I also think that 18" is a good length.
Ookami
Spyderco Tomahawk?
Perhaps I lost some of the thread. I remember suggesting the concept of changing heads for various purposes and you agreeing with it initially. I didn't recall the point where this thought process changed.Ookami wrote:That would be unreasonable, I'm afraid. Making the head is most likely more costly in manufacture and material.
I don't know if it's economically feasible but head grind/shape/steel/features changes the philosophy of the axe more than the handle. I am not discounting leverage (as it's a huge factor) but based on the multiple axes available in GB's collection per length it's my assumption that head plays a HUGE factor on job performance.
I would rather have an expensive handle comprising of synthetics with great ergonomics and some type of grippy handle. That way you have durability, comfort, grip, and lightness. If I wanted a wood handled axe I'd buy a GB. A FRN mold is hardly cheap unless they plan on moving full-production on such a product.Ookami wrote:You can make wooden handles cheaply on a copy lathe or you can injection mold synthetic handles rather easily. Heads have to be forged, ground, hardened, finished, coated, and sharpened.
It probably wouldn't be the best but people can do impressive chopping with a hollow-ground 3mm Rock Salt as well as batoning. It's properties are on par with VG10 and N690Co regarding "hard use" so I would think thickness, heat treat, and grind would be the main factors. Regarding "work hardening" in the auto industry perhaps in REM polished ring & pinion teeth or shot-peened transmission gears but not during collision situations. There is no way that chemically a steel can work harden during a crash. The panels are designed in a crumple-zone configuration to reduce the blow like a collapsing paper cup or a series of mechanical shock absorbers. From my understanding the "work hardening" concept dates back to old blacksmithing. Sadly my metallurgy background is as weak as my medical training (nigh non-existent).Ookami wrote:Also, I don't know whether H1 will make a good steel for a hawk. AFAIK, precipitation hardening steels come from the car industry. Their function is to absorb energy. The more the steel is deformed during a crash the more it resists further deformation. This is the so-called "work hardening".
I don't know whether a steel with these properties is suitable for retaining a sharp edge during chopping. Maybe it would work if you peen the steel... :confused:
Here are some companies and the steels they use. O-1 (Bushmaster) and N690Co (Hossom choppers) and 1095 (anything made by RAT knives) are used in knife steels. The others seem to be tool/spring steels. SOG uses 420 for their Fusion hawk which is about as cheap per pound as ground beef at Costco and almost as soft. :DOokami wrote:In fact, most knife steels are not suitable for axes. So the LaGhana Tomahawk from ATC is not made from 1095, but from 1060. The only way to use knife steels in axes is to forge weld them to an iron head, which is probably too expensive for industrial production. So most quality tomahawks are drop forged with differential heat treatment. The only non-custom tomahawks I know where this method is used are those from Gränsfors Bruks, which are semi-custom.
Ookami
http://www.haysknivesmontana.com
5150 forged head, differentially heat treated. Some use O-1. The full-tang war hawks use machined 1095 steel 48-50HRC.
ATC (American Tomahawk Company)
Lagana Tac Hawk: 1060 as mentioned.
Emerson QCQ-T: Machined 4140
Sibert Comanche: N690Co
TopsKnives.com
Nearly every hawk they make is 1095 carbon steel. Handles in micarta.
RMJ Tactical
4140 Chromoly -- same as high-end automotive axles.
All Tomahawks above are demoed on steel doors and range from $130 to $400. Most of them are well in the $200 range from steel you could find in a wrecking yard (leaf springs, etc).
But they tear though flesh and bone well. Ask Doc about the Rock Salt =)Ookami wrote:PS: Hollow grinds on any chopper are not a good idea.
PS: I am truly sorry about the multi-quoting. I'm trying to keep my thoughts organized not sound like a jerk. I have less organized ways to be a jerk that doesn't have to fall behind the guise of logic or prose.
Ultimately whatever Spyderco makes I would be in line to buy. A light folding axe? Heck yes. A mid-sized fixed chopper with a wood handle? Of course. Something tactical? Yup. Whatever they make will be function over form and kick @$$ in it's own category. Amen!
The consideration of such a strange project is awesome. The axe/hatchet market is sort of strange as-is and in my belief full of ambiguous products with bloated MSRP's. I would rather buy a hatchet at Home Depot than a SOG using 420 SS but I'm sure they sell quite a few of them for $50.
You meant the excangeable bit head like the Strider; I thought you meant complete heads. :o
You are right, that the head shape is important for the job. For specific jobs you have specialized axes. However, I think we are talking about a tomahawk that has either a fighting role or a general utility role. For both you only need a rather generic head shape, IMO.
Therefore, the question of leverage vs. portability is more important to me.
You are right about the initial costs of the mold. I'd prefer a synthetic handle maybe even with a glassfibre core and small rubber inserts if it was stronger and/or lighter than a wooden handle. I would also buy a well made wood handle though. :D
RE:Steels
From my (limited) knowledge I cannot understand the steel choice of some manufacturers. High alloy steels can work in choppers, but they are not ideal. The only reason I see for the use of those steels is hype.
Like you said, when using a steel that is normally not suited to chopping you will have to make the blade thicker, softer, and less sharp. So you end up with a heavy, clumsy, and overengineered (not in a good way) tomahawk or whatever. Also, you can chop with hollow grinds, but convex grinds are inherently stronger; again you will have to make up for this potential weakness with - and I know I am repeating myself - thicker stock, softer temper, and more obtuse edge bevels.
O-1 and 1095 are carbon steels that are more resilient than VG10 or N690co and can be used for chopping knives up to a certain length. You won't see battle ready swords with much more than 0.75% C or even in stainless.
5150, on the other hand, is a low carbon steel with around 0.5% C. 4140 has even less. On the RMJ site they say that 4041 steel is what they use for their hawks and that makes sense to me. I can't see s30v nor 154cm taking the punishment that the RMJ hawks will suffer without breaking.
420 isn't a bad choice of steel if you have to have a stainless chopper, it can even be a pretty good steel for that purpose if the heat treatment is done right. Sadly, most of the time, 420 is tempered way too soft.
I think Spyderco should not use a steel that is popular in their knives for the tomahawk project just to please customers. Ultimately, Spyderco and Sal always claim that they have the ELU in mind with their designs and it is those that will be dissatisfied with inadequate steels, especially if they know what other tomahawks and axes are capable of despite "cheap" spring steels.
Ookami
You are right, that the head shape is important for the job. For specific jobs you have specialized axes. However, I think we are talking about a tomahawk that has either a fighting role or a general utility role. For both you only need a rather generic head shape, IMO.
Therefore, the question of leverage vs. portability is more important to me.
You are right about the initial costs of the mold. I'd prefer a synthetic handle maybe even with a glassfibre core and small rubber inserts if it was stronger and/or lighter than a wooden handle. I would also buy a well made wood handle though. :D
RE:Steels
From my (limited) knowledge I cannot understand the steel choice of some manufacturers. High alloy steels can work in choppers, but they are not ideal. The only reason I see for the use of those steels is hype.
Like you said, when using a steel that is normally not suited to chopping you will have to make the blade thicker, softer, and less sharp. So you end up with a heavy, clumsy, and overengineered (not in a good way) tomahawk or whatever. Also, you can chop with hollow grinds, but convex grinds are inherently stronger; again you will have to make up for this potential weakness with - and I know I am repeating myself - thicker stock, softer temper, and more obtuse edge bevels.
O-1 and 1095 are carbon steels that are more resilient than VG10 or N690co and can be used for chopping knives up to a certain length. You won't see battle ready swords with much more than 0.75% C or even in stainless.
5150, on the other hand, is a low carbon steel with around 0.5% C. 4140 has even less. On the RMJ site they say that 4041 steel is what they use for their hawks and that makes sense to me. I can't see s30v nor 154cm taking the punishment that the RMJ hawks will suffer without breaking.
420 isn't a bad choice of steel if you have to have a stainless chopper, it can even be a pretty good steel for that purpose if the heat treatment is done right. Sadly, most of the time, 420 is tempered way too soft.
I think Spyderco should not use a steel that is popular in their knives for the tomahawk project just to please customers. Ultimately, Spyderco and Sal always claim that they have the ELU in mind with their designs and it is those that will be dissatisfied with inadequate steels, especially if they know what other tomahawks and axes are capable of despite "cheap" spring steels.
Ookami
Last edited by Ookami on Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Good points and much appreciated.
There is nothing wrong with using a proper steel for the project if its the best option for proven reasons. "Cheap" spring steel and more expensive chromoly are some of the best at what they do (especially considering price). Even if bronze had qualities for tool use that could be proven and reasoned I wouldn't mind going back to using it...sadly it can't. =)
Thank you for catching this. I misread based on another source as the RMJ site wasn't opening when I wrote that. I finally got into RJM and ran back here to correct it, lol. It is indeed 4140 Chromoly which is the same stuff they make aftermarket axles out of. If it's strong enough for rock crawling...it's prob strong enough for a Tomahawk. :)Ookami wrote: 5150, on the other hand, is a low carbon steel with around 0.5% C. 4140 has even less. On the RMJ site they say that 4041 steel is what they use for their hawks and that makes sense to me. I can't see s30v nor 154cm taking the punishment that the RMJ hawks will suffer without breaking.
Ookami
I completely agree that the average forumite would probably like it done in S90v and G10 but if it's not good for the model, it's not good for the user.Ookami wrote: I think Spyderco should not use a steel that is popular in their knives for the tomahawk project just to please customers. Ultimately, Spyderco and Sal always claim that they have the ELU in mind with their designs and it is those that will be dissatisfied with inadequate steels, especially if they know what other tomahawks and axes are capable of despite "cheap" spring steels.
Ookami
There is nothing wrong with using a proper steel for the project if its the best option for proven reasons. "Cheap" spring steel and more expensive chromoly are some of the best at what they do (especially considering price). Even if bronze had qualities for tool use that could be proven and reasoned I wouldn't mind going back to using it...sadly it can't. =)
-
Dr. Snubnose
- Member
- Posts: 8799
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:54 pm
- Location: NewYork
I agree with this statement: (trying not to repost whole comments)"I can't see s30v nor 154cm taking the punishment that the RMJ hawks will suffer without breaking". And there is also the chipping factor. Personally I really like the 1060 on my ATC hawks, they seems to be able to take a lot of punishment. But 1065 is an even better performer. A little extra chrom goes a long way.I also agree that a convex grind will be stronger for a hawk...Goood Points guys...I'd like to see a handle made from compressed nylon into fiberglass with light knurling down towards the butt end but wouldn't mind a good hard wood handle if wood is the handle material selected...Doc :D
"Always Judge a man by the way he treats someone who could be of no possible use to him"
*Custom Avatar with the Help of Daywalker*
*Custom Avatar with the Help of Daywalker*
Knurling is a good idea. It gives the handle more traction without making it too tacky/sticky like rubber. Also, rubber can become brittle over time.
Ookami
Ookami
Last edited by Ookami on Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Agreed on the handle. Perhaps a good steel choice would be the upgrade from 4140 to 4340 which is commonly also used in aftermarket axles. Specifically fronts which require different design to allow steering and the stress from it.
As I've said I'm not a steel scientist by any stretch. However 4340 ranks above 4140 on the trail in certain situations. It ain't cheap but isn't costly like most blade steels.
As I've said I'm not a steel scientist by any stretch. However 4340 ranks above 4140 on the trail in certain situations. It ain't cheap but isn't costly like most blade steels.
Lot of good information in this thread, which I appreciate.
I guess I shoudl say that I'm really not interested in making a Tactical hawk. There are many on the market, all competing for what seems to be a very small market. I would question how many really get used and for what?
I Think the first things to be established are size, shape and weight.
What I had in mind was light, and effective. while "choppers" will work as axes, they are quite heavy to haul around. Tomahawks were always carried because they were easy to carry.
The current prototype that I'm testing has a much shorter handle than the 18" suggested.
SSSOOOOOooooo.
Lets begin with size and weight. Once we have determined what will serve best (if anything?), then we can go to form and materials.
sal
I guess I shoudl say that I'm really not interested in making a Tactical hawk. There are many on the market, all competing for what seems to be a very small market. I would question how many really get used and for what?
I Think the first things to be established are size, shape and weight.
What I had in mind was light, and effective. while "choppers" will work as axes, they are quite heavy to haul around. Tomahawks were always carried because they were easy to carry.
The current prototype that I'm testing has a much shorter handle than the 18" suggested.
SSSOOOOOooooo.
Lets begin with size and weight. Once we have determined what will serve best (if anything?), then we can go to form and materials.
sal
Function over form for me. If your current proto has a light carry feel and is effective thats great. Sizes and weights has pros and cons to each. I'd like to see it chop wood better than a tactical hawk and have certain advantages over a large fixed blade.
Ultimately if it has innovations that appeal to the camp hatchet/axe world at a competitive price they should eat it up. Something modern between a Gerber and GB small camp hatchet in price but modern.
RayMears says the small forest axe is the most usable size but also uses a size larger and smaller (he has a vid someplace on reviewing them). I can't pretend to know more than I have simply read.
Ultimately if it has innovations that appeal to the camp hatchet/axe world at a competitive price they should eat it up. Something modern between a Gerber and GB small camp hatchet in price but modern.
RayMears says the small forest axe is the most usable size but also uses a size larger and smaller (he has a vid someplace on reviewing them). I can't pretend to know more than I have simply read.
-
Dr. Snubnose
- Member
- Posts: 8799
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:54 pm
- Location: NewYork
I hear ya Sal,...no tactical hawks...If you are questioning how many get used and for what...then you shouldn't make one.....I don't know to much about camping hatchets, so I guess my continued contribution to this thread and the development of this hatchet will be limited. I guess if I had to hack at wood in the forest, I'd be using a Chain-saw, smaller saw, large bush knife or full size axe...I have no real need for a small light-weight hatchet when I camp. I hope others will feel different....Doc :D
"Always Judge a man by the way he treats someone who could be of no possible use to him"
*Custom Avatar with the Help of Daywalker*
*Custom Avatar with the Help of Daywalker*
-
TheSavageRabbit
- Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:01 pm
My own prejudice is for functional utility. Tacticool designs are usually clumsy at performing real-world utility tasks.
As a carpenter, the light head on a medium-long handle is good because it is easy to carry and to generate speed on the swing. The first Americans figured this out a looooong time ago, and hammer manufacturers have come to it in the last decade.
I agree that hollow-ground edges are poor for chopping logs, but they work well on lighter stuff like brush, where the thick part of the blade does not enter the cut until after the material is severed. So the main question to answer is: "What is the intended use?" More realistically, what is the range of likely uses by the ELU?
I don't use or collect weapons, but I use edged tools a lot in my work and leisure. A Spyderco hatchet would be handy around the yard or camp if not too big and heavy. A folding design would be a lot safer for carry on the body or in a pack, and no sheath to misplace. The lock and hinge would need to be really robust to survive a tomahawk's impacts.
Bill
As a carpenter, the light head on a medium-long handle is good because it is easy to carry and to generate speed on the swing. The first Americans figured this out a looooong time ago, and hammer manufacturers have come to it in the last decade.
I agree that hollow-ground edges are poor for chopping logs, but they work well on lighter stuff like brush, where the thick part of the blade does not enter the cut until after the material is severed. So the main question to answer is: "What is the intended use?" More realistically, what is the range of likely uses by the ELU?
I don't use or collect weapons, but I use edged tools a lot in my work and leisure. A Spyderco hatchet would be handy around the yard or camp if not too big and heavy. A folding design would be a lot safer for carry on the body or in a pack, and no sheath to misplace. The lock and hinge would need to be really robust to survive a tomahawk's impacts.
Bill
"As a carpenter, the light head on a medium-long handle is good because it is easy to carry and to generate speed on the swing. The first Americans figured this out a looooong time ago..."
The Chokwe, too. :D the small axe i had and used frequently in zambia had a handle of about 18-20" , and head that was a not-too-large piece of metal shaped like a small triangle. the edge on the blade was maybe only 3". it tapered back, and the skinnier part of the triangle went through a hole burned in the handle. i was kinda annoyed when the blacksmith brought it (i had instructed him to make me a "big" axe), but he -- and others, as well -- assured me that that was probably all i'd need. no, it wouldn't chop down big trees, but it did smaller-sized trees just great! i was mostly using smaller trees (usually ones that were already dead) as wood for my cooking fires anyway... so it was perfect. :D
anyway -- i'm sure there would have been more efficient, heavier axes, but that simple configuration -- lighter head on a medium-length handle -- was great as a bush axe, and axe for light EDC chores. it was great, because i could (and often did) carry it through loops on my maxpedition fatboy manpurse, or remove the metal bit, and carry it in my backpack.
maybe i'll snap some pictures of it... it's back in DE, but i'll be headed there in about a week to visit family... :D
just ordered a CS rifleman's hawk (no comments, please :rolleyes: ) out of curiosity... i plan on picking up a gransfors, too when i've got a little more cash to play with...
for me, every day utility and light weight is what i'm looking for in a small axe. i want to be able to chop smallish trees / saplings to make emergency shelter, and to chop through animal bones -- deer, as a minimum. i want something that's comfortable for extended use... even and especially if i'm using it hard. it would be great if there were a hammer pole, as well. but if not, that's okay... i plan on using this as my "salmon whacking" tool, as well. :D i don't mind carrying something with a longer handle... i'd prefer additional handle length to additional weight. i don't need something that looks fancy, because i'd plan on using it. i feel like a reliable, comfortable grip is absolutely essential.
very exciting concept! this thread gets the drool flowing in the direction of a gransfors to play with... maybe after my trip to the east coast...? :D
The Chokwe, too. :D the small axe i had and used frequently in zambia had a handle of about 18-20" , and head that was a not-too-large piece of metal shaped like a small triangle. the edge on the blade was maybe only 3". it tapered back, and the skinnier part of the triangle went through a hole burned in the handle. i was kinda annoyed when the blacksmith brought it (i had instructed him to make me a "big" axe), but he -- and others, as well -- assured me that that was probably all i'd need. no, it wouldn't chop down big trees, but it did smaller-sized trees just great! i was mostly using smaller trees (usually ones that were already dead) as wood for my cooking fires anyway... so it was perfect. :D
anyway -- i'm sure there would have been more efficient, heavier axes, but that simple configuration -- lighter head on a medium-length handle -- was great as a bush axe, and axe for light EDC chores. it was great, because i could (and often did) carry it through loops on my maxpedition fatboy manpurse, or remove the metal bit, and carry it in my backpack.
maybe i'll snap some pictures of it... it's back in DE, but i'll be headed there in about a week to visit family... :D
just ordered a CS rifleman's hawk (no comments, please :rolleyes: ) out of curiosity... i plan on picking up a gransfors, too when i've got a little more cash to play with...
for me, every day utility and light weight is what i'm looking for in a small axe. i want to be able to chop smallish trees / saplings to make emergency shelter, and to chop through animal bones -- deer, as a minimum. i want something that's comfortable for extended use... even and especially if i'm using it hard. it would be great if there were a hammer pole, as well. but if not, that's okay... i plan on using this as my "salmon whacking" tool, as well. :D i don't mind carrying something with a longer handle... i'd prefer additional handle length to additional weight. i don't need something that looks fancy, because i'd plan on using it. i feel like a reliable, comfortable grip is absolutely essential.
very exciting concept! this thread gets the drool flowing in the direction of a gransfors to play with... maybe after my trip to the east coast...? :D
:spyder: :spyder: :spyder:
I would hope it would at least have a 12" to 16" handle. A slight curve toward the blade in the end of the handle for "snap". You know, the usual Spyderco ergonomic treatment. Lightweight, quick in hand with good balance, tool steel blade, hammer on back and a sheath system with multiple carry options.
I'm very interested in seeing Spyderco's vision of a Tomahawk. Should be cool and extremely useful.
I'm very interested in seeing Spyderco's vision of a Tomahawk. Should be cool and extremely useful.
Re: Length & Weight
I feel that length is important to create enough swing. I have a Fiskars 600 hatchet which is a little more than 14" in length (36.5 cm) and I consider this the absolute minimum for one handed use. With 18" or 19" two handed use will also be an option.
Weight should be as low as possible.
I'll doodle around with paint some more and show the results in the morrow. :eek:
Ookami
Weight should be as low as possible.
I'll doodle around with paint some more and show the results in the morrow. :eek:
Ookami
Last edited by Ookami on Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sal, I currently carry my Gransfors Bruks mini hatchet whenever I go camping, and hikes where I am not concerned about being ultralite. I really like how small and transportable it is, with the handle being slightly over 10 inches.
If I could change anything about it I would add maybe a few more inches of length, as it wouldn't add too much weight, or change how easy it is to carry. I love the traditional craftsmanship that went into it, but If I were to get a new hatchet I would want one with a handle made out of something synthetic, lightweight and durable. It would be nice if the handle came in something bright (orange or yellow) to spot when you put it down while gathering wood. I would also rather have a synthetic (nylon) sheath system instead of the leather that I carry now.
What I like about the small size of a hatchet is it can be used for so many tasks. You can't expect to chop down trees, but you can certainly split wood using the hatchet head as a wedge. It's also perfect for trimming branches and bushcraft type chores.
I would love to see a Spyderco model, but not sure which steel to use.
If I could change anything about it I would add maybe a few more inches of length, as it wouldn't add too much weight, or change how easy it is to carry. I love the traditional craftsmanship that went into it, but If I were to get a new hatchet I would want one with a handle made out of something synthetic, lightweight and durable. It would be nice if the handle came in something bright (orange or yellow) to spot when you put it down while gathering wood. I would also rather have a synthetic (nylon) sheath system instead of the leather that I carry now.
What I like about the small size of a hatchet is it can be used for so many tasks. You can't expect to chop down trees, but you can certainly split wood using the hatchet head as a wedge. It's also perfect for trimming branches and bushcraft type chores.
I would love to see a Spyderco model, but not sure which steel to use.