Title pretty much nailed it. You'd think that a blade occasionally used as a belt ax with a point would be a full tang. Just wondering why not? What do you think?
Am I the only one amused by the reference to a "belt axe"? The majority of axes are constructed of two separate pieces: axe head and axe handle, usually wood. THERE IS NO TANG remaining on the axe-head, no metal in the handle whatsoever. Do you think it odd that most belt-axes are not only not "full tang" but lack a tang entirely??
Point 2, terminology: "
full tang" means that the tang (or tongue) of stock material from which the blade is fashioned extends the "
full length" of the handle as a contiguous piece. It does
NOT mean that the tang expands the full, exposed, final width of the handle. Were this the case, any "full tang" handle wrapped in another material (e.g. tape, rubber, cordage) that conceals the tang and widens the handle would suddenly cease to be "full tang". "Full tang" also does not mean that the tang needs to be visible at the pommel or extend into the pommel whatsoever. Such are considered "extended tang". "Hidden tang" and "stick tang" do NOT exclude "full tang". "Hidden tang" means that the tang is concealed within the handle material. "Stick tang" means that the tang has a "stick" appearance, thin. Most Medieval European swords are full, hidden, stick tang. "Full tang" does not mean that the tang is un-skeletonized or un-tapered (in any direction), other common mechanisms of reducing tang material. The Izula is full tang even though the tang is milled out and most users wrap the handle. Randalls are full tang. Most of Bob Loveless' knives are full tang even though the tang is tapered to a fraction of stock thickness. Most bowie-style blades have blades wider than their tangs - narrowness has no bearing on the matter. Screw-drivers, prybars, chisels, etc. all commonly have tangs extending the full length of the handle but reaching nowhere near other handle dimensions.
This confusion over "full tang" is similar to the confusion over what constitutes a blade "choil" - an indentation at the base of the blade in the ricasso transition. A choil does not need to be large enough to fit a finger, indeed most choils are quite small as witnessed by the majority of slipjoints. The Spyderco Paramilitary 2 does NOT have a choil, it has a finger groove in the integral guard formed by the extended ricasso, well away from the blade. The BRKT Bravo 1
does have a choil.
Point 3: most knives, swords, etc. break in the
blade (commonly at a transition point such as the plunge near the ricasso or the sweep to the tip) rather than the tang, as the blade is the focal point of stress. So as long as the handle+tang allow sufficient leverage to transfer the appropriate cutting force from my body into the blade, I do not worry about the tang... I worry about the
blade.