Aikidoka
Member
Monstrous monk in training...
Posts: 1,452
|
Post by Aikidoka on Jan 28, 2018 0:58:37 GMT
I did some cutting today with a Kris Cutlery Kampilan and really enjoyed it. I watched Matthew Jensen's review of the TFW Kampilan. I'm guessing the TFW and BCI blades are from the same forge, as the blades share common features (a hollow ground blade for example). I like the details on the blade and hilt of the BCI Kampilan better than the TFW sword. For those of you with experience handling and training with Filipino weapons, what are you thoughts on the Blade Culture International Kampilan?  |
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 28, 2018 4:17:43 GMT
Looks very thick-tipped. From the KOA stats, the TFW is pretty heavy. Lots of distal taper, but still with a thick tip, which looks very slab-with-edge in the photos, so even with that taper, it might still carry well over 100g extra at the tip. The blade on the Kris Cutlery one looks much better. I haven't had a chance to play with a heavy antique kampilan, only lighter and mostly relatively modern ones. The British Museum has a bunch of heavy ones (alas, searching for "kampilan" only finds some of them), but the photos are unenlightening concerning blade cross-sections and thicknesses. The heavy ones are usually quite thick at the base, often over 10mm. Rapid taper at first, followed by a more gentle taper to a thin tip. More recently made ones are often thinner at the base, with gentler taper, also thin at the tip. Some measurements of my 3 below: | . | 1 | 2 | 3 | | Blade length | 71.5cm | 70cm | 73cm | | Total length | 94.5cm | 96cm | 99cm | | Weight | 760g | 588g | 775g | | POB | 21cm | 24cm | 19cm | | Base of blade | 7.9mm | 3.5mm | 4.5mm | | Mid-blade | 3.7mm | 2.8mm | 3.4mm | | Widest point (near tip) | 2.5mm | 2mm | 2mm |
Number 3 is in this photo:  (I'd take a group photo but I prefer outdoor light and it's raining at the moment.) |
|
Aikidoka
Member
Monstrous monk in training...
Posts: 1,452
|
Post by Aikidoka on Jan 28, 2018 4:41:12 GMT
Thanks Timo!
Hmmm... yeah, there is something strange going on with the blade taper. Here is a video where the blade is described about 3/4 of the way through. If I understand what he is saying, the spine doesn't taper much, but the blade is hollow ground and the depth of the hollow grind increases as you move down the blade.
In Matthew Jensen's video, he demonstrated that the blade cuts well on the TFW Kampilan, which I assume is essentially the same design. I did notice the blade flexed a bit in his video, where as I didn't notice much flex at all in the Kris Cutlery Kampilan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 28, 2018 5:57:12 GMT
Overall, the blade geometry, other than the shape in profile, isn't very historically accurate. I've never seen an antique one with primary and secondary bevels like the BCI/TFW ones. Antiques are flat wedge or convex wedge or (near the tip) lenticular with a blunt back and sharp front. (Some are wedge-section near the tip, and some are lenticular.) These modern ones might not slice through cloth as well as antiques due to their edge geometry, but are probably more robust when chopping. (Matthew Jensen comments on the ahistorical geometry.)
The extra weight near the tip won't hurt them as backyard cutters, but will make them handle differently from antiques, and probably makes them worse fighting swords.
|
|
