I had a question for some hawk experts. I have been told that my cold steel trail hawk is a great light weight stand in for a hatchet. I have been told by other internet people that it’s not good for anything but combat?! I just want to know if I’m wasting time and energy using the wrong tool for the job? If I need to split kindling on a long weekend backpacking in the woods would it be worth the 5 oz to go with the hatchet or should I stick to the hawk?
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Cold steel trail hawk
- Thread starter Josh1992
- Start date
The Zieg
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2002
- Messages
- 4,809
Buy some firewood at a local source and try it out for yourself before you go. Your own experience is worth more than any advice here.
Zieg
CVamberbonehead
Gold Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,191
It can work well, you might just have to adjust how you chop the wood. I like tomahawks just fine, and I am pretty low speed high drag so I wouldnt know about combat stuff.
Thanks for the input
Thanks for the reply. I’ll do just that and see if it’s worth the weight
If the hawk is currently working for you, then keep using it!
People who expect it to work like a hatchet are ignoring the laws of physics. The bit geometry and weight distribution are not the same, so as a straight up wood processing tool, the hatchet will always win. This is not to say the hawk is useless, but you have to have reasonable expectations.
My Fiskars hatchet is lighter than a Trail Hawk, and will out perform it for chopping/splitting/carving. I also have a Frontier hawk that I enjoy using as well, even though it is less efficient than the hatchet.
Plus, you can't do cool stuff like this with a hatchet:
People who expect it to work like a hatchet are ignoring the laws of physics. The bit geometry and weight distribution are not the same, so as a straight up wood processing tool, the hatchet will always win. This is not to say the hawk is useless, but you have to have reasonable expectations.
My Fiskars hatchet is lighter than a Trail Hawk, and will out perform it for chopping/splitting/carving. I also have a Frontier hawk that I enjoy using as well, even though it is less efficient than the hatchet.
Plus, you can't do cool stuff like this with a hatchet:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2018
- Messages
- 168
I've got a Fiskars axe (longer handled version of the hatchet), and it almost makes me mad. It's not a "real axe" with a wooden handle that looks good in selfies but, it's done so much crap work and kept going. I even lent it to a neighbor who wasn't nice to it was fine. Not real expensive either.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,104
I would NOT choose a Cold Steel Trail Hawk for working with wood because the bit is so short (2.25" length of edge from toe to heel. I say this with experience using a Trail Hawk on various occasions in direct comparisons to other options. The short bit is great IF penetration is primary goal, along with speed that comes from reduced weight of the short bit (typically attributes of alternate application). Another example of where a short bit could be advantageous is when used as an adze, like in the video by IA Woodsman in dogstar post#6 above but, in that specific application really more about the bit being more centered on the pole (heel & toe somewhat more even than the bit being short. The Trail Hawk is a lovely hawk (but one of the last I'd choose as a hatchet alternative). If you are only planning to "split kindling", Trail Hawk with do that wonderfully ;-) But, curious as to how the wood will be processed down to the kindling stage though :-/
I processed a bunch of wood for fire a couple days ago with a couple of my hawk(s) as a comparison session between a Cold Steel Frontier Hawk & Hudson Bay Hawk. Part of the reason for my comparison related to increased length of the bit on the HBH vs the FH.
HBH on 30" haft & FH on 18" haft - both at 15dps (I also brought a 18" & 24" haft for the HBH):
I processed a bunch of wood for fire a couple days ago with a couple of my hawk(s) as a comparison session between a Cold Steel Frontier Hawk & Hudson Bay Hawk. Part of the reason for my comparison related to increased length of the bit on the HBH vs the FH.
HBH on 30" haft & FH on 18" haft - both at 15dps (I also brought a 18" & 24" haft for the HBH):
Last edited:
I'd be curious to know about this comparison,as I have both hawks. Maybe start another thread so not to hijack this thread. The hammer poll on the Hudson bay adds trailing mass, which makes it a better wood processor.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,104
I will try and keep within the thread OP subject.
I am debating the possibility of doing a thread like you mentioned. However, I do believe I may be removing a far amount of the mass on the HBH to get it down closer to the FH in head weight (this was actually the plan long before HBH was ordered). I will say the trailing mass of the HBH head made felling a much better/easier/accurate process.
Staying in line with the OP subject (light weight carry hawk), yes more mass makes a better wood processor for 'most' typical applications of most users (I would guess/assume). However, there are many ways of working around the typical ..., like using less mass in the head in various ways.
Two examples off top of my head:
1) Batonning (splitting or cross-cutting) - a lighter head moves better under the blow of a heavy baton. Simply compare batonning with say a 2.5lb axe and a sub 1lb hawk. I learned this a few years ago when I thought I might want to replace my hawk with a short hafted boys axe head.
2) Reverse Poll Strikes - wedge in wood, wood inverted using weight of wood to advance wedge.
In BOTH of those two examples I just referenced, the shorter 2.25" wide bit on a Trail Hawk would be a negative attribute in my mind.
1) The length of the bit would be restrictive in performance.
2) The small impact area of the poll could/would create issues.
I have a trail hawk and a fiskers and I hadn’t compared the two side by side yet. I like the detachable head on the hawk and the look. But some times we question our stuff and if we can really use it
thanks for the advice tho 
Last edited:
Feel free to hijack! The info you guys have is fascinating to me! I’m learning a lot. TBH I bought the hawk on a whim years ago and took it back up to see what I can do with it in a practical sense. Hiking backpacking camping. I might just keep the hatchet as my main wood working tool. As cheap as the fiskars is it sharpens great and keeps its edge acceptably well.
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,133
I love to use my ATC Model 1 for everything I can think of. Normally it splits wood fine with the spike, but apparently the pre split firewood I bought outside the campground was actually seasoned oak. Its the only wood I struggled to split with the spike this year. The spike would penetrate deeply into the oak but the dang stuff just wouldnt split at its size. (To be clear when I use the spike i lay the sections of wood on their side.) I had to admit defeat and I went to my truck bag and grabbed my fiskars hatchet. It split the wood fine. I then used the Model 1 to finish all the processing. I even made curls and used those to start the fire.
I have the trail hawk as well and have used to plenty to process wood. It works great to cut out chips across the grain but sucked at splitting due to the sudden swell near the eye. Thats when I learned to lay sections on the side, sink the bit and the lever the hawk to the side to finish the split. Works well for anything that isnt thinker than the distance from the bit to the eye.
If I was ever in the woods and needed a fire quickly I wouldnt be using thick wood anyway.
I have the trail hawk as well and have used to plenty to process wood. It works great to cut out chips across the grain but sucked at splitting due to the sudden swell near the eye. Thats when I learned to lay sections on the side, sink the bit and the lever the hawk to the side to finish the split. Works well for anything that isnt thinker than the distance from the bit to the eye.
If I was ever in the woods and needed a fire quickly I wouldnt be using thick wood anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,104
J Josh1992 & D dogstar ,
I started to reply yesterday in greater detail, but felt my comments (related to geometry comparisons) would delve past the OP subject and choose to delete. I do not have first hand experience with Fiskars you reference, but assume would fall under my descriptions below related to more wedge shaped axe/hatchet vs shallower secondary's of a typical hawk. The Fiskars however does NOT allow removal and use of the head separately, so to me a very different category of tool all together from a slip-fit head tool that can be used independently of the handle/haft.
Riz!
,
I also have ATC Model 1, and would say the secondary bevels (OEM) are very obtuse (as relates to my comments below). I am trying to decide what to do with this hawk ..., as it really seems to simply be an all-rounder, not very good at anything specific except maybe destroying things LOL (but of good base steel for future modifications). Please do not take this as my being negative on the model, simply does not really fit MY applications ..., (yet ... ;-)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D dogstar and E elasmonut both made excellent comments related to geometry above.
From my read they were both speaking about the overall wedge shape of the primary grind between the eye/poll and the transition to secondary bevel. This can vary quite a bit between various axes and hatchets. In my experience "hatchets" (compared to most hawks and many axes) typically have a more consistent wedge (the single bevel secondary) lending well to splitting as this bevel is steeper than a typical hawk (the typical hawk having a lower degree secondary bevel PLUS a steeper tertiary (3rd) bevel that widens the overall thickness of the blade just before reaching the eye). I am not even goin to mention anything related to centerline rise in the wedge as this is not typically a feature of hawks or hatchets.
Hawks by comparison have a lower degree primary grind that steepens just before the eye/poll (the tertiary bevel described above). This provides weight reduction and deeper penetration of the blade (all other things being equal).
To say, or give the impression one is 'better' than the other is along the lines of a user having a goal of having 'the best' or 'proper'; a couple terms I disdain in online communications where folks seem not to have the capacity to consider each/either may be 'best' in various applications but none best at all applications. Many might read that and retort "well then I want the best overall ..." (roll eyes ...).
An example: I find hawks with thin blades cut deeply when bucking wood that is somewhat compromised (example: dead standing that is past its prime). Many might not consider even giving the impression they would harvest such wood, but I have found many reasons for such practice. Thin blades are also excellent at limbing, and many other applications.
An additional consideration is the thickness behind the edge of the primary grind. Photos #1 & #2 below shows two hawks (FH & HBH) both 'currently' having symmetrical 15dps single bevel secondary bevels (front and back same at 15dps). By contrast, I typically sharpen my hawks (Photo #3) using a multi-segmented bevel approach (2-3 independent bevels) then blend the bevels into what I would call a thin convex or an ogive geometry (picture a Spitzer bullet or spire shape, where majority of the convexity is higher on the bevel). Photo #3 illustrates my FH with geometry referenced in this paragraph. Photo #3 NorseHawk has what I would term a heavy convex, or strong convex (Norse Hawk would/should be going against other weapons right ...? It will be made thinner in the future, as this hawk is going on a diet (major weight reduction candidate ;-).
For my comparison of these two heads (FH vs HBH) I sharpened both of these two hawks to same geometry using single bevel each side, but understand one blade is thicker than the other (more on this later). Photos #1 & #2 illustrate the geometry I used in my initial field comparison of last week of FH vs HBH and as referenced in the following paragraph.
It is obvious the HBH (with rectangular poll) is much thicker blade profile than the FH. I say "obvious" because the bevel to the secondary transition is noticeably longer (apex to transition), even though the bevel angles are the same. I notice this difference in wood splitting such that the HBH pops wood apart sooner than the FH somewhat like how a saber grind compares to a full flat grind (example: my saber grind RatMaDu vs flat grind ESEE-6 both running 15dps secondary bevels). Additionally the wider bevel acts more like a scandi when planing wood (planing, feathersticking, etc.), making it easier for user to 'ride the bevel' in use. Not saying one is better overall, just there are differences where one might accel over the other depending on specific application(s).
J Josh1992 ,
Making an assumption ..., that you have not optimized the secondary bevels on your current TH hawk, that you make attempt to do so then test performance characteristics making notes to yourself (I try to photo document and/or video document along with written notes as a means of keeping myself honest in my self evaluations). Example: the beginning geometry on a Cold Steel Hawk is typically extremely obtuse (I am guessing yours is, also guessing same for Riz! ATC-M1), where optimizing it can provide a very different user experience. CS Hawks are like many knives (very obtuse from the factory), simply a we did the majority of the work forging > now it is up to the user to put tool in condition to match the application expectations.
Riz!
,
RE: "The spike would penetrate deeply into the oak but the dang stuff just wouldnt split at its size. (To be clear when I use the spike i lay the sections of wood on their side.)"I feel your pain. I typically also lay wood on side as my goto in a hawk is typically on an 18" haft.
It sounds like the spike is driving into to the wood like a nail, because the spike dimension (toe to heel) is very short meaning the wedging displacement in the wood is not enough for the application). This is in my mind much the same issue I experience with short bits (toe/heel dimension) like I have previously referenced related to the Trail Hawk (Posts #9 & #11 above). Honestly though, splitting Oak is NOT an application I would promote a hawk for ;-) However, if I were to choose a hawk to include some amount of that type of work (part of my reasoning for the HBH), I would look to create a wedgie geometry and have a medium-large poll for wedging the wood then striking the poll down hard using the weight of the log to force the split. I did some of this the other day with the HBH on the 30" haft, and the rounds progressed up to the tertiary bevel where they then split (this option however is precluded because of a spike). EXAMPLE: lift up the stuck/wedged axe/hawk along with the billet and then invert the whole thing so that the poll of the axe hits the splitting block (this is a natural and intuitive process once you get the hang of it, also I would imagine a good way to 'carelessly' or ignorantly break a handle/haft).
Hopefully something help that can be productive for others, and not to confusing.
Regards,
Photo #1
CS FH & HBH bits inserted into a bevel gauge illustrating how different 15dps geometry can be.
LEFT: CS FH 15dps 0.0420" Thick @ Primary/Secondary Transition
RIGHT: CS HBH 15dps 0.0880" Thick @ Primary/Secondary Transition
Photo #2
CS FH & HBH measured thickness illustrating how different 15dps geometry can be.
Illustrating how much thinner the Secondary Bevel is on the FH.
LEFT & RIGHT illustrate the comparative difference in blade thickness @ Primary/Secondary transition
LEFT: CS HBH 15dps 0.0880" Thick @ Primary/Secondary Transition
MID: CS FH 15dps 0.0880" on Secondary
RIGHT: CS FH 0.0420" Thick Primary/Secondary Transition
Photo #3
I have included this image only to show my FH geometry with "multi-segmented bevel ..., then blend the bevels into what I would call a thin convex or an ogive geometry".
This was before I made change to a single 15dps bevels (#1 & #2 above) for field comparison to HBH (as referenced above).
LEFT: CS NH Full Convex >30dps at apex.
RIGHT: CS FH Multi-Segmented then Blended Convex Secondary Bevels (31-32dps at apex)
Last word on right image should read NorseHawk (sorry if this confuses anyone :-/
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,133
Spey
To each their own man. Definitely not bothered by your post and dont take it negatively.
Do you have the RMJ made Model 1 or the pre RMJ Furhman made V-Tac? My Mod 1’s are shaving sharp and will cut through 2” thick branches in one or two chops. I chose that hawk strictly because its an all rounder, like you said, and I think its cool. LoL. My Loggerhead has a more wedge shape and a hammer pole and works very well to split and Ive used that method you described.
To the OP…
Part of the fun of this hobby is trying stuff out. Get something, use it, see what ya like, keep it or sell it, get something new and try it out.
The great thing about this forum is that you can actually research items and get real world info relayed to you and then make an informed purchase.
Whatever you choose, have fun doing it!
Wow so much info I need to process all this! I have never seen a gauge like that! I sharpened it a bit but didn’t really do much to change the angle. Great stuffJ Josh1992 & D dogstar ,
I started to reply yesterday in greater detail, but felt my comments (related to geometry comparisons) would delve past the OP subject and choose to delete. I do not have first hand experience with Fiskars you reference, but assume would fall under my descriptions below related to more wedge shaped axe/hatchet vs shallower secondary's of a typical hawk. The Fiskars however does NOT allow removal and use of the head separately, so to me a very different category of tool all together from a slip-fit head tool that can be used independently of the handle/haft.
I also have ATC Model 1, and would say the secondary bevels (OEM) are very obtuse (as relates to my comments below). I am trying to decide what to do with this hawk ..., as it really seems to simply be an all-rounder, not very good at anything specific except maybe destroying things LOL (but of good base steel for future modifications). Please do not take this as my being negative on the model, simply does not really fit MY applications ..., (yet ... ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D dogstar and E elasmonut both made excellent comments related to geometry above.
From my read they were both speaking about the overall wedge shape of the primary grind between the eye/poll and the transition to secondary bevel. This can vary quite a bit between various axes and hatchets. In my experience "hatchets" (compared to most hawks and many axes) typically have a more consistent wedge (the single bevel secondary) lending well to splitting as this bevel is steeper than a typical hawk (the typical hawk having a lower degree secondary bevel PLUS a steeper tertiary (3rd) bevel that widens the overall thickness of the blade just before reaching the eye). I am not even goin to mention anything related to centerline rise in the wedge as this is not typically a feature of hawks or hatchets.
Hawks by comparison have a lower degree primary grind that steepens just before the eye/poll (the tertiary bevel described above). This provides weight reduction and deeper penetration of the blade (all other things being equal).
To say, or give the impression one is 'better' than the other is along the lines of a user having a goal of having 'the best' or 'proper'; a couple terms I disdain in online communications where folks seem not to have the capacity to consider each/either may be 'best' in various applications but none best at all applications. Many might read that and retort "well then I want the best overall ..." (roll eyes ...).
An example: I find hawks with thin blades cut deeply when bucking wood that is somewhat compromised (example: dead standing that is past its prime). Many might not consider even giving the impression they would harvest such wood, but I have found many reasons for such practice. Thin blades are also excellent at limbing, and many other applications.
An additional consideration is the thickness behind the edge of the primary grind. Photos #1 & #2 below shows two hawks (FH & HBH) both 'currently' having symmetrical 15dps single bevel secondary bevels (front and back same at 15dps). By contrast, I typically sharpen my hawks (Photo #3) using a multi-segmented bevel approach (2-3 independent bevels) then blend the bevels into what I would call a thin convex or an ogive geometry (picture a Spitzer bullet or spire shape, where majority of the convexity is higher on the bevel). Photo #3 illustrates my FH with geometry referenced in this paragraph. Photo #3 NorseHawk has what I would term a heavy convex, or strong convex (Norse Hawk would/should be going against other weapons right ...? It will be made thinner in the future, as this hawk is going on a diet (major weight reduction candidate ;-).
For my comparison of these two heads (FH vs HBH) I sharpened both of these two hawks to same geometry using single bevel each side, but understand one blade is thicker than the other (more on this later). Photos #1 & #2 illustrate the geometry I used in my initial field comparison of last week of FH vs HBH and as referenced in the following paragraph.
It is obvious the HBH (with rectangular poll) is much thicker blade profile than the FH. I say "obvious" because the bevel to the secondary transition is noticeably longer (apex to transition), even though the bevel angles are the same. I notice this difference in wood splitting such that the HBH pops wood apart sooner than the FH somewhat like how a saber grind compares to a full flat grind (example: my saber grind RatMaDu vs flat grind ESEE-6 both running 15dps secondary bevels). Additionally the wider bevel acts more like a scandi when planing wood (planing, feathersticking, etc.), making it easier for user to 'ride the bevel' in use. Not saying one is better overall, just there are differences where one might accel over the other depending on specific application(s).
J Josh1992 ,
Making an assumption ..., that you have not optimized the secondary bevels on your current TH hawk, that you make attempt to do so then test performance characteristics making notes to yourself (I try to photo document and/or video document along with written notes as a means of keeping myself honest in my self evaluations). Example: the beginning geometry on a Cold Steel Hawk is typically extremely obtuse (I am guessing yours is, also guessing same for Riz! ATC-M1), where optimizing it can provide a very different user experience. CS Hawks are like many knives (very obtuse from the factory), simply a we did the majority of the work forging > now it is up to the user to put tool in condition to match the application expectations.
RE: "The spike would penetrate deeply into the oak but the dang stuff just wouldnt split at its size. (To be clear when I use the spike i lay the sections of wood on their side.)"
I feel your pain. I typically also lay wood on side as my goto in a hawk is typically on an 18" haft.
It sounds like the spike is driving into to the wood like a nail, because the spike dimension (toe to heel) is very short meaning the wedging displacement in the wood is not enough for the application). This is in my mind much the same issue I experience with short bits (toe/heel dimension) like I have previously referenced related to the Trail Hawk (Posts #9 & #11 above). Honestly though, splitting Oak is NOT an application I would promote a hawk for ;-) However, if I were to choose a hawk to include some amount of that type of work (part of my reasoning for the HBH), I would look to create a wedgie geometry and have a medium-large poll for wedging the wood then striking the poll down hard using the weight of the log to force the split. I did some of this the other day with the HBH on the 30" haft, and the rounds progressed up to the tertiary bevel where they then split (this option however is precluded because of a spike). EXAMPLE: lift up the stuck/wedged axe/hawk along with the billet and then invert the whole thing so that the poll of the axe hits the splitting block (this is a natural and intuitive process once you get the hang of it, also I would imagine a good way to 'carelessly' or ignorantly break a handle/haft).
Hopefully something help that can be productive for others, and not to confusing.
Regards,
Photo #1
CS FH & HBH bits inserted into a bevel gauge illustrating how different 15dps geometry can be.
LEFT: CS FH 15dps 0.0420" Thick @ Primary/Secondary Transition
RIGHT: CS HBH 15dps 0.0880" Thick @ Primary/Secondary Transition
View attachment 1874413
Photo #2
CS FH & HBH measured thickness illustrating how different 15dps geometry can be.
Illustrating how much thinner the Secondary Bevel is on the FH.
LEFT & RIGHT illustrate the comparative difference in blade thickness @ Primary/Secondary transition
LEFT: CS HBH 15dps 0.0880" Thick @ Primary/Secondary Transition
MID: CS FH 15dps 0.0880" on Secondary
RIGHT: CS FH 0.0420" Thick Primary/Secondary Transition
View attachment 1874391
Photo #3
I have included this image only to show my FH geometry with "multi-segmented bevel ..., then blend the bevels into what I would call a thin convex or an ogive geometry".
This was before I made change to a single 15dps bevels (#1 & #2 above) for field comparison to HBH (as referenced above).
LEFT: CS NH Full Convex >30dps at apex.
RIGHT: CS FH Multi-Segmented then Blended Convex Secondary Bevels (31-32dps at apex)
Last word on right image should read NorseHawk (sorry if this confuses anyone :-/
View attachment 1874393
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,104
Josh1992,
The gauge is born of the wood working industry, from my history in carpentry. Most commonly used for measuring chisels during maintenance/modification process. If you have a good hardware store, you might find one in area where they sell chisels. My local hardware store typically keeps 3-4 on the rack at about $12.
If you review photo, you will also notice I marked the beginning measurement of that HBH at around 42° vs 30° where it is in photo (overtly obtuse in my opinion, typical of OEM from CS). A lot of performance left wanting ...
The gauge is born of the wood working industry, from my history in carpentry. Most commonly used for measuring chisels during maintenance/modification process. If you have a good hardware store, you might find one in area where they sell chisels. My local hardware store typically keeps 3-4 on the rack at about $12.
If you review photo, you will also notice I marked the beginning measurement of that HBH at around 42° vs 30° where it is in photo (overtly obtuse in my opinion, typical of OEM from CS). A lot of performance left wanting ...
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,104
Here is a picture I just cap'd ... I believe it to be an RMJ Model-1 (wood vs synthetic haft, RMJ haft tattoo on opposite side)
To each their own man. Definitely not bothered by your post and dont take it negatively.
Do you have the RMJ made Model 1 or the pre RMJ Furhman made V-Tac? My Mod 1’s are shaving sharp and will cut through 2” thick branches in one or two chops. I chose that hawk strictly because its an all rounder, like you said, and I think its cool. LoL. My Loggerhead has a more wedge shape and a hammer pole and works very well to split and Ive used that method you described.
It came to me in trade value for sharpening services, I had the CS version many years ago. I have spent VERY little time with it so far, but do really like the poll spike design geometry vs the original VH from CS. This along with the blade steel are the primary reasons I have kept it so far (may sell/trade as is ..., or mod the blade geometry & lengthen the haft to suit my interests).
It was purchased shortly after RMJ purchased ATC (American Tomhawk Company) from Lynn of CS, along with the molds to the original Cold Steel Vietnam Hawk (eliminate the competition and buy the name ATC, and bring production to America was as I remember the transition). It was my understanding RMJ did NOT use the original molds, but created or possibly modified previous molds to create the new/fresh Model-1. You being a owner/user probably/possibly have more info on this than I do, as like I said I am not a user of this model for reasons I have previously mentioned.
I also just now took a picture illustrating the edge geometry, in effort to support my previous comments and keep myself honest (my previous comments were from memory and usage). First time I actually put a gauge on it ... and it appears to be even more obtuse than the HBH OEM geometry in my above references. I know the original owner very well, and I know he did nothing to the bevel geometry and only used it once before the trade. In my estimation of reading the gauge it is ~44°inc (slightly more acute than the 45°inc slit in the photo below.
Please understand; I am not being negative towards that tool merely commenting related to my first hand experiences and observations. 44°inc can be made extremely sharp, but in terms of performance will be left wanting in my experiences. The spines of my most used knives are VERY sharp/crisp at 90° but used in different applications than what I expect from the bit edge. Also, perhaps your version is from later production and perhaps RMJ made revision the the sharpening geometry ... ;-) I am not dissing on RMJ or ... as it is really a very simple matter for an owner/user to modify based on their specific usage application(s). This is specifically the main point I am attempting to convey to the OP (there is great performance potential untapped in many tools most folks take for granted).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,104
RE: "Reverse Poll Strikes" with a light weight head vs more mass in the head being "better".
I felt it productive to delineate something I mentioned earlier in effort to illustrate better than my written descriptions.
From Post #11
Staying in line with the OP subject (light weight carry hawk), yes more mass makes a better wood processor for 'most' typical applications of most users (I would guess/assume). However, there are many ways of working around the typical ..., like using less mass in the head in various ways.
2) Reverse Poll Strikes - wedge in wood, wood inverted using weight of wood to advance wedge.
From Post #15
However, if I were to choose a hawk to include some amount of that type of work (part of my reasoning for the HBH), I would look to create a wedgie geometry and have a medium-large poll for wedging the wood then striking the poll down hard using the weight of the log to force the split. I did some of this the other day with the HBH on the 30" haft, and the rounds progressed up to the tertiary bevel where they then split (this option however is precluded because of a spike). EXAMPLE: lift up the stuck/wedged axe/hawk along with the billet and then invert the whole thing so that the poll of the axe hits the splitting block (this is a natural and intuitive process once you get the hang of it, also I would imagine a good way to 'carelessly' or ignorantly break a handle/haft).
In the above image; axe was wedged into wood then lifted with billet reversed or inverted, and poll struck on splitting block driving head into the split. Very simple and intuitive process once you get hang of it. Image above the poll has already made contact with the spitting block and energy is reflecting up into the billet popping the billet apart. This works well even without a splitting block simply using any hard surface to strike against. Last week, showing a friend this application, I simply smacked the poll against a tree shooting the split billet sections towards our fire. As soon as the tertiary bevel on a hawk (mentioned previously) starts into the billet, the steepness of that bevel (greater than a hatchet or axe) the billet typically pops. In this application, the mass/weight of the billet is doing the work/force required. A light weight hawk with some type of poll (I use this technique even with my FH rounded poll) performs this application nicely in my experiences. This is one of the primary reasons I was looking to mod a CS HBH (has a really nice poll to start with, and it has a nice long bit to distribute the splitting force across large surface area).
This is also an example of why I choose NOT a spike hawk for most of my carry needs (spike precludes this type of usage).
I felt it productive to delineate something I mentioned earlier in effort to illustrate better than my written descriptions.
From Post #11
Staying in line with the OP subject (light weight carry hawk), yes more mass makes a better wood processor for 'most' typical applications of most users (I would guess/assume). However, there are many ways of working around the typical ..., like using less mass in the head in various ways.
2) Reverse Poll Strikes - wedge in wood, wood inverted using weight of wood to advance wedge.
From Post #15
However, if I were to choose a hawk to include some amount of that type of work (part of my reasoning for the HBH), I would look to create a wedgie geometry and have a medium-large poll for wedging the wood then striking the poll down hard using the weight of the log to force the split. I did some of this the other day with the HBH on the 30" haft, and the rounds progressed up to the tertiary bevel where they then split (this option however is precluded because of a spike). EXAMPLE: lift up the stuck/wedged axe/hawk along with the billet and then invert the whole thing so that the poll of the axe hits the splitting block (this is a natural and intuitive process once you get the hang of it, also I would imagine a good way to 'carelessly' or ignorantly break a handle/haft).
In the above image; axe was wedged into wood then lifted with billet reversed or inverted, and poll struck on splitting block driving head into the split. Very simple and intuitive process once you get hang of it. Image above the poll has already made contact with the spitting block and energy is reflecting up into the billet popping the billet apart. This works well even without a splitting block simply using any hard surface to strike against. Last week, showing a friend this application, I simply smacked the poll against a tree shooting the split billet sections towards our fire. As soon as the tertiary bevel on a hawk (mentioned previously) starts into the billet, the steepness of that bevel (greater than a hatchet or axe) the billet typically pops. In this application, the mass/weight of the billet is doing the work/force required. A light weight hawk with some type of poll (I use this technique even with my FH rounded poll) performs this application nicely in my experiences. This is one of the primary reasons I was looking to mod a CS HBH (has a really nice poll to start with, and it has a nice long bit to distribute the splitting force across large surface area).
This is also an example of why I choose NOT a spike hawk for most of my carry needs (spike precludes this type of usage).
Last edited: