|
Post by markus313 on Feb 5, 2019 22:18:17 GMT
Main differences from a functional point of view: The CS` blade flexes from midpoint, the Hanwei closer to the last third of the blade. The CS`s blade is probably more robust, the whole sword feels more robust (thicker guard straps, the screws feel more secure). Due to its more massive foible, blade geometry, weight and overall weight distribution the CS feels like the better cutter (and probably more suited for use on foot in the context these swords where once intended for), the Hanwei feels like the better thruster (and very likely meant for use from horseback, although the blade length seems a bit short for that).
The CS has much more presence in the blade and feels very good in wider swings and putting up guards, while the Hanwei is on one hand too heavy to make good use of its nimbleness from the wrist (other designs are much better suited for that kind of play) and on the other hand too light in the foible to make for good cutting from the shoulder. It falls somewhere in between and I`m not a fan of that – would prefer a lighter sword for that kind of play.
On flexing again: Haven`t tried thrusting with the Hanwei, but the blade is stiff and would thrust well if properly sharpened. The CS thrusts fairly well despite its flex (which is still not extensive), twelve to fourteen layers of tough jeans denim over a block of Styrofoam are no problem, especially when the thrust is performed with a bit of momentum (a technique usable for close-range stabs, less suited for lunging).
Slapping the pommel, there`s less rattling in the CS. Its grip fits my glove size 10 hands much better than the Hanwei`s. Blade/tang/handle junction seem to be ok with both of the swords, though I`d put more trust in the CS. I am aware of the method of both of these sword`s constructions, there is good info on both of these to be found in the forum, especially the sword construction data base. Both these swords blades seem to be well epoxied into the grip. No play of the guards or handles on both of these – but I haven`t tried cutting with any of these, either. The CS came well sharpened, the Hanwei would need a bit of a touch-up, but no biggie. Of course I plan to cut with the CS in the future – not so with the Hanwei, I will send this back.
On a side note, the Hanwei came with a bit of a misalignment of the guard which in itself looks somewhat crooked also – but these are aesthetics. The CS` guard is a bit less misaligned; this all is not much of a problem, from my point of view. Despite the blade`s presence in a cut, the biggest and most important difference between the two is that the CS offers much better protection to the hand, especially to the pinky side of the hand and towards the palm. All in all, I much prefer the CS over the Hanwei.
When the Hanwei Scottish Backsword finally gets delivered, this will be added to the comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Feb 6, 2019 1:23:34 GMT
I got to hold and antique baskethilt today. It has awakened a monster.
Very good and useful info put in this post, surprising that the hanwei has lower marks than the CS.
How do you find the basket size?
|
|
harrybeck
Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 999
|
Post by harrybeck on Feb 6, 2019 1:50:17 GMT
I'm looking for a CS backsword if anybody has one to sell or trade?
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Feb 6, 2019 2:52:25 GMT
A sword that flexes in the middle is do to a bad distal tapper. and blade with a proper distal taper will flex around the last third of the blade.
I didn't like the lack of hand protection that the Cromwell had. That is one of the main reasons that I got rid of it.
With your size ten hands, you might not like the Hanwei Backsword. It might be a tight fit for you but the basket is bigger than the antiques that I have handled.
The antique blades are really flexible in the last third of the blade. I can flex the blades with my pinky. The backsword, that Tom Kinder, made me is really flexible but not has much as the antiques, and I can thrust through a thick gambeson, pork ribs, and into my punching bag with no problem.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Feb 6, 2019 15:43:03 GMT
Thank you for the kind words, Jordan and thank you for your input, Razor. Looking forward to the Hanwei Backsword – I found the basket on the broadsword to be comfortable.
Based on all the data I could collect until now, I must say I have the impression that basket dimensions, blade thickness, overall weight and balance as well as distal taper seemed to vary quite a bit historically, looking at more or less comparable designs. For example, I just came back from another visit to the Klingenmuseum in Solingen, Germany, where I had the chance to take some close looks at various basket-hilted swords and mortuary style hilted swords (not touching or handling them). By visual estimate, I`d assume variations of approx. 7,5 - 4,5 mm thickness at the hilt to about just over a mm to around 3 mm at the last part of the foible, depending on blade design.
They have a mortuary sword there which has a fuller pattern very close to the CS`s, and blade thickness is just a tad more at the hilt and just a tad less at the foible (perhaps + 0,3 and - 0,3 mm by eyesight, which can already make a difference in handling, of course – and depending on the style of usage more or less so). Also most of the baskets I could inspect where rather small, perhaps a bit too small for my hands, indeed. And then there are bigger ones, also, which goes congruent with my internet research.
On the CS again – I think it is a good buy, especially since there aren`t a lot of models on the market. It`s a very modern take on the design, of course, and I like it a lot. Maybe not so much from a collector`s point of view, but more from the “practical” side. Robust edge and tip, a healthy upper medium weight and a solid, well sized grip and basket, with the basket giving good protection. I`d describe the basket as large, but not necessarily overly so (again, based on my research, most examples where smaller, and some very much so, but some were indeed as big as the CS` and Cromwell`s). It`s usable with larger hands and/or thicker gloves on, and that`s a good thing imo. Also I have yet to come across a CS with bad heat treating and I know many people beat the crap out of their CS. The hilt seems to be ok with mine. Not a bad sword for the money, in my current opinion, until it starts to explode in your hands, of course. We`ll see. Very tempted to get another one.
Again on blade flex… Agree on antiques flexing (mostly) from around the foible. Some flex more abrupt than others, and I don`t like that just as much as I don`t like too much flex from midpoint either. I used to own a few antiques that where too flexible from the cop upwards for my taste, since a cutting sword with a thrusting tip should retain some good stiffness, even at the expense of super quick maneuverability, imo. Matters of taste and context, of course.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Feb 7, 2019 20:46:16 GMT
Quick update…
Did a few more dozen thrusts on the block of Styrofoam covered with eight layers of air bubble wrap plus twelve layers of jeans denim plus four layers of thick wool. Leaning the block against a wall, the Backsword makes it though 75% of the attempts, and flexes and springs back to true when it fails to penetrate. Against the same target but with eight layers of denim instead of twelve it penetrates reliably every time.
With the block lying on the floor and absolutely no give to the target it`s a bit of a different story. With eight layers of air bubble wrap, eight layers of denim and four layers of wool penetration is no problem. On eight layers of bubble wrap, twelve layers of denim and four lyers of wool the blade bend and took a set (see picture). It could be bent back, but took a set again on the same target set-up. Bent it back again to perfectly straight, which was easy to do. Tried vs. eight layers of air bubble wrap plus eight layers of denim plus four layers of wool with the target lying on the floor, and it penetrated reliably again, with the blade flexing and springing back when being pulled out from the target.
After the thrusting tests, now on to some cutting. A dozen cuts vs. eight layers of bubble wrap and plus eight layers of denim, duct taped over a 4 ft. long pole of fir wood of a diameter of 35 mm. Held the pole diagonally from the left hand, with the target area at head height. Cutting with the right hand from left side above the head. Cut though the materials into the fir wood every time. Sword rings nicely.
Checked the blade afterwards: Perfectly straight. Paper test after cleaning: No dulling of the edge to speak of – nice bone-cutting edge. Slapping the pommel: No loosening to detect.
Current state of mind: Very happy with the CS Backsword. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 21:52:02 GMT
I own a Hanwei mortuary and the Cold Steel backsword. I have done only a little bit on mats and freely admit my form and ability is pretty miserable these days. When these CS were first released, there were a few threads here at SBG. A big negative that seemed to prevail was the blade thickness was not the advertised. I had to re-check mine back then and indeed, the blade was shy of 5mm. One person managed to twist the basket askew of the blade and remarked on the gap in the guard opening for the blade. There was also a report of a broken blade, near the guard. There were never pictures but those were the reports. Since your's bent at the foible, I would say don't try my method for judging flexibility, as it looks like the pogd is at the end of the fuller Better bent than broken but be kind. Those bends do fatigue the steel.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Feb 7, 2019 22:09:19 GMT
Here`s a pic of a blade brake from another forum member:
Pretty sure stabbing onto perfectly immobile targets without getting penetration is amongst the more stressful things you can do to a blade (while still staying within some means of “reality”). Whenever I try these kind of tests I tend to wear at least a bit of body protection.
I`d not be surprised if CS was the company which products gets treated the most roughly by people – they certainly advertise their stuff in a provocative way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 22:28:02 GMT
Ah yes, I think I am remembering now and may have asked what the steel grain looked like. Considering how some of the blades are heat treated in batches, it only stands to reason that some my overcook while others may not cook enough.
I had done only a cursory push against the grounded point to test flex when I first unboxed it and had left it at that.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Feb 8, 2019 0:58:34 GMT
I own a Hanwei mortuary and the Cold Steel backsword. I have done only a little bit on mats and freely admit my form and ability is pretty miserable these days. When these CS were first released, there were a few threads here at SBG. A big negative that seemed to prevail was the blade thickness was not the advertised. I had to re-check mine back then and indeed, the blade was shy of 5mm. One person managed to twist the basket askew of the blade and remarked on the gap in the guard opening for the blade. There was also a report of a broken blade, near the guard. There were never pictures but those were the reports. Since your's bent at the foible, I would say don't try my method for judging flexibility, as it looks like the pogd is at the end of the fuller Better bent than broken but be kind. Those bends do fatigue the steel. Incorrectly stated CS Backsword blade thickness at the hilt was what originally got me onto this this forum, as mine was near 4mm and not 6mm.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 8, 2019 1:50:21 GMT
Thanks for the comparison. Much appreciated. No the CS is back on the list.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jul 24, 2019 22:31:12 GMT
Thanks for the comparison. Much appreciated. Now the CS is back on the list.
|
|