Definitions? Hawk vs. Hatchet

Hiya

From what I understand, there isn't much difference really.
hatchet is french for small axe
tomahawk is the transliteration of the Virginian Algonquian word
for same.
In general tomahawks are sleeker/lighter (look more like warhammers)
have straight round shafts and smaller heads, with no hammer (or with pipe/spike)

hope that helps
 
Circa 1800, there was no difference.

Now though, you could say a tomahawk is a type of hatchet designed to be both a tool and weapon, where a plain ol' hatchet is designed to be a tool only. 200 years ago, what was called a "tomahawk" on the frontier would be called a hatchet in Boston or London, even though they were virtually the same thing. Likewise if someone roaming the Appalachian Mtns circa 1790 had a naval boarding axe, it could also be referred to as a tomahawk by the locals.
 
Hatchets typically have a head-balance designed for chopping wood... the weight is distributed and the head is shaped for cutting. Looking at a hatchet head from the top shows this... In short, design is biased toward chopping...

Tomahawks typically have heads and handles designed for throwing (Frontier Hawks), sometimes the handle is round profile, more often oval or egg-shaped to aid in orientation by feel, plus rotational balance when thrown... In short, design is biased more toward throwing than chopping...

Sometimes tomahawks can be sort of in between... Trail Hawk, for example... then things get a bit cloudy, and the lines cross...
 
this is just my humble opinion after carrying, and woods-bumming with hawks, hatchets, and axes for almost 42 years, all over the planet, and building them for almost as long (made my first river-rock caveman axe when i was five, with a broken weathered branch and some rawhide string - it finally fell apart when it was thirty-something - i used to crush rocks with it.). :cool::thumbup:


a proper hawk is long, and has an ounce of weight per inch of length, give or take ten percent, while a hatchet is heavier per inch (pretty much just a scaled-down axe.).

a balanced tomahawk has its CG where the top third meets the middle third, and the hand wants to sit idle where the bottom third meets the middle third - the butt end acts as ballast in that hold, and as a second hand-hold in power strikes and door entries, and also is a complementary weapon to the head of the hawk in single-hand good hawk combatives.

a hatchet's CG is in, or nearer to, the head than a tomahawk, and the bit of a hatchet is usually wedge-shaped in cross-section, rather than knife-like, in a proper hawk's case.

a proper hawk has a diminutive bit edge, 1" to 2 1/2", which penetrates with little effort.

a proper hatchet (that may be used in place of a hawk. among other specialty hatchets) will have a larger edge, 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches.


a hatchet hacks.

a tomahawk pecks.


a hatchet splits.

a tomahawk interrupts.


a hatchet is very nice to have along on a hike, but has less use per mile of effort IME than a proper long tomahawk (of the same weight) does, for how much effort the two are comparitively to carry.


other views are certainly applauded for varying from this one, as far as i am concerned however.

if i thought i knew everything about choppers, i'd stop developing by now. :D


good question, brother!

vec
 
I've pondered long and hard about this, and I'm still not sure I've come to a good conclusion on how to separate the two in modern terms. Like Wolf said, back in the day there was no meaningful difference. I think today, though, the "tomahawk" has more of a weapon connotation where as a "hatchet" has more of a tool connotation. This, of course, is usually only pointed out by sheeple. When talking with friends, almost all my small axes are referred to as tomahawks. If I was carrying one out in the woods, however, or a state park or some such public place and was asked about it, I would call it a hand axe or a hatchet because of my reason listed above.

I use to think that a tomahawk was any small axe that had a handle that was dropped in through the top of the 'hawk's eye. This is not the case any longer with some of the newer "tactical" tomahawks as they are pressed on to the top of their synthetic handles and then wedged with a screw. I think as far as shape is concerned, Vec got it pretty close when he described the edge length. I would say that a 'hawk usually has a longer beak (measured from the eye to the primary cutting edge) than a hatchet does, with the edge (or bit) being anywhere from 1.5" to about 3". I think the beak length is what usually gives a tomahawk it's defining shape as it usually has a dramatic width difference from the eye to the edge. What I mean is that where the blade meets the eye is usually fairly thin (1 to 1.5") compared to a hatchet that usually has a thicker section where it meets the eye (2.5 to 3"), even if the blade edge is the same length. Confused enough yet?

So, for me, I guess it's about the look of the tool as the function of either can be almost equally interchanged.

vector001 said:
...while a hatchet is... pretty much just a scaled-down axe.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top