<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k1.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k2.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k4.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k5.jpg"><br>
My brother had this khukuri stashed away in a box somewhere and I brought it out just tonight and took some pics. The blade is stamped Made in India and it is of inferior quality. However the feel of the blade in dry handling is superb, partly due to the handle. You can see how the horn handle swells near the top, then tapers gently after the middle rings. The pommel cap is the scrolled variety, but it did not produce any hot spots when I was swinging it. It is 16" long, but the blade width is pretty thin, making it weaker than the HI offerings.
The reason why I'm posting these pics is because of my upcoming order for a WWII. How much noticeably slower is an 18" WWII compared to a 16.5" WWII? I know that there is a good performance difference between the two, but what kind of performance are we talking about here?
My goal is to have a historically accurate battle blade that would be suited for both combat and general utility, with an emphasis on 'combat'. I guess that a HI knife would definitely be historically accurate (duh, made in Nepal), but what about the other factors I'm looking for? Thoughts?
<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k2.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k4.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://members.home.net/kkmark/swords/k5.jpg"><br>
My brother had this khukuri stashed away in a box somewhere and I brought it out just tonight and took some pics. The blade is stamped Made in India and it is of inferior quality. However the feel of the blade in dry handling is superb, partly due to the handle. You can see how the horn handle swells near the top, then tapers gently after the middle rings. The pommel cap is the scrolled variety, but it did not produce any hot spots when I was swinging it. It is 16" long, but the blade width is pretty thin, making it weaker than the HI offerings.
The reason why I'm posting these pics is because of my upcoming order for a WWII. How much noticeably slower is an 18" WWII compared to a 16.5" WWII? I know that there is a good performance difference between the two, but what kind of performance are we talking about here?
My goal is to have a historically accurate battle blade that would be suited for both combat and general utility, with an emphasis on 'combat'. I guess that a HI knife would definitely be historically accurate (duh, made in Nepal), but what about the other factors I'm looking for? Thoughts?