchet does a slightly better job than a knife, but not as good as the kukri in my hands. Specifically, I have compared a marine raider bowie, a survival bowie, a 15 inch AK, and an eaton, coleman, CS and Gerber hatchets.
I found that I can chop faster in the long run with a hatchet only because it is easier. The mass of the hatchet is concentrated at the head and provides additional force (momentum) when striking allowing you to deliver a harder blow with less input from you.
There is no doubt that the blade geometry is better on the knife and in a few cuts will deliver deeper and more efficient cuts than a hatchet. However, when the knife starts to go deep into the wood it binds more and becomes tougher to chop with, and you have to start giving the chops more angle sooner than with a hatchet or kukri.
So for smaller branchers and lighter brush work, the knife is way ahead, but for larger limbs and trees, the hatchet has been more efficient in the long run, in my experience. The kukri was actually more efficient for me than the hatchet. Now, I have not compared the BM to the hatchet, but I don't think there would be too much of a difference.
One thing I will add is that the hatchets are much heavier than the knives, which becomes a big factor in chopping. It would be interesting to compare the hatchet and knife and kukri all of equal weight and blade geometry, with only their balance being the variable, in other words, more blade surface area versus concentrated weight of the hatchet at the head.
I still prefer knives, but a hatchet has it's uses and is specialized for those.
I found that I can chop faster in the long run with a hatchet only because it is easier. The mass of the hatchet is concentrated at the head and provides additional force (momentum) when striking allowing you to deliver a harder blow with less input from you.
There is no doubt that the blade geometry is better on the knife and in a few cuts will deliver deeper and more efficient cuts than a hatchet. However, when the knife starts to go deep into the wood it binds more and becomes tougher to chop with, and you have to start giving the chops more angle sooner than with a hatchet or kukri.
So for smaller branchers and lighter brush work, the knife is way ahead, but for larger limbs and trees, the hatchet has been more efficient in the long run, in my experience. The kukri was actually more efficient for me than the hatchet. Now, I have not compared the BM to the hatchet, but I don't think there would be too much of a difference.
One thing I will add is that the hatchets are much heavier than the knives, which becomes a big factor in chopping. It would be interesting to compare the hatchet and knife and kukri all of equal weight and blade geometry, with only their balance being the variable, in other words, more blade surface area versus concentrated weight of the hatchet at the head.
I still prefer knives, but a hatchet has it's uses and is specialized for those.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 1998
- Messages
- 1,647
I'm missing something here... Oh, yeah, I'm missing a complete sentence.
Remove modifying clauses and you end up with "thick knives are than axes".
No wonder my head hurts.
This whole argument would be moot if Stihl would come up with a pocket ripper that sounded like a thousand p!ssed off hornets.