Cold Steel Trail Tomahawk mini review

[Draven]

Howdy folks!
Figured I'd post a wee review of this hawk. I unfortunately don't have any nearby trees that need felling, nor do I have any trunks to split so I can't show that! Instead I whacked up a bass guitar body. I've had this bass for ages and it just needs so much work, some of which I'm not able to do and it would be more expensive than the bass was to begin with, so I figured I'd remove the frustration of it lying around.

First of all, the hawk and the guitar.
For an idea of size - it's a wee hawk!

Just to show the edge prior to reviewing. It's not shaving sharp, but sharp, and the edge has been thinned quite a bit since buying it. The straight handle was one of the things that were concerning me, as every axe I've used since I was a child has had the S shape.

What Cold Steel says about the 1055 they use in this hawk:

1055 steel is right on the border between a medium and a high carbon steel, with a carbon content between 0.50%-0.60% and with manganese between 0.60%-0.90% as the only other component. The carbon content and lean alloy make this a shallow hardening steel with a quenched hardness between RC 60-64 depending on exact carbon content. These combination of factors make this one of the toughest steels available because, when quenched, it produces a near saturated lathe martensite with no excess carbides avoiding the brittleness of higher carbon materials. This steel is particularly suited to applications where strength and impact resistance is valued above all other considerations and will produce blades of almost legendary toughness.

No idea if any of that is true but it sounds good eh? Let's see...

...that was a bit of a surprise. The body was stood up and hit end on, and the one hit whacked it in two.

A few whacks to show that it does, indeed, cut as well.

Another end-on split to make sure the last wasn't a fluke, and again, it flew through.

I figured I'd try feathers since that seems to be a standard, but to be fair, I've never been able to do good feathersticks with an axe, or any convex for that matter, so it's not a good judge. I doubt it would be that different if I tried it shaving-sharp.

It hammers too... Just wanted to make sure!

A split on the flat. Doesn't sink in too far, but enough to support the weight of the wood when holding the axe, and the weight of the axe when holding the wood, meaning you could do another swing using the weight of the wood to drive the axe home - either by dropping the axe poll-down on the ground, or for smaller bits of wood, just swinging the axe as normal with the bit of wood stuck to it. That said, a twist broke the wood off.

And a few cuts on the flat.

Edge looks the same...

And that's one frustrating bass body gone, and one axe tested. The hawk wins

All in all? A very good, small axe. It does require some work to get it to its best though, I don't think I've thinned the bevel enough. The straight handle wasn't a problem at all, it was just a natural adjustment really. I still can't say if any of the stuff CS said is true about the steel - but I can't argue that it's a good hawk!

Pete

 

[Goatboy]

So it was a base and not an axe guitar?!?! Sorry thought I'd do it before someone else did.
Fun review, taken from a different angle. How much was the hawk by the way?
GB.

 

[Draven]

So it was a base and not an axe guitar?!?! Sorry thought I'd do it before someone else did.
Fun review, taken from a different angle. How much was the hawk by the way?
GB.

Ah I didn't even think of that

The hawk was about £30 IIRC, a few quid more including shipping.

Pete

 

[spamel]

I was gonna go for one of those a while back and put it off, just because I already have a GB SFA and didn't see a good enough reason to buy one without the wife going mental! The more i see of them, the more I am tempted to try one out, just to make sure I don't need one!

It's a shame we have to pay over inflated prices in UK, it costs about two bob in the US!

 

[Draven]

I was gonna go for one of those a while back and put it off, just because I already have a GB SFA and didn't see a good enough reason to buy one without the wife going mental! The more i see of them, the more I am tempted to try one out, just to make sure I don't need one!

It's a shame we have to pay over inflated prices in UK, it costs about two bob in the US!

You always need more, no exceptions Really I just got this because I wanted a sorta "pocket hawk" and even though the handle was 19" long I figured the head was light enough to work with a shorter handle.

It really is a bummer We're taxed to death here, as well as most of the cheap but great stuff being manufactured overseas.

Pete

 

[Crowe]

Nice review. So,,,,,next is a vacuum cleaner?

 

[Draven]

Nice review. So,,,,,next is a vacuum cleaner?

No need, it's rubbish at picking up woodchips! I'd love to go back to floorboards.

 

[Minotaur]

Really like coldsteel stuff, have been looking at the Rifleman for a while.

Still not sure, but it is interesting to read a review.

Wonder what the difference is between an axe, and a hawk?

Apart from the straight handle, obvously.

Edit: - Damn this happens every time I go to the Coldsteel or CRKT site. More must haves.

 

[spamel]

Edit: - Damn this happens every time I go to the Coldsteel or CRKT site. More must haves.

Yeah, they have some OK stuff. I loathe their marketing stance, and they do rip off other knife designs and make them their own but if you want a cheap and effective tool with loads of choice then you can't go far wrong!

 

[HillBill]

It doesn't look too bad Pete. Not sure on the hardness 60 - 64 is stupidly hard for an axe (if i read it correctly). Is it difficult to sharpen?

 

[welshwhit]

Great review!

The more I see of your axe the more I want one!

Drew

 

[Nohoval_Turrets]

It doesn't look too bad Pete. Not sure on the hardness 60 - 64 is stupidly hard for an axe (if i read it correctly). Is it difficult to sharpen?

Interesting. What would be a normal hardness for an axe then?

 

[HillBill]

Interesting. What would be a normal hardness for an axe then?

Normal? Well gransfors are 57 and generally a steel with good hardness and easy to sharpen, but not brittle. So 56 to 58 would be ideal

 

[Draven]

The bit about the steel was from their catalogue on the inside cover, rather than something specifically to do with the hawk and I assume that the figure given of 60-64 refers to hardness immediately after quench, pre-temper. It's not particularly difficult to sharpen, around the same as my Finlay which is 58-59 IIRC, and it seems to hold a similar edge as well, though it is not it's fine, so probably more between 56-58 - for the edge at least, no idea about the poll..

Pete

 

[Minotaur]

Yeah, they have some OK stuff. I loathe their marketing stance, and they do rip off other knife designs and make them their own but if you want a cheap and effective tool with loads of choice then you can't go far wrong!

I think the big problem with knife design is it was sorted hundreds of years ago, so unless you make something like the Tom Brown Tracker, no chance of claiming copyright.

I would be interested in what designs you think they have copied(This might be worth a PM, posting stuff like this in an open-ish forum could get you in trouble.). My Bushman is an original never seen anything like it.

It doesn't look too bad Pete. Not sure on the hardness 60 - 64 is stupidly hard for an axe (if i read it correctly). Is it difficult to sharpen?

Wonder if it is part of the difference between a hawk, and an axe.

 

[Tye Possum]

I think the main difference between an axe and a hawk is that an axe handle needs a wedge in the end to secure the head but a hawk just has a tapered handle so it just kind of sticks on when it gets thick enough. That and maybe the shape and style of the head.

 

[HillBill]

I think the main difference between an axe and a hawk is that an axe handle needs a wedge in the end to secure the head but a hawk just has a tapered handle so it just kind of sticks on when it gets thick enough. That and maybe the shape and style of the head.

There are plenty axes with an eye and no poll that are friction fit. The reason being is they are the simplest to make. One piece of steel folded over and ground to shape. They were very common throughout the world where axes were used.

Tomahawks as they became to be known were originally just called trade axes. They were shipped en masse to the Americas by the Europeans for trade. They were used as weapons of war and modified when the indians who had them were forced to fight. They were the only steel many of them had and as such were given much use in close quarter fighting, they were light and quick in the hand. Thus the tomahawk was born and designs modified to encorporate other uses to the original styles.

 

[Goatboy]

I would be interested in what designs you think they have copied(This might be worth a PM, posting stuff like this in an open-ish forum could get you in trouble.). My Bushman is an original never seen anything like it.
QUOTE]

Hi Minotaur,

Ah you have a Bushman!!!

What do you think of it. Looks a good tough inexpensive piece of kit? Was thinking of getting my brother one for his birthday as he's always pinching my billhook.

Any chance of a mini-review?

Cheers Goatboy.

 

[maddave]

Great review!!! Pics kinda look like the stage after a Motley Crew concert though

 

[Draven]

Wonder if it is part of the difference between a hawk, and an axe.

I'd say it's more down to "style" than a specific pattern or specific attribute, though I do think anything called a hawk should be crush fit rather than wedged. Hawks tend to either have no poll at all (unlike many other axes which do, whether it's suitable for battoning and hammering or not) or a very sticky-outy poll, in my experience, unlike more modern ones.

I think the main difference between an axe and a hawk is that an axe handle needs a wedge in the end to secure the head but a hawk just has a tapered handle so it just kind of sticks on when it gets thick enough. That and maybe the shape and style of the head.

There are plenty axes with an eye and no poll that are friction fit. The reason being is they are the simplest to make. One piece of steel folded over and ground to shape. They were very common throughout the world where axes were used.

Tomahawks as they became to be known were originally just called trade axes. They were shipped en masse to the Americas by the Europeans for trade. They were used as weapons of war and modified when the indians who had them were forced to fight. They were the only steel many of them had and as such were given much use in close quarter fighting, they were light and quick in the hand. Thus the tomahawk was born and designs modified to encorporate other uses to the original styles.

Hillbill's got this one! That form of fitting is fairly common (well, was) and the Tomahawks were just trade axes. Originally they consisted of iron, IIRC, rather than steel. Later, they were iron or brass with a steel bit attached, and then all steel. It's a bit of a fallacy that they're "Native American tools" really, both the British and the French had their own styles of Hawk which were used by settlers and Native Americans. The name is derived from Native American, though.

PS: Forgot to add, portability would also have been a major advantage to the Hawk - the fact that handles could either be thrown away upon leaving a site and a new one made at the next one, or head and handle could simply be seperated and bundled together.

Pete