Cut w/it?
Oh, yes. It positively sings through any reasonable target--and when I compared it to an Albion Knecht it wasn't lightly. In fact, I'll lay out this challenge to anyone who has a Knecht and doubts me: if it's at all possible to get together in the same vicinity and cut, I'll guarantee I'll match cutting on any target.
As for the ricasso portion, it was necessary if I wanted to keep the sword at full length, essentially moving the guard back from the way the DS comes. When I disassembled the handle I was disappointed to find the tang, while fully acceptable, is neither as wide as I would have preferred nor extended all the way back to the end of the original handle. That would have made rehilting a piece of cake: situate the guard where I wanted and use slabs on the tang.
(Another option would have been to simply do what Shooter Mike did and shorten the whole piece. I may do that to another DS, but that wasn't my aim here.)
This all did allow me to revisit a non-historical but fully functional technique I've been using for years though, by making the entire hilt one piece of wood: ricasso, guard section, and handle. I originally started doing this on long Windlasses (e.g. their "War Sword") oh, about fifteen years ago, at that time primarily for two reasons. 1. to deal with the ill fit of their hilts and 2. to stabilize the blade against any "whippiness" I didn't find acceptable.
It was inspired by wrapped ricasso sections on the truly big two handers, but they of course are far different. Still, I found out a couple key things.
First of all, the extended wood sections didn't impede cutting in the least. That simply makes sense. If the hilted ricasso doesn't even extend to the center of gravity, let alone the center of percussion, it never encounters the target.
Just as importantly, there is a way to deal with questions about blade harmonics that is simpler and every bit as effective as the method historical makers used. That is to make them irrelevant by
stuffing them. (I'm sure, for example, any of our cars could be so meticulously designed that it didn't vibrate apart at high speeds--but sometimes a suspension system and shock absorbers is just a more direct option.)
(Oh, and I should mention too, that such a ricasso more than makes half-swording a breeze. Not that it's not possible on a bare blade, but still...)
So, it begs the question: Why did we not really see this historically?
Well, first of all, it's a necessary improvement on some of the blades I've used them on, but would only be an optional alternative--no worse at all but no better--on historical blades.
Second, it flies in the face of fashion for scabbarding and scabbard suspensions, as the scabbard is shortened. Oh, that too can be adjusted easily, but it looks different.
Third, constructing the guard (and pommel region) is different. It involves what are essentially plates or langets. As I said, this was not unknown--most baselards have this kind of construction. But outside of that region and time it was pretty rare.
Which brings me back to a harp I keep playing on: historical sword makers were embedded in their times and cultures, as were swordsmen. While most of them would have been loathe to adopt any design that was obviously inferior,
most of them would have been reluctant to adopt or experiment all
that much on alternative methods--especially if they would have been labeled by peers as "odd."
Sword evolution occurred despite such influences, but rather slowly and fitfully.
My own interests in swords aren't simply in cataloging history nor re-creating extant pieces, but in the principles behind them. Sometimes that means testing copies of what was actually done--sometimes it means testing what wasn't but could have been, and most definitely also works.