A trailhawk was designed as a weapon, not a serious woodland tool if I remember correctly.
well, why don't they call it a
"Weapon" hawk do you suppose, brother...?
and what's a
serious woodland tool...?
i consider that to be a Trail Hawk, among other things.
A Rifleman hawk would be much, much more practical for woodland use, with the larger bit, and a larger poll right?
not in my experience.
A Norse hawk would be the best chopper, having the most traditional "Axe" shape right?
as you can see in my signature picture, i have handled the Norses, and they are really great - make mine a Trail hawk as my personal favorite however.
with a proper handle cross-section especially
(like our Gen 1 Mk 2 handle) you are only using about an INCH of bit, because your strikes become so
ACCURATE. -
it is just a flying chisel at that point.
i like it.
In my opinion, I would rather have a small axe over a trailhawk, because the bit of a trail is just TOO dimunitive to be truely useful in a BROAD range of woodland activities.
respectfully, brother -
i hear that a lot.
that puts you in the
Knife-Batoners School of Thought, i am guessing...;
you always see guys with one knife, needlessly banging it through a hardened stump to split wood,
when there are ten branches at their feet that could be used as wedges ...:thumbdn:....
i've learned not to say anything, when it is not my knife.
a native, who depends on his knife, would laugh at that practice.
i can definitely appreciate the sentiment of "the right tool for the job" -
BUT - if you know some
better technique, the lightweight Tomahawk is going to do you more good, more often, than a heavy axe or clumsy hatchet.
i like carrying a 28-inch Trail Hawk with a Gen 1 Mk 2 updated handle on it, with a chisel, a long knife
(a machete sometimes), a short knife, and a folding saw.
again, i would like to emphasize that i am NOT TRYING TO COMPETE with an axe design -
they are the kings of Chop.
....but with a modern handle, tomahawks are going to come up and nip at the Axes' heels. -
and be much better at being carried, and used as a weapon.
that's when you grab a hawk -
when you don't know what you are getting into.
going into the Wild to
homestead...? by all means - grab a good axe.
i've done it.
axe men will not ever be able to keep up with equal hawk men on the trail.
the faster you have to move,
the further back that axe man is going to be.
and
he will be winded as Hell.
as stated:
it's a Trail Hawk.
not a Weapon Hawk.
it is not a weapon, it is a multi-tool.
- a multi-tool that happens to be a superior weapon! that's why tomahawks are different - they are generalists that perform excellently at separate functions - a true survivor implement -
great tool and great weapon.
even
knives can't always say that.
i know of what i speak from living on three continents with the tools i brought with me.
The Norse hawk is a good chopper, but lacks a poll (or flat spine) so would make pounding a lot harder.
sorry to be so contrary, brother - but that is not true either, in my experience.
the Norse has a lot of hardened material on the eye, you could just grind it flat - i would just leave it the way it is, the radius is little different from a finish hammer that would do less well pounding metal stakes, over the Norse.
i've done it.
But rifleman to axe, I would rather have a rifleman for day excursions or short camping trips.
yep - a Rifleman's hawk
is a fine thing - i like to lop the poll on mine.
the Trail Hawk will beat it though, in most things, with my handle on both of them.
i've tested this fact out thoroughly -
the Rifleman's hawk (before i modify it) isn't even a hawk - it's just an axe with a hawk handle IMHO.
I also have a small issue with this statement:
"your body will get nuked wielding an axe all day too - not so much, when you choose the hawk.
if endurance is involved, hawks should be the go-to over an axe. "
If that WERE true, then anyone (lumberjacks come immidately to mind) who DOES wield an axe for a living would USE essentially a long-handled tomahawk for their every-day chores. This is patently untrue - because the blade of a hawk is simply too SMALL (length of cutting edge) to be efficient as a long-term (or high volume) chopper.
hawks are for travelling with.
i am glad you mentioned the lumberjacks, brother toxie -
lumberjacks are SPECIALISTS -
and specialization exactly what a hawk is not for!!! - look all over the world
(where i have been) - Africa, Asia. S.A
(have you been there and lived with the savages, like i have BTW?) -the axes are SMALL. -
they are hawks and adzes and tools with hawk-like physics almost consistently.
here's me and my Isnag Headhunter brother - the other V-man.
these people live by
EFFICIENCY.
they use hawk-like implemements.
they can't just run down to the 7-11 and fuel up on Snickers and Thirsty-Two Ouncers,
like the Lumberjack can.
hawks are for humping for a long time, and still being able to keep up with an axe.
Trade Axes became Tomahawks -
not the other way around - for this very reason.
lumberjacks make their livings with chainsaws, more than axes - but when they have to travel on foot, they go to an axe.
- i am just continuing this thought - of changing from an axe to a hawk
when there is more travel than chopping involved, but the same type of tree needs felling.
and thank you for being so kind about the issue, brother toxie.
let's put it another way:
if you get twin/cloned lumberjacks
(exact copies), and set them out together on a cloned forest, so each duplicate lumberjack has a duplicate forest he has to mow down - and you give one a great axe, and the other one a long hawk, like my Gen 1 Mk 2 handled Trail Hawk - and you start them together -
i contend that the axe 'jack is going to go tearing ahead, with his axe that weighs
as much as five times as much as the hawk.
the other lumberjack, with his teeny-tiny hawk is going to literally
peck at the trees at a good pace - he's not hacking with an axe,
he's sculpting.
....so the day goes on and you know if you have ever chopped down a few trees, especially on uncertain ground, and with long walks, - the Axe Man is going to need a break. - he's also going to need a lot of replacement calories - that is food that needs to be carried too -
more weight increase for the axe man.
the
hawk-jack just keeps on ticking, like the
Energizer Bunny.
my point is simply, that
if you are only chopping down trees and have an axe valet (or vehicle, or horse) carrying your gear around across the countryside - an axe is it, pure and simple - the best tool.
if you don't know what, where, or when you will be chopping, while going on a hike, like up the Pacific Trail, or others like it - that hawk is what you want - it does better as a static tool, when unused, than the
dead weight of the axe.
and when you use a hawk,
since it isn't a race - you hack down just as much firewood and debris for shelter as the axe can.
....and you still have enough energy from not carrying the static axe up the mountain all day, to pay the camp-girls some attention,
ya dig...?!!
I would be HIGHLY suprised if a hawk was LESS work for the same amount of CHOPPING, which is what you seem to be saying.
completely understandable - we get that all the time.
we were there once ourselves.
there are more factors than weight involved in your example, if you want to be accurate though...;
you didn't mention
Rate of Chopping, for instance.
nor did you observe
Handle Cross-Section and Circumference, which we have discovered is HUGE as a factor in what a tool will do,
nor did we observe
curvature-to-head-distance-and-mass - another huge, subtle component of success
(you ought to see what i want to do to axe handles and heads - can a brother compete with any style axe head...? then my money is on me.)
nor did we talk about
energy levels of the user - if you are super weak, or super energized - the hawk is going to win every time - WE HAVE PROVEN THIS TO OURSELVES - AND WE HANDLE AXES!
WE DON'T CARE WHETHER YOU BUY A HAWK OR AN AXE!! -
we are just trying to say what is true. - the axe wins when you are in the middle, energy-wise,
as a generality.
I could be mis-reading your statement though.
my points require a lot of emphasis, because they are not well-known, in my experience with other adventurers -
but they are still true.
thanks for your kind patience with me, brother.
i don't ask any one to believe what i say, despite having many photos, videos, witnesses, tester-wookies, etc.
we have a
Risk-Free Happiness Guarantee, so that we don't have to bore the poor interested folks for pages on why our hawks rule -
we just say buy one - if you think we are full of crap - send it back and we will cut you a check immeditaly.
i think in this day of crooks and poor quality products and designs, that is a great deal.
you might too.
if a company is making a good tool,
they should back it, is how i feel.
(BTW we have, to date, never had a Gen 1 hawk returned for refund - folks won't even give them back yet when we ask to buy them back for our ongoing research, as they are all experimental at this stage - :thumbup
However, by the definitions you seem to choose - that the tools have to weigh the same obviously the longer handle will always be preferable.
pretty much.
mass-to-use/carry - all divided again by SPEED, all divided again by RATE, all divided again by handle configuration.
complex ratios is what we are really comparing between hawks and non-hawks.
the more you carry it, the more you want lightweight.
(hawk)
the less you carry it, the more chop you want.
(Axe)
the less you know what you will need, the more you settle between the axe and pure hawk
(such as the Trail Hawk) for a
hybridized design: (Heavy Unmodified Rifleman's Hawk, for instance.)
gonna fight with that hawk? - sure, the Cold Steel Trail Hawk is great,
even before i modify it.
but it will also knock doors
up, as well as
down.
it's a shingling hatchet, and a great hammer.
only with more
whoopass.
....har...!
:thumbup:
The correct tool for the job, as it were. Machete is very hard to beat for clearing brush. An Axe is hard to beat for chopping. A hawk is hard to beat as a WEAPON, or an all around tool.
right.
for my uses - i like the jack-of-all-trades characteristics of one of my improved long hawks as my go-to tool.
no one will know until they try.
a machete and a hawk are my favorite two-tool combinations - i have mentioned what is in my Go-Gear
(folding Sierra Saw, chisel, hawk, machete, short knife - all still weighing less than my favorite axe.)
I'm just going to point out that golf and splitting or cutting have massivly different physics behind them.
right you are - but in our argument's defense, i believe we carefully noted that it was
merely a generality.
Making a handle longer will have increasingly dimishing returns without more mass to swing (thats just common sence). After all, a 24 ounce hammer with a 48" handle wont hit twice as hard as a 24 ounce hammer with a 24" handle.
it will if you get it on target efficiently, and the
tool stays intact -
more likely with a good composite handle, brethren....
you are talking old school, brother toxie -
would you like to bet some money on that outcome BTW...? (i've already lost my money on that bet, coming from your point of argument, so i am interested in getting it back! ....har...! )
i love bets, if i know i am going to win
...hehehehe...!
furthermore,
that's why i stipulated that the hawk and the axe would have to be the same mass, for my imagined competition - to narrow the possible outcomes. - otherwise we are just mentally masturbating here - an open result, etc.,....
After all, a 3 lbs. sledge with a 12" handle will hit much harder then a 24 Oz. 24" framing hammer. Ask Noss4
. Using the 2nd lever principle will only get you so far - there is no substitute for mass in the end.
right, brother - but first you have to get that mass on target...;
put the sledge hammer guy next to the framing hammer guy on greased volcanic glass, or wet jungle hillside, or
(my personal favorite from Construction Hell) Red Clay...:grumpy:....
...or make the peg move around a little, then
see who gets the peg in the hole first - my money is on the framing hammer/hawk.
:thumbup:
the world is not level and plumb, and covered with dry, grippy concrete unfortunatley.
where the work
counts.
This is more a debate of weight savings Vs. effectiveness as I understood it. You trade effectiveness (Axe) for weight (hawk).
if you never chop more than a few feet from your RV, i believe that is true.
if you are travelling afoote, a proper hawk will surprise you, especially when you have poor footing, or need to go at something besides a Sequoia..
i am making it my goal for the time being to try to expose axe-men, hawkers, and the general public at large into a realization that a hawk can far exceed what folks think they can be.
i can't wait to go fully custom one day.
thanks for your time.
your bud,
vec
