|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 25, 2018 20:07:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 25, 2018 20:48:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 21:54:38 GMT
The 1917 does not have the openings in the cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 25, 2018 22:08:54 GMT
Ah, okay. So the CS has the stereotypical weight issues, as usual... Oh well, just piqued my interest as it looked almost exactly the same. If I do get one of these, I'll probably just grab an original.
Thanks everyone!
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 26, 2018 0:52:34 GMT
The CS "1917" isn't a 1917. Like edelweiss said, the 1917 doesn't have openings in the guard. The CS 1917 is a replica of the US 1941 klewang, which was made for the Dutch. Specs for Dutch and US originals: www.thepirateslair.com/9-m1898-m1941-klewang-cutlass.htmlAccording to the CS specs, the CS is a little overweight. According to KOA numbers, it's very overweight. Maybe the current version is a newer and lighter model? I have an interesting probably-Indonesian-made sword, d in this group:  which appears to be based on the Dutch sword. Different guard, unfullered blade a little shorter than the originals (58cm, just under 23"), 4.1mm thick at the base, 3.5mm mid-blade, 2.5mm at the start of the clipped point, 680g. Easily heavy enough - the CS at the KOA weight would not be nice to handle after it. OTOH, the CS is lighter than the US 1917 cutlass, which is a heavy 2.5lb brute: www.thepirateslair.com/9-m1917-us-navy-naval-cutlass.html |
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 26, 2018 2:26:32 GMT
The CS "1917" isn't a 1917. Like edelweiss said, the 1917 doesn't have openings in the guard. The CS 1917 is a replica of the US 1941 klewang, which was made for the Dutch. Specs for Dutch and US originals: www.thepirateslair.com/9-m1898-m1941-klewang-cutlass.htmlAccording to the CS specs, the CS is a little overweight. According to KOA numbers, it's very overweight. Maybe the current version is a newer and lighter model? I have an interesting probably-Indonesian-made sword, d in this group: which appears to be based on the Dutch sword. Different guard, unfullered blade a little shorter than the originals (58cm, just under 23"), 4.1mm thick at the base, 3.5mm mid-blade, 2.5mm at the start of the clipped point, 680g. Easily heavy enough - the CS at the KOA weight would not be nice to handle after it. OTOH, the CS is lighter than the US 1917 cutlass, which is a heavy 2.5lb brute: www.thepirateslair.com/9-m1917-us-navy-naval-cutlass.htmlAh, okay - that clears it up. I found the US 1917 (that link you posted), but I was puzzled by the full cup guard.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 26, 2018 2:57:10 GMT
According to the CS specs, the CS is a little overweight. According to KOA numbers, it's very overweight. Maybe the current version is a newer and lighter model? I have an interesting probably-Indonesian-made sword, d in this group: Yup! I remember the new version being marketed some time back on a few sellers from eBay. Supposed to be very improved and a much handier piece. Also that sword "D" looks really cool, gets an "A" in my book. Does it handle heavily or is it a rather lighter piece? |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 26, 2018 3:11:08 GMT
I'd call it middle-weight for its length. 680g is fairly light, but it's also a fairly short sword. Well-balanced and not clunky (POB is at 11cm). Alas, the front half of the right-hand grip scale is missing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 28shadow on Jan 26, 2018 17:02:33 GMT
It's unsafe. Handle is very slipped, blade has no distal taper. It's the sword that I lost control of and it stabbed my leg, crippling me for a few months.
Dynamically it doesn't handle well, there's nothing on the back end to help balance out the overtly thick blade.
I've seen several originals in museums and the baskets and grips are the biggest difference besides the taper. The original grips are much more ergonomic.
Hope this helps. Steel clear of it in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeybones on Feb 7, 2018 22:21:34 GMT
I purchased one several months ago mostly display purposes. I read many reviews prior to purchasing . I read about the weight , the distal taper , the slippery grip , the sharpened crowbar things , it being unsafe, and all that .
I love the thing . It is built like a tank , looks great on display and I find comfort in the fact that if anyone brakes into my home and grabs the sword they will mortally wound themselves with it before ever getting a chance to use it on me.
|
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Feb 7, 2018 22:33:31 GMT
It's unsafe. Handle is very slipped, blade has no distal taper. The fuller on the CS is also bafflingly tiny - I mean, seriously, just compare it to the photos of any historical version - and the grip is blockier in cross-section and doesn't grow thicker away from the blade like the original's does (it's only a couple of mm, but makes a very palpable difference in handling IMO). |
|
|
|
Post by cearball on Feb 18, 2018 18:20:21 GMT
|
|
