Question about "tactical hawks"

idaho

idaho

Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
955
Recently there are more and more tactical tang-hawks.

Winklers, Benchmade, crkt, RMJ and SO ON.

All of those have same thickness handle and head. Some are skeletonized.
But still, distribution of weight is very different from wodden or composite handle and thick, eyed head.

Doesn't it bother you?
They chop worse, fly worse, and has less momentum for an ounce of weight.
Why use this design?
 
Because they're not meant for chopping wood, or being thrown in a competitive manner? Because they're intended as entry and fighting tools?

It strikes me a little like being upset with the KA-BAR because it's as a fighting/utility knife and was never intended to be thrown.

What's the big interest about turning melee weaponry into ranged combat tools? People don't get upset about their camp hatchets and double bit axes not being aerodynamically sound for throwing.
 
Last edited:
idaho said:
Och, they sure are. Winklers are SUPER sexy. But are they better?
Click to expand...

Better is all relative. In order to answer your question, I need to know: Better than what? and: Better at what? Since you're talking about Winkler's offerings, lets use those. If you want to know if the Sayoc RnD Hawk is a better thrower or chopper than a purpose built wood processing axe, or throwing hawk, probably not. But it's not designed to be thrown or chop wood. It's design has one purpose, and if you're not sure what that is, read up on Sayoc Kali.

In the end, each of the things mentioned is a tool. Every tool has a purpose. Some tools can do things beyond their intended purpose, but they tend to do them more poorly than the proper tool, and the more purposes you try to design into a tool the worse it is at doing any of them, in general.

Hope this helped.
 
Tactical tomahawks are a different animal than chopping axes or throwing 'hawks (Most are, anyway. The LaGana 'hawk was originally designed with combat throwing in mind.) Many of them are built with breaching and close quarters combat as the primary usages. They're like weaponized wrecking bars. Are they better? Hell yes, for their intended purpose. Not so much, maybe, for the tasks you described. Also, the Winklers and maybe a few others (I think someone mentioned the CRKTs) are tapered; their tangs are *not* the same thickness as the heads.

I'm in the process of going from prototyping to production on my tactical 'hawks. I started out with a fairly traditional design with modern materials. No handle material I had used was as comfortable as hickory, but there was no way I'd trust a soldier's life on a wooden handle. I've spent too much time replacing broken ones, some of which broke literally on the second chop. So I used nylon 6/6 for the prototype 'hawks. Felt great, very tough. I broke one throwing it after it stood up to a lot of abuse, and it broke at the end of a crack caused by me driving the wedge in too far, so it most likely was my fault and not the material. However, that strength issue was still a question.

About as important was the fact that the nylon handles flexed too much to pry with, a major usage of a military 'hawk. When I had a request come in from my best customer (in the SEALs) for a full-tang 'hawk, it was the push I needed to shift directions, solving both the needs for strength and prying ability, while compromising a bit on weight and shock transference. But it was more important that the 'hawk not fail and be useful for breaching than that it be my go-to tool for grubbing mesquites out of the field.

It's like the difference between a Corvette and a Humvee. They're both modes of transport, but they are vastly different in their applications. A Corvette will spank a Humvee in the quarter mile at a track. A Humvee will spank a Corvette in the quarter mile in the mountains of Afghanistan. Both have their place and their purpose.
 
Can someone briefly explain what a "breaching tool" is supposed to do? It sounds like it is for breaking down doors and such, but I envision a heavier firefighter's axe for that.
 
dogstar said:
Can someone briefly explain what a "breaching tool" is supposed to do? It sounds like it is for breaking down doors and such, but I envision a heavier firefighter's axe for that.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Busting windows, raking aside curtains or blinds, cutting your way into a car trunk, cutting through a mud wall, popping padlocks. With a modern tactical tomahawk, it's something of an "in-between". There are full kits with sledgehammers, halligan tools, bolt cutters, mauls, etc. for breaching, but they are heavy and bulky and really aren't conducive to fighting. A tactical tomahawk gives a warfighter a lot more breaching options than he would have without it, but is smaller, lighter, and less bulky than other pieces of equipment. It also serves as a very effective weapon should it come to that, and in spite of the advancements of the modern battlefield, it still does come down to a sharpened piece of steel in your hand sometimes.
 
Storm Crow said:
...in spite of the advancements of the modern battlefield, it still does come down to a sharpened piece of steel in your hand sometimes.
Click to expand...

As long as human beings fight, this will always be true. I think back in the Vietnam War era, they thought fighter planes would no longer need guns, since the advent of guided missiles. That myth was dispelled.
 
Like I always post on these threads I am proud to have one of StormCrows 1st productions hawks. Although I am no longer deploying to the shitholes of the world, I would have loved o have this then. For a hawk it is a true jack of all trades. It does well wood processing for a hawk and I have put it through wood cement brick and metal and it is still holding up superbly. I love the damn thing.
 
shaw11b said:
Like I always post on these threads I am proud to have one of StormCrows 1st productions hawks. Although I am no longer deploying to the shitholes of the world, I would have loved o have this then. For a hawk it is a true jack of all trades. It does well wood processing for a hawk and I have put it through wood cement brick and metal and it is still holding up superbly. I love the damn thing.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I, too, would've loved to have carried one of James' tactical hawks while I served.
 
Storm Crow said:
Also, the Winklers and maybe a few others (I think someone mentioned the CRKTs) are tapered; their tangs are *not* the same thickness as the heads.
Click to expand...

Have you considered this for your hawks? I like them, but this is my one reservation. I realize you put enough thought into the design that it's probably not much of an issue, but I haven't seen one full tang hawk that wouldn't benefit from a nice taper.
 
Shaw11b & Riverwarrior - I have several current and former military members waiting patiently on me. I start working in earnest on orders this week. :)

Scouter27 - Tapering the tang is overall a good thing, but it adds a lot of extra work, time, consumables, etc. All of that raises the price. The main purpose is to reduce weight overall, as well as shifting the balance more toward the head like a traditional ax. I went with slightly thinner stock (1/4" vs. 3/8" or 5/16") which is still plenty stout to reduce overall weight, while using cutouts in the tang (once again, leaving plenty of steel on either side for strength) to shift the balance forward. In addition to the other considerations, I had a price range I was aiming at. I'm not going to compromise quality on something that may have a warfighter's life in the balance, but I also want to price it where he feels like he can afford it to add to his gear.

Forgive me if I'm digressing. I'm a bit sleepy. :)
 
Storm Crow said:
Shaw11b & Riverwarrior - I have several current and former military members waiting patiently on me. I start working in earnest on orders this week. :)

Scouter27 - Tapering the tang is overall a good thing, but it adds a lot of extra work, time, consumables, etc. All of that raises the price. The main purpose is to reduce weight overall, as well as shifting the balance more toward the head like a traditional ax. I went with slightly thinner stock (1/4" vs. 3/8" or 5/16") which is still plenty stout to reduce overall weight, while using cutouts in the tang (once again, leaving plenty of steel on either side for strength) to shift the balance forward. In addition to the other considerations, I had a price range I was aiming at. I'm not going to compromise quality on something that may have a warfighter's life in the balance, but I also want to price it where he feels like he can afford it to add to his gear.

Forgive me if I'm digressing. I'm a bit sleepy. :)
Click to expand...

I am happy to hear your hawks will soon be in a shithole in the world. I know your hawks will serve them well. Everytime there is a "tactical" or full tang hawks I always try to advertise yours. It is a great product and your success is well deserved sir?
 
Storm Crow said:
Scouter27 - Tapering the tang is overall a good thing, but it adds a lot of extra work, time, consumables, etc. All of that raises the price. The main purpose is to reduce weight overall, as well as shifting the balance more toward the head like a traditional ax. I went with slightly thinner stock (1/4" vs. 3/8" or 5/16") which is still plenty stout to reduce overall weight, while using cutouts in the tang (once again, leaving plenty of steel on either side for strength) to shift the balance forward. In addition to the other considerations, I had a price range I was aiming at. I'm not going to compromise quality on something that may have a warfighter's life in the balance, but I also want to price it where he feels like he can afford it to add to his gear.

Forgive me if I'm digressing. I'm a bit sleepy. :)
Click to expand...

No apology necessary. That's what I figured the reason would be, but it's nice to know you considered it, if only briefly. I'm trying to figure out how CRKT managed it on a $100 hawk. Probably something about volume of sales is my guess. In any case, I'm waiting for my time to own one of yours. Thanks for getting back to me. :thumbup:
 
Interesting thread. Never owned a ' tactical hawk ' but I might . I look at the adverts and it do cross my mind.
 
2ihrn28.jpg


My RMJ Shrike S13 after it "assisted" in a better field of view. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top