24" Teardrop Fuller Sirupati

I really like that one. Nice video and pics.

 

Jeez-Louise, that thing is beautiful. Somebody needs to assemble and "HI Museum" for all of the remarkable stuff that this factory puts out.

 

I gotta order one of these...

 

That may be a blessing in disguise: simply imagining the sound of this kind of carnage is scary enough!

 

That is beautiful indeed Karda. I like the curve of the blade, it speaks to me. Another one for the list.

 

It looks like a very effective weapon, but I wonder if it's an effecient weapon. This Sirupati is (in my opinion) on the short and heavy side for a two handed weapon. And, I suspect that for most people intending to use it for any significant duration it is a two handed weapon.

I think that I would have to hold it, and use it to make an accurate judgement. This particular Khuk is also probably one that I would have to hold prior to purchasing as well.

It's a beautiful piece, but it just isn't calling my name right now.

 

tell you what guys thats going to have to be one for michaels must have list:thumbup:

 

It seems to me to be best described as a "Hand-and-a-half" weapon. (A "bastard khukuri"? Nah......)

 

Duzzy: it IS a two handed khukuri. The length came from a museum example. Thickness of the blade is a little wider than the original, but that's HI. We are also thicker people than the ancient ones who used theirs...8)
But anyway, it isn't a fencing foil. It is a two handed chopper meant for battle. It was probably only ever used in downward or diagonal cuts to the head or neck area.
Efficiency with any weapon has more to do with the user than with the weapon, but that's a whole other can of worms.

If I get one, I will make a video showing the intended use. I may go ahead and do that for the Hauswehr this weekend.

 

Awesome video! pictures and review
Thank you Karda

 

that didnt come out right...sorry
I mean the two handed overhead cut..

 

Effeciency may not have been the best word choice. And again I think I would need to hold one to make an accurate judgement but...

From the pictures I don't see the advantages. Realistically, the goal of killing an enemy in battle is to turn off their brain either through blunt force trauma or lack of oxygen. That's how people die.

In something other than single combat, I think that I would mostly use the last 3 or so inches of the blade to make deep cuts. I would not want to risk the blade getting stuck halfway through someone's body. For that scenario I would rather have a one handed Siru and either a complimenting weapon or a sheild.

Maybe practical is a better word. I see it like a two handed battle axe. They look beautiful, are effective weapons (in the sense that you could probably split someone completely in twain), but how practical are they?

I mean I'd use one but... Anyways, I'm interested in a discussion. I'm not trying to be super critical.

 

Actually the Danish axe is a very quick and versatile weapon, it was used to great effect thru out Europe and parts of Asia, the Claymore, Great Sword, Katana and Bastard Sword while being primarily two handed weapons were also very effective. Two handed weapons for the most part are not martial arts weapons (I know, that is not entirely true) they were first and foremost battle field weapons where finesse and style are of some what limited use, they are shock weapons who's purpose is to smash and hack, to produce the most damage in the least amount of time. So no maybe they wouldn't be practical in one sense of the word but in a melee I'll take a good hand and a half or two handed weapon any day.
So IMHO I love the big impractical thing, and I hope they are still around when I have the cash to buy one.

 

I wrote my last response on my phone so I had to keep it short... I do appreciate the discussion though.

First off don't get me wrong, I love big and impractical too. But, if I were going to use a two-handed weapon it would probably be something with more reach. I have to go and Google the Danish Axe but IIRC it was more of a polearm no? My comment had the "fantasy/movie" style battle axe in mind to be honest (the big double bit broad axes etc.)


I guess that at 24" I really would, personally, choose something lighter and use it in combination with another weapon or a sheild. My preference for a two handed weapon would be something longer with less chopping power, because I don't know how much of that chopping power you'd be able to bring into play.

I suppose it also depends a lot on whom you are fighting and what they are using.

I hope I'm making a small bit of sense...

 

i remember watching an early sword epic where the persian king of kings in his camp pitted a heavily armed and armoured greek hoplite against one of his lightly armed 'immortals', the immortal danced rings around the hoplite and easily defeated him. he dismissed the greek phalanx as unwieldy and not manoeuvrable. not long after the persians met the hoplites for real. if you read history you know the results of marathon, salamis, thermopylae, etc. when the persians met the macedonian sarissa phalanx of alexander, the results were even more decisive. the phalanx did not win it, the combined arms, infantry, artillery, cavalry and intelligence and successful deployment by a master did. (the persians had some greek troops from conquered cities, but they were considered 'unreliable')

a weapon is not a stand-alone item, it's part of a weapons system, and in an army setting it is used with supporting troops and other arms. i would not like to duel a swordsman with my dane axe, but as part of a saxon shield wall with archers, spearmen and other swordsmen supporting, it would be a devastating shock weapon as william found out at hastings, and immortalised in the bayeux tapestry where it shows the two handed dane axe cutting off armoured horse heads, splitting willie's knights in twain, etc. it was a close run thing.

a few saxon housecarls with their dane axes for scale...

and the phalanx with two handed axemen on the flanks was a battle winner well into the 17th century (swiss pikemen and halberders) and well after gunpowder.

...and a gratuitous doggy picture just for fun. he likes his dane axe too!

 

This is more a question for the heyday of melee weapons, when two people each wielding one could potentially face off, and the strengths and weaknesses of each design had to be more critically considered.

These days, someone running across a ne'er-do-well is just as likely to face an opponent with a firearm, a steaknife, a beer bottle, what have you. The "martial pragmatism" of this design could vary from "ideal" to "virtually useless" depending on the scenario and a myriad of other variables... strength/skill of the wielder, armament of the opponent, protective clothing, et cetera... a person could go nuts trying to cover all the possibilities.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that due to the prevalence of firearms and the lack of modern battles consisting solely of melee weaponry, basically if you don't have a firearm, anything else could be considered "better than nothing"... it will either be woefully inadequate or catch the opponent off guard.