Ranger spike hawk and Vietnam Hawk...

Crayola

Crayola

Joined
Sep 23, 1999
Messages
3,831
Hello Andy, Bobby and all of the rest of you Hawk Heads! I have a question regarding these two hawks:

I know little about hawks, so please inform me! The spike on the Ranger hawk is short and the edge looks wider and curved, versus the straight edge on the Vietnam hawk. Also, the spike is MUCH longer on the Vietnam hawk, versus the Ranger hawk. Where does each hawk excel? And why the straight edge on the Vietnam hawk???

Oh, also one other question. With the two Ranger hawks, I would assuem that the hammer back hawk would be a better bush user, as I know of little use that a spiek could be in the bush. Am I wrong on this assumption?

Thanks you guys. To all of the ATC folks, congrats on your hard work. You're in the mags, you're at BLADE show, and you're in the homes of some fine knfie knuts. Great job!

------------------
"Come What May..."
 
Appreciate all of it Crayola.

I hope Andy and Bobby don't pile on me, but I think I can answer your questions.

The spike on the Ranger is shorter due to the fact that it is a "period" piece that is made just like the originals Maj. Robert Rogers issued his men. It is not actually the "ideal" size as a longer more penetrating one would be for anti-personnel such as the LaGana Viet Nam.

Conversely, the "leading edge" or curve of the Ranger Hawk is more efficient for cutting as the edge continues to cut upon contact and follow through. This is not to say the Viet Nam doesn't, just not as efficiently. This would be a good time to point out that the primary purpose of the LaGana was for CQB. It is far more effective for CQB and related hassles than other instruments. We have been advised by a couple of SOG (Studies and Observations Group) Viet Nam Veterans who carried it there, why "they felt" from experience this was the case. It is a little too much to describe for our forum at the risk of offending anyone.

This is simply the way each Hawk was designed and we have replicated them with historical accuracy based upon information from the Ranger Museum and Peter himself for the respective Hawks.

Yes, the "Light Infantry" or hammer back hawk would provide more wilderness utilitarian performance but both are GREAT choppers. The spike is definately a better thrower.

Thanks for your questions.

[This message has been edited by GPB (edited 06-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by GPB (edited 06-14-2001).]
 
Thanks very much GPB. I know that these hawks are repros.. nah, make that ledgends brought back to life. So, I don't expect to see a Roger's Rangers spike hawk with a long spike any time soon!

The spike hawk being the better thrower is very interesting. Why exactly is that? I think I "know" why, but you explain things about hawks much better than I can.

Oh, about the Vietnam hawk though. Is it fair to say that the straight edge is better for CQB from what you have been told by the SOG vets and such, or woudl a curved edge on that sucker be a smidgen better?

------------------
"Come What May..."
 



I think we have two different animals here. The Rangers seem to be designed with throwing in mind while the Vietnam 'hawk is designed more for utility and CQB. I think it's true that the handle on the Vietnam model is weaker then the Ranger, but would you really want to throw either tomahawk in combat situations? If you throw it, you don't have it anymore. The same goes with knives.

One more point on the Vietnam model. If used as intended, I doubt that the handle will break. I use hammers of the same weight all day and have yet to break the handle on one.


[This message has been edited by UffDa (edited 06-17-2001).]
 
I think it's more fair to say that the VietNam is a fighter that can do some light utility work. I wouldn't want to take a tree down with a one-pound hawk. My Spike is a very respectable utility hawk, it throws great, and I also wouldn't want to overly annoy anybody carrying one. It's more a jack-of-all-trades instrument, and the VietNam is a specialist.

As to handles . . . they're both hickory. The strength differential is just plain thickness. It's an inevitable tradeoff for the packability and speed of the LaGana hawk.

And, y'know, it is hickory, and hickory is tough stuff.
smile.gif

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top