"Neutering"? Don't you think that's maybe a bit overblown?
"Combat" does not have to mean, "Combat in Iraq". Not every opponent you may encounter will be wearing Kevlar. If you do not anticipate an armored target, then it is not unreasonable to believe you probably won't need a spike. The possibility of increased maneuverability around the face and head brought on by the absence of a spike can be a reasonable, worthwhile tradeoff. And that's just the combat aspect; let's not forget the general purpose, and the concerns that AZTimT brought up using the hawk for woods work. Also, with respect to the Estwing, as one of the posters in the other forum said, "If you hit somebody in the face or chest with an Estwing shake ax (I think that's what it is) their race is run." For any bladed impact weapon of this sort, the level of sensitivity to design change does not appear to be so sensitive that small modifications would completely ruin it's usefulness. So I don't know if "neutering" is the best choice of words to use.
All things are a compromise. I am aware of the cons of removing the spike. I am also aware of the pros. And I am aware of the tradeoffs. That's why I bought more than one. I'll have one with a spike and, maybe, one without, if I decide to go ahead.
Thank you for your thoughts on balance and indexing; those are very helpful!
I am glad to be helpful and glad that you are aware of the trade-off...
But I think that "neutering" is a perfect description. By removing the spike you eliminate in large part the penetration capabilities of the weapon, its most effective asset. It doesn't render it harmless, no, but it does render it
significantly less harmful.
I don't mean to come off as an ass, not trying to tell you what you can and cannot do with what is yours, just trying to paint clear pictures of what you'll get with the mod. You probably already know all this, but since the idea is for this modded hawk to be combat functional...
Penetration is the key to delivering significant damage, i.e. a death blow, to a target, be it an unarmored person or a car tire or a structure.
Targets generally have a "skin" of some sort, be it armor or rubber or leather or concrete, etc. Rubber, sheet metal, & skin are somewhat flexible. It is not as easy to flatten a tire with a wide chopping blade compared to a narrow spike. It is not as easy to cut through sheet metal with one either. The wide blade distributes the force over a larger area of medium to be cut. The spike focuses all that force into a tiny spot, achieving penetration MUCH more easily. Watch that KDSH demo-video to help clarify this.
Beyond the skin, living targets have flesh and bone protecting vital organs. To dismember a target requires cutting through both - no mean task, especially since those limbs are a small target that may be moving quite rapidly. Also dismemberment does not ensure fatality. To achieve fatality requires compromising a vital organ or major vesicle. The gut is an unprotected target but is not a fatal blow (at least not quickly), despite what one may see in television. Major vesicles are not easy to hit on a moving target, often being obstructed by an appendage (bone & muscle). The vital organs (head, torso) are always protected by bones which are notoriously difficult to cut through.
Striking a skull will be deadly if the bone is either crushed or penetrated, so long as sufficient damage is inflicted on vital underlying tissue (brain). But if the brain is not sufficiently damaged, a blow to any part of the head is relatively non-lethal. You need to have penetration. If you hit a person in the face, you have to force bone or another object into their brain in order to induce death - NOT easy, especially since the head is mobile rather than fixed in place. A strike to the face sends the head backward - you need to achieve penetration before that happens. Skulls are hard and round. A wide flat blade is easier to deflect along the surface (glancing blow) or absorb (larger surface area) than a spike whose geometry puts all that force into a tiny point. Your axe-blade will be less effective against a skull for the same reason it will be less effective against a helmet. That's a LOT of hard bone to cut through, requiring a LOT of force. And because it is harder for the axe blade to gain purchase, the target could shift its head/face and minimize the damage (assuming a live target that is moving or trying to avoid the blow) something that it could not do with a spike already lodged inside the bone. If you hit a person in the face with this axe, you'd better make sure that it went deep enough. Otherwise, no, the race is not run. A face strike with an axe blade does
not guarantee death. Neither does a spike, but at least the penetration is there. And that's all I am trying to make clear. If you expect to kill people by chopping at their skulls, you need a lot of force, a slower target, and probably more than one hit. The spike will make it a lot easier.
Striking the chest, the difference is more dramatic. The vital organs in a mammalian torso are surrounded by skin, muscle, and then a cage of hard bone. ALL must be penetrated to achieve an effective blow, and the blade must then penetrate deep enough to cut/tear through the organs themselves. Ribs are
very good at deflecting damage, and a wide blade does not easily fit between them so it must
cut or break through
multiple ribs to achieve the target organ. Again that's a lot of hard bone, and it's even harder to accomplish on a moving target. A poor strike will deliver a shallow glancing blow, maybe break some ribs, not a fatal hit. Again, race not run. The spike, like a sword/knife tip, doesn't need to cut through the bone, it instead slides or glances between, achieving maximum penetration, fatality. This requires much less force and is not much more difficult on a moving target since penetration is achieved so easily/quickly.
So again, all I am trying to make clear is that the axe blade is not as effective as a weapon, much less effective than people probably realize. Is an axe, ANY axe, still capable of being used as a weapon? Yes. But it's like comparing an ulu to a dagger. *shrug*
I am curious what CQB maneuverability advantage do you see with the spike removed? If you lack the space to maneuver around the spike, then you lack the space to generate a swing of sufficient force to cause much damage with the blade. In contrast, the spike requires less generation of force than the blade in order to incur damage, so you might be better off removing the
blade and sharpening the spike, but that
really messes with the tool's usefulness. RMJ's hawks aim to increase portability and maneuverability by reducing the
handle length, something to think about.
I kindof wonder if this should go to prac/tac or general, maybe attract
Edwood7's input? He's the only verified "operator" I know of on here, and I know that he uses hawks...
:thumbup:
or my instincts may be right on the money. 
