|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 25, 2016 11:00:56 GMT
Well, I did point out that a lot of ideas were controversial. What I wrote was mostly my own preferences. My thinking was also based around military swords for the most part. Prior to standing armies, beginning sometime in the late 17th century, there were no standards. By that I mean there was none of the official issue items as we think of the term today. There were common types, of course, because weapons would have been produced in large numbers at one time or another as the need appeared and they would have been in more or less standard patterns. Only later were there swords that had model numbers and so on. Before that it was just "type," and even the names of the types came much later.
Whatever sort of blade you have, you don't want a blunt or dull edge. Carry a mace instead if you don't expect to be able to cut with the sword. Likewise, the sword isn't for chopping wood or cutting down trees. Factor that into the problem.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 25, 2016 11:12:10 GMT
Here is something else that will make you cry. It's from a book, "Cabin Craft and Outdoor Living," by Conrad Meinecke, published in 1947. It sounds a lot like stuff you might have read twenty years later in the Whole Earth Catalog.
In the chapter entitled "Cabin Tools," he says...
"In our family--as in most families--are swords from past wars. We had several; commanders' swords three feet long, bayonets, a fencing saber, a dirk and short dagger for close-in engagements. These tools were designed for killing men. They are now refashioned into implements for peacetime pursuits--for carving and pruning.
The commander's sword was a piece of excellent steel. Using my emery wheel and grindstone I cut it in two, regrinding the blades into fine carving knives that are among my prize cutting tools."
There weren't any swords in family. We didn't have an emery wheel either. But that might account for the scarcity of some swords today.
|
|
|
Post by bebut on Oct 15, 2017 23:27:02 GMT
Tactical is marketing hype, like New, Revolutionary, or Environmental. Self Defense is legalese. Combat means combat!
Fighting is another term that almost means combat, but it also has a connotation of sporting use so it gets fuzzy.
All the swords that were actually issued to troops were combat, but that did not have to be said because it would have been redundant. Any sword that is not combat needed a qualifier "ceremonial".
Swords have been fazed out of combat because hand guns are more effective, but swords, especially short swords, are used in irregular warfare--cheap, quiet, available.
|
|
|
Post by kalkikrosah on Oct 16, 2017 0:57:36 GMT
All the tactical swords and weaponry I see has the following in common:
- Utilizing modern materials such as rubber, nylon, polypropylene, etc. - Stealth-friendly design where even if it isn't small enough to hide they paint it all in black, except for the business end which is left shiny - Making it wear-resistant, either through black paint or just a rough finish - Designing in shock absorption into the handle - Making it light-weight and portable with either a sheath, a leather harness (in black or brown) or even a simple nylon cord to wrap around your wrist - Finger guards - Insinuating that it is all-purpose and capable to function in self-defense as well as in a survival situation
Gimmicky additions for tactical weapons that isn't always incorporated but is often seen in this genre of weaponry:
- Calling the fuller a "blood groove" - Serrations on the blade to make it look menacing but actually hurting the overall functionality of the blade - Finger guards that are made in the form of a knuckle duster - Aggressive jimping - Including cheap little extras like a tinder pouch, fire striker, a pointed pommel to break through a window, etc.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 16, 2017 4:54:40 GMT
Tactical is marketing hype, like New, Revolutionary, or Environmental. Self Defense is legalese. Combat means combat! Fighting is another term that almost means combat, but it also has a connotation of sporting use so it gets fuzzy. All the swords that were actually issued to troops were combat, but that did not have to be said because it would have been redundant. Any sword that is not combat needed a qualifier "ceremonial". Swords have been fazed out of combat because hand guns are more effective, but swords, especially short swords, are used in irregular warfare--cheap, quiet, available. Short swords, in addition to being cheap, quiet, and available, are also valued for their utilitarian use. You can be hacking on your farm when the need to engage in irregular warfare crops up.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 16, 2017 17:08:16 GMT
When used as a descriptor applied to items or products, "tactical" outside actual official military sources seems to mean anything with a vaguely military-industrial look. It's an aesthetic, nothing more. PS. I mean, for crying out loud, Ka-Bar sells a "Tactical Spork"...
|
|
|
Post by howler on Oct 18, 2017 3:04:25 GMT
Definition of a Tactical Sword...Chuck Norris's feather duster.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,826
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Oct 18, 2017 5:18:44 GMT
Infinite tactical diversity in infinite tactical combinations:
|
|
|
Post by shepherd214 on Apr 22, 2018 0:28:01 GMT
Tactical: no parts that can rot or tarnish, like silk or cotton cords, or wood parts that can rot, swell or warp. Non reflective coatings that will not glare or rust, made from tough modern materials that can withstand abuse like high density plastics or kydex. All of this contributes to the sword being low maintenance. Add to that a compact design that makes it easy to store/carry/hide, and a carrying rig system for strapping it to modern clothing like a pack, or your belt/shoulder makes it tactical to me.
Some examples of what makes other swords not tactical: ito coming loose, tsuka core cracking/swelling/warping, traditional sayas being fragile, having a looser fit over time, sageo not being a good way to carry the sword on modern clothing, longswords being frigging huge to carry or swing indoors, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Apr 22, 2018 2:02:29 GMT
Tactical: no parts that can rot or tarnish, like silk or cotton cords, or wood parts that can rot, swell or warp. Non reflective coatings that will not glare or rust, made from tough modern materials that can withstand abuse like high density plastics or kydex. All of this contributes to the sword being low maintenance. Add to that a compact design that makes it easy to store/carry/hide, and a carrying rig system for strapping it to modern clothing like a pack, or your belt/shoulder makes it tactical to me. Some examples of what makes other swords not tactical: ito coming loose, tsuka core cracking/swelling/warping, traditional sayas being fragile, having a looser fit over time, sageo not being a good way to carry the sword on modern clothing, longswords being frigging huge to carry or swing indoors, etc. So then I assume that swords invented to be used for tactics would be, by your definition no longer tactical?
|
|
|
Post by shepherd214 on Apr 22, 2018 2:43:15 GMT
Tactical: no parts that can rot or tarnish, like silk or cotton cords, or wood parts that can rot, swell or warp. Non reflective coatings that will not glare or rust, made from tough modern materials that can withstand abuse like high density plastics or kydex. All of this contributes to the sword being low maintenance. Add to that a compact design that makes it easy to store/carry/hide, and a carrying rig system for strapping it to modern clothing like a pack, or your belt/shoulder makes it tactical to me. Some examples of what makes other swords not tactical: ito coming loose, tsuka core cracking/swelling/warping, traditional sayas being fragile, having a looser fit over time, sageo not being a good way to carry the sword on modern clothing, longswords being frigging huge to carry or swing indoors, etc. So then I assume that swords invented to be used for tactics would be, by your definition no longer tactical? Not anymore. With that logic a musket is just as tactical as a glock. We all know what people mean when they say tactical, some people just like to be nitpicky.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Apr 22, 2018 3:04:07 GMT
So then I assume that swords invented to be used for tactics would be, by your definition no longer tactical? Not anymore. With that logic a musket is just as tactical as a glock. We all know what people mean when they say tactical, some people just like to be nitpicky. True enough I suppose. So then I assume a sword like the M1943 wouldn't qualify due to wooden grips, even though many survive with serviceable grips and saw use through WW2? I'm just being nit picky about wood and other organic materials. I've got swords from the 1860s with tight wooden or leather/shagreen covered grips. While synthetic materials are more durable I don't think that the material used for 000's of years should be discounted as well.
|
|
|
Post by shepherd214 on Apr 22, 2018 3:20:03 GMT
Not anymore. With that logic a musket is just as tactical as a glock. We all know what people mean when they say tactical, some people just like to be nitpicky. True enough I suppose. So then I assume a sword like the M1943 wouldn't qualify due to wooden grips, even though many survive with serviceable grips and saw use through WW2? I'm just being nit picky about wood and other organic materials. I've got swords from the 1860s with tight wooden or leather/shagreen covered grips. While synthetic materials are more durable I don't think that the material used for 000's of years should be discounted as well. Plenty of swords survive for long periods of time that have organic materials. I'm not basing the definition of tactical purely on materials, but on some swords they are a big deal, like katana. I've had professionally customized katana have the ito come loose and there's always the trouble with the saya or the tsuka cracking. I googled the m11943. Even with a wood handle, looks like it was built to last and looks very tactical to me. Non reflective blade to not give away position, short enough to be used indoors, looks very tough and practical for multiple tasks. I'm not an expert or a fanatic or anything but when I see something like that, it looks far more useful, durable and practical in our time period than traditional katana, longsword, saber, and I immediately think "tactical"
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Apr 22, 2018 3:34:31 GMT
True enough I suppose. So then I assume a sword like the M1943 wouldn't qualify due to wooden grips, even though many survive with serviceable grips and saw use through WW2? I'm just being nit picky about wood and other organic materials. I've got swords from the 1860s with tight wooden or leather/shagreen covered grips. While synthetic materials are more durable I don't think that the material used for 000's of years should be discounted as well. Plenty of swords survive for long periods of time that have organic materials. I'm not basing the definition of tactical purely on materials, but on some swords they are a big deal, like katana. I've had professionally customized katana have the ito come loose and there's always the trouble with the saya or the tsuka cracking. I googled the m11943. Even with a wood handle, looks like it was built to last and looks very tactical to me. Non reflective blade to not give away position, short enough to be used indoors, looks very tough and practical for multiple tasks. I'm not an expert or a fanatic or anything but when I see something like that, it looks far more useful, durable and practical in our time period than traditional katana, longsword, saber, and I immediately think "tactical" Yeah, the M1943 is basically the most "tactical" or modern sword from history. To be honest ito coming loose and tsuka cracking sound more like bad workmanship to me and less like a failure of materials, especially since I imagine that no great period of time has passed since having that work done. I think that two handed swords really have no use on the modern world. A sabre or cutlass can be used easily with; and was used historically with a pistol, at least since the militarization of pistols.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Apr 22, 2018 3:34:34 GMT
Hmm, I've got an antique wakizashi with mounts likely hundreds of years old that's still tight. I even broke a frayed bit and nothing moved. Something to say there.
Though kydex etc are certainly valid materials for modern blades, I still prefer organic materials like wood and horn. Leather, or other hide or cotton, silk, whatever...eh.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 22, 2018 11:00:12 GMT
A sword or machete with a wooden grip or a bare untreated blade can still be tactical. It just isn't modern (or cool).
If it's new, call it new. If it isn't, call it classic.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 25, 2018 16:54:58 GMT
Well both glocks and military muskets have specific tactics associated with them. In other words, there are decision trees and movements you learn in order to use the weapon effectively esp. when operating alongside others. So yes a musket is just as tactical as a glock. In fact if you've ever done marching drills in the military you're actually learning remnants of the tactical system used with muskets.
But of course "tactical" in the sense it's used here refers to an aesthetic. One that draws heavily from paramilitary subculture going back to the 70's. The real sword-like weapons used in the field are utility blades like the machete. And they're used for cutting vines and crap. The "tactical" ones are created to appeal to a set of design choices, not a set of tactical requirements. In other words, there is no manual or instruction on how to actually use this kind of "tactical" swords and there never has been. If someone really was going to use a sword in combat, they would be best served with a backsword, shearing blade like McBane's or other historical one hander, using any combination of training systems available. Eliminating crossguards or complex hilts and replacing wood with plastic has no real purpose beyond looks, and makes the blade *less* useful in combat.
Thinking about it, I do wonder why there's so little interest among the tactical crowd in history's weaponized death machete--the langes messer.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 25, 2018 19:29:15 GMT
I don't think that replacing wood with plastic makes it less useful. After all, for the last fifty years, rifle stocks have gradually been replaced with some form of plastic. Even some M14s acquired plastic stocks at some point. I guess whether or not something is still viable or is totally obsolete might enter into the matter. Maybe single-shot long guns are obsolete but bayonets are still around.
In one sense, any sword not actually intended to be used as a weapon is not tactical. They're for ceremonial use only. That's true for such pole arms that are still around and being used. That's not to say they can't be used as weapons but usually they aren't sharp and sometimes too flimsy. Such things even existed when swords were still being carried into battle and intended to be used.
I don't know about the part about manuals, though. Ordinary soldiers rarely see any manuals in the army. The real stuff you need to know is told to you by sergeants, backed up by mimeographed training schedules.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 25, 2018 19:37:11 GMT
I don't think that replacing wood with plastic makes it less useful. After all, for the last fifty years, rifle stocks have gradually been replaced with some form of plastic. Even some M14s acquired plastic stocks at some point. I guess whether or not something is still viable or is totally obsolete might enter into the matter. Maybe single-shot long guns are obsolete but bayonets are still around. In one sense, any sword not actually intended to be used as a weapon is not tactical. They're for ceremonial use only. That's true for such pole arms that are still around and being used. That's not to say they can't be used as weapons but usually they aren't sharp and sometimes too flimsy. Such things even existed when swords were still being carried into battle and intended to be used. I don't know about the part about manuals, though. Ordinary soldiers rarely see any manuals in the army. The real stuff you need to know is told to you by sergeants, backed up by mimeographed training schedules. Yeah, I heard that many fiberglass stock M14s were being shipped to Viet Nam when the changeover to the M16 began, as the heavier wood became negatively effected by the rain and humidity of the jungle environment.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Apr 26, 2018 0:14:45 GMT
Anytime I my ears hear the sound "tactical", my brain translates it to mean "mall ninja".
|
|