Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2021 16:38:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Feb 22, 2021 17:14:28 GMT
Wow...Beaver Bill is in my town!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2021 18:22:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Feb 22, 2021 20:57:42 GMT
Been following this guy a few years ago. Great to see he’s doing well with his business. Interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 23, 2021 2:57:20 GMT
Pretty interesting couple of videos I found regarding historical tomahawk weights. You don't really hear too much about this. This led me on a bit of a search for a spike tomahawk done in a traditional style that would possibly fit more in line at least somewhat close to the weights. The only one I found that could be plausible as a whole package would be this one here at a total weight of 1.25lb(Still heavier though) : www.hbforge.com/french-axes/ladies-french-spiked-axeIf anyone knows a better "production" option that falls in line with the historical total weights (1LB or under) then please let me know. Just FYI: The maker of this video does make tomahawks that fall in line with the historical weights but I wouldn't consider them traditional and I am just not a huge fan of them. www.wingardwearables.com/shop-1Interesting EDC concept. Did he say that some of the lighter spiked versions carried by Indians weighed under 5oz.? I really like the hawk as an offhand paired with the bowie, but if stand alone would pick large blade because of thrusting speed.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Feb 23, 2021 4:59:53 GMT
Interesting EDC concept. Did he say that some of the lighter spiked versions carried by Indians weighed under 5oz.? I really like the hawk as an offhand paired with the bowie, but if stand alone would pick large blade because of thrusting speed. I can't be sure, but I am thinking he might mean the head is 5oz in that case, possibly from antique's where the shaft is missing. Otherwise that is crazy. Gotta be. A rattan escrima stick by itself is like 5 oz. It's hard to imagine any tomahawk that light. 5 oz head, yes.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 23, 2021 15:28:34 GMT
I hadn’t considered that, thinking it the overall weight and discounting being too light to be practical.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 23, 2021 22:38:03 GMT
This antique axe (from Africa): is 233g (8.2oz). The edge is 47mm, and the blade is 113mm long. It feels like a nice and effective weapon, with sufficient weight to do a lot of damage (i.e., make a hole 47mm wide and 113mm deep) in a suitable target, and light enough for speed. Its only defect as a weapon is reach. The haft is only 38cm long. Still, it'll be an effective and easy-to-carry sidearm, or even a main weapon if used with a shield.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 23, 2021 22:55:25 GMT
I hadn’t considered that, thinking it the overall weight and discounting being too light to be practical. Some of the ones indicated in Edelweiss's links are indeed quite light, I saw one with a total weight(shaft included) of 9.5oz for example. So this is lending proof to the videos of course. I am just not sure if that is necessarily a design component that is in anyway required or specifically desired (even by the historical martial users of them). Let me explain it a little better: I am not sure if the analysis of these very light examples is indicative that , in a martial sense, they would have been preferred to do the job over a little heavier example. I mean a 1.25lbs(total) 15" example for me would still be a pretty nimble, fast and handy weapon/tool and be light enough to not be detrimental for most anything regarding it's "heavier" weight in comparison. Perhaps not for EDC though. Also for durability and particularly utility tool, a little extra weight (20oz.) can be good and not hamper speed if designed right.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 24, 2021 1:27:22 GMT
From handling this, and other lightweight battleaxes, I think they're much better suited as weapons than as tools. The narrow blade will give deep penetration without needing much weight behind it. I haven't seen enough weight measurements for African axes like this to have a good idea of the usual range. Sub-Saharan African swords of about this length are typically about 1lb, and with the common principle that battle-axes are usually lighter than swords of the same length, I expect 8-10oz to be common for battle-axes like these. Tool-axes of similar construction can be much heavier, as these South Asian examples show: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-1061www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-1063Indian hand-and-a-half axes like these: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-2318www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-2327are usually about 400-700g, unless they have a lot extra metalwork on them, in which case they can be heavier: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-2323This weight, 400-700g, is less than most Indian swords of the same length. These axes work (animal sacrifice, so don't watch if you don't want to see that kind of thing): If they can do this, they should work well enough in combat. These are the extremes of weight I've seen in these axes: 240g: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As1901-0605-541020g: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-8800While looking for these, I found some other cute Indian axes: 430g, 81cm: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As1920-0322-106320g, 71cm: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As1924-1111-20903g, 123cm, long blade: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As1898-0703-259540g, 54cm, huge blade: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_As-5199The top two are basically long-handled tomahawks.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 24, 2021 2:43:02 GMT
I believe the Nepalese have a better system of butchering. From what I’ve seen, a photo in another thread under kukris and some videos, they strive to keep the bull calm, this should result in better edible meat. They also do this in one cut, hopefully, the videos I’ve they did. I don’t know the percentage of failures though. My experiences have been more effective cuts with a knife due to better slicing action of longer blade than axe. Not knocking the above information as I find it useful, just comparing.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 28, 2021 23:32:04 GMT
I wonder how effective the lighter tomahawk designs were for utility work, in other words, were they exclusively used for fighting by native Americans who had heavier versions for combat/utility. I ask this because I know Viking, frontiersmen, others had hawks that served duel purpose, as mundane utility was far more used, just like combat/utility knives carried by soldiers from WW2 onward.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 1, 2021 1:24:17 GMT
I wonder how effective the lighter tomahawk designs were for utility work, in other words, were they exclusively used for fighting by native Americans who had heavier versions for combat/utility. I ask this because I know Viking, frontiersmen, others had hawks that served duel purpose, as mundane utility was far more used, just like combat/utility knives carried by soldiers from WW2 onward. I was wondering the same thing Howler. He is specializing those for ease of carry and possible combat. My CS Spike Tomahawk weighs 31 oz w/the extended war hammer haft. I can’t imagine cutting some of the stuff such as tree roots or even driving the spike into cement like harden ground due to dryness with a weight in the neighbourhood of 10-13 oz as Zach is trying to convince me to do. I don’t carry mine concealed nor as a weapon but as a weapon/tool. I dare say mine is a stronger cutter and not so heavy as to be unmanageable in a tight. Todd in one of his videos answered a long standing question I had, something none of my college professors could. When studying physics energy always came up the formula being ½mv 2, and a favourite was a falling body where the acceleration of gravity is figured in also 32 f per second per second if my memory serves me. It’s been a long time. Momentum was mentioned almost in passing being mv. My question was when do you use energy and when do you use momentum? Nobody could answer it. Todd made it simple saying consider energy as the messenger and momentum was the message, explaining why his heavy slow moving arrows were out penetrating the more swift arrows. I’ve found this also in other missiles. For what I use it for I’ll take my 31 oz hawk any day over one of his 10 oz jobbies.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 1, 2021 1:27:16 GMT
I wonder how effective the lighter tomahawk designs were for utility work, in other words, were they exclusively used for fighting by native Americans who had heavier versions for combat/utility. I ask this because I know Viking, frontiersmen, others had hawks that served duel purpose, as mundane utility was far more used, just like combat/utility knives carried by soldiers from WW2 onward. I was wondering the same thing Howler. He is specializing those for ease of carry and possible combat. My CS Spike Tomahawk weighs 31 oz w/the extended war hammer haft. I can’t imagine cutting some of the stuff such as tree roots or even driving the spike into cement like harden ground due to drought with a weight in the neighbourhood of 10-13 oz as Zach is trying to convince me to do. I don’t carry mine concealed nor as a weapon but as a weapon/tool. I dare say mine is a stronger cutter and not so heavy as to be unmanageable in a tight. Todd in one of his videos answered a long standing question I had, something none of my college professors could. When studying physics energy always came up the formula being ½mv2, and a favourite was a falling body where the acceleration of gravity is figured in also 32 f per second per second if my memory serves me. It’s been a long time. Momentum was mentioned almost in passing being mv. My question was when do you use energy and when do you us momentum? Nobody could answer it. Todd made it simple saying consider energy as the messenger and momentum was the message, explaining why his heavy slow moving arrows were out penetrating the more swift arrows. I’ve found this also in other missiles. For what I use it for I’ll take my 31 oz hawk any day over one of his 10 oz jobbies.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 1, 2021 3:28:47 GMT
Todd in one of his videos answered a long standing question I had, something none of my college professors could. When studying physics energy always came up the formula being ½mv2, and a favourite was a falling body where the acceleration of gravity is figured in also 32 f per second per second if my memory serves me. It’s been a long time. Momentum was mentioned almost in passing being mv. My question was when do you use energy and when do you us momentum? Nobody could answer it. Todd made it simple saying consider energy as the messenger and momentum was the message, explaining why his heavy slow moving arrows were out penetrating the more swift arrows. For penetration of armour (especially rigid metal armour), kinetic energy is the main factor. With the same kinetic energy, lighter and faster is better, as long as the projectile is strong enough to not break on impact. A faster lighter arrow (with the same kinetic energy) will deliver that energy to the armour more quickly, and less of that energy will go into moving the armour, and more into penetrating the armour. For penetration into flesh, which is mostly limited by viscous drag, momentum is the main thing. Energy is still important, but the loss of energy through drag is proportional to v^2, so slower arrows lose their energy more slowly. Combine these with the fact that, from a given bow, heavier arrows are shot with more energy (since less energy is lost to moving the bow, since the bow moves more slowly), hunters like heavy arrows, and depending on the bow, anti-armour arrows might weigh anything from 40g to 125g (or more). The 40g arrow would be used in a typical Asian composite bow, which might use 20g arrows for longe-range shooting, and 30g for general-purpose shooting. Going to 40g will give significantly more energy without losing much speed. Maths and graph in arxiv.org/abs/1101.1677 if you're interested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2021 7:45:47 GMT
Context and physics guys.A lot of the old trade axes were meant for more mundane tasks but the lighter hawks were certainly multitasking knives on a stick.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 1, 2021 12:56:14 GMT
Physics aside going by personal experience My aluminium arrows were a pleasure to watch in flight speeding along rapidly at a paper target but for hunting it was lobbing heavy wooden arrows. More so with a blowpipe. I used commercial but mostly handmade pipes and projectiles. Amongst the commercial stuff was CS and their bamboo darts, I also used those in homemade pipes. More so than the aluminium arrows these were a thrill to shoot and a joy to watch in flight. I could duplicate these making them by hand using thin bamboo skewer sticks. Thicker sticks are also available and these are what I ended up using. I was good with a blowpipe and had developed sufficient muscles to add a lot of power to a shot. I once sent a heavy bamboo dart lengthwise through a raiding ‘possum killing him instantly. That would never have happened with those light weight darts. I had a sabot load using a .44 cal. steel ball bearing that was deadly, more so than a .38 cal. which was faster and had more range. When it got to .50 there was just too much mass for me to use for a practical range, similar for slingshots. I get more powerful cuts with heavier swords, the lighter ones give me speed making them harder to react against. Ideally it’s all a compromise. My 4¼ lb bastard sword is like a freight train, it’ll go through just about anything and there are occasions it would be preferred. In one on one duel there are better choices. Like edelweiss said “context”.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 6, 2021 9:33:15 GMT
Looks like a nice hybrid between a tomahawk and a zaghnal.
|
|
|
Post by soulfromheart on Mar 6, 2021 12:43:03 GMT
(I had to search "zaghnal" (indian crowbill). Glad to learn more each day. ) Great little piece !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2021 13:35:14 GMT
|
|