Vaughan Sub-Zero?

It is an easily broken hatchet - especially in inexperienced hands. The eye is quite small - so the handle is easily snapped off if it's misused. If you're not experienced, you might want to get a replacement handle. I haven't broken mine but I take care and focus on the task.

The sheath is crap too, cheap thin vinyl - I wouldn't wear it on a belt but it's perfectly functional otherwise. And you can always make your own.

Most people are surpised at how small it is - it appears as a "toy hatchet" to them. But it's a perfectly useful tool when used properly. And it fits in your pocket - I've carried mine in a cargo pocket of my BDUs with ease. It's not a GB mini - but it doesn't cost nearly as much either.
 
I've seen them come up new on ebay inexpensively. That's where I got mine. Sheath, as mentioned is functional, but that's all. I suppose the handle is less durable than it could be. But it hasn't been a problem so far. The head weighs only a few ounces, and the overall length is about 11". There's not a lot of force you can get behind swinging one of these things. My guess is that breaking the handle takes some concentrated effort or missing your target. One of those tiny Gerber/Fiskars hatchets would probably be a better performer overall, or a mouse-tomahawk, if one must have a teeny chopper.
 
akennedy73 said:
It is an easily broken hatchet - especially in inexperienced hands. The eye is quite small - so the handle is easily snapped off if it's misused. If you're not experienced, you might want to get a replacement handle. I haven't broken mine but I take care and focus on the task.
...
Click to expand...

Yeah, some of these tiny handles break easily.

Hit the handle once while limbing and you can break it.

Edit:
I broke one "without trying"; unless you are forewarned and extremely careful,
it seems inevitable that the handle will break. Why? One miss on a small limb
and the handle hits the limb and the handle breaks.
 
Get a Wetterlings or a Fiskars. When you break it all down, the 14" Fiskars is just a few ounces more and has a lot more heft. IMHO, a saw gives more cut for the weight.

The smaller hatchets are easy to pack but don't have the weight to penetrate or the length of handle to get a good swing. They were a fine design for a kitchen hatchet when there were wood ranges and used to split kindling.
 
All good points above, but be aware that all the fiskars are about 50 percent heavier and 1/3 longer. While they do much more work, they are much larger, comparitively. If a person took that hatchet, I do not think they could accomplish more w/ anything smaller or lighter, chopper wise. That means you have to go bigger or heavier if you want to chop more. While that may be a worthwile compromise, it just seems like there is a small niche for the Vaughan. It seems like just the thing to keep a pocket cooker or a Kelty kettle going. Obviously it is not for keeping a large fire going. It seems like it would do best around hardwood. Softwood you could do better w/ a machete I think. Have fun.
 
The Vaughan is 12 ounces, the 14" Fiskars is 19oz, and a Kershaw Bahco folding saw is 6 ounces. Size isn't as much a problem as any of the three will pack vertically in a day pack and take up little space. Weight is always important to me, so the saw wins hands down.

In use, a small hatchet needs to be swung fairly hard to get any penetration and control is an issue. You hack and bang away and the light head can go bouncing off springy branches and so forth-- just an accident waiting to happen. Cutting 2" stuff with the saw is quick and easy and you can get your shelter together much quicker with one. The 14" hatchet can be used with two hands and the weight is in the head where it helps penetrate. I think it is worth the weight penalty.

I'm wondering how the cheap tomahawks like the Cold Steel Trailhawk compare to some of the smaller hatchets. I like the idea of a good hammer face incorporated in the tool. A broken handle can be replaced in the field with a tomahawk too.
 
The stock Sub-Zeros or other cheap hatchets penetrate poorly because they have thick edges, also often overly soft edges due to inconsistent heat treat, not because of their weight. The Sub-Zeros reprofiled by BRKT are vastly better than the stock versions; their edges are also far thinner and keener than Fiskars, and even the Gransfors Bruks Mini. They bite deeply even into hard woods with moderate, accurate swings from the elbow, and are very efficient tools relative to their size and weight; too bad BRKT no longer makes them. I don't have an 'action photo' of my own but here's one with a lengthened handle:
http://forums.outdoors-magazine.com/viewtopic.php?p=36295

Yes, the eye is smaller and care needs to be taken; but it's about as thick as the eye on a comparable-sized hammer. I don't see how you would break it by accidentally missing your target and hitting with the handle; that's a problem for longer not shorter handles. Most likely it would break when prying out big chips; but again, exercise reasonable care and you should be fine. It's a good piece of hickory, after all, not a toothpick.

A good mini-hatchet like the BRKT or GB is better compared to a knife than a saw. You would need to move up to a much bigger knife to equal its efficiency for splitting or chopping wood. Its thin, curved edge is well-designed for making fuzz sticks and easy to control by choking up. Good for lopping off fish heads, squirrel paws/feet, etc. An axe or hatchet can also be easily sharpened in the field, a saw cannot. Mine weighs 9.7 oz, btw -- half that of a 14" Fiskars and lighter than most mid-sized ~7" bladed knives which the BRKT Sub-Zero easily outchops.

Better to think of it as a good complement to a saw and folder or small fixed blade. I carry a Gerber Sportsmans saw -- 3.4 oz and ~75% performance of my Sandvik-Bahco folding saw, more compact with a more comfortable handle. When I'm out two nights or less, however, I do usually leave the hatchet. --Glen
 
Storyville I think you have too many errors in your "story" to be taken seriously. First off the Vaughan I purchased I did so because of Jimbo's writing a few years ago. The edge did not seem overly thick to me and the hatchet choped as well as could be expected for its size and weight. I generally use a saw to cut to length and a hatchet to split and the Vaughan also did that well using a baton. A thin edge is not always an advantage in the woods unless you strickly use the hatchet for chopping. A more robust edge profile will split better than a very thin profile like a GB. (This is the reason I prefer Wetterlings over GB). In comparing the eye to the eye of a hammer of similar size you are correct. However a hammer of that size is used for delicate work with taps rather than swings. Taps do not work when it comes to chopping or splitting. The only time a tap is used is to set the hatchet edge on a round for splitting with the aid of a baton. When I say "round" I am talking about a round say 8" long, not fireplace size. That small hammer eye is a weak point on a tool meant to be used in the woods. My daughter weighed 70 pounds soaking wet when she broke the handle of the Vaughan. The handle did not appear to have any dents or damage around broken end, but simply broke when force was applied in the proper direction. The handle of Jimbo's Vaughan was a replacement because the original broke and others here have reported breakage. I don't feel this a valid woods tool because it is poorly designed and not able to stand up to a few days proper usage. Now by that I mean if Vaughan designed and marketed the hatchet as a woods tool and not just for tree sounding.

Prying out big chips? Come on now, even the sharpest Vaughan will never cut big chips and why would one have to pry any chip. I don't pry with my hatchet because I don't have to. The hatchet cuts the chips free when used properly.

I do agree with you regarding tools, any tools really, complimenting each other. Maybe some people use their hunting knives or camping knives in the kitchen on a regular basis but cooks know that different knives have different functions. Yesterday I sat in the wilds of my backyard cooking lunch over my Sierra Stove. That little sucker consumes an ungodly amount of wood just to cook some hambuger and heat a can of beans. My "woods tool" was a pair of SnapCut anvil hand pruners. My wood supply was a dead oak and a dead fir limb. I kept warm by cutting 4" pieces of wood for the stove. A knife, saw, or hatchet/axe would not have performed nearly as well as the hand pruners
 
2Dogs,

I'm not sure what errors you're referring to since you don't really point out any, but whatever. RE facts and background: Jimbo's Sub-Zero was significantly reprofiled, not stock, and he did break the handle prying out chips, not chopping. The stock model as you note is a sounding hatchet not for woodworking, but Jimbo, Mike Stewart, Sharpshooter and others experimented with reprofiling it due to some promising inherent characteristics -- its thin head for splitting and its striking approximation of the specs for Horace Kephart's "Colclesser tomahawk": "Among my most valued possessions is a tiny Colclesser tomahawk, of 8-ounce head and 2-1/2 inch bit, which, with hickory handle and home-made sheath, weighs only three-quarters of a pound. I seldom go anywhere in the woods (unless in marching order with a heavier axe) without this little trick. It is all that is needed to put up a satisfactory shelter wherever there is hemlock or balsam, or bark that will peel, while for other services I use it oftener than I do my jackknife."

Thinner, harder edge +thinner cheeks = vastly improved penetration with less effort. Hence, in seasoned driftwood, "This gives an idea of how far the head sinks in with a light swing just using weight of head." The purpose of the BRKT Mini project was to convert a sounding hatchet into a "serious" bushcraft tool. (Here are other links for anyone interested in info on some early testing and on reprofiling.

Yes, the eye is still much smaller and easier to break, and I don't doubt your daughter did just that; it also could've been exacerbated by a bad handle. But it isn't inherently as weak as you suppose. Its eye is comparable to one on a 16 oz. claw hammer which can handle repeated strikes equivalent to chopping, certainly far beyond "tapping." In the previous link, Jimbo is actually chopping with a longer handle -- that is, applying exponentially greater stress to the head/handle join than can be generated with its stock 11" handle.

I've split probably a half-cord of wood during several multi-day treks and a few day hikes, beach trips, etc., with my BRKT Mini, still intact (somewhat to my surprise), and I'm not nearly as skilled as Jimbo. Yes, it has obvious limits but it is more versatile than a saw (which I pair it with) and more powerful than any knife near its size/weight (which it replaces) -- a fair compromise for me in a 9.7 oz. tool. Your mileage has varied, obviously.

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