Khukri VS Hawk chop off - Picture Heavy

[wildmanh]

After reading and participating a little in the Large Survival Knife vs. Hawk thread, I thought I'd do some testing to see how well my hawks chop VS a khukri of about the same weight and length. This will be an on going test that I'll conduct over the next few weeks as I have energy, time and stuff to chop.

Lets start out by looking at the blades:

20" Sirupati (Lisa) from Himalayan Imports made by Kami Bura
Length: 20" Long
Cutting edge: 12.5"
Weight 23.5oz

French Hawk from Keith at Great River Forge
Cutting Edge: 4"
Haft Length: 18"
Head Weight: 16.5oz
Haft weight: 5.5
Total weight 22oz

Custom Hammer Pole Hawk from Steve at Coal Creek Forge
Cutting Edge: 2.75"
Haft Length: 19"
Head Weight: 13.2
Haft Weight: 8oz
Total Weight: 21.2oz

The first test I did right before lunch (It's right after lunch now) and included seeing how deep each blade could bite into a semi green fruit tree someone pulled out of their yard a few weeks ago. I spent between 5 and 10 minutes chopping on the log before doing the test so I could get more used to swinging the hawks. After the first test I had to stop and get some food because my blood sugar was low.

The pictures above show the results of my quick test. The French Hawk and Khukri were about evenly matched as far as depth is concerned, with the pole hawk a little behind them. Will try this test again and post back in a few minutes. More to follow as I continue testing.

Heber

 

[wildmanh]

I went out side to continue testing single hit penetration on the fruit tree. After a little while I noticed inconsistant results which bothered me. Kept trying a bit but kept getting strange results so I came inside, grabbed a 2x4 I had in my apartment and tried the test again:

Now the Khukri is consistantly biting deeper then the Hawks with the French hawk in 2nd and the Pole hawk in 3rd.

 

[wildmanh]

This struck me as interesting and I kept chopping away and taking pictures. I desided to see if I could chop each blade into the 2x4 and make it stick for a picture. When I did this, I tried to make sure I used the same force each time and tried to match the angles as best I could:

Again the Khukri bites deeper and by a wider margin, the French hawk comes in second and the Pole hawk is a close 3rd. Right now it looks as though the Khukri will take a lot less chops to get through a standard 2x4 then the Hawks will. I'm a bit suprised at the results and hope to redo the 2x4 test in the near future and I might even have a friend or two help, just incase I some how tanted the results. More to follow when I can.

Heber

 

[SLOW2RUN]

I would think the flat edge on the hawks sides will slow them down.

 

[crossada]

thanks for taking the time brother:thumbup:

 

[TWBryan]

Curious I have a 20" sirupate and it also can out chop anything else.At least on branches and the like,splitting blocks might be different.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

No offense, but aren't you hitting a bit far back from the sweet spot with that kukri, or is it the photo angle making it look like that?

 

[wildmike]

You are hitting a bit far back on the kuk's sweet spot.

Get an M-43 one day and with it's thinner edge as well as improved dynamics you will really see some kuri performance. I have never found anything else that cuts like one.

They really spoil ya for other knives.

 

[BryFry]

Thanks for the comparison, keep em comming! I've been wanting to do this myself but haven't gotten around to it yet. - I also want to do a comparison test to see the difference in performance between a traditionally ground kuk blade and a modern full flat ground blade.

No offense, but aren't you hitting a bit far back from the sweet spot with that kukri, or is it the photo angle making it look like that?

wildmike- You are hitting a bit far back on the kuk's sweet spot.

Just wondering, could one of you guys maybe take a pic of one of your kuks, and point out the exact area you consider to be the "sweet spot" for the best chopping penetration?

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Thanks to Karda from the HI forum:

From the pics, he's hitting right behind the sweet spot.

I see a lot of people hit too far back when using large knives as well.

 

[wildmanh]

Thanks to Karda from the HI forum:

From the pics, he's hitting right behind the sweet spot.

I see a lot of people hit too far back when using large knives as well.

CP, the Khukri in the drawing looks like an AK or more likely a WWII and mine of those models have larger sweet spots. IMO That picture should be used as a loose reference because a lot of Khukri's have bigger sweet spots.

But I do agree that I might be hitting a little farther back with my Sirupati then I should be for optimum performance. After lunch I'll try to get some more time with the 2x4 and hit farther out with the Sirupati and practice more with my hawks for further testing.

Am trying to get a group together to go camping tonight. If I can, I'll be sure to take the blades for a work out "In the field". Will report back with any testing that I do today/this weekend.

Heber

 

[SLOW2RUN]

CP, the Khukri in the drawing looks like an AK or more likely a WWII and mine of those models have larger sweet spots. IMO That picture should be used as a loose reference because a lot of Khukri's have bigger sweet spots.

But I do agree that I might be hitting a little farther back with my Sirupati then I should be for optimum performance. After lunch I'll try to get some more time with the 2x4 and hit farther out with the Sirupati and practice more with my hawks for further testing.

Am trying to get a group together to go camping tonight. If I can, I'll be sure to take the blades for a work out "In the field". Will report back with any testing that I do today/this weekend.

Heber

Why no edge on top of the blade , from tip to just its pass it's sweet point ?

 

[vector001]

I went out side to continue testing single hit penetration on the fruit tree. After a little while I noticed inconsistant results which bothered me. Kept trying a bit but kept getting strange results so I came inside, grabbed a 2x4 I had in my apartment and tried the test again:

Now the Khukri is consistantly biting deeper then the Hawks with the French hawk in 2nd and the Pole hawk in 3rd.

no offense meant - but your hawking skills apparently need some review, given the photos here - all those pictures show the hawks hitting low on the bit - a proper strike will be on the top 3/4" of the bit. - the worn spot pon a good hawk usually shows that it only needs a 1" bit.

you haven't generated any power to speak of, when the hawk meets the wood that low.

the handle should be leaning into the strike.

yours are leaning away from it.


a good hawk is like a flying chisel on a string. - these tests don't really tell me anything, to be honest and candid. - how deep can a saw chop after all? LOL.

it's immaterial.

irrelevent.


the two tools compared, hawks and khukris, work differently, is what i am suggesting; you should be pecking with that hawk - you can work all day that way, and you will likely beat the khukri in extended tasks that way.


try the test again please, with that later strike in mind, and see what your penetration does.


there is no disputing that khukris will do well against a proper hawk in the sense of one chop, when you are rested, ...but add travel energy lost, and the length of the task, and you will see a proper hawk beat the khukri. we've proven that already in the early days of the humble Hawk Project.

- go build an advanced shelter after trekking 10 miles, and let's see what ya think.

i want a refugee's tool, not a rested soldier's.

these are just my tastes, based on what i do - travelling light and fast, with low energy expenditure.


so there are some real objectives, for real tool-dependent users IMHO;

1) use the hawks correctly - strike higher on the bit. - you should see a marked difference in results - clsoer to the khukri, but not surpassing it, i reckon.

2) travel on foot with both types of tools, at an extended distance.

3) make an advanced shelter that requires alot of work, not just one or two logs.

real survival is what i am interested in in my tools' uses...;


if someone just loves to chop, brother wild's existing tests are great IMHO.

....but if you want a real idea of how these tools act in the field, you need to use them during a state of personal hardship, when 90% of the energy that you put in your tool is just carrying it.


again, i think the khukris are especially good to have in ones tools and i don't want to seem like i am knocking them - i just want to draw attention to the fact that a hawk is not used the same way as a khukri or an axe or hatchet is, despite its appearances - not if you want to use it efficiently.

thanks for this great work, brother wildmanh - your work on this contributes greatly to the quality of this forum and this community.

press on, brother.

vec

 

[Cpl Punishment]

I think what he's doing is comparing a kukri of roughly the same weight and length as a hawk. His sirupate is very light for a kukri, and his hawks are a bit short (for my tastes), but I think the results are interesting so far.

But like I mentioned int he previous thread, kukris and hawks are very different, and require different techniques to maximize their benefit.

I think that a "proper kukri" and a "proper hawk" are so close (in my hands) in performance that it really comes down to which I'm in the mood for that day, and really think these tests (if he continues) will bear that same conclusion. It'll come down to personal preference..

 

[vector001]

I think that a "proper kukri" and a "proper hawk" are so close (in my hands) in performance that it really comes down to which I'm in the mood for that day, and really think these tests (if he continues) will bear that same conclusion. It'll come down to personal preference..

i respect that view.

i'm about the same.

you get to a certain point of development, and anything will do, but some things in particular just suit you.

vec

 

[aleyn1975]

Interesting tests. I'd like to see some results with someone who uses the hawk more than a kuk doing the same test. Of course we also need to ask ourselves what these tests can teach us. For example, a more "scientific" test would be to drop a same weight object from same height onto the back of each tool forcing the edges into same material at same angle. But that would only tell us about shearing ability and edge geometry, not necessarily CHOPPING ability. When we factor in human body motion dynamics and individual familiarity with each SPECIFIC tool, our results can vary widely. What I do like about these tests is what we learn from each other in our agreements and more often, our disagreements. Like when someone's findings differ from our own, we see the results of unmeasured variables in play. I think chop off tests are good for what they demonstrate (how well a specific tool chopped on that day, with that person, at that time, in those conditions) which is a finding that we all already know...we all CHOP better or worse with different tools on different materials at different times. Ability to chop will be affected by tool variables, material being chopped and human variables all. One other variable is what the material is being chopped FOR. I know I can cut small diameter limbs easier with my kuk than with my hawk, but I also know I can chop deeper into a flat piece of wood (or large diameter tree) a lot faster with my hawk than the kuk. Point being, any one variable changes and the results change too. So which is the better chopper? On limbs? The kuk. Why do I use the hawk as much as the kuk in delimbing felled trees? The hawk is the better TOOL for me. I grab, push, pull with it and I can't do those things with the kuk. I use the kuk in R hand and drag stuff out of the way with hawk in left hand. I've shamed several lads using chainsaws with my machete/kuk and a hawk combo in delimbing and clearing trails. One thing NEITHER has been good at chopping for me is those pencil sized and smaller thorns, you know the really light stuff that just moves out of the way when you connect or makes you waste so much energy in generating enough velocity that it is almost pointless. A lighter blade like a machete chops these much better than a kuk or hawk by itself, and was a better tool for such until I figured out how to grab several vines with the hawk beard to provide resistance THEN cut several in one swipe with the kuk. You see? Sometimes the poorer chopper can turn out to be the better TOOL.

 

[demoteamone]

I'm with Vec on this.
kukri vs hawk with the same weight?...kukri lose, Plan and simple!
But someone can say that...with more big kukri (heavy) maybe will beat the hawk?.... variants on the hawks, such as the length of the handle can make a difference....Never say never

 

[omniviking]

Interesting tests. I'd like to see some results with someone who uses the hawk more than a kuk doing the same test. Of course we also need to ask ourselves what these tests can teach us. For example, a more "scientific" test would be to drop a same weight object from same height onto the back of each tool forcing the edges into same material at same angle. But that would only tell us about shearing ability and edge geometry, not necessarily CHOPPING ability. When we factor in human body motion dynamics and individual familiarity with each SPECIFIC tool, our results can vary widely. What I do like about these tests is what we learn from each other in our agreements and more often, our disagreements. Like when someone's findings differ from our own, we see the results of unmeasured variables in play. I think chop off tests are good for what they demonstrate (how well a specific tool chopped on that day, with that person, at that time, in those conditions) which is a finding that we all already know...we all CHOP better or worse with different tools on different materials at different times. Ability to chop will be affected by tool variables, material being chopped and human variables all. One other variable is what the material is being chopped FOR. I know I can cut small diameter limbs easier with my kuk than with my hawk, but I also know I can chop deeper into a flat piece of wood (or large diameter tree) a lot faster with my hawk than the kuk. Point being, any one variable changes and the results change too. So which is the better chopper? On limbs? The kuk. Why do I use the hawk as much as the kuk in delimbing felled trees? The hawk is the better TOOL for me. I grab, push, pull with it and I can't do those things with the kuk. I use the kuk in R hand and drag stuff out of the way with hawk in left hand. I've shamed several lads using chainsaws with my machete/kuk and a hawk combo in delimbing and clearing trails. One thing NEITHER has been good at chopping for me is those pencil sized and smaller thorns, you know the really light stuff that just moves out of the way when you connect or makes you waste so much energy in generating enough velocity that it is almost pointless. A lighter blade like a machete chops these much better than a kuk or hawk by itself, and was a better tool for such until I figured out how to grab several vines with the hawk beard to provide resistance THEN cut several in one swipe with the kuk. You see? Sometimes the poorer chopper can turn out to be the better TOOL.

Maybe if you sharpen in side the beard or beak of the hawk and add a vine cutter you could grad the vine and pull it tight with your left hand , hook it with your right hand hawk pulling the sharpened inner edge slice of said bramble, then throw it out of the way with GLOVED left hand.


I like your test. glad to view and read discussion and also leave my meager comments. your doing a good job. Out on ewe toob I have seen other folks do test and chop like mad on their first, usally favorite blade and say boy that thing can cut. Now shile still huffing and puffing they pick another blade, without any reat or breather and start to wail again. it goes on and on, By the time they get to #4 or 5 blade it looks like they just ran a marathon with C.O.P.D. Now they sit down and gasp for air and say"Gee #1 beat #4 by 25 seconds through that 5 inch branch. There is a lot to keep a test equal and I hope you keep up with your fine postings. thanks so much. Pat

 

[Duzzy]

I'd be curious as to the respective edge geometry of the respective blades, the sharpness, and familiarity. Personally, all of my 'hawks have varying edges, and none of them are very sharp. (Mostly because they're used for throwing and not actual work right now; it's not to imply that yours are not.) But at least with the two 'hawks I have near me at the moment the edge geometries simply aren't as good as my Khukuris for slicing. They'll do wonders going with the grain, but I don't think as-is they'll perform very well against the grain.

I also wonder if the hammer poll 'hawk uses energy as effectively as the other two? To illustrate my point, if you shot a four foot 10 lb steel rod out of a cannon, you'd probably get different results on impact than you'd get with a 10 lb steel ball. (Assuming same speed...) You have the same energy potential, but different distribution.

I'm not very good with physics, so if someone knows more please feel free to chime in. This is something I'm honestly curious about.

 

[TWBryan]

Cutting brush,palmetto, and some tree limbs today. My bumblebee khukuri outdid my Estwing where applicable. Mostly cutting off branches up to 1 1/2 inches and thick palmetto stalks (2" across) . Have to split some rounds and see if it outperforms the hatchet there.