The line between Tomahawk and hand axe..

[Kentucky]

Im curious as to your opinions as where the line between tomaahwk and hand axe starts to blur? Other than the obvious tear drop/friction hold haft in a tomahawk and the wedged haft in a hand axe when does a tomahawk get to big to be called a tomahawk? More than One pound? More than a 3" wide blade? What if has a tomahawk haft but has a 3 1/2" wide blade and weighs 1 1/2# pounds? Whats your thoughts?

 

[Pipeman]

I like my throwing hawks to have narrow blades and my hatchets to have some heft. And to be honest, I Hate hawk hafts that are tear drop shape. My slightly widening round hafts stay on forever unlike tear drop shapes.

Best regards

Robin

 

[omniviking]

would not a tomahawk be considered a type of hand axe and as the axes gets bigger change into another catagory?

to tell if it is a hatchet or hand axe differs from a tomahawk weight, length, style of handle, how the handle is fitted to the head, down from the top or up from the bottom, friction fit, or wedged in. Hatchets and Tomahawks excel in their own areas, chopping, splitting, self defense, or packing it along.

I like all of them.

 

[Shotgun]

The only difference between the two is what you said IMO. My GB mini has a thin blade like my trail hawk so other than some small geometric differences, the heads are similar. The only difference is that one has a wedge in the eye and the other doesn't. Now what I can't tell is if there is a difference in temper. Maybe hawks are a little softer.

 

[vector001]

to me, a tomahawk of any length is around one ounce per inch of length, give or take 10 percent (at most).

(example; a 24 ounce proper hawk will weigh about 24 ounces to be optimum, any heavier and it approaches a Belt Axe ratio immediately, and any less mass per inch it approaches a War Club ratio.)

everything else is subservient to that rule for a proper hawk IMHO.

small knife-like bits with high PSI for penetration, ...and a trailing mass for tracking, such as a poll or spike are other qualities of better/purer hawks, which i have seen mentioned here, but the ounce-per-inch rule will always be king to me, for a distinctive hawk-like performer, the pefect balancxe between weapon and tool IMHO - the proper hawk.

a hand axe will split better than a hawk, but a hawk will usually part better. i don't care about the splitting ability of a tool, so hawks suit me especially well.


these are just my opinions, as a hawk maker.

vec

 

[Cpl Punishment]

IMO, an axe has to have several features to be considered a 'hawk.

1.) A straight haft. Early axes had a straight haft, so this in and of itself isn't enough.

2.) Friction fit with the head put on from the bottom of the haft, so that centrifugal force will make the head tighter, not looser. Again, early axes also had this construction.

3.) It has to be light enough and have the proper balance to fight with. The weight, plus #1 and #2, makes it as good a weapon as a tool.

For instance, my GB Hunter's axe has a very thin, hawklike head, very light, penetrates very well, even has a good beard for hooking. But, the haft is just not quite right for using as a weapon, although you could make a good go of it.

I'd probably not be quite so strict as to weight to length ratio or demands of a short cutting edge as Vec -- as I'd consider one with a 3-4" cutting edge a hawk, provided the balance was right, although Vec would probably argue that it's more of a battle axe at that point -- but his 1oz per inch of length is a damn good rule of thumb.

 

[grlangr]

very interesting thread guys! I'm working on my first...hawk/hand ax. Bit on the heavy side of the scale, but I do not intend on it being thrown. Is the weight ratio purportioned for better throwing? I grew up chopping wood and swinging a hammer alot. I always thought that a bit heavy headed was slightly better for (obviously) splitting wood and sinking nails... and I can see both positives and negatives on the combat side of the issue. If it's to heavy to manuever quickly it could put you at a disadvantage. But a heavier and harder blow could also do more damage. So, if it's heavier, say closer to 32 or 36oz would it be a battle or "hand" ax? I suppose being a bit viking in build I may have better control of a heavier ax than the average size guy. My framing hammer was a 34oz california framer that I took an old ax handle and cut to 33" so I could reach up to sealing level while framing.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Being of Viking blood (and Celt -- what a combination, huh?), I feel an affinity for the battle axe myself. But a couple of things to consider:

1.) You can increase the depth of the cut with a lighter tool by making the bit smaller, such as the CS Trail Hawk, versus the Rifleman's hawk.

2.) Vikings often had to have a tool heavy enough to get through armor on their swings, or at least make the blow hurt even if it didn't get through. For the vast majority of uses, we don't have to get through armor these days. For soft armor -- anything from hard leather "biker jackets" to Level II body armor, a long, sharp spike on the backside of the head will do better than any standard bit (thus, why later battle axes had spikes on the back as heavier armor came into play).
3.) Which brings us to the next level of, if you are dealing with armor, why not have a small hawk for camping duty, and a war hammer as your weapon? You've got a good spike for piercing, and even if the bad guy is wearing armor, the hammer face is going to hurt not matter what. Another reason is the Cold Steel war hammer is made from 5150 instead of 1050 -- much tougher stuff.