fuller or no fuller?

I'll see if I can remember this correctly, but no promises, so I apologize in advance if I screw something up. From what I remember, a fuller lightens the blade, making it quicker, but actually weakens the blade since you're removing metal; no fuller, on the other hand, leaves the blade stronger and more authoritative in the cut, but it's heavier, though only by an ounce or two at most.

To sum it up, fullers are lighter and quicker, but slightly weaker whereas no fullers are heavier and slightly slower, but stronger and generally cut better due to the extra weight (it carries it through the target better). I think there was a discussion on much this same topic in the Japanese swords section of the old forum; it's technically different, but the principles are mostly the same. I'll see if I can't dig it up for you.

I think TomK would tell you to think of a fullered sword as a steel I-beam. The strength stays very high with a much lighter blade (meaning you can swing it faster).

On the other hand, non-fullered blades are heftier since there is more metal, you will be much more unlikely to torque the blade. 2 similar swords 1 fuller and 1 non - if they ever went blade to blade, the fullered should fail first...though who goes blade to blade...
I guess what I am trying to say is that a sword without a fuller would be able to withstand more abuse than its counterpart.
Grace and handling could be variable depending on sword statistics and your own strength. I believe that both the H/T versions do have good stats and it would be wholly up to you (which looks sexier?)

That is an excellent article Insane, good find. it is easy to focus on this bit as being the most important part: "However, the I beam is less stiff than a solid beam with the same size," and "But it is a lot still stiffer than a solid beam of the same weight"

BUT
read the whole thing and notice how the direction of force effects the different shapes differently that is important too and may even be more important than the simple weight to strength ratios.

there are other effects a fuller has on the blade than simply making it like an I beam. think about this: having a fuller in the center of the blade as found in European swords (vice what is found in Katana) moves the thickest part of the blade closer to the cutting edge. this means that if you have two sword blades that are the same thickness and the same width but one has a fuller then the blade with a fuller is forced to have a steeper bevel angle. for example two blades that are each 2 inches wide and 1/2 inch thick (not that this makes a good sword but it does make an easy to follow example) both are flattened diamond cross section and one has a fuller while the other does not. on the unfullered blade the angle of the bevel is such that it will widen from 0 to 1/2 inch along a distance of 1 inch. if the fuller is one inch wide then the thickest part of the blade on that sword is only 1/2 inch from the cutting edge. in that case the angle of the bevel has to spread from 0 out to 1/2 along a distance of 1/2 inch. it should be easy to see that the fullered blade in this case has a much steeper bevel angle.

Tinker states (on his website I think, sorry not able to find it right now) that the fullered version of the bastard sword was made to increase the cutting ability of the sword.

now wait a minute, two paragraphs up I just demonstrated that a fullered sword has a steeper edge bevel and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to understand that a steeper angle bevel, much like a steeper hill, is harder to climb. so wouldn't the non-fullered version cut better? maybe, maybe not. in that explanation we assumed that the two swords had the exact same width and thickness for ease of explanation. in the real world this is almost never the case.

so what's my point?

Another function of the fuller could be considered as a way to control edge angle while still allowing a nice wide blade. wide blades tend to cut better, but they also tend to make narrower edge bevels. that also makes a blade cut better on soft targets, but there is a point where the angle gets so thin that the edge becomes vulnerable and weak. put a fuller on a blade and you can make it wider gaining the benefit of a longer axis from edge to edge and therefor more material to absorb the shock of strikes on the edge while still allowing the bevel to be an angle that is not too thin and therefor weak. and this plays back into the weight vs. size game too because if you made your sword solid bodied (no fuller), wide enough to take all the edge-on force you want, and thick enough to maintain a safely durable edge angle then you would pretty likely end up with a blade that was too heavy to wield with any agility. also many later period medieval swords had short fullers while nearly all early period medieval swords had much longer fullers. placement of the fuller, length, width, etc will have an effect on the whole sword and different lengths and widths have been used on historic swords to fine tune the way forces work on the sword. fuller placement on well made swords is no accident, it has very real and specific purposes. our ancestors knew this and had it figured out pretty well, whether they could do the math or not. I'm quite sure there are even more complexities of fullers and their effects than I have discussed here. what you have to remember is that a sword is a work of balance in all ways and everything effects every other thing to achieve or to destroy the harmonious whole.

in the end I have handled the fullered bastard sword and it was a good cutter, while I have not handled the non-fullered and I hear that it has less cutting ability. I don't pretend to understand all the reasons why this would be but I am paying attention and learning what I can when and where I can.
I hope this made sense and has put some mental gears into motion. I'd be very interested to hear questions, theories, rebuttles, complaints, etc.

Fullers are also a way to control mass distribution. The fullered bastard sword has more blade presence then the none fullered version as chuncks of metal is taked out at the base of the blade. More blade presence = better cutting abilities...at the tip. If for some off reason your doing forte cuts, the non fullered version will cut better. To paraphrase Mr. Tinker, these are swords...there are no simple answer.

I might be off but something makes me remember back when I was buying my tinker fullered bastard a thread that said that the fullered version was designed after the original sword was made as a cutting blade. However I might be wrong.