Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 14, 2016 7:53:35 GMT
WOW! Much improved with so little steel removed. How is the flex at the foible now?
Looking at the photos, I get the impression that not only the thom's basket seems compressed because of the lacking 1" grip length, but that the thing is much thinner and smaller than the Austrian. Filling the Tom pommel with shot will not do very much. The problem seems to be the thin walled basket and probably, the thin backstrap.
To improve the lack of counter weight, may I propose another sanding session at 2" from the guard down to the foible?
Mind you, it all depends on the behaviour of the new foible. If it is too flexible now, I would stop. There is not much use in scoring a point and winding up with a wet noodle blade. Have a bucket with cold water on standby, so you can cool the blade, so as to not mess up the temper.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 14, 2016 15:53:07 GMT
Thanks for the advice Uhlan . I still want to do some work on it, but I'm limited by time. To do this kinda work, I have to leave my apartment and trek through the cold Canadian winter to our fencing club's armoury. I use a wet rag for cooling, and it seems to work fine. On my antique 1796 descendant (1896 Indian mountain battery), the foible is a) much thinner still and b) encompass a larger fraction of the total blade length ie the taper starts farther back. On the antique, the fullers kind of merge into the foible, whereas in the Thompson (and most repros), the fullers terminate while the blade stock is still quite thick and then the taper starts. I'm trying to push the taper back so it starts closer to the hilt and at the fullers, but the geometry is much more complicated. I'll see if I can upload schematics showing what I mean. As of now, the foible is still pretty stiff. On historical 1796s, I understand the foible to be actually quite floppy, as demonstrated about 4 mins into this video (where Easton stabs his own hand). Of course, I'm not limited to history here (this is not a replica of a real sword pattern), so I might consider accepting a relatively stiff foible and converting it to a spear point like the later Prussian artillery swords. To be honest, my real goal for this project was to improve the aesthetics- Given the terrible grip, I know I'll never get a wonder out of this thing. I just couldn't live with such an obviously bulbous bloated foible!  Spear-pointing the thick foible is always an option... |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 14, 2016 16:10:06 GMT
I just checked the original post by Dave Kelly. In his pics, the CS Thompson hilt does not seem any smaller than the antique 1904. He used a trooper's for comparison whereas I only have an officer's. I'm not sure if a) the difference in grip size is just not evident in the pics or b) the officer (or maybe just mine) has a larger grip. Maybe the guy had really, really large hands?
Also, most of the grip and backstrap is hollow in addition to the pommel. Consequently, when I pour in lead shot, most of it ends up in the grip itself, which does not really help with weight distribution. Yes, you're moving the PoB back a bit, but it's not as efficient as putting it in the pommel proper. I found the increase in overall mass cancels out any PoB gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Feb 14, 2016 16:22:59 GMT
I just checked the original post by Dave Kelly. In his pics, the CS Thompson hilt does not seem any smaller than the antique 1904. He used a trooper's for comparison whereas I only have an officer's. I'm not sure if a) the difference in grip size is just not evident in the pics or b) the officer (or maybe just mine) has a larger grip. Maybe the guy had really, really large hands? I purposely avoided making any comparisons between the Thompson and its derivatives because the Cold Steel is a mixed variant which I stated was purpose designed as a cutter. I have both Officer and Enlisted variants of the Austrian saber. In scale the Thompson hilt is closer to the Officer pattern in length. The guard is distinctly smaller on the Thompson and the guard pattern is the plain enlisted. Angle and perspective, of my photos, is hard to gauge. The Austrian Enlisted hilt is significantly longer and wider than the Thompson, similar to your numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 14, 2016 19:47:00 GMT
Okay. I was just curious as to why the difference in size was so pronounced in my images, but not evident in yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 16, 2016 6:20:27 GMT
Dave Kelly's sword collection transcends the laws of physics
|
|
