Stock Removal Tomahawk, opinions?

G

Ghost Tracker

Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
29
Have a modern, one-piece tomahawk idea I want to make using stock-removal technique. Either 440c or D2 (but open to alternative steel suggestions, maybe even knife-grade titanium?), 3/8" thick. After cutting the basic outline (including handle) I want to mill down selected sections from both sides to 1/8" total thickness, while leaving an 1/4" outer outline "border" at full 3/8", thus creating I-beam strength but reducing weight. The handle will be further lightened by milling oval slots completely through the 1/8" center to facilicate bolted slab grip panels or a 550 cord weave for non-slip grip comfort & emergency lashing. Guessing length at ~16". I want it fast, sharp & more intended for survival/defense than heavy chopping. I know there's a continued discussion on "spike" vs. "poll" on the backside. Both have valid attributes, so I haven't completely decided.

Just looking for any/all observations, opinions & bubble-bursters. Thanks!
 
If you work with a shop that has a CNC milling machine, it shouldn't be a problem to do that. I think it would be light and look cool. I'd prefer that sort of design for a weapon rather than a wilderness survival tool.

I'd be inclined to produce one in a relatively inexpensive steel first. If you like it, the program for the CNC machine will already exist so it shouldn't be a that difficult to produce another in a more exotic material.

Best of success!

DancesWithKnives
 
A recent thread over in the W&SS made me start thinking of a similar project and ultimately lead me over to this forum. Check out RMJ Tactical, the manufacturer of the tomahawk discussed in the other thread, as it appears they do something similar to what you're discussing (though forged) on a couple of their models. I like the idea of doing a modern, wilderness style tomahawk that isn't quite so tactical in nature. I like the looks of the Shrike, but would prefer it without a spike on the back (perhaps some sort of striking surface instead?) and a less tactical grip.
 
Y'all are RIGHT! The RJM Tactical "Kestral" is one of the inspirations for this exercise. AUTOCAD & CNC equipment are available to me as I'm +20 years in the Auto/Aerospace tooling business (gages and fixtures). Once the AUTOCAD programming is tweaked & dialed-in, then it's just a matter of picking the material, putting it in the CNC, and pushing "Go". In fact, I'll likely prototype using wood or Ren Plank because it's sooo much cheaper/easier on cutter selection. I'll save the high-dollar (Sumitomo ceramic?) cutter inserts for the final product. Especially if Titanium becomes a viable option. (Or maybe just spend the $300 on an RJM Kestral...and be done with it! I'll likely spend more time & money than that on the project! ;))
 
If you look at the criticism of the Kershaw outcast, you will hear a lot of people say that D2 is no good for chopping, because the edge tends to chip. While in my experience the Outcast doesn't have this problem, it's my understanding that the heat treat has to be just right for D2 to perform in a chopping role.

I would take a look at 5160. There are a lot of great choppers out there made from 5160. Just my 2¢.
 
What is the steel that they use for jackhammer bits---L6 or something like that? Might be good for a really tough hawk.

DancesWithKnives
 
Last edited:
Some thoughts-
I agree it's a good idea to try and make the handle/shaft lighter, but you still need weight in the head to make a 'hawk or hatchet work the way it's supposed to. This large difference in the mass between the head and haft can actually make them faster to swing than if you lightened the head.

Also, personally, I'd steer away from high carbide steels like D2 or such stainlesses. They will give you added wear resistance, which is great for slicing rope or cardboard, but almost always at the expense of toughness. Making them a less than idea choice for impact tools. Take a look at 5160, L6, S5, etc. Or if for some reason you absolutely must have wear resistance, check out CPM-3V, which is much tougher than D2, and also as good or better wear resistance.

You don't have to take my word for it, either; you can compare the pros and cons of these steels on sheets available from the people who make them:

http://www.latrobesteel.com/technical_alloycomparison.cfm?View=Results&CatID=1

http://www.crucibleservice.com/datash/ds3Vv5b.pdf
 
I agree with the possum's statement about head weight when you are talking about chopping wood or swinging through a target. However, in the fighting context, being "fast" would also contemplate the ability to make rapid changes in direction and to strike and retract quickly. In those situations, a lighter head might facilitate a faster hawk. Of course, as the possum points out, it might not be as fast for pure chopping.

DancesWithKnives
 
Tomahawks seem to have a fundamental difference in how they work from axes in that the axe works on momentum transfer, whereas tomahawks work on impulse -- i.e. high speed + a small contact area + very thin head = what makes them bit deep. The lighter and smaller the head, the more impulse driven it will be, the heavier the head/hawk is, the more axelike it will be and momentum will become more important.
 
DWK2 said:
I agree with the possum's statement about head weight when you are talking about chopping wood or swinging through a target. However, in the fighting context, being "fast" would also contemplate the ability to make rapid changes in direction and to strike and retract quickly. In those situations, a lighter head might facilitate a faster hawk.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, I was mainly referring to being faster for dynamic use like fighting. You may want a 'hawk that is lighter overall for martial use compared to chopping hard wood, but I was mainly talking about distribution of that mass (balance). You don't want a heavy handle with a light head- that can actually make it more difficult to do quick maneuvers/direction changes.
 
Yes, if you're going to have a lighter head for greater agility, it would not make sense to have a heavy handle.

DancesWithKnives
 
Just like anything what your doing with the tool determines all the important factors. Materials being used are important , but design can make up for almost anything.
 
i think a 16-incher in 440C would be really nice, brother.

i have a bunch of Fast Axes that i am vectorizing in 1095.

one bit of advice which i may have missed here, is that if you are going to do a hawk of this type, i recommend you maximize how much edge it has, to acentuate the knife-characteristics of the flat-stock limitation. - my Fast Axes are more like a Survival Knife than a Hawk, for instance.

let me know when ya get them done or designed, i'd love some stainless hawks for sea kayaking.

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