Re-thinking the woodworking/fighting 'hawk

[Joe Talmadge]

In Lynn Thompson's article about the 'hawk, I read about the relative difficulty in holding onto the 'hawk in the case of taking a hard swing and missing. He attributed this to the fact that the handle on a 'hawk is perfectly straight. This is partially because the 'hawk is meant to be thrown. Being thrown means that it has to be conducive to being released, so there is nothing at the end of the handle to help keep a secure grip.

In thinking about why I personally would get a hawk, I am looking at it as a fighting tool that could also be called upon to do woodworking (although not as effectively as a purpose-designed woodworking tool, obviously). Notice I didn't say anything about being interested in throwing a hawk. For neither defensive nor woodworking application, am I interested in throwing my 'hawk.

Which leads to my question: would a hawk/hatchet hybrid , which has the 'hawk head and straight fighting 'hawk handle, but a little curve or foot at the end of the handle (like a hatchet) to keep it more secure in the hand, make sense? Are there important hawk combatives issues that I'm missing that can only be done with a completely straight handle? 100% of my 'hawk knowledge at the moment is book-learnin', so I may very well be missing some huge point (well, other than the fact that throwing is one of the points behind 'hawks).

Joe

PS Okay, really, OF COURSE I'm interested in throwing a hawk. It seems like a blast. But nevertheless, Lynn's remark got me thinking that a handle designed for security, rather than to assist with release, might be interesting.

 

[TimmyTheTalkingToilet]

One thing that I did with my vietnam hawk, is drill a couple of holes in the handle and wrap it in 550 paracord, and gave it a small lanyard.

it does make it comfortable, and a little bit more secure.

 

[Quarterstaff]

An increased diameter of the handle at the bottom would not allow it to pass through a tappered eye, which is imho one of the best features of a hawk. In order to do that you would half to attach the head like that on a hammer; pound some wedges in there. Besides you can always wrap some leather, tape or cord around the bottom part of the handle.

 

[Two Hawks]

Years ago at the Western National Rendezvous, my heavy camp hawk sailed across the camp due to VERY heavy chopping and VERY sweaty hands. It got a stitched-on moosehide handle grip (non-skid) which was wetted and shrunk in place. No more problem. Have not had that trouble with other lighter-use hawks (including with bloody hands during butchering).
The Military version of the Warhawk that I make has a paracord handle wrap terminating in a wrist thong through a copper ferrule in the ice-axe position (above the hand to resist both thrust and hooking-cut displacement) which effectively prevents loss of the hawk. Throwing with what is essentially a dedicated military tool is not really an option ... you have deprived yourself of a weapon and provided your enemy with one.
TWO HAWKS
http://www.2hawks.net

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The fastest way to put a secure grip on a handle that has poor retention due to shape is to just wrap it with a high friction self-adhesive tape. Lee Valley sells rolls of this, the one I prefer is the cheap green kind. I have tried all kinds and this simply works best. It goes on quickly but can easily be cut off (just make a slit down the side), if you want to practice throwing.

However it is critical to note that if you are not throwing a 'hawk you are really working with the wrong tool. A 'hawk is just a hatchet that has been designed to be able to handle the stress of throwing. In order to enable this function, a considerable sacrifice had to be made in terms of edge retention / durability, cutting ability, chopping ability, overall functionality, handle ergonomics and security etc . .

Now it is critical to note that the exception to this is if you intend to use your 'hawk as an impact tool *against* other similar weapons. If this is the case then this can generate similar stress to throwing. To be clear I don't mean using it against another person, but full force heavy swings against other heavy metal weapons (which used to be the norm).

-Cliff

 

[Joe Talmadge]

However it is critical to note that if you are not throwing a 'hawk you are really working with the
wrong tool.

I'd been mulling that myself. If you ignore throwing, the advantage I see in a 'hawk for combatives is the option of a spike for backswings (though a hammer poll would be reasonably fearsome here anyway), and the straight handle. I haven't really tried out a hatchet or 'hawk for combatives yet, but gut feel is that I'll vastly prefer the straight handle ... provided I can hold onto it in the case of a miss, which is what brought this up.

So, in summary, for defensive use plus supplemental woodworking, with no throwing applications, my theory is that the advantages of something like a G-B hatchet is higher-performance edge geometry and more secure handle, for the 'hawk it's the option of a spike poll, and straight handle.

Joe

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Joe, yes that last paragraph covers the main differences nicely. There are a few more additonal points to consider. One of the most striking differences being that hatchets have a primary grind geometry that is well suited to woodworking. The cheeks flare out to prevent binding on soft woods whereas a 'hawk will readily lodge in wood. This means that a hatchet will both achieve greater penetration and chop at a much smoother pace.

Also, the steel used between the two is usually different as well is the way that it is heat treated. Hatchets are usually low-medium alloy steels and about 56-58 RC. This is just at the point where they can easily be worked with a file. A 'hawk will usually be made from a much simpler steel, often just plain carbon steels, and tempered to a much lower RC, often as much as 10 points softer.

There is a misconception that this choice of temper is necessary for edge durability. In fact the edge on a hatchet (assuming you put it to the same geometry), will be far more durable and require far less work to fix on accidental high impact hits than the 'hawk. The reason for the much tougher 'hawk steel is to prevent the entire bit from fracturing because of glances from throws that are off or through targets or heavy combat related shock.

Besides the greater resistance to indendation because of the higher RC and thus greater compression resistance, the RC and higher carbon and/or alloy steel give hatchets an edge retention advantage over 'hawks. This however is not really doing to be significant unless you are doing a lot of work, or want to be able to do fine work after extended chopping.

I don't know if any of the 'hawk makers will do custom work, but for the kind of usage you describe, I would use a hatchet head attachment, geometry, steel and RC, with the 'hawk handle and spike if desired.

The only consideration that requires some critical thought is the base geometry. The flared cheeks on a hatchet might make the head a little heavy, however you can get around that by simply reducing the width of the bit. In regards to penetration on really soft targets, a 'hawk head which usually has a much more acute primary grind may achieve better penetration, however with the thinner edge on the hatchet I don't think that is going to happen unless you are looking at wounds that are really deep, a straight chop and not some kinds of slice. In that case, no matter which achived the best result, I can't see the injury being survived in any case.

-Cliff

 

[Two Hawks]

Cliff-
Beg to differ on several points. Will try to keep it as brief as I can and still hit the major stuff.

(1) The tomahawk is NOT primarily a thrown weapon. It was traditionally (and still is with many users) the basic all-purpose chopping tool, hammer, large-game quartering tool, and CQB weapon when necessary ... and was occasionally thrown in support of the last objective when that was the only alternative (when you throw your blade, you have deprived yourself of a weapon and provided your enemy with a new one). Some modern users consider the hawk as strictly something to throw, but this is NOT the historic purpose of the tool.

(2) The tomahawk, when properly made, has better balance than a commercial hatchet and will out-work it in all above areas weight for weight.

(3) Given a proper edge grind, the tomahawk does not give up anything on penetration, cutting ability, or utility in any of the above areas.

(4) Even if I were making a "hatchet" I would keep the edge soft (can work with a file) as in 10 years of building them I have found that when you hit lousy stuff (as you will with any kind of field axe) it is a LOT easier for the user to repair in the field since the edge rolls rather than chipping out (requiring a damn grinder to fix).

(5) I have seen a lot of "rendezvous hawks" (and historic trade hawks) with an edge angle reminiscent of medieval pole arms designed for denting plate armor. They DO NOT have to be done that way, and I've seen some finely made old hawks that were not. 150 years ago (and today), it's done that way since it is easier, faster, and cheaper when you want to make a trade hawk for the Indians who thought it was better than using a sharp rock (or modern customers who don't know any better). I have always used a smoothly tapered convex edge grind (average chord somewhere around 35 degrees, though hard to measure) which is mirror-ground and goes in and out very smoothly. The convex grind puts a lot of beef behind the edge for durability, but it's easy to hone them to a shaving edge (and they don't leave the shop until they peel some hair off my arm). From my customers' field reports, they do a good job on firewood, elk bones, and most anything else except rocks and concrete. Due to the vanadium alloy, they still retain an edge well in heavy use.
Based on Brian Caffrey's report on Andy Prisco's spike hawk, ATC is doing the same type of thing ... it shaves and holds an edge.

Hope this information is of use to you.

TWO HAWKS
http://www.2hawks.net

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Two Hawks :

Some modern users consider the hawk as strictly something to throw, but this is NOT the historic purpose of the tool.

Of course you can use it for many things, and obviously they were, however the fact remains that for any activity except being able to resist really hard lateral impacts (stone / metal), a hatchet will readily outperform a tomahawk many times to one. This is quite simply because the tomahawk has to be able to withstand a much higher level of impact and it achieves this by a change in handle, head attachment, steel, heat treatment and edge geometry. Everyone of these changes sacrifices functionality as a cutting tool.

One additional point is that due to the flatter head profile a tomahawk can achieve a wider bit at the same level of weight as a hatchet this might have some combat related advantages.

The tomahawk, when properly made, has better balance than a commercial hatchet and will out-work it in all above areas weight for weight.

The cutting comparison between a well made tomahawk and hatchet (assuming the tomahawk is made to be able to handle heavy impacts) is not even close. The hatchet will out cut and out chop the tomahawk many times to one for the reasons stated in the above. In regards to balance, hatchets are blanced as they are as that is required for chopping. However they can easily be used for precise work with low fatigue as the heads are shaped to allow a choked up grip, a feature many hawks lack. Most hawks also have much longer bits and thus when being used for precise work suffer a significant leverage disadvantge to a hatchet.

Given a proper edge grind, the tomahawk does not give up anything on penetration, cutting ability, or utility in any of the above areas.

As noted in the above, the edge on a tomahawk has to be much thicker than a hatchet as the maximum level of impact resistance required is much different between the two. Any increase in angle or thickness lowers cutting ability thus the hatchet will outcut the tomahawk. For the same reason the steel needs to be much tougher and this is achieved by a lower RC and/or simpler steel, this means that the tomahawk will suffer edge indendation more severely and roll much quicker and as well wear faster. In regards to a convex grind and a high polish, that is how the edges on quality hatchets are ground and finished.

Even if I were making a "hatchet" I would keep the edge soft (can work with a file) as in 10 years of building them I have found that when you hit lousy stuff (as you will with any kind of field axe) it is a LOT easier for the user to repair in the field since the edge rolls rather than chipping out (requiring a damn grinder to fix).

A hatchet at 56-58 RC out of a low-medium alloy steel (usually bandsaw steel or similar) is easily worked with a quality file. Even major damage can be restored in a few minutes (hits off of nails / rock). A tomahawk will actually take far greater edge damage than a hatchet upon the same impact as its compression resistance is *much* lower. Now yes the tomahawk will dent whereas the hatchet might fracture, but the time and skill required to pound that dent back into place is far in excess of what it takes to fix the smaller nick in a hatchet. And if you are going to grind both out it is not even close.

Based on Brian Caffrey's report on Andy Prisco's spike hawk, ATC is doing the same type of thing ... it shaves and holds an edge.

I have used the same hawk and it is not in the same class of cutting ability as a quality hatchet (Wildlife Hatchet from Gransfors Bruks), its chopping ablity is also significantly lower and the effort required is much greater, to the extent that some techniques like wrist snaps are not functional. Nor is the edge retention in the same class, which you would expect given that there is a significant RC difference. As well the edge will indent more readily under impacts for reasons noted in the above. The head/handle attachment is also not as secure as on a quality hatchet, nor is the handle as secure or ergonomic.

Does this mean that it is a poor tomahawk? No it does not. In fact it is of very high quality which I would expect from Prisco. However it is simply optomized for a totally different set of tasks. The ATC hawk as compared to the Gb hatchet has the advantage of a much greater lateral edge strength/toughness, overall head durability, ease of throwing, and handle replacement and a probable advantage on deep cutting through soft materials (flesh). If both were used for throwing or heavy combat related impacts the hatchet would shatter as it is not made to be able to handle that. The ATC hawk would not be effected at all.

-Cliff

 

[DancesWithKnives]

A very interesting discussion. If I may ask Cliff a question that digresses slightly, have you or anyone you respect tested the new Marbles safety axe? I'm curious how it would compare with the small Gransfors Bruks that you mention above?

Thanks a lot!

 

[Two Hawks]

Cliff-
Will keep this rebuttal very brief. Need to be making cutting tools not spending time on the computer.

Your generalities properly apply to SOME tomahawks I have seen. I have handled tomahawks with a crude chisel edge grind entirely appropriate to whacking on plate armor. I've also handled old hawks that were essentially a knife with a very long handle. At the same time, I have had hatchets that wouldn't cut worth a d*mn because they were thick, clumsy, and had a very abrupt edge. The steel, heat treatment, and edge grind of ANY cutting tool are entirely up to the maker (and the edge shape, eventually, up to the user).

My hawks are designed to cut deeply and smoothly, as most who buy them intend them for game butchering, firewood cutting, driving stakes, and general camp chores (as well as settling arguments). As to impact resistance, I use the same steel and basic edge grind on my throwing hawks, and have had no complaints on their ability to stick or resist stress (though I don't encourage using them on steel plate or rocks, nails, and rebar). I dropped one, edge first, onto concrete from 4 feet up. Resulted in a minor roll in the edge. In less than 3 minutes with 220 grit, 320 grit, 400 grit, and leather it shaved again. No remaining dimple, and no file required.

Andy will likely have something to say about his hawks when he gets around to reading this thread. To the best of my knowledge, he uses two different edge grinds - an "armor piercing" grind and a general-pupose edge ... I'm not sure which geometry you were referring to in your comments.

In summary, SOME hawks don't work all that well for cutting wood. SOME hatchets don't work worth a d*mn for that use, either. It all depends on the maker's design and any "adjustments" by the user.

And some folks enjoy throwing double-bit axes.

TWO HAWKS
http://www.2hawks.net

 

[UffDa]

It has always seemed to me that the dumbest thing a person could do in a combat situation is to throw his knife or tomahawk. If you miss, you don't have your weapon anymore. I believe that the documented cases of anyone throwing a knife and scoring in combat could be counted on the fingers of one hand with a few left over.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

DancesWithKnives :

have you or anyone you respect tested the new Marbles safety axe? I'm curious how it would compare with the small Gransfors Bruks that you mention above?

I looked at it awhile ago :

http://www.agrussell.com/marbles/ma-42740.html

when it was mentioned on the forums, and was not seriously interested it in for a few reasons. First off they are using a plain carbon steel (1084), which while a good choice for a hatchet head, there are better choices among the tool steels. The main reason however was that the head design looks like it would wedge badly. The edge profile might however offer better cutting ability than the Bruks hatchet, however I have never seen the specifics listed to confirm that. As well I would prefer the handle on the Bruks axe. Basically I don't see anything that would make the 50% price increase worthwhile (the high head polish is not a great functional advantage, and the "safety" design is of no personal interest). If it was significantly cheaper than the Bruks axe I might consider it as a lower cost alternative, but certainly not when it is much more expensive.


Two Hawks, yes there are poorly made hatchets as with everything. My comments were in regards to a quality hatchet compared to a quality tomahawk. To be more specific, the tomahawk has to be able to handle throwing and/or combat. A hatchet will out chop and outcut a tomahawk of that design simply because it doesn't need as high a level of durability and thus can get away with a thinner edge profile and harder, higher alloy steel, which also allows more edge retention (higher strength, resistance to deformation and greater wear resistance).

For similar reasons you can put a more ergonomic grip on a hatchet which offers greater security (you don't need to be able to throw it, or cut backwards, be concerned about grip transitions etc.). As well you can use a much more secure handle/head attachment method. Hatchet heads are taper fitted like a tomahawk. However they are also glued, wedged and metal cross wedged. Tomahawks that are to be used in throwing or combat (and have wooden handles) can't use this method of attachment because you would not be able to replace the handle in the field if it was broken, and such is likely with the aforementioned useage specifics.

Now of course you can make a tomahawk which isn't made to be thrown or used in combat and thus has a much thinner edge profile, and an axe grade steel and heat treatment. However you are still working with an inferior head/handle attachment, lower handle ergonomics and security and greater binding in deep cuts because of the lack of the triple hatchet primary grind (convex/hollow/convex) which is designed to offer high penetration with low wedging.

In regards to cutting rocks and nails, if you are throwing a tomahawk in the field this is going to happen and it is why tomahawks have the edges they do. Even if you are perfect and hit every target (which is not reasonable to expect from the user), small game will not contain the head. If your throwing implement would only hit wood, then you could get away with edge profiles that were not significantly more obtuse than a chopping design, as well as a higher alloy steel with a harder temper.

Yes, people throw double bit axes, however double bit throwing axes do not have the same profile as felling axes, for reasons given in the above.


-Cliff

 

[Brian C]

Originally posted by Joe Talmadge
...Which leads to my question: would a hawk/hatchet hybrid , which has the 'hawk head and straight fighting 'hawk handle, but a little curve or foot at the end of the handle (like a hatchet) to keep it more secure in the hand, make sense?...

FWIW, I've added shallow finger grooves to the end of some hawk handles & find that it improves retention without adversely affecting throwing. I've also been considering getting a checkering tool to add some texture in the area behind the grooves. Any thoughts on the pros & cons of such handle treatments?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The problem with handles that use features like finger groves to aid in comfort/security is certain grip positions is that they have the opposite effect in others. For example turn the tomahawk around to pound on something and now the grooves are pressing into the palm of your hand and the pressure is elevated many times.

Checkering raises grip security, and lowers comfort. What can be tolerated depends on the individual. Go as far as you can without making the grip so abrasive that you can't use it for as long as you need to. There might be problems with throwing in this area however as ease of release will be impeded. When releasing a 'hawk you don't just vilently snap open your hand, but must smoothly release which means your grip trails along the handle with a follow through.

Why not drill two pin holes in the handle and use bolts to attach two handle slabs which would encapsulate the handle. You then could shape the grip for an optimum working design, with enough swell to give good comfort and security. For example Ray Kirks bowie (on the left) :

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/images/js_bowie_rk_bm_top.jpg

Then if you wanted to do an extended period of throwing you just unscrew the slabs and off you go.

-Cliff

 

[TheMartialWay]

Just make whatever alterations to the handle that you want(finger grooves, rough texture etc.) but leave the last 6' or so of handle smooth for throwing. When I throw I almost always hold the hawk at the very end of the handle and when I chop I almost never hold it from this part of the handle.

 

[Brian C]

Cliff, you make a good point about certain grip features possibly having an adverse effect in alternative grips. My first attempt at finger grooves was on a CS Plainsman hawk. I didn't sand or otherwise smooth the grooves after using the rasp. The result was very uncomfortable when using the hammer poll. Since then, I round the grooves' edges with the rasp and finish with progressively finer grades of sandpaper. My current finger grooves are probably not quite as secure as my originals but they are also not uncomfortable when the hawks are reversed. Based on my experience with checkered knife grips, I'm betting that a flat top diamond pattern will give me the retention I want with little downside effect.

Louis, I think your idea would work well but I'm not sure that I'd want to sacrifice the reach & chopping power that a choked-up hold would mean.

 

[Brian Jones]

Where Cliff and Two Hawks seem to differ (in my eyes) is that Cliff is dicussing specifics of a certain "single task tool." One could make a hwak or hatchet speifically for chopping only. I'm sure that both would agree that, historically, when a woodsman might find himself in situations that require the use of a blade for utility, skinning, and defense (natives, etc.), the hawks would far outclass the hatchet as an all-around tool for use. It wouldn't be expedient for someone to carry several axes or hatchets for different tasks in the woods, right?

Throwing might be a last gasp effort if everything else failed, but certainly not the first-purpose design of a hawk. Today, it's a nice means for recreation. If you read Two Hawks' posts, you see how he describes the multitude of great uses because of the design of a good hawk. You can tell the posts are by a man who not only knows how to make 'em, but has lots of field experience in using them. I trust makers who are actual users. They have a better perspective.

Regarding CQB, historically, blade fighters NEVER banged their weapons against another's weapon if they could help it. In CQB, tools had to be made to withstand accidental impacts, yes, but parries, etc., were done with other parts or with glancing blows with the sides of blades, in order not to wreck the edges. What Cliff described above in his post was FENCING. Fencing is fencing, with a foil made for that purpose. Too many Hollywood movies and TV shows depict fencing with samurai swords or hawks, or cutlasses, etc. It's great entertainment, but not even remotely based upon reality. Yes, they pierced armor, both metal and leather. BUt guarnateed, the armor was softer and thinner than any blade steel, or else the wearer would never be able to move around.

Now, a challenge question: if the handle of a hawk is so unreliable for chopping because of its straight shape and lack of detente at the end of the handle, why then were most handles shaped like that? Wouldn't the argument apply that if it's too unstable for chopping, it'd be too unstable for CQB, too?

The techniques differ in many ways, yet are the same in many ways. Good CQB techniques when swinging will generate great power when you stike home on your target, and will serve you just as well if you miss. Using the entire body and skeletal dynamics in motion behind the swings, and practicing recovery techniques when you miss, are part of the drill. Many people will just swing their arms without putting any body dynamics into it. Your feet are as important to a swing as your arms and torso. It's not like swinging a fly-swatter. Also, no offense, but most of us folks today, in their comfortable suburban settings, will lack the hardened muscular development in the body, including fingers and wrists, that an historic woodsman would have -- just from living that lifestyle every day and night.

Keep chopping with the straight handled hawk. Practice hard swings through the air and recovering and USING that swing to redirect it back towards the target. Keepthe recovery and initials swings close, and as linear as possible, instead of big sweeping circular motions (big circles give too much time for your opponent to read the movement and counter). Work out with it. Find ways to make the weight and balance of the hawk work to your advantage. You might find your grip gets stronger, and your overall technique gets better!

Hope this adds a little,

Brian.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Brian Jones :

One could make a hwak or hatchet speifically for chopping
only.

Tomahawks are a subclass of hatchets which are a subclass of axes. If you
make a tomahawk that was optomized for chopping you would end up having made
a hatchet. To be clear there are specialized hatchets that are not made to
chop, carving and such, but you don't use them for general woodcraft because
the bit is too thin, with too extreme a curvature, and they are not the
topic of discussion here.

utility, skinning, and defense (natives, etc.), the hawks would far
outclass the hatchet as an all-around tool for use.

Note chopping is not all hatchets are made to do, they are also used for
many cutting chores at which they will outperform a tomahawk (that it
designed for throwing and/or combat) because of the ability to use a thinner
bit and higher grade steel, as well as difference in the head profile and
handle will lower fatigue and raise comfort and security. The hatchet will
also have a much longer edge retention and much higher cutting ability /
durability ratio.

In regards to game, butchering is very common with an axe. Generally the
only difference between a hunters axe and a wood craft one will be in the
handle (much more aggressive texture unsuitable for chopping as you can't do
a smooth two handled stroke) and poll (for flaying). The head profile is the
same. With the exception that a soft wood axe will have a bit that is too
thin for bone.

In regards to combat, hatchets are generally unsuitable as there is too much
risk of seriously damaging the edge as it is not made to take that level of
impact. It would be like using a fine hunting knife in combat, while it will
cut very well, it does not have the required level of durability. As well
replacing the handle on an axe is very difficult as while this is one of the
primary goals of tomahawks it isn't for axes..

It wouldn't be expedient for someone to carry several axes or
hatchets for different tasks in the woods, right?

Anyone who uses them as their primary tool does as you don't use the same
axe for splitting as you do for limbing, debarking, root clearing etc., nor
would you use a limbing axe for felling etc. . In you are in a group the
tools are spread out and different people do the various tasks. If by
yourself you do them step by step. First off for example you clear lanes,
limb the trees, clear roots, debark if necessary. Then you switch to your
felling axe and knock them down. Back to the limbing axe (swamper) to clear
them up.

In fact it is usually more restrictive than that because you don't use one
type of axe on all types of wood. An axe that is able to cut hardwoods is
wasted on soft woods as it won't get the penetration that a soft wood axe
will. You can't use such an axe on hardwoods as it will break apart. For
example the Bruks hatchet I have now cannot handle the harder knots in
spruce, but will take Pine fine. So I go around and clear up all the pine.
Stack up the wood and switch to another axe to clear up the Black Spruce.
Usually doing such on different days.

Throwing might be a last gasp effort if everything else failed, but
certainly not the first-purpose design of a hawk.

If you eliminate hard contacts (from throwing or combat) you are working
with a very poorly designed tool. As it is around that which the whole
design is based. It would be like taking a wood craft hatchet and throwing
it and using it in combat. Now to be clear you can take a tomahawk and make
it so it will out cut a hatchet, just reduce the bit length to increase the
leverage you can apply and thin the profile out significantly. As well
change the steel to give higher edge strength, compression resistance and
wear resistance. However such a blade will chop poorly (wedge badly due to
hollow or flat grind) and would not be suitable for throwing or combat. It
would also still have an inferior head/handle attachement and handle.

Regarding CQB, historically, blade fighters NEVER banged their
weapons against another's weapon if they could help it.

Designing something to be able to withstand a given stress does not mean
that is the intended use of such a tool. For example you wear a lifejacket
when on the water so that if you fall overboard and get knocked out you
don't drown. This does not mean that the correct fishing technique is to get
someone to hit you on the head and throw you overboard.

Tomahawks were used in combat against similar tools and against other heavy
weapons. It is far from unlikely that contact could be made. Thus you had to
make the durability of the tomahawk much greater than an axe which would
never see such impacts. Every aspect which raises the durability, lowers the
tools function in other respects, edge life, edge compression resistance,
cutting ability. There are others issues as well such as the requirement of
ease of handle replacement which Andy discussed some time ago. That is not
an issue with an axe.

In regards to a straight handle, take a look at large knives. All quality knives will have well shaped
handles to fill out the handle and this is not a round shape. The curvature
of an axe handle is to increase comfort during use, raise the power of a
stroke and reduce the vibration from impacts. The knob is not just there to
keep your hand from slipping off, it is to reduce the compression force you
need and thus lower fatigue as well as raise your ability to torque against
it and thus increase the power of your chop.

There are other considerations as well. For example most traditonal
tomahawks have a profile in which the toe of the bit is in line with the
head of the handle. You do not want this for chopping. A norse profile
however has the same bit pattern as a felling axe. There are many things
which are inbetween a hatchet and an tomahawk and can't really be called
either one.

At a basic level, a tomahawk has many advantages over a hatchet, however
every advantage is always at the cost of performance in another area.
Tomahawks for example are generally made of softer lower alloy steels. This
means they are far tougher, more ductile and easier to work. It also means
they are far weaker, with a lower compression resistance and wear resistance
(and corrosion resistance but that difference is not usually significant).
Same with every other aspect of the design.

-Cliff

 

[Two Hawks]

Brian-
Best summary I have seen yet on this thread. You covered all the bases.

Cliff -
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I have made hatchets (most recently, a hewing hatchet which is a single-purpose carpenter's tool with a single-ground edge and offset eye and handle). My specialty, however, is the multi-purpose bush tool used for a couple of hundred years by folks whose lives depended on them. It cuts wood (not as well as a logger-competition double bit axe). It whacks up big chunks of game meat and bones (probably not as well as a meat-cutting-plant butcher's cleaver). It pounds nails (but not as nicely as a California framing hammer). It skins and butchers game (but a bit more clumsy than using one of Ed Fowler's fine knives or an Alaskan Ulu). It can be used very effectively to settle arguments, and as a last resort can be thrown (though I do make one specially engineered for that purpose that has won the hawk championship at Riverton 4 years in a row). It performs all of these tasks well.
If I want something for heavier wood-chopping, I'll dig out the same old Estwing cruiser axe that served me well for 20 years in Fairbanks, Alaska (and is made from an alloy almost identical to what I use in my hawks). If I want to hew timbers into beams, I'll use my broadaxe. If I have to cut down a bunch of trees, I'll use a d*mn chain saw.
When I walk the woods (much less frequently now that my health has gone to sh*t) the hawk is what goes with me. It does everything I need to do and does it well. My customers tell me the same.

TWO HAWKS
http://www.2hawks.net