Does anyone know where would be the best place to purchase these knives from? I'm looking for something that's really good, authentic, etc. Something you would purchase! Not a cheap imitation or junk! Thanks for the Help! :D
Printable View
Does anyone know where would be the best place to purchase these knives from? I'm looking for something that's really good, authentic, etc. Something you would purchase! Not a cheap imitation or junk! Thanks for the Help! :D
teazer is right....
best I've seen
Hi everyone, my sifu has told me to buy a pair of butterfly knives so he can start to teach me the knives form.
I can't seem to find anywhere that sells them! I live in London, does anyone know where I can buy a pair?
Many thanks
Marco
try shaolin way in newport street i think
i bought mine from there very cheap
good luck
later
this is where i ask a really stupid question -
knives, or swords?
knives - no idea, they are not legal in my country.
swords - I have a pair of the tigerclaw ones, I love em.
Neurotic
HI
I believe they are called knives because of their size/shape (single edge).
In Chinese I think what we call knives are called daggers (usually have two edges).
David
Please excuse me while I do an impression of Gene Ching here :D
Butterfly swords/knives for sale.
Purchasing from there also supports the forums. And a good currency converter can be found here
http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic
why not ask your sifu? he must have gotten his knives somewhere. he might even be able to get you a good deal.
i dono where my sifu got my knives, but they're **** nice :D
If you train with Russell, there's a good chance he got them from World Class Craftsmen. The particular style they manufactured were based on specs by Ip Ching. I think it's been some years since they manufactured them though. Too bad, best quality craftsmanship I've seen. I had hoped they would eventually manufacture them in the other common style as well (the pointier version), but not holding my breath.Quote:
Originally posted by TjD
why not ask your sifu? he must have gotten his knives somewhere. he might even be able to get you a good deal.
i dono where my sifu got my knives, but they're **** nice :D
Regards,
- Kathy Jo
I got mine from the www.qimagazine.com.
They are very good quality,Michael Tse ships them over from China.I paid around £100 for them a year ago.
I"me not sure if he still has any.
Contact the Tse Qigong Centre on 0161 929 4485
As your in London, I wouldn't know where to get them or what the shipping issues are. There are plenty of places in the states to buy them if need be. I would imagine that the UK has many as well.
There seems to be a few different types of butterfly knives. The typical southern type are large and seem to be used for a lot of slicing motions. These are the typical ones you see in magizines. Leung Ting was the first person that I was aware of that pointed out that wing chun used different types. He has a much smaller and narrower one that is better used for stabbing. So, just to be sure, I would ask your sifu before you spent any money to make sure you got a set that is compatible for you. I have been told that the length is also important and is relavant to the individual.
Wing Lam at www.wle.com makes some slick looking weapons custom made. As he is a martial artist, I would trust that he understands a bit about the nature of what he is making. He does carry several types of butterfly knives from the cheap ones to much better quality to custom made. The custome made ones are quite expensive and I would only reccomend them to the very serious practioner who has some bucks. LOL. But they are nice.
Also, any one know what Yip Man's knives looked like? I wonder if there are photos at either the Yip Man Tong or VTM that show his knives. Any one know where he got them?
Tom
________
FREE KMART GIFT CARDS
How can I tell a 'good' pair of knives from a 'bad' pair. As I havent yet had any experience of learning the knife form I don't know what I should look for.
Do they all come in the same size/dimensions?
Marco
yes i do train with him. (i try not to mention it because i dont want my beginners opinions reflecting on his ability or our school - politics are bad :D ). He ordered a couple pairs of knives last year, and they look the same as the ones our older students have... so perhaps they still are making them?Quote:
Originally posted by kj
If you train with Russell, there's a good chance he got them from World Class Craftsmen. The particular style they manufactured were based on specs by Ip Ching. I think it's been some years since they manufactured them though. Too bad, best quality craftsmanship I've seen. I had hoped they would eventually manufacture them in the other common style as well (the pointier version), but not holding my breath.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo
Anyone have any good information or resources to share that talk about the history of the use of butterfly swords in Wing Chun (or other arts that use this style of weapon). In particular, traditional training methods, the development of their shape/size, their use on the battlefield, the mindset behind using(or training) them, etc.? Were they ever trained with one sword, or a sword/short knife combo, or any other combos?
Again, just looking for some input for resources on the history of their use and development. Not really looking for pictures on how to do forms, more the story line behind this Wing Chun weapon.
Thanks for the help.
Wilson
Hi Wilson,
SiFu Duncan Leung had answered one or two questions about knives on his discussion board He is very straight forward and speaks honestly about sincere Wing Chun queries.
Best wishes,
/Marcus
http://www.cheungswingchun.ashop.com...ly-swords.html
Scroll down to the bottom
Here's another interesting article by Hendrik that touches on the historical significance of the knives in our system -
Shanghai Connection
Wow, that is an awesome article!
I heard or read somewhere that one version of the butterfly swords had blades that were only sharpened on one side so the blades fit together to form one edge (cross section like this: /||\. ) So they could be drawn and used as one sword and then seperated for emergency fantangle . Has anyone else heard of this?
Yes, amazing how Hendrik can write coherent and concise thoughts when he wants to. Eh? ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaksha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaksha
You are referring to a type of blade edge known as a single bevel. It's really good for mincing and whittling. A double bevel is better for chopping and slicing, and just about everything else except for preparing sushi.
A matched set of knifes or swords sharpened with opposite single bevels can never be used as one with any greater effectiveness than a similarly matched set sharpened with double bevels. Regardless of the tang configuration and handle shape, tolerances will not allow for the degree of matching that you are suggesting would be required to have any real effect on usage.
Additionally, to compromise so greatly on the handle shape in order to match the set to the degree in which you describe compromises the utility of the whole set. An asymmetrical handle is more unwieldy compared to more rounded ones in both grip and balance. A matched set of knives or swords wielded in the fashion you describe would require a much tighter and more restrictive grip to maintain proper integrity in usage as one or separately.
Lastly, for a given gross motor purpose, it is the blade shape along the entire length and tip, and the blade's balance points which ultimately affect its effectiveness far beyond any effect the type and bevel angle and/or its relative sharpness could have on usage.
A lot of folklore surrounds knives and swords throughout history and across cultures that, when viewed within the context of the quality of metallurgy and the quality of craftsmanship available at the time - along with a basic understanding of the mechanics of the intended usage of the blades - just doesn't make logical sense.
So, now that you've got me interested, what was the quality of metalurgy and craftsmanship available at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
well,
the quality of Metallurgy and Craftsmanship are two different subjects.
first, Metallurgy - was in its hay-day back then. however the metal used for swords, knives, etc. was heated and folded Over and over. while this did lend to the strength of a folded blade - primarily it was done so that the Impurities in the metals (back then) (nowadays we have higher grade 'manufactured' metals to work with.) could be worked out, allowing the metal to be forged into a stronger billet or piece to work into its final shape.
craftsmanship is part of aesthetic/visual appeal And functionality. typically, if a combat weapon, the sword was not typically crafted for visual apeal or looks - but for application. if it was an ornamental, ceremonial, etc weapon - then it would be crafted with more care given to its visual appeal.
i beilieve that what was produced back then was ideal for the tools and technology which they had to work with.
SIDENOTE: although the skills, knowledge and methods of these bladesmiths was superb, alot of these weapon making qualities were lost through time. due to lack of documentation, Government and teaching.
Hope this Helps.
tom-
thats funny you mention that, well its not funny its a good observation. to my knowledge the double butterfly knives come from butchers. They were designed and used similiar motions that a butcher would use to chop up animals (pork, fish, etc). Also, from my knowledge the butterfly knives were not added until the last 150yrs or so of wing chun. So, from my understanding they were added to the system long after the open hand part of the system was developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoonAss
LOL
See what I mean? A few tangental truths mixed in with a good story makes for compelling folklore. Deconstructing your post properly would require about 2500 more words than I care to to type right now. :)
Suppose, for a moment, that I suggested that Ving Tsun BaatChamDo was originally only sharpened on the topmost 3rd of the edge, and that the reason a BaatChamDo was not originally sharpened all the way down the the edge was because the relative poor quality of craftmanship and available ore in the rural inland areas of Southern China, thus preventing a decent quality edge which did not weaken the blade where one would have to sharpen against the grain of the alloy. Additionally, suppose I suggested it was not until more frequent migration occured to the more urban areas along the coastline with ongoing import/export trade that exposure to better quality ore and more skilled blacksmithing craftsmen allowed the last 2/3 of the edge to be sharpened without usability compromise.
If someone was so inclined, they could go out and and prove or disprove my above postulate. Why? Because, if something is true or not (or in this case, correct or not), considerable evidence will be found in many places - most beyond the martial art field.
Historians could provide information on population migrations. Government archives could provide figures on ore mining production and quality. Archeologists could provide examples of not just BaatChamDo, but other implements such as the butcher knifes Gangsterfist mentioned or a farm sickle. Scientists could run tests on the implements and local ore. The military could provide recorded information on usage incidents (The U.S. DoD alone has more than 200 years of deconstructed battlefield incidents involving both specifics and generalities of sword and knife usage.) Blacksmiths could provide information about the creative process and the pitfalls found in creating a small hand tool.
Now, suppose for a moment that I suggested instead that the reason for sharpening only the top 1/3 of the edge was because sharpening the bottom 2/3 of the edge was considered making the weapon "too deadly" and contradictory to the principles and morals of the "monk" carrying the weapon. [NOTE: A skeptic might point out right here that the weapon was already very deadly solely due to the nature of its shape and ask why carry it at all if just this one aspect made it contradictory for a "monk" to carry? - but this avenue is another subject entirely.]
How do you prove or disprove this postulate? You can't. There is no evidence, one way or the other.
The best someone could do is become a scholar of the culture and/or a buddhist monk and dig into the religious texts. Even then, they could only make (presumably reasonable) inferences.
But hey, what set of data could compete with the "wow" factor of an "ancient warrior code" where the lone "monk" wanders the countryside armed with a concealable deadly weapon? A code where they still have such compassion for the person trying to sneak up and slit the monk's throat while he sleeps just for a pair of slippers? Such selflessness that he'd modify his weapon so it lost only about 35% of its effectiveness in killing? A code where slashing with the first 1/3 is more honorable than a slash from the last 2/3? A man of peace who clandestinely belongs to a secret society trying to, against all odds, overthrow the tyranical government hellbent on erasing every reference to the memory of the utopia from better times?
I couldn't pack the kiddies into the matinee with a powerpoint presentation detailing coastal import/export activity of the era. I'd be too bored to tears just by collating the first thirty spreadsheets. But the peasants still remained peasants, even if most everyone ignores it. ;)
Hi Tom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
Good post and good points. How about a third theory to muddy the waters even more? :) The lower 2/3 of the blade was needed for defense against bigger heavier weapons. The knife form has lots of "chopping" against the shaft of the pole. A sharpened edge can be a relatively fragile thing and hard to maintain when consistently knocked against other hard surfaces (ie other weapons), regardless of the quality of the metallurgy involved. So why sharpen something that won't stay sharp? Additionally, by keeping the lower 2/3 unsharpened, blade thickness is maintained at the edge so it will stand up to blocking forces better. Another point.....a sharpened edge would "catch" or "lodge" in the wooden shaft of the opponent's weapon and potentially disarm the knife man or at least stop the flow of his response. And besides, how often can you bring the lower parts of the blade (especially near the handle) into play offensively? The majority of the offense work is just naturally performed by the distal 1/3 of the blade.
Keith
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPM
Very good points, too, Keith.
And, if we weren't speculating on mere conjecture, I might, hypothetically, agree with such suppositions. :D
Do you see how these things get started? I offer up a half-@ssed rumor (the 1/3 part to 2/3 part of a blade edge's belly to choil ratio), as The Truth (tm) with no evidence or supporting references (thus, yet to be proven sufficiently), and already we have a third "reason" why someone would make a few swords or knives that way to improve battlefield odds in "ancient times." :)
Now, don't get me wrong: I am of the opinion that there is sufficient basis and evidence to support your postulate - enough to make it a bona fide working theory. However, again there would be evidence found to add greater support to the idea that a choil of 2/3 of the length of the blade was necessary for "blocking". Since there are so many examples of knifes and swords from China, Europe, and other areas which were not made this way, I would have to remain a skeptic and suggest that reasons for making a blade this way leaned more toward the quality of blacksmithing and available ore rather than any improvements in combat effectiveness. Additionally, although the problem of getting a blade "hung up" is a very real one, I'll suggest the opposite by stating that any blade sufficiently sharp to "cut in" will "cut out" - if the practitioner knows enough not to loosen their grip to the point where they accidentally let go. Weapon retention is a one credit Blades 101 prerequisite. :)
I'm also going to point out that carrying such a sizable weapon has to have multiple purposes - some not originally intended. If a person is going to make what was a considerable investment in a tool, they would probably be inclined to want the greater utility that sharpening more of the edge would bring, if at all possible. Taking along additional blades for chopping wood, cutting food, etc. etc. becomes somewhat unmanageable after a point for the lone monk seeking satori by following a path of vengeance for the killing of his brothers. ;)
I heard from at least two seperate scources that the origional butterfly swords were not sharpened at all and were mass produced by casting out of relatively cheap metal rather than hand forging. The whole design was meant to be inexpensive as possible/practical at that time. One of my scources then goes on to say that later, the tips were sharpened by the wing chunners for stabbing, and much later, the entire blades were sharpened and/or custom made.
Does anyone know of any historical examples of butterfly swords still in existance? Say, in photographs or museums?
Tom,
dont know why you would say that about my post. i was replying to a question about the metallurgy and craftsmanship. granted, i'm NO expert - but i have done Sh!tLoads of research, reading and speaking with various people on the subject.
in fact, i am a bladesmith (knifemaker - not like it matters).
i would agree that my post wasnt very clear or concise, including references. but i was just shooting out some points to answer a question - while i could ( at work).
Steve
OK, I confess I know absolutely nothing about the development of the Baat Jaam Do, but LMAO at the idea that monks would need easily concealable knives more than say, rebels, outlaws, thugs, performers etc...!
If we had a sampling of authentic chinese butterfly swords from the period in question we could settle a lot of debate. One big misconception that was originally found among western martial arts fans was that swords were "banged" together like you see in the movies. When people that knew blades and knew what to look for had the chance to examine real historical samples (not just museum hangers) they quickly debunked this myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
Keith
Here's some more info on the butterfly swords.
http://www.fightauthority.com/module...content&tid=47
Who is to say that monks created them? From what i have been told the wing chun weapons (long pole and butterfly knives) were added in the last 150 years or so of wing chun. Why would wing chun get the nickname of the assasin's art if buddhist monks created it? I am sure that a lot of developement of wing chun has been outside the temple. That is just my guess though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat
Yaksuka,
If what you heard ultimately can be substantiated, then the implication is that the BaatChamDo did not start out created for its ultimate purpose. (Cutlers who make knifes and swords but leave every blade unsharpened?) To leave the initial grinding of every single blade to peasants proves difficult to believe unless the initial piece was not intended to be a weapon in the first place.
KPM,
Interesting. Your astute observation regarding what archaeologists have managed to determine from existing specimens of the knives and swords surviving in history lends more credence to the idea that if a blade, indeed, has a substantial choil of 2/3 of its length, the reason for it has little to do with considerations for "blocking."
Charmingly quaint and eccentric beast of burden whose name won't pass the forum's filter,
I said what I said because I find it difficult to accept what you are suggesting. For myself, I don't mind being wrong; it's one of the reasons I post at all - to see whether what I write can stand the heat of public scrutiny that this forum's quasi "peer review" can bring to the table.
Setting aside the foggy memories of world history floating around in my head which cause me to suspect you've transposed the iron quality of Europe and the craftsmanship of Japan with those of Southern China for a moment, let me also "shoot out some points" as you have. (I'm at work, too, and could be completely wrong on everything I post here. Feel free to rip me to shreds and make fun of me - isn't that why we all post, anyway? ;) ):
Why do the people of a territory need weapons? To conquer other territories or to protect their territory. Why does a territory try to conquer other territories? To obtain their natural resources.
Purely by comparison to other territories, the region where Ving Tsun was born was relatively peaceful throughout much of its history. [Note to historians: I said relatively] This would imply that not only its natural resources were sufficient for its needs, but its resources were not in such abundance or of great quality that other less bountiful territories would be interested enough to obtain them. (Having The Great Wall further north to create archer defensible positions, thus bottling up invaders into "kill zones" surely benefited the region, too. :eek: ) It was not until much later in the region's history when the "resource" of trade route access developed more prominence in the region created a stronger need to protect its territory and repel invaders.
By this time, militaries were already well on their way to using modern weapons. Gunpowder, rockets, mortars, muskets, along with the skills of archers and marksmen deploying the weaponry were already changing the face of warfare - making the need for well crafted blades secondary in a battlefield role.
Without a strong need for a good battlefield blade combined with the lack of years in the craft's skill refinement implies the region's craftsmanship was probably low. If there was a need and the process was easy (an ease mainly due to the quality of iron and lack of need for Blacksmiths skilled in press welding or smelting), there would literally be hundreds of surviving blade specimens of the eras for archaeologists to uncover and examine. Since they're aren't, making good blades was probably comparatively difficult. Along with the relative peace of the region, this casts doubt on the desirability of iron quality available for other regions to plunder - or at least the ease of mining it in the region. Also, the comparative dearth of superbly crafted specimens from the region and era implies there was not much ceremony surrounding such weapons which, in turn, implies there wasn't much use for bladed weapons. [NOTE: many other KungFu styles from history exhibit a contradictory path from this. But they aren't Ving Tsun. To determine why would require looking at the situations in the depth of their region's history which surrounded the development of so many varied weapons.]
Now suppose there is a region where the local iron quality was extremely poor and where other natural resources were scarce for hundreds of years before the influence of modern warfare (read: Gunpowder). Due to the very fact that it would be darned hard to make bladed weapons and they still need them, that region will develop:
- high skill in press welding (not enough coal to develop a smelting process).
- high skill in blacksmithing.
- high ceremonial and cultural emphasis on the use of the blade and the weapons themselves.
What region in history fits the above description? Japan.
I'll stop here for now. I've reached the point where I'm starting to annoy even myself at the moment (which is never a particularly good thing. :D ) Perhaps some day I'll get to the deconstruction of your "weapon making qualities were lost" comment and some of the other items in your post - though I can't imagine the kiddies sticking around for the credit reel to run if I continue along the weak matinee storyline. :)
(My final refrain on the subject)
Duende,
I can forgive the lack of references in an article due to it being originally published in a magazine and was cut for brevity. However, the above lines can be independently verified. The above - just one snippet from the article - is most definitely folklore. Since it is so glaring and should have been caught, it casts a shadow of skeptism over the rest of the tenets of the article yet to be cross-referenced sufficiently to both inside and outside of the martial arts world. [ASIDE: It would be nice to see the article updated with references. However, I understand completely how time and priorities can affect what does and does not get done.]Quote:
...blood grooves were added to the sides of the blade. This enabled blood to drain more easily when the point of the sword pierced the stomach or other organs.
Any blade sharp enough to "cut in" will also "cut out" - just don't get the blade hung up on bone and don't let go.
The real reason for the bloodgroove is to stiffen the blade. It may seem odd that removing material from a blade can make it stiffer, but the basic physics can be demonstrated with a piece of paper: A carefully fanfolded paper sheet can stand on edge and balance a plate on top. A bloodgroove in a blade supports the narrower tip area with the same principle (well mostly, but that gives an idea).
How the bloodgroove received its nickname was because of three factors: 1) During initial manufacture, the groove was not forged or polished well (either a time, quality, or skill/tool factor). making a rough surface. 2) The "capilary action" of blood would fill the rough groove, turning it red. 3) The groove is inherently harder to keep clean. [An alternative: It just rusted itself red. :)]
Soldiers and the local bad guys come back from a skirmish, have a few drinks, and: Voila! The folklore of the bloodgroove is born. The folklore around the bloodgroove is found in most cultures, not just Southern China.
Still, a bloodgroove on a weapon as short as a BaatChamDo does not stiffen the blade to any practical extent! So why is it found on there? Its purpose is decorative. It is most likely an historical signature of the sword making specialty of the bladesmiths. In my opinion, this gives credence to the claim that the BaatChamDo is decended from a shortened sword design (a broken scimitar?), not from an elongated knife.
A good bladesmith is just one of the many people from entirely separate fields who can independently either verify or completely refute what I just wrote. But, hey: I'm not one to suggest facts should stand in the way of a good story. So, don't believe me, either. I might be playing a trick, too. If anyone is inclined, go and find out. The nature of true science is that it begs to be proven right or wrong.
:cool:
Tom, i've inserted my responses -whereever they fit :cool:
------ thats a cute way to say it ... :DQuote:
Charmingly quaint and eccentric beast of burden whose name won't pass the forum's filter,
------- well, no - i try not too respond that way. LOL, i actually read most posts in that tone though :rolleyes:Quote:
I said what I said because I find it difficult to accept what you are suggesting. For myself, I don't mind being wrong; it's one of the reasons I post at all - to see whether what I write can stand the heat of public scrutiny that this forum's quasi "peer review" can bring to the table.
---------- No, not at all. in fact, i'm not looking at any other country, only China. without any comparisons to other countries.Quote:
Setting aside the foggy memories of world history floating around in my head which cause me to suspect you've transposed the iron quality of Europe and the craftsmanship of Japan with those of Southern China for a moment, let me also "shoot out some points" as you have. (I'm at work, too, and could be completely wrong on everything I post here. Feel free to rip me to shreds and make fun of me - isn't that why we all post, anyway? ;) ):
-------- Sounds good to me. makes sense, no disagreements here.Quote:
By this time, militaries were already well on their way to using modern weapons. Gunpowder, rockets, mortars, muskets, along with the skills of archers and marksmen deploying the weaponry were already changing the face of warfare - making the need for well crafted blades secondary in a battlefield role.
Without a strong need for a good battlefield blade combined with the lack of years in the craft's skill refinement implies the region's craftsmanship was probably low. If there was a need and the process was easy (an ease mainly due to the quality of iron and lack of need for Blacksmiths skilled in press welding or smelting), there would literally be hundreds of surviving blade specimens of the eras for archaeologists to uncover and examine. Since they're aren't, making good blades was probably comparatively difficult. Along with the relative peace of the region, this casts doubt on the desirability of iron quality available for other regions to plunder - or at least the ease of mining it in the region. Also, the comparative dearth of superbly crafted specimens from the region and era implies there was not much ceremony surrounding such weapons which, in turn, implies there wasn't much use for bladed weapons. [NOTE: many other KungFu styles from history exhibit a contradictory path from this. But they aren't Ving Tsun. To determine why would require looking at the situations in the depth of their region's history which surrounded the development of so many varied weapons.]
------- granted, i dont know everthing - like the agricultural trades like ferriers (blacksmiths). but i would believe that being a primarily agricultural society that some of these things would be in place.Quote:
Now suppose there is a region where the local iron quality was extremely poor and where other natural resources were scarce for hundreds of years before the influence of modern warfare (read: Gunpowder). Due to the very fact that it would be darned hard to make bladed weapons and they still need them, that region will develop:
- high skill in press welding (not enough coal to develop a smelting process).
- high skill in blacksmithing.
- high ceremonial and cultural emphasis on the use of the blade and the weapons themselves.
Quote:
What region in history fits the above description? Japan.
---------- To a "T"..... no doubt about it. like i said - i was only speaking of China , within itself. now, compared to Japan - its like comparing a Bow/Arrow to a Crossbow....
--------- no problem, you've highlighted some things i aint thought of. but i think that my lack of explanation left a wide open door for "fill-in the blanks" :)Quote:
I'll stop here for now. I've reached the point where I'm starting to annoy even myself at the moment (which is never a particularly good thing. :D ) Perhaps some day I'll get to the deconstruction of your "weapon making qualities were lost" comment and some of the other items in your post - though I can't imagine the kiddies sticking around for the credit reel to run if I continue along the weak matinee storyline. :)
by the way, i'm speaking of China's weapon making processes. although many lived on, there is a bulk of knowledge which has been lost. Read up on it, you might find something :D
Hey Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
Strange that you disagree so strongly when by your own words you state that the groove itself would not add structural benefits due to the relatively short length of the blade itself. Furthermore you state that they do provide a "capilary action"...
If by your own logic, you consider the bloodgroove decorative, then do you consider the blade guard decorative as well?? Do consider the tassles on the spear decorative too??
I am perfectly willing to accept the premise that the bloodgroove serves a purpose. So I ask:Quote:
Originally Posted by duende
Why aren't bloodgrooves on all combat knives and swords? It is doubtful that the people of Southern China bleed differently than people of other regions. And, it takes a great leap in logic to suggest that a relatively peaceful region had such knowledge that all of the rest of the waring armies of the world somehow missed and still refuse to see even today.
I'll now suggest the primary purpose of a combat blade since shortly after the dawn of modern warfare is utility. Maiming and killing are secondary purposes. Given that premise, it stands to reason that all changes to combat blades since roughly the 16th century onward were: 1) geared toward improving its versatility as a tool, 2) improving durability, 3) improving portability, or 4) improving ease of manufacture. Any and all changes which improved lethality were freebies. The lethal benefits of such redesigns were small, unintended byproducts and would be discarded quickly if such a change can be shown to hamper its primary purpose as a tool to a soldier.
[TANGENTIAL ANECDOTE: It took Colt Manufacturing two generations of the M16 to solve the problem of a bent barrel from soldiers and marines using the rifle with an affixed bayonet to pry open crates. They were using their primary weapon in a utility role! No amount of training could convince them they shouldn't use a rifle as a substitute for a crowbar. The manufacturer had to add a heavier barrel to its weight, thus giving up what was a small improvement in combat efficiency.]
(Big Kudos for cooling off and reediting your post.)
Hi all,
Does anyone here know where to buy some good Butterfly Swords. A student here in Thunder Bay wants to buy some, and I told him I would help in the search. Any assistance would be appreciated.
Thanks.
James
I've had good reports on these:
http://www2.rpa.net/~artmasters/page2.htm
I have a pair of "Leung Ting" butterfly swords, unsharpened, brass handles and steel blade. The handles are slightly thinner for my hands than I'd like, but manageable, and I like the weight and balance of them. Swish leather scabbard as well. I got mine from a local MA store, but your local friendly WT outlet might be able to set you in the right direction.
My instructor has a couple of pairs of really nice swords, but they are both handmade by local knifesmiths, and horribly expensive as by all accounts they are a gigantic PITA to make.