Large Survival Knife vs. Hawk

[ctg1231]

Maybe these have already been compared, seems like an obvious comparison...
For wilderness use, all things considered (but mainly used for chopping), which would be better suited, a large blade (aka Becker BK9, RTAKII, etc) or a tomahawk (CS Trail hawk, frontier hawk, etc.)? The obvious answer seems to be tomahawk, but so many people like big blades, maybe I'm missing something...
Any opinions welcome!
Thanks...

 

[omniviking]

You may want some type of Saw with also, you get to cutting a lot of stuff over 4 inches and it can turn to work. a 24 inch bow or break down saw will leave the big knife and tomahawk behind while using less energy.

 

[wildmike]

I prefer my M-43 kukri to the Hawk. Just way more versatile and actualy chops better.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

For chopping, the tomahawk will out chop the big knife.

However, that's no reason not to carry the big knife as well (especially if talking an RTAK, ESEE Junglas, Busse Bushwhacker, etc) as they are relatively thin, and do the knife stuff quite well, while the hawk remains the chopper and hammer.

Wildmike is right though, a kukri will outchop the hawk. I don't consider kukri to be "big knives", as I believe they are in a class of their own. When I bought my first, I bought it with the intent of replacing three tools: the hatchet, the machete, and the big knife. It succeeeded brilliantly.

Where the hawk shines over the kukri is in fighting. True, I wouldn't want to get hit with any kukri, but the ones that are biased toward fighting and come close to that magic 1 ounce per inch, don't do as well as tools, and don't penetrate as deep as a heavier kukri or hawk. See, the hawk concentrates most of its weight in the head, and will typically have a much shorter edge than a kukri, knife, and even the hatchet, so the bit will penetrate deep. The other big advantage the hawk has -- primarily in a fight -- is the ability to hook. A kukri isn't totally incapable of such, but is nowhere near as good as a hawk is at it.

 

[wildmike]

Corp. if it came to combat with a Kukri one hit = dead. You ought to see what mine did to the ribcage of a beef.

But your right on the hooking point. My kuk would be cutting all the way.

Though that is the last use of the Kukri that I would ever want to be involved in.

 

[SCALPHUNTER]

When I'm backpacking or doing primitive camping, I carry my hawk, a big blade, and a smaller "bag" knife for smaller chores.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Corp. if it came to combat with a Kukri one hit = dead. You ought to see what mine did to the ribcage of a beef.

But your right on the hooking point. My kuk would be cutting all the way.

Though that is the last use of the Kukri that I would ever want to be involved in.

No doubt. The CAK in my pic is the one that went through a 4" pine in one shot.

IMO a kukri, being derived from the Kopis swords that Alexander brought to the area, will handle, and should be used as one. The kopis were designed to be tip-strong enough to be able to withstand being driven straight through armor without deforming the tip, be forward weighted to hack through enemy helmets like an axe, and yet have a long edge for slashing. The larger kukri would be just the same (or I could carry the falcata or Bhairab -- which is the HI copy of the kopis used int he movie Alexander, for those not familiar with HI products).

However, if you have two unarmored opponents, one armed with only a kukri, and one armed with only a tomahawk, I'd put my money on the 'hawk wielder. If the same situation with armored opponents, I'd give the kukri the nod. Not that a hawk can't get through armor, but it's likely to get stuck.

Now, if I was to be thrown back in time in an Evil Dead/Army of Darkness scenario, I'd take the kukri and hawk. The hawk would keep the bad guy's killing weapons away from me, and I'd hack, hack, hack with the kukri.


When it comes to the woods, either of my above combos works great, and it's a matter of what I feel like carrying that day.

 

[lambkin]

you can throw a hawk

 

[Cpl Punishment]

You can throw a big knife or kukri as well.

 

[BryFry]

you can throw a hawk

You can throw anything, lol!

It's a tough choice though, as they're all quite useful. Hawk, Kuk, Bowie, I love them all, and often carry more than one at a time, but I think that if I HAD to choose a favorite, it would be a large Bowie for me. :thumbup:

 

[Burningcort]

I would never throw a weapon....except at very close range (1 meter out of reach)

that being said...I carry a big knife and a hawk...my wife carries a kukri and a hawk

so we cover the spectrum.

 

[InfidelShootist]

For chopping, the tomahawk will out chop the big knife.

However, that's no reason not to carry the big knife as well (especially if talking an RTAK, ESEE Junglas, Busse Bushwhacker, etc) as they are relatively thin, and do the knife stuff quite well, while the hawk remains the chopper and hammer.

Wildmike is right though, a kukri will outchop the hawk. I don't consider kukri to be "big knives", as I believe they are in a class of their own. When I bought my first, I bought it with the intent of replacing three tools: the hatchet, the machete, and the big knife. It succeeded brilliantly.

Where the hawk shines over the kukri is in fighting. True, I wouldn't want to get hit with any kukri, but the ones that are biased toward fighting and come close to that magic 1 ounce per inch, don't do as well as tools, and don't penetrate as deep as a heavier kukri or hawk. See, the hawk concentrates most of its weight in the head, and will typically have a much shorter edge than a kukri, knife, and even the hatchet, so the bit will penetrate deep. The other big advantage the hawk has -- primarily in a fight -- is the ability to hook. A kukri isn't totally incapable of such, but is nowhere near as good as a hawk is at it.

All true but the Khukuri and large bowie for that matter have a larger degree of error in striking accuracy,have deeper penetration in thrusts,have a better balance of offense and defensive capabilities and are harder for your opponent to grab because of the handle/edge ratio.

I have all three Hawk,Khukuri and bowie.Several of each in fact and train with all for fighting, as exercise mostly..They're all good.You use what you have and know the limitations,strengths and weaknesses.Training with different weapons allows you to know what you're opponent may use against you and also allows you to use battlefield pickups or weapons of opportunely effectively.

If a bear was on top of me I'd prefer a BIG bowie with a sharpened swedege.
Against a human it wouldn't matter as much.What I would prefer would be dependent on what my opponent had.
Against someone with a fighting bowie who knew how to use it like a Bagwell I personally wouldn't want a hawk or heavy khukuri because of the balance of offense and defensive capabilities.However one of the lighter fighting khukuris would be fine,so would allot of big knives.At some point the skill of the fighters trump any advantages the weapons may have.

 

[ctg1231]

Hmmm... that's kind of what I figured. So if a hawk wins in chopping, what advantages would a big blade have over say a smaller blade? Whats the point of caring it along too?
Also, at least the hawk pictured are really long! My hawk has a stock 19" handle, will that work as well for chopping?
Thanks for the info!

 

[vector001]

Hmmm... that's kind of what I figured. So if a hawk wins in chopping, what advantages would a big blade have over say a smaller blade?

a long blade is the perfect mate to a proper hawk IMHO. a big blade makes a great improvised froe, for extended stays ...and making camp furniture and traps, firesets, bows, etc. - those are more difficult to accomplish with a shorter blade IMHO.

a bowie or machete are my favorite complementary tools to my hawks.

Whats the point of caring it along too?

- the smaller knife? i can't speak for others, but on extended times outback, i carry a knife with about a five inch blade in addition to my hawk, machete, and folding saw so that i can have a primary-level tool on me at all times, in case i go overboard, or lose gear in snow, etc. - a belt knife is right there - it's redundant, but it is security.

Also, at least the hawk pictured are really long! My hawk has a stock 19" handle, will that work as well for chopping?

most folks swing a hawk by holding onto the very end of the handle - that just makes it a cruddy hatchet pretty much, brother - the place to hold a lightheaded hawk is where the middle third of the handle meets the last third - the end of the handle acts as ballast and gives the head more momentum and "snap" - you hold the handle very loosely compared to other tools and take your time. the knife-like small bit on a Trail Hawk will mow thorugh a lot of material that way.

Thanks for the info!

HTH.

vec

 

[Cpl Punishment]

So if a hawk wins in chopping, what advantages would a big blade have over say a smaller blade? Whats the point of caring it along too?

OK, Vec answered about a small blade. I also carry a small blade witht he hawk/long blade -- usually a Busse BAD ~ roughly 3" or so. Mainly because some things are easier with a small knife.

That being said, anything I can do with a small knife, i can do with a big knife, but some things can be done with a big knife that can't be done with a small one.

Basically, you bring the long knife to do the things the hawk sucks at -- like brush clearing, shaving bark, peeling logs, it can double as a chopper if something happens to the hawk. If you have a wood handled hawk, and break the haft, guess what will be used to make the field replacement?

There's a lot of advantages to the big knife over the little knife. But remember just because it's big, doesn't mean it has to be heavy. Vec likes machetes, and let's face it, machetes are extremely light for their size. If you want to go cheap, a CS Trail Hawk and a Condor machete (there's more shapes to machetes other than the typical latin style most people think of), you've got one hell of a pair for little money.

Also, at least the hawk pictured are really long! My hawk has a stock 19" handle, will that work as well for chopping?
Thanks for the info!

The one pictured has a 24" haft. For the Trail Hawk, I think 24" is the sweet spot. Like Vec mentioned, most people grip a hawk, especially a 19" one, at the end of the haft. With the 24" haft, I grip it the same distance from the head as I would with a 19" haft, but the extra hanging back there adds balance, and makes it much easier to recover. There's also the ability to slide the grip out further should you need it (like when fighting a guy with a Bowie ), or even get a two hand grip. I have another Vec hawk with the Trail Hawk head with a 28" haft, but I notice I grip it the same distance from the head as I do the 24"er.

If you are using a CS hawk, and want to try a longer head, they sell 30" replacement hafts, and you can get one and see where it balances best, and saw off the end an inch at a time until it feels right.

 

[aleyn1975]

Ohhhh one of my favorite debates...deciding between the kuk, bowie, or hawk! As I'm sure most of you have done the debate is with ourselves most often and each point being made (all valid) we simply must have at least one of each blade. In all seriousness I've thought long and hard about which is "best".

Super-close fighting(body to body well within arms reach). Bowie for me hands down for better thrusting ability and assumed gaurd to keep hand on handle if thrust hits bone. Person or wild animal on top of me I want the Bowie. On the hawk, at this range you can choke up on the handle and punch and slash with the head. I like turning the hawk upside down at this range. I can use the handle as escrima stick after punching and slashing have made more space.

Adversary at arms reach able to touch with finger tips: Bowie still good as it is usually lighter than kuk or hawk=faster. Kuk and hawk get the nod to damage here with the kuk being better due to more edge and though not as good as bowie on thrust the kuk still has that ability. Close fighting with the hawk is doable at this range and very effective considering it's ability to hook(you have opportunity to strike opponent if you miss or are blocked when you pull the hawk back for another strike). Also you can move your hand up the shaft and punch and slash with the hawk blade. There is an awful lot of handle on a proper hawk for your opponent to grab however at this range.

Double arms length: Hawk gets the nod for me here for reach and difficult for opponent to stop momentum and one hit defeat. A hawk with a hammer poll will destroy a limbs or bone's ability to function as surely as a blade hit will, and it won't get stuck. As to the blade getting stuck in opponent, absolutely a possibility. On a person, not too worried as hawk fighting style flows more and you just keep flowing with your strike that got stuck and take your opponent where you wish. If multiple people, use the hammer poll. On large animals(bear and boar), not so good. You likely get one strike (due to rapidly advancing animal), probably with the blade since you want max dammage and penetration. Once on top of you a large thick skinned animal will be much harder to dispatch even if the hawk didn't get stuck. Punching and slashing with the hawk head will not work nearly as well here as on a person. Hence the hawk/bowie combo. BUT a hawk gives (insert length of handle here) amount of extra reach to climb the nearest tree to get away from dangerous animals. The kuks real shining point in combat is that it hits about as (if not more) strongly than a hawk and doesn't get stuck. However the hawks ability to punch through armor on the swing is greater than the kuk ON NON-RADIUSED ARMOR aka the torso. On armored legs, arms and wrists the kuk should do as well as the hawk if not better.

 

[aleyn1975]

As to hawk vs large survival knife for wilderness survival, my preference is the hawk. I find it a most useful tool. It's less expensive than the large knife or kuk. Let me qualify. The HI and other high quality kuks are more expensive and heavy than a hawk (generally). The large bowies and survival knives that I would trust to stand up to all tasks (digging, batonning, chopping and other heavy use) are often even more expensive than the kuks. For the price of one you could have three or four hawks to have on person, car and home with a spare! In survival your tool MUST NOT BREAK! I know my trailhawk won't break. The handle will, but I can easily enough make another. It's a great help in hauling wood (saves the back when used as a come along) don't have to worry about lifting up logs or tin with my bare hands and being bitten by snake or insect when looking for food. The poll digs fine and the hawk shovels loose dirt well. With the underside of the blade sharpened it strips bark wonderfully and cuts off vegetation close to the ground when clearing a campsite without worrying about harming the primary edge on stones.

In modern war I can not think of being deployed without a hawk. Shooting stick, go through walls, bash out shooting platforms, breaching, destroy vehicle mobility, barricade formation.

I love the hawk, but you wouldn't find me without a knife as well.

 

[dan-g]

I hate to be the odd man out but heres my 2 cents. For the woods the most usful combo ive found is a sawvivor colapsible saw and a 5-6 inch blade capable of acting as a batoning wedge. You wont kill any zombies, or look really manly, but its the least weight for packing around.

 

[Nuke41]

Full size forester axe; its not that much more weight than a large hawk and can be strapped to a pack pretty easy.

 

[wildmike]

As for a saw I use a pocket chainsaw which I work up into a frame saw on site. Gives me a sawblade length which allows me to easily process much larger wood. Yet is lightweight and compact to carry.