Recommendation? Full Tang Hatchets/Axes

Park Swan said:
I'm confused, Woodcraft Woodcraft I cannot for the life of me see how a flat axe is more similar to a billhook. It's shaped like an axe, often times with a nearly identical profile. A full tang chisel is still obviously a chisel, a full tang knife or sword is still a knife or sword, etc. A bill hook is a brush clearing knife, and has a brush clearing hooked blade. An axe is for chopping, and has a small but at the end of a longer handle.
Click to expand...
Check my wording, I said I partially agree. And I used the words more in common.
But to respond......
An ax is for whatever task it was designed for but..... Generally speaking an ax is most commonly used for chopping and splitting. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you grabbed the modern flat stock Buck ax, a woodsman's pal and a decent scout hatchet you would after a day of use come to the conclusion that the buck ax is closer in relationship in both construction and effective use to the woodsman's pal than it is to an old plumb scout hatchet.
There is a reason for quite some time flat stock axes have been referred to as ax shaped knives........
I look forward to someone finding the sweet spot in the middle.


Profile is only a small part of what makes an ax....
 
Ugaldie said:
I know I will not change the minds of some people, "valid reason"s are subjective so each individue can see them as valid or not. I don't see any valid reason here,



So I could say the same,



I'll try to explain it in a short and simplistic way. But first of all, I have to say I have never seen a "full tang axe", due to their size (if you think they are part of axe family) you should refer to them as "fulltang hatches".

Polless axes are produced the same way as polled axes to work in the same way but they can't do some tasks polled axes can do, but all of us call both types axes.

Flat stock "fulltang hatchets" are produced the same way as some billhooks (not axes) are produced and they are produced for the same tasks as billhooks, light wood processing (not all types of wood processing as axes are capable to do). They are slightly different (less capable) so you can't use modern type billhooks for some of tasks classic billhooks can do (same as polled/polles axes). That's easily fixable with little work and using the same production methods you use to produce modern type billhooks, but you can't use the same methods easily and with little work to make modern type billhooks (the ones you produce) perform the same tasks with comparable performance as full weight felling, splitting... axes.
Click to expand...

First, I'm using the term "full tang axe" to describe all subsets of axes, which include hatchets and tomahawks.

Your qualifiers don't make sense to me. There is of course some level of subjectivity, but you seem to be focusing now on production methods, which doesn't have anything to do with what the end result tool is called. An traditional axe is made in a way similar to a hammer or adze or sledge, but no one is disputing whether or not they are the same tool. I can have 100 puukkos cut out of a plate, that doesn't make them billhooks either. They will still be puukkos...
 
Woodcraft said:
I will have to say I partially agree with Ugaldie Ugaldie . If we are talking about the flat stock full Tang hatchets often produced by knifemakers then I think they do share more in common with the billhook tools that Ugaldie Ugaldie has posted pictures of than what most associate with an ax.
If we are talking about the old Craftsman, marbles and Stanley type full Tang hatchets then no. I think those have more in common with an ax as we know it. And tend to work as such where the flat stock ones tend to just suck. The flat stock lack the weight and cheek and bit geometry as well as balance to be affective. I think most are designed with a mall ninja in mind.
Whenever I see one of the flat stock axes I usually remember the old hatchet, pry bar, hammer nonsense that rusted away in my childhood cabin.
When viewed as a replacement for a big knife I start to see the value in a flat stock ax. One well done could be a far better chopper than a big knife. And still work well for cutting tasks. That said all the ones I have seen and held sucked. I have hope for Park Swan Park Swan design, time will tell.
Click to expand...
Some of those flat stock hatchets remind me of meat cleavers.
 
I stopped in a little place a couple of towns over at an antique store that had "Wild West" collector grade stuff. Had my 3yr old in tote. The owner said there are several families that have been here since the Oregon Trail days. Someone had passed away that had a lot of stuff in storage that he picked up. The guy was actually really nice and he was very very proud of his stuff - maybe it was priced right and I just didn't know how much most of it would sell for or what he had into it?

Anyway, there was a massive hanging pot that was used to render pork/pig (maybe someone can elaborate?). It looked like two men would have to move it, if you had to. Looked like more of a permanent setup for a hearth.

With it was a massive cleaver on a two foot handle - I think it was about 3 feet or so (full-size axe or so). My guess was there was between two and two and a half pounds in the head alone. Pretty much full tang up to the last 6". He said it was for butchering pigs - I think a guy could take a decent-sized tree down with it if he wanted. Not knowing anything about them I didn't entertaining buying the "Cauldron" or the cleaver but I wish I had taken a picture now.

*Didn't happen without pictures I know lol.

Axe shaped knife maybe?
 
Agent_H, that sounds like a "beef / lamb splitter". You can find videos on the technique employed on Youtube. I was quite impressed how effortless of a job so much weight seemed to make of the whole business. You just need to know precisely where to cut :).

I would've bought that from you in a heart beat :)! I can already imagine the look on my wife's face. And of course it would've been ridiculously overpowered for whatever "butchering" I'm doing these days.
 
Park Swan Park Swan I have make clear several messages ago which tools I was talking about, I have make it clear and I have done it several times. Don't try to change it now.

A tool is defined by its intended use, its design, construction, balance, geometry, its capabilities and incapabilities, actual use... A change in any of them can change the definition of the tool. Take as an exaple the messer, visually is a sword but the type of construction made contemporaneans to catalog it as a different weapon.

I have focused in production methods because that was another point to show my posture. If you say in your opinion all the points till this moment are invalid and you complain when your interlocutor addresses a new point you make clear you don't want a conversation.

You don't have to complain for anything, if you don't want to continue this conversation tell it and well met in another conversation.

The type of tool you are talking about and Woodcraft Woodcraft has shown are known here as a type of machete, meat machete, fish machetes are pointy. There also is a very simmilar Chinese weapon and some close general use machetes too, like the malayan parang.
 
Ugaldie Ugaldie it isn't clear at all. I'm not complaining. You haven't given real reasons or addressed my points. I just described why production methods aren't a good way to determine a tool in my opinion. Do you have a response to that?

I've read through all of your points, and I can't find anything that gives evidence for calling it a bill hook other than production method similarity (which is tenuous at best IMO, and I explained why).
 
Last edited:
Park Swan Park Swan I have talked about the intended purpose, actual purpose, design limits, design similarities between "fulltang hatchets" and other billhooks, weight distribution, visual similarity, design faults, how it is built... I have admited the only point you have bring to this discussion, "fulltang hatchets" are visually similar to axes. That's it, but visual similarity is only a superficial characteristic, all the other features make this tool closer to billhooks.

Park Swan said:
I just described why production methods aren't a good way to determine a tool in my opinion. Do you have a response to that?
Click to expand...

Your description about "aren't a good way" has not been that. What you have said previously is production methods doesn't have anything to do with the name of the tool.

Park Swan said:
production methods, which doesn't have anything to do with what the end result tool is called...
Click to expand...

About the point "fulltang hatches" are inferior to both axes and hatchets, taking in account you haven't discussed it I assume we think the same about it.

Park Swan Park Swan we know what we think about "fulltang hatchets" definition, you think they are axes due to visual simmilarity and I think they are modern type billhooks (axe shaped knife is a good argument too) due to all the other features, we have exposed our opinions and we don't agree. No problem, each one can have his opinion. I see we will not reach a common point, so have a good day.
 
Ugaldie Ugaldie I'm beginning to think you weren't interested in having a discussion from the beginning. We certainly aren't going to agree if you can't take points one at a time and respond to them. It seems like your intention in having a conversation about full tang axes/hatchets was just to say your opinion and then defend it by repetition. I've asked you specific points but they have been ignored. Simply saying that you think it's a bill hook in different ways doesn't make it a billhook.

All of the points you list are in favor of my argument. Intended purpose, I already refuted. A billhook and full tang axes/hatchets have completely different intended uses, while the intended use for a traditional hatchet and full tang hawk are the same. It's simple.

Actual purpose, billhooks are for clearing brush, full tang hatchets aren't.

Design similarities, there are very few. As I've already stated, and wasn't responded to, none of what makes a billhook a billhook is present on the full tang hatchet. I don't see how this can be misinterpreted, but I ask for similarities and get no response except that I'm wrong. What's missing here is your actual evidence for your argument.

No hard feelings, still willing to have a discussion at any point.
 
Park Swan Park Swan I don't want a discussion but a conversation, I have said it from beginning and I have said it clearly. Same as many other thing, some of them several times. Some of them have been ignored and you have understood some of them incorrectly the way it interested you the most, in my last message I have demonstrated you have lied about what you said in a post in this same page and instead of admiting it you accuse me about the things you do.

Park Swan said:
Actual purpose, billhooks are for clearing brush, full tang hatchets aren't.
Click to expand...

You have "refuted" my point showing ignorance about one of the tools we are talking about here. No thanks, I don't want a dishonest conversation or a discussion with a disonest person.

By the way, in order to make you learn something and make things clear for anybody who is reading this post, you can clear bushes, split wood, debark a tree or even cut grass with a billhook, but the main work for billhooks is this,

 
Last edited:
Well wasn't that condescending as hell? I don't have a strong opinion and don't care enough to participate in the debate, but this is crazy. You don't concede my point, so you must be ignorant, dishonest or both? Is that the attitude? Yikes. I'm all for active debate, but you began with a huge chip on your shoulder and have just explained to people that you are simply correct and they are simply wrong as if opinions can't vary. Insulting people, questioning their intelligence and honesty when they don't agree with your opinion does not strengthen your argument. And honestly, there are so many similar tools with lots of overlap in use that I can see both sides. I think that both points are valid.
 
jblyttle jblyttle please read again the messages. I have been the one who has admited one of his points, he hasn't, you don't have to be a homesteader to know about billhooks look for what a billhook is and you will find its intended use at any description, look at the message 53 were you can see who has been dishonest and look at who has been the one who has said anyone can have his opinion.
 
The horse died, you can stop beating the poor beast. Besides, it's gone past entertaining to boring.

Nothing more to see here folks, move along. ;)
 
Ugaldie said:
jblyttle jblyttle please read again the messages. I have been the one who has admited one of his points, he hasn't, you don't have to be a homesteader to know about billhooks look for what a billhook is and you will find its intended use at any description, look at the message 53 were you can see who has been dishonest and look at who has been the one who has said anyone can have his opinion.
Click to expand...

Aside from structural differences, you have yet to make any sound argument why a full tang hawk is a billhook. They are really radically different tools for different uses. Your our only hang up seems to be construction, but there are some billhooks that are hung similar to axes and VERY different to other billhooks. Does that make them axes?

I would say not, but you're the one here who's saying tools aren't allowed to be constructed in different ways than one. Even traditional billhooks are very different to full tang hawks, they have stick tangs, very thin blades, and are typically only able to be gripped with one hand.

Modern folding knives are constructed in very different ways than a historical belt knife, though I don't think they are less than knives.

Compound bows have very few mechanical similarities to long bows, but are still considered bows.

Your example is the Messer, which is still a type of sword, just one with a different name. Lots of swords have different names, Sabers, Spadroons, small swords, mortuary swords, back swords, broad swords... yet all of those have the same construction. Just different names. I would say that that logic goes both ways. You picked a subset of a larger group of tools to prove your point. "Felling axes" and "full tang tomahawks" are built differently and used differently, and therefor different. But they're both still axes. Just in the same way that a Falchion and a Small Sword are built differently and used entirely differently, but both are still swords.

You seem to think axes are privy to different logic, though you can see different styles in every tool type. Sledge hammer vs. slag hammer, American vs. European sythe, Malasian parang vs. South American machete, ect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top