|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 16, 2018 3:23:04 GMT
Thanks for the review pgandy. I recall there was a lot of buzz about this one when it first came out, but no solid info until now. I'm glad you like it! I'm just wondering how you find the blade stiffness? The advertised ~4mm thickness does set off some alarm bells (as you know most military sabers are around 7mm - 10mm at the base). On the other hand, some of the more recent stuff coming out of India manages to wring decent stiffness out of relatively thin blades. Another note on the blades... It doesn’t come out well on the photos, but compared to the 1912 the WE klewang’s edge blends in much more smoothly with the blade, while the 1912 has rather distinct shoulders.
I actually much prefer the broad blade shoulders of the 1912, funnily enough. I know it compromises cutting performance, but I always thought that the prominent and crude edge bevels made it look meaner.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Sept 16, 2018 16:19:19 GMT
I do not find an issue with blade stiffness. I don’t know how to define the flex without a machine other than the blade will flex some when placing on my head and pulling down on both ends. The force vs flex is very reasonable. My two Bellota, 18” and 26”, Latin style machetes flex far more with less force. A better comparison is my Battlecry Agincourt flexes with less force. The blade on mine is thicker at the base at 4.9 mm than Markus313’s M1912 original at 4.4 mm and 4.1 vs 3.6 mm respectively at the COP. With mine, flex or whippy is NOT an issue.
As for the traditional 7-10 mm thick military blades, I strongly suspect that this would add too much unneeded mass along with excessively long blade at 30" or more in a jungle to combat the native’s klewangs effectively. We have jungles and I'd rather have this, my pinuti, or machete than a full blown sword or fixed bayonet if I was operating there.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 16, 2018 17:08:25 GMT
Gotta agree with pgandy on all points. What I find is that my blades of comparable length that do have a lot of distal taper (antique briquet, for example), seem to be accelerated just a tad quicker from the wrist. They do seem to lose some on the percussive force on wider swings, though. This is why I like the light, forward weighted blades, even when they have little distal taper (the klewangs, the CS cutlass machete). No problems thrusting with these, either. It gets problematic when there’s a) too much mass overall (Windlass Pirate Hanger, Universal Swords Briquet, Windlass Scottish Cutlass for example), and especially when
b) a high resp. higher weight meets a thick/weighty foible (repros like the Windlass Dutch East India Cutlass, CS 1917 Cutlass, also the Hanwei Revolutionary War Hanger imo, for example). And then there
c) are pieces like the ima French 1801 Cutlass, which have very good distal taper, but are too heavy to be of any good use. I’d rather choose my 21”CS d-guard latin machete for a duel.
Swords like the Windlass 1860 Naval Cutlass seem to be a good compromise (moderate weight, moderate pob), but the original made by Ames has noticeably more “snap” to it, especially in the shorter cuts. There the thick forte seems to somewhat drag the foible behind (this gets even more noticeable with longer blades, cavalry sabres, for example) and thus adds to the momentum at point of impact, while the rather light hilt (compared to a briquet, for example) doesn`t hinder recovery and the wider cuts.
Somewhere I read the Dutch where searching for an alternative to their regular sabres in Indonesia, due to their standard blades being too long for the jungle and lacking in cutting power, which led to the development of the sabel mareschaussee, M1898 (known as the Dutch klewang).
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 18, 2018 3:58:39 GMT
My comment wasn't intended as a criticism of the published blade width. My query comes from the fact that I've owned several repros with 4 - 5mm thick blades, and some (although certainly not all) were much too flimsy. Particularly the Windlass US1840 Artillery and Rheinfelden, and the recent Cold Steel Mortuary. Conversely, others (Hanwei practical basket-hilt, Wulfland Swedish 16th cent sword, and the out-of-production CS Horseman's basket hilt) are decently stiff. Not sure if this is due to other blade geometry factors which I have not considered, or a result of different manufacturing/heat treating processes. I've not had flex problems with repros of 7mm+ blade thickness. Presumably the extra thickness increases the margin of error and serves as a buffer for shoddy forging or heat treatment. It is interesting to compare these cutlasses with some of the WWI-era artillery sabers (ex. Prussian 1811 variants, French 1822/Finnish conversion and British 1896). These had "traditional" blades of ~10mm thickness and ~29in long. I find these to be delightful little swords with no excess weight. I suspect that the generous blade thickness is balanced out by aggressive fullering (which is lacking on the cutlass patterns). ~ It is interesting to note that while most 19th cent cavalry weapons have blade thicknesses up to 11mm (Ex. French 1822LC), current high-end replicas of medieval swords (Albion, Angus Trim, etc...) are much thinner in the 5 - 7mm range (presumably reflecting the historical thickness of weapons from this era).
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Sept 18, 2018 16:54:03 GMT
I took your inquiry to be no more than that. No problem at this end.
To bring things up to date, this morning I received a CS scabbard and frog for their Cutlass Hybrid from a forum member and it’s a perfect fit. Maybe now I will maintain a good edge longer.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 18, 2018 19:53:24 GMT
No Problems here neither and I agree on all points. What I found though is that as far as distal taper is concerned, the (functional) problems with repro swords of the 2’ blade length range affect more the foible area than the forte, or too much flex being less of a problem than a too sluggish tip section. The Windlass 1860 Naval Cutlasses I’ve tried are a good example of a repro that falls behind at the forte, but being still just stiff enough, while also being thin enough at the foible to handle reasonably well in comparison to the original. Same goes for the WE klewang, though mines are quite a bit thinner than pgandy’s. The WEs also have a very wide tang, so I expect them to be durable. Not as sure about the Windlass 1860 Cutlass's tang, though (otoh, all of the Windlass tangs I had a chance to observe (all from threaded constructions, the Naval Cutlass is peened) seemed to be sufficient).
Pgandy, that’s great that you got a fitting scabbard for your klewang. Would be great to get updated on how it works out in the long run, regarding edge retention and all that.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Sept 18, 2018 20:15:54 GMT
Pgandy, that’s great that you got a fitting scabbard for your klewang. Would be great to get updated on how it works out in the long run, regarding edge retention and all that. Will do.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 19, 2018 22:26:24 GMT
I actually much prefer the broad blade shoulders of the 1912, funnily enough. I know it compromises cutting performance, but I always thought that the prominent and crude edge bevels made it look meaner. Yes, I think that goes well with the overall concept of an uncomplicated, easy-to-produce, heavy-hitting, robust sword-machete hybrid, that combines the virtues of percussive power and a slicing curvature as well as a sharp clip-point in a compact package, and also easy to maintain. Otoh, I love how WE went for the constant convex bevel with their (lighter) repro.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 20, 2018 5:34:33 GMT
Funny enough, I was seriously considering buying one of these except I got turned off by the edge bevel (or lack thereof). Felt that the design compromised a bit too much of the rough 'n' ready aestetic.
I was toying with the idea of getting one of these, disassembling it and cold-bluing the whole thing, but you know...time and money constraints...(the challenge of modern sword ownership- too many projects, not enough resources!)
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Oct 15, 2018 15:26:29 GMT
Pgandy, that’s great that you got a fitting scabbard for your klewang. Would be great to get updated on how it works out in the long run, regarding edge retention and all that. Will do. It’s been nearly a month and here’s your update. And to cut this short, it is still shaving sharp. The leather has stretched a little so the sword does not fit as tightly as original. Not to say that it is sloppy nor moves around excessively. There is no side play but the blade will slide in the other plane. During the past month I have done no cutting with this sword but have removed it routinely to dry handle and to check for rust as I do not completely trust leather scabbards in that sense. None has appeared. When drawing the sword I used much the same method as I finally did with the steel scabbard, that is placing the cutting edge upwards. I can feel the blade sliding down to rest on the spine and the draw until the last couple of inches, then rotate until the edge is away from me, otherwise the blade would be resting on the sharpened clip point.
|
|