Distal Taper

[Patrick Hardin]

Recently, I had the opportunity to handle some antique swords owned by fellow member Mark Bruck (Hi Mark, if you're reading this!). The highlight of his collection is a cutlass from the 17th (I think) century which still has its original grip. This was the sweetest weapon I've ever held. I looked at the distal taper on the blade, and it was the most dramatic distal taper on a sword I've ever seen, far more dramatic than most modern replicas. It must have been nearly 1/4" thick at the hilt, but near the point it seemed more like 1/16" or 3/32". I may be exaggerating these measurements, as it's been a while, and I'm only guessing by eyesight, but my point is this: Why the is it that so few replica sword makers don't seem to adequately grasp this concept? The balance on this weapon was phenomenal. We all know that swords were thicker near the hilt and thinner near the point. Why can't replica makers duplicate this? I have yet to handle a replica with a balance and distal taper as good as the cutlass belonging to Mark Bruck.

Now, to be fair, I know that modern sword makers' weapons have a distal taper. But I've never seen one as dramatic before. And it seemed to me that it REALLY affected the balance. The awesome cutlass is of European manufacture. Mark also has an antique cutlass from roughly the same time period that was made in the Carribean. The difference in balance between these two is staggering. The Carribean cutlass is MUCH more blade-heavy, and not near as quick as the European one. I was reminded more of a butcher's cleaver, not a sword. I looked at the Carribean sword more closely, and sure enough, almost no distal taper.

Have modern manufacturers simply not caught on to this fact, or is it some kind of cost concern?

Patrick Hardin

[TimSheetz]

Patrick,

I think that if the widest portion of the blade is very thick, modern manufacturers have to start with a bar of steel at least that thick if they use stock removal as the technique to make the blade. That raises costs.

I think that this is a factor.

Tim

[Brian Hunt]

Hi, I would also argue that it is easier to forge a distal taper than it is to grind one. I realize that most commercial blade makers do stock removal and have complex machines to do their work for them. They basiclly have a preset program to produce a blade style from a piece of bar stock. Your period blades were forged and the distal taper was forged as part of the overall shape of the blade. They would probably have been finished with files and stones by hand, but that would have been just finish work, the primary dimensions having been created with fire and hammer. Just my thoughts on this.

Brian

[Patrick Hardin]

One amendment I should make here, now that I've had time to think and not shoot my mouth off. There are actually some replicas I've handled that have good distal taper. One of them I own myself, I had just forgotten about it. It's a damascus bladed viking sword, I think by Paul Chen. Anybody know that one? Its distal taper is dramatic, and it feels almost like a steel feather in the hand. However, either the heat-treating isn't right, or the distal taper is a little too dramatic, because the blade can actually be bent by hand near the point. Still, I have done a little cutting with it on cardboard tubes.

Another one I've handled is called the "practical medieval sword," or knightly sword, or broad sword, or something like that. I think it's also by Paul Chen, but I'm not certain. Not only does it have a dramatic distal taper, but it's hollow ground, too.

So, since neither of these swords is very expensive, and they seem to work, that kind of proves that it can be done without much affect to cost, doesn't it? So again, the question, why don't replica makers do better? I guess the answer must be in JC's report on the Sword Show 2003: Either they don't know better, or they only make them the way they want. <img src="/forum/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" /> Frustrating. Egg salad frustrating (I hate egg salad).

Patrick Hardin