- Joined
- Dec 3, 2015
- Messages
- 6
1. Doesn't apply to my design [Agree.]
2. You aren't saving any weight with a cold steel trail hawk head over my design at 1lb [Agreed, but a C.S. Trail Hawk head w/o the handle is much more COMPACT than anything with a fixed handle, and sometimes that is a factor.]
3. One of the main goals of this tool was to make those sorts of tasks possible without awkwardness. That's one of it's main advantages over a hatchet or large knife. [I agree your design is an improvement, as you say, but for some tasks ANYTHING with a fixed handle will be more awkward than a hawk head used alone.]
4. [ ]
5. I've never wanted to use an adze or chisel when I'm out backpacking, but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where they a tomahawk head does a better job than a hatchet in skilled hands or even a pocketknife or fixed blade. [To each his own. I frequently find a chiseling motion to be best for some sorts of bushcraft -- just an extension of what many people refer to as "carving" with an ax or hatchet, and the absence of a handle just extends the range of tight spots where carving / chiseling can be done. The need for adze work is admittedly rare, but I occasionally do some rough "timber framing," and both chisel and adze can come in handy there. For backpacking, unless I an explicitly out there to practice bushcraft, I don't take ANY saw or ax or hatchet or hawk. If I make fires at all, it will be from down/dead wood I can collect by hand.]
6. Ever try splitting wood from the side? [Many times. For smallish-diameter pieces, IME, attacking from the end can make it easier to stabilize the piece than if the strokes of tool or baton must be applied to the side.]
7. Sounds like a nice combo. [Yes. When weight and bulk are not limited, I will take the G-F Small Forest Ax as well as both* of the saws AND the C.S. Trail Hawk (head or head + shaft). As noted before, the head is convenient for some things where none of the others is ideal, plus I MUCH prefer pounding with its hammer end to using my G-B for that service, plus it is a nice "supplemental" wedge for splitting more recalcitrant baulks of wood. (*As with the hawk head, I find the Laplander much more maneuverable than any bow saw, and that can be handy, but slicing through 8 - 12" diameter logs is MUCH quicker work with the Dustrude.)]
2. You aren't saving any weight with a cold steel trail hawk head over my design at 1lb [Agreed, but a C.S. Trail Hawk head w/o the handle is much more COMPACT than anything with a fixed handle, and sometimes that is a factor.]
3. One of the main goals of this tool was to make those sorts of tasks possible without awkwardness. That's one of it's main advantages over a hatchet or large knife. [I agree your design is an improvement, as you say, but for some tasks ANYTHING with a fixed handle will be more awkward than a hawk head used alone.]
4. [ ]
5. I've never wanted to use an adze or chisel when I'm out backpacking, but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where they a tomahawk head does a better job than a hatchet in skilled hands or even a pocketknife or fixed blade. [To each his own. I frequently find a chiseling motion to be best for some sorts of bushcraft -- just an extension of what many people refer to as "carving" with an ax or hatchet, and the absence of a handle just extends the range of tight spots where carving / chiseling can be done. The need for adze work is admittedly rare, but I occasionally do some rough "timber framing," and both chisel and adze can come in handy there. For backpacking, unless I an explicitly out there to practice bushcraft, I don't take ANY saw or ax or hatchet or hawk. If I make fires at all, it will be from down/dead wood I can collect by hand.]
6. Ever try splitting wood from the side? [Many times. For smallish-diameter pieces, IME, attacking from the end can make it easier to stabilize the piece than if the strokes of tool or baton must be applied to the side.]
7. Sounds like a nice combo. [Yes. When weight and bulk are not limited, I will take the G-F Small Forest Ax as well as both* of the saws AND the C.S. Trail Hawk (head or head + shaft). As noted before, the head is convenient for some things where none of the others is ideal, plus I MUCH prefer pounding with its hammer end to using my G-B for that service, plus it is a nice "supplemental" wedge for splitting more recalcitrant baulks of wood. (*As with the hawk head, I find the Laplander much more maneuverable than any bow saw, and that can be handy, but slicing through 8 - 12" diameter logs is MUCH quicker work with the Dustrude.)]
,full-tang market?
. This is a passion project, although I would differentiate myself from other "tactical tomahawks" based on three things: intended use, weight, and grind. Understanding these differences are also the key to why there isn't a whole lot of "wedging" force being utilized by my design. I think it helps to consider the tool as a large knife that chops better than a large knife and makes many small cutting tasks more easily accomplished as well. I take advantage of modern steel technology in a way that many others aren't. To put it simply, you can go thinner and harder than previously thought. As a recent customer put it: "I wish I had videoed everything I've done with my work hawk... It's mind blowing that a tool that small can do huge work. Yet, still have the edge geometry to do the finest of work."