Why the axe design? Why not larger hawks?

B

bladerique

Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
977
Just for the purpose of field rehandling, I can replace a hawk handle without too much trouble, but not an axe. I can also make an (what's it called again?) an ....ads?

Anyway, why not heftier hawks instead of hatchets and axes?
 
The cold steel rifleman is rather hefty, if looking for a heavier hawk.
Axes have flatter profiles so that they can pass through the wood when splitting, and when felling the cheeks won't glance off.
A more secure attachment is another advantage, but the big drawback is field re hafting. A properly used and cared for axe should keep it's haft for a lifetime, IMHO.
(that tool is spelled adze, btw ;)
 
Woodtrekker demonstrates making a replacement hatchet haft in the woods in 15 minutes. Youtubeit.
 
Liam Ryan said:
The cold steel rifleman is rather hefty, if looking for a heavier hawk.
Axes have flatter profiles so that they can pass through the wood when splitting, and when felling the cheeks won't glance off.
A more secure attachment is another advantage, but the big drawback is field re hafting. A properly used and cared for axe should keep it's haft for a lifetime, IMHO.
(that tool is spelled adze, btw ;)
Click to expand...

I don't see the general design as more secure. Even so, I could wedge a hawk to be more like an axe. Problem solved. The head shape could also be manufactured to be more axe-like. I see no advantage to the axe architecture.

daizee said:
Woodtrekker demonstrates making a replacement hatchet haft in the woods in 15 minutes. Youtubeit.
Click to expand...

I will post the vids. Pretty cool, but he did use a saw and a factory replacement handle.


[video=youtube;EtUbGxl3O7g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtUbGxl3O7g[/video]


[video=youtube;9a30xJj9YWM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a30xJj9YWM&feature=relmfu[/video]
 
bladerique said:
I don't see the general design as more secure. Even so, I could wedge a hawk to be more like an axe. Problem solved. The head shape could also be manufactured to be more axe-like. I see no advantage to the axe architecture.
Click to expand...

If you change the shape and wedge the haft it's no longer a hawk. Just because you don't acknowledge the advantages of axe geometry over that of a traditional tomahawk doesn't mean it isn't there. The benefits were pointed out. The thinner cross section helps with most things you would use an axe for. The drawback is it's a little more work to make a new haft. If you want an "American felling 'hawk" someone out there would happily take your money to custom make it. I think you'd end up less than impressed, but feel free to prove me wrong.
 
scouter27 said:
If you change the shape and wedge the haft it's no longer a hawk. Just because you don't acknowledge the advantages of axe geometry over that of a traditional tomahawk doesn't mean it isn't there. The benefits were pointed out. The thinner cross section helps with most things you would use an axe for. The drawback is it's a little more work to make a new haft. If you want an "American felling 'hawk" someone out there would happily take your money to custom make it. I think you'd end up less than impressed, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the attachment mechanism defines a hawk more than the profile. A thicker hawk is still a hawk. And from what I can observe, it's much, much harder to rehaft an axe. This guy makes a new hawk handle in no time, with just the one tool, unlike to two vids I posted above.

[video=youtube;6pvv97vPLHk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pvv97vPLHk[/video]
 
Hold on... woodstrekker has another vid on axe rehaft. Haven't seen it yet:

[video=youtube;Sl8Gj_usg7A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl8Gj_usg7A[/video]
 
bladerique said:
.... I can replace a hawk handle without too much trouble, but not an axe.
Click to expand...

daizee said:
Woodtrekker demonstrates making a replacement hatchet haft in the woods in 15 minutes. Youtubeit.
Click to expand...

Daizee has it. You can make a servicable axe handle a lot more easily and quicker than you might imagine. Given the added utility of an axe over a hawk the added handling time is worth it. The pioneers had the choice and the axe won out. Modern practitioners of pioneer arts should take notice.

While I might spend many hours making a fine handle for an axe I could make a serviceable handle in much less time. And someone like forum member G-Pig who does it regularly could rough out a usable handle in very little time. I bet your 6th axe handle wouldn't take you very long at all.
 
with a hawk for throwing it is actually more advantageous to have it able to slide off, as the energy will cause it to do so rather than break the handle with a bad throw.
You can get a very secure friction fit in a hawk, but a proper axe, seated firmly and securely on the haft with a good wedge is an abundantly more secure attachment method.

I stated the purposes of a slimmer profile, but a hawk could be made with a more flared head, more of an axe with a smaller and rounder eye attached similarly, but this would increase weight and decrease handle strength, a very desirable hawk characteristic is it's lightness, and a desirable axe characteristic is its handle strength provided by the extra material in line with the force of chopping energy while maintaining a slim profile. I think each does it's particular job well enough, when you start changing these things they will lose some benefits while gaining others. These are tools that have been around for thousands of years, if your idea was ideal it would exist already.
 
There are 'hawk-eyed axes out there but they have axe geometry.
 
I would hate to have hawk style handles on my axes. For anything larger than a small hatchet/hawk, I want a nice palm swell otherwise the tool would be FAR less useful.
 
I LOVE tomahawks. I have owned and used a bunch of different types and shapes as I am sure many here have. I have had a preference for them in the past so I am a tomahawk guy. This has been alluded too but there are reasons there were not larger tomahawks. The general edge to eye angle on a tomahawk tends to be deeply concave on a tomahawk. Just as with a hollow ground blade you will get easy shallow penetration in wood with rapidly increasing head friction. The thing that will help that shape blast deeper into the wood you are cutting is velocity (quite a bit of it). The necessary shape of a tomahawk handle (requiring taper toward the bottom to fit through the eye) makes that pretty tiring to grip during prolonged chopping. I know you can carve the handle for increased retention but you are limited but what will fit through the eye.

You can increase the wedge shape profile of a tomahawk but in adding the steel weight necessary to create the wedge shape you have created a tool that is also harder to keep in your hand during prolonged use because of more rotational inertia or whatever.

I live in the Pacific Northwest and chopping and splitting arm to leg sized segments of wet wood to get to the dry fuel with a wet tomahawk handle will bring these issues to the forefront of your conscience in a hurry.

I still love tomahawks. They are effective, fun tools. I still have romantic notions of tomahawk use through our nations history. It is walking around the woods with a tomahawk in my hand that converted me from a large knife only guy because I just enjoyed having a solid piece of hickory in my hand. As far as picking a tool for clearing and harvesting fuel for camp I have chosen small/medium axes in the range of 2 - 2 1/4 lbs on 20 to 28" hafts so they are still reasonable nimble "pack sized" tools. And I have embraced new romantic notions of American woodsmen who have harvested a lot of wood, built their own homes and sustained themselves in some of the harshest environments of North America with the axe.

Comfortable longer handles adding rotational energy, heavier wedge shaped heads take big bites. You can't beat the physics of them.

There is definitely a place for both though, in my kit and in bushcraft in general.
 
Last edited:
Another quick comment on shapes. An axe has the strongest structure just below the head at the shoulders. This is where a lot of energy transfer is taking place and where overstrike occurs. On a tomahawk, the strongest structure is at the top of or even ABOVE the head(?). This aids in head retention for sure but may not be the best anatomy in some chores.

A point against the axe by comparison is that the mass (head) is retained by compression and friction at the END of a rotating implement and this does cause problems when not properly hung, needs a little servicing or if it is worn out. I am going to focus on making sure my axe head is properly hung and ready to work to account for that because the benefits are well worth it for me.
 
I cut my first haft flush with the top of the axe head. Now I'm leaving them a bit proud on the theory that the exposed handle end can expand wider than the eye ever so slightly to aid retention. If that's true (I have no evidence either way) it would be wedged at both ends, unlike a 'hawk which is only wedged at one.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
There are 'hawk-eyed axes out there but they have axe geometry.
Click to expand...

Do you know who makes them?

Dunner said:
I LOVE tomahawks. I have owned and used a bunch of different types and shapes as I am sure many here have. I have had a preference for them in the past so I am a tomahawk guy. This has been alluded too but there are reasons there were not larger tomahawks. The general edge to eye angle on a tomahawk tends to be deeply concave on a tomahawk. Just as with a hollow ground blade you will get easy shallow penetration in wood with rapidly increasing head friction. The thing that will help that shape blast deeper into the wood you are cutting is velocity (quite a bit of it). The necessary shape of a tomahawk handle (requiring taper toward the bottom to fit through the eye) makes that pretty tiring to grip during prolonged chopping. I know you can carve the handle for increased retention but you are limited but what will fit through the eye.

You can increase the wedge shape profile of a tomahawk but in adding the steel weight necessary to create the wedge shape you have created a tool that is also harder to keep in your hand during prolonged use because of more rotational inertia or whatever.

I live in the Pacific Northwest and chopping and splitting arm to leg sized segments of wet wood to get to the dry fuel with a wet tomahawk handle will bring these issues to the forefront of your conscience in a hurry.

I still love tomahawks. They are effective, fun tools. I still have romantic notions of tomahawk use through our nations history. It is walking around the woods with a tomahawk in my hand that converted me from a large knife only guy because I just enjoyed having a solid piece of hickory in my hand. As far as picking a tool for clearing and harvesting fuel for camp I have chosen small/medium axes in the range of 2 - 2 1/4 lbs on 20 to 28" hafts so they are still reasonable nimble "pack sized" tools. And I have embraced new romantic notions of American woodsmen who have harvested a lot of wood, built their own homes and sustained themselves in some of the harshest environments of North America with the axe.

Comfortable longer handles adding rotational energy, heavier wedge shaped heads take big bites. You can't beat the physics of them.

There is definitely a place for both though, in my kit and in bushcraft in general.
Click to expand...

that answers my question Dunner. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top