Blade dexterity rating

[ddean]

The Nelson Single Hand (sword handling) Rating devised by Don Nelson.
Argued about, and generally accepted in Swordforum.com.

I submit it because I think that it is useful for thinking about khukuris in general,
and especially those of longer lengths which are more swordlike.

In essence, the formula calculates the -feel- of the -balance- of the blade.
Or, how dextrous the blade -feels-, in comparison to other blades.
It implies nothing regarding the quality of the blade.

-------------------------------------------------------
Here are some comments from the originator:

" ....... I wanted to have some way of putting a quick and dirty quantification to something that is in many ways, very subjective. ..........

A longer blade is harder to move around than a shorter blade. A heavier sword is harder to move around than a lighter one. And one sword of a given weight and blade length with a closer PoB is easier to move around than the same sword with a farther PoB. So I just multiplied them all together and divided by 1,000 to give me a number I could wrap my brain around fairly easily.

A sword with a bigger NSHR is less agile than one with a smaller one..........It's not perfect, but it works surprisingly well. And by the time you've had two swords or SLO's in your hand to see how two different NSHR's feel, you can get a pretty good appreciation for how swords with different NSHR's feel even without hefting them."--------Don Nelson

"........It's not perfect, but then you don't need a degree in advanced mathematics and metallurgical engineering to use it. As long as you know the blade length, overall weapon weight, and PoB you can generate a quick and dirty number the kinda lets you know what you might like or dislike.

For me personally, an NSH Rating of 5.5 to 6.5 feels real good in my hand when used one-handed. Much over 6.5 and I can still use the sword to attack with, but its lower agility is such that I struggle to effectively parry or feint with them. The upper limit for me with one handed swords for any effective use at all is just under 10.0. I can strike decently well, but there is going to be no fancy stuff at that range."-----Don Nelson

 

[ddean]

Three measures are needed:

L = Length = single measure (inches)
from blade-tip to point of eye of buttcap

NB = NSHRPOB = distance (inches)
from blade balance point to foremost wood or horn on handle
[where grip meets bolster]

W = weight of blade in ounces

Round off final number to one decimal place (00.0)
____________________________________
Two versions of the formula:

Nelson Single Hand Rating =
NSHR2 = ( (SqRt of L) x NB x W ) / 170

or for quick calculation without the Square Root:
NSHR1 = ( L x NB x W ) / 1000

The first formula (NSHR2) is version 2,
which decreases the influence of sword length on the calculation.
Result numbers are roughly comparable, but version 2 is more refined.

-------------------------------------------------------

Soon I'll have together a list of various of my blades.

Here's some to start.

Sirupati 12" by LB Bura
NSHR2 = 0.6 = SqRt12.4" x 2.8" x 10.4oz / 170
NSHR1 = 0.4 = 12.4" x 2.8" x 10.4oz / 1000

Bureti (Bura Reti Kobra) by LB Bura
NSHR2 = 0.8
NSHR1 = 0.6 =16" x 3.25" x 10.8oz / 1000

Kobra 20" by LB Bura
NSHR2 = 2.7
NSHR1 = 2.1 = 20" x 5.5" x 18.9oz / 1000

Kobra 25" by SN Sanu
NSHR2 = 8.9
NSHR1 = 7.6 = 25.5" x 8.1" x 37oz / 1000

 

[mPisi]

Cool, it's a simple power factor(1) for knives. I will be interested to see the numbers for a variety of khuks and other knives. I really need to find a scale.


[Aside]
(1) Power Factor is a measure of bullet "power" for firearms sports.
PF = M * V / 1000 where
M = mass of bullet in grains
V = velocity of bullet in feet per second

A 165PF is the dividing line between "minor" and "major"-class rounds in some sports (just as the blade dexterity rating could be used to find different feeling knives). Shooting "minor" will give fewer points per hit. Usually, rounds generating under 125PF are not able to be shot for score.
Some examples:
9mm FMJ = 115gr bullet @ 1150fps = 132PF (feels like a pop gun)
45ACP FMJ = 230gr @ 800fps = 182PF (gentle push)
10mm practice round I use for matches = 200gr @ 850fps = 170PF (gentler push)
10mm self-defence round = 180gr @ 1250fps = 225PF (snappy)
5.56mm rifle = 55gr @ 3250fps = 179PF
7.62 rifle = 147gr @ 2750fps = 404PF
Like any artificial measure this ignores energey and a host of other factors. But like the blade dexterity rating it gives an initial basis for comparison.[/aside]

 

[Red]

The problem I see with the NSHR is that it doesn't allow for blade angle. A scimitar and a yataghan will feel very different even with the same length, weight and PoB. It should be OK as long as you only compare similar blade shape.

 

[ddean]

Originally posted by Red
The problem I see with the NSHR is that it doesn't allow for blade angle. A scimitar and a yataghan will feel very different even with the same length, weight and PoB. It should be OK as long as you only compare similar blade shape.

Sounds likely.
Haven't had the opportunity myself.
How about some numbers and descriptions to show us?

 

[ddean]

Originally posted by mPisi
[Aside]......(1) Power Factor ....

Cool

 

[Don Nelson]

Hi, DDean;

You wrote, "The Norton Single Hand (sword handling) Rating devised by Don Nelson."

Me: Actually, it is the NELSON Single Hand Rating system. Rather vain I know, but named it after myself (grin).

You: "Originated, argued, and generally accepted in Swordforum.com."

Me: Well, originated by me. Argued a bunch. As far as how accepted it is, (shrug), who knows (smile).

You wrote, "Here are some comments from the originator (Don Nelson):

" ....... I wanted to have some way of putting a quick and dirty quantification to something that is in many ways, very subjective. .........."

"A longer blade is harder to move around than a shorter blade. A heavier sword is harder to move around than a lighter one. And one sword of a given weight and blade length with a closer PoB is easier to move around than the same sword with a farther PoB. So I just multiplied them all together and divided by 1,000 to give me a number I could wrap my brain around fairly easily."

"A sword with a bigger NSHR is less agile than one with a smaller one..........It's not perfect, but it works surprisingly well. And by the time you've had two swords or SLO's in your hand to see how two different NSHR's feel, you can get a pretty good appreciation for how swords with different NSHR's feel even without hefting them."--------Don Nelson"

"........It's not perfect, but then you don't need a degree in advanced mathematics and metallurgical engineering to use it. As long as you know the blade length, overall weapon weight, and PoB you can generate a quick and dirty number the kinda lets you know what you might like or dislike."

"For me personally, an NSH Rating of 5.5 to 6.5 feels real good in my hand when used one-handed. Much over 6.5 and I can still use the sword to attack with, but its lower agility is such that I struggle to effectively parry or feint with them. The upper limit for me with one handed swords for any effective use at all is just under 10.0. I can strike decently well, but there is going to be no fancy stuff at that range."-----Don Nelson"

Me: Thanks for the accurate presentation of my rather modest attempt at quantifying what is not easily quantifiable. I've modified the formula somewhat since I posted my original presentation of it. Naturally the modification was one of greater complexity; but the orginal formula works more than adequately for the task that I designed it for, ie, a "quick'n'dirty" method of getting a general feel for how something bladish feels in one hand.

And of course it helps potential purchasers know somewhat in advance what they might be getting for their several hundred, if not thousands of dollars, before they send off the check.

One thing that's been made very clear to me, but that is impossible to quantify, is the shape of the handle. Since my collection of Gus Trim swords has become fairly sizeable, I've swapped different handles among the various swords and the difference between the same sword with different handles can be nothing short of startling.

I know this seems abundantly obvious, but some times we can get caught up in "chasing the numbers", so wanted to offer yet another caution to those who might be so inclined.

Don

 

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by ddean
Nelson Single Hand Rating = NSHR = ( L x NB x W ) / 1000

L = Length = single measure (inches)
from blade-tip to point of eye of buttcap

NB = NSHRPOB = distance (inches)
from blade balance point to foremost wood or horn on handle
[where grip meets bolster]

W = weight of blade in ounces

Round off final number to one decimal place (00.0)
-------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow I'll have together a list of various of my blades.

Here's some to start.

Sirupati 12" by LB Bura
12.4" x 2.8" x 10.4oz / 1000 = 0.4

Bureti (Bura Reti Kobra) by LB Bura
16" x 3.25" x 10.8oz / 1000 = 0.6

Kobra 20" by LB Bura
20" x 5.5" x 18.9oz / 1000 = 2.1

Kobra 25" by SN Sanu
25.5" x 8.1" x 37oz / 1000 = 7.6

Thanks again for the accurate presentation of my "model". For your own edification, you can think of the formula above as the Mark I model. As I mentioned in a previous post, I did modify the original formula a bit. I'm almost embaressed to offer up the new formula, but I think it's fair to do so. The new formula is:

Wt x (square root of blade length) x PoB / 170

My continued study of this told me that given two swords of equal weight and balance, but one having a blade length twice as long as the other, that the longer bladed weapon was not twice as difficult to move around. Hence, my original model gave too much emphasis to the blade length factor. So I decided to take the square root of the blade length as a way of continuing to give greater emphasis to longer blades (ie, longer blades make the weapon less maneuverable), but not to the extent the initial model portrayed.

The '170' number was simply a constant I derived to help keep the new model's outputs somewhat consistent with the original model's.

In other words, a bladed weapon with an NSHR of 5.0 will be fairly handy with either model, and a bladed weapon with a rating of 10.0 is still going to be somewhat challenging to wield with one (unless one has significant upper body and arm strength).

Don

 

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by Red
The problem I see with the NSHR is that it doesn't allow for blade angle. A scimitar and a yataghan will feel very different even with the same length, weight and PoB. It should be OK as long as you only compare similar blade shape.

Hey, Red;

I'm not sure. Or at least I haven't decided yet. For example, with a curved blade, one very valid question might be, should the blade length be measured from the tip to where the handle meets the back of the guard, ie, a straight-line measurement? Or should it be measured in a "true distance" measure, following say, the spine of the curved weapon. As we all know, a curved blade with a straight line blade length of say 32" is "longer" than a straight broadsword type of blade.

However, since the primary components of the measure are weight and point of balance, maybe it doesn't matter.

I don't have a lot of curved swords: two Katana and four sabers. One of the sabers is Cold Steel's oddly shaped 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. And each of them have wide variation in the shape and feel of their handles.

However, I find that if I close my eyes and just focus on the feel and heft of the blades in my hand, my gut feeling is that blade curvature or type "seems" to be irrelevant. But as I've mentioned in other posts on other boards, I'm more than willing to listen to the observations of others, either negative, positive, neutral, constructive or suggestive. I'm not too proud to adopt a good idea from someone else (grin).

Don

 

[Zal]

Originally posted by Don Nelson
. . . I don't have a lot of curved swords . . .

I recommend that you get a couple of khukris just to see how they "measure up" with your formula as an intense test of the effect of blade curvature. They won't set ya back too much compared to most swords, either, and you'll get some khuks out of the deal.

 

[ddean]

BTW, call me Dean.

Originally posted by Don Nelson ...... Actually, it is the NELSON Single Hand Rating system.

Oops.... :footinmou
I've been using Norton SystemWorks while reading threads
and it looks like my wetware gliched.
Corrected.

You: "Originated, .......in Swordforum.com."
Me: Well, originated by me.

My thinking was (since I'd already attributed properly "devised by Don Nelson.")
to clearly show the background of origination.
Sorry, sometimes when I try to keep posts short
& not ramble on in overgreat detail,
my editing leaves something to be desired.

Thanks for the accurate presentation ..........

Welcome.
Glad I succeeded.

the shape of the handle........ seems abundantly obvious, but some times we can get caught up in "chasing the numbers", so wanted to offer yet another caution

Appreciated.

 

[ddean]

Originally posted by Don Nelson .....The new formula is:..........

Thanks, I'll edit that into the original post as a prefered version.
Please keep us updated with any further refinements.

I had been thinking about which factor might need more weight.
Considering the sword as a lever with the PoB as fulcrum.
How does sword body follow point? and similar questions.
Of course then there's thrusting vs chopping........

Also thinking that a more accurate measure for point of balance
might be to measure to the base of the thumb while gripping.
I think that's closer to the point where
the hand 'usually' exerts pressure on the grip.
Of course the problem is that this is not
a measure of the sword itself, so difficult to standardize.
This would go along with your comment about shape of grip.
You probably had already considered all this.

 

[ddean]

Originally posted by Don Nelson ......... wide variation in the shape and feel of their handles.

What if one 'replaced' the handle with say a standard covering over it.
Maybe a cylindrical layer of (leather, cardboard, dense foam, plastic, ????)
always brought to the same diameter, or close to.
Then each swords grip would not be an issue in comparing ratings.

 

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by Zal
I recommend that you get a couple of khukris just to see how they "measure up" with your formula as an intense test of the effect of blade curvature. They won't set ya back too much compared to most swords, either, and you'll get some khuks out of the deal.

Actually, a couple weeks back I decided to add a khukri or two to my armory, so that would be an excellent opportunity to explore a number of areas.

Got any suggestions? Cold Steel's selection and reputation look like a great place to start.

Don

 

[Don Nelson]

Dean wrote, "BTW, call me Dean."

Me: Okay, Dean. Pleased to meet ya!

You: "Oops.... :footinmou
I've been using Norton SystemWorks while reading threads
and it looks like my wetware gliched.
Corrected."

Me: Happens to me all the time.....(sad sigh)

You: "My thinking was (since I'd already attributed roperly "devised by Don Nelson.") to clearly show the background of origination."

Me: Yeah, I know. Just didn't want folks to think I adopted the name of Ralph Kramden's Dept of Sewage sidekick for my rather modest attempt at this process (grin).

You: "Welcome."

Me: Thanks. I appreciate it. Seems like a decent bunch of fellows here.

You: "Glad I succeeded (in presenting the NSHR)."

Me: Me too. In some corners it was less pleasantly received, mostly by folks who were dissatisfied that it didn't measure how handy the blade was in two hands, or measure how well it cut, or how well it succeeds as an umbrella on a rainy day in May (wry smile).

Now that my joints are starting to act up, one thing the NSHR numbers tell me is how much my wrist, elbow and shoulder joints will strain or hurt when I try to accelerate, decelerate, or change direction with the piece in one hand. Basically, this means that with one hand, a sword with an NSH Rating of anything higher than 10 or so, means that my joints are going to be real sore if I misbehave myself (grin).

Don

 

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by ddean
Thanks, I'll edit that into the original post as a prefered version.
Please keep us updated with any further refinements.

Also thinking that a more accurate measure for point of balance
might be to measure to the base of the thumb while gripping.
I think that's closer to the point where
the hand 'usually' exerts pressure on the grip.
Of course the problem is that this is not
a measure of the sword itself, so difficult to standardize.
This would go along with your comment about shape of grip.
You probably had already considered all this.

Some days I'm sharper than others (blade pun), today is not one of them. What do you mean by "the base of the thumb"? You might have a point there (sorry for the pun - grin).

You seem fairly interested in the origins of this model, so I'd like to share a bit of the thought process behind it.

Like most guys who are interested in swords, but know little of real ones, and who've had fencing as a background, we initially tend to want our real swords to be just basically big fencing foils. We want them light, and agile with a balance close to the guard, or more properly, the top of the fist really.

As I learned more about swords, I discovered very quickly that a heavy sword with a close balance might feel somewhat like a light sword with a far balance. Makes sense of course. We all played on teeter-totters with kids of different weights than we were, and learned that by adjusting where the teeter-totter balanced, we could have fun time see-sawing with someone who weighed more, or less than we did.

I kept reading the balance points of various swords, and the first thing I noticed was that the width of the guard could vary a lot depending on the sword. So I wanted some point on the sword that could be objectively determined, and that would not "shift" by one simply changing the guard on the blade.

I also had to take into account that some people wrapped their forefinger around the front of the guard, some didn't, and some even held the hilt back from the guard itself.

So that further reinforced the notion that I had to select a location on the sword that was constant and objectively identifiable. This seemed to be the place at which the handle meets the back of the guard, and the user could use whatever grip they wanted, because, presumably, if using the same grip on different swords, the user's individual grip would then "cancel out" as it were.

But, I continue to study the model, looking for ways to improve it, though not as aggressively as I did earlier.

Don

 

[Kmark]

Got any suggestions? Cold Steel's selection and reputation look like a great place to start.

The handles on the Cold Steel khuks will eat your hand alive - Kraton is kind of bad for a cutting/chopping blade. Besides, CS khuks have absolutely no soul whatsoever...too sterile looking.

If you want a good khuk, go to the Himalayan Imports website and look through the stuff they have there. I recommend a khuk by a kami (smith) named 'Bura'. He's the Royal Kami of Nepal, and it really shows through his knowledge of weight distribution, and his fit/finish on all his work.

 

[ddean]

Originally posted by Don Nelson .......Actually, a couple weeks back I decided to add a khukri or two to my armory..... Cold Steel's selection and reputation look like a great place to start.

Ouch.
Ooooooooo.

Here's a copy of a post

from FOG RE Cold Steel kukris.

[FOG, if for any reason you don't want this here, let me know & I'll delete. ]

"Let me introduce myself. I am a U.S. Marine. I earned that title over 23 years ago.

I have had (and still have two) Cold Steel products. I would highly recommend against the rubber handles. They do not wear well under the best of circumstances and if you get any POL products around them they melt/dissolve. I still have a Recon Scout and a CS khukri. The CS khukri is in name and shape only but not in fact a Khukri. The edge geometry is all wrong (just as bad but different direction from a CRK), the handle is rubber/kraton. The flat grind then hollow ground edge work ok on vines, natural rope, and cross grain it is distinctly inferior to the HI in all other respects. The kraton handles also are harder on the hands than either the horn or wood handles of the HI Khukris.

The HI Khukris are thicker and almost convex. They split wood and spit out chunks much better. Which one would thrust better would depend on the models being compared.

From a military standpoint I prefer the synthetic CS sheaths due to mounting options and the resulting increased access options. I know there are those in the Cantina (HI forum) that would be aghast at a couple of the melted plastic sheaths I’ve come up with but they work with my gear.

I have not had a reason to test the warranty on any HI product though about 80 have gone through my possession onto Afghanistan, the P.I., Iraq and other non-friendly places. I have had fewer CS (12-15 total) and had cause to seek warranty work on 4, none of which were done to my satisfaction as CS basically said military use was abuse and voided the warranty.

On the weapon side of things they are all tools. It is the man who is the weapon. Having said that I have a little martial arts background, have done a bit of Philippino stick fighting (Escrima/Arnis/etc.) and was able to work with some Ghurkas in Brunei last May/June for a couple of weeks. From what little I have learned from the Philippinos and what I observed from the Ghurkas showed some striking similarities in philosophy. The similarity is that both seem to address a few simple strikes and counters from various zones or areas vice 6,000 ways to deal with a single attack or opening.

As for me I carry a HI Gelbu Special on my deuce gear. If I wanted a more social Khukri I would go with a UBE or a Movie model would be best if the angle of the bend was straightened to match either the GS or UBE.

S/F, Mike"

Besides, Cold Steel doesn't have:
http://www.himalayan-imports.com/khuk1.html

or

30" 25" 20" Kumar Kobras
http://www.himalayan-imports.com/khuk2.html

Swords http://www.himalayan-imports.com/sword.html
Special Orders http://www.himalayan-imports.com/one-time-knives.html
New models http://www.himalayan-imports.com/new.html

So many blades.
So little time.

Standard stock models in the store.
http://www.andale.com/stores/sf_home.jsp?sid=95360&mode=1&pageindex=-1#click here

Best Buy blems, sales, & surprises here in the forum.

 

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by ddean
What if one 'replaced' the handle with say a standard covering over it.
Maybe a cylindrical layer of (leather, cardboard, dense foam, plastic, ????)
always brought to the same diameter, or close to.
Then each swords grip would not be an issue in comparing ratings.

That's an idea to pursue. Any time we can factor out or isolate certain variables you can get a better appreciation of how the various variables interact with the whole.

Don

 

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by Kmark
The handles on the Cold Steel khuks will eat your hand alive - Kraton is kind of bad for a cutting/chopping blade. Besides, CS khuks have absolutely no soul whatsoever...too sterile looking.

If you want a good khuk, go to the Himalayan Imports website and look through the stuff they have there. I recommend a khuk by a kami (smith) named 'Bura'. He's the Royal Kami of Nepal, and it really shows through his knowledge of weight distribution, and his fit/finish on all his work.

I tend to agree about the soulessness of the Cold Steel khukris. Had the same sense of it myself. And thanks for the warning about the hands. I'm a long time shooter (40 years), and been an almost rabid sword enthusiast since I got back into it almost two years ago.

One design feature that MUST be on every good weapon, is that it must not hurt the wielder.

Thanks also for the link. My 13 year old daughter is really into Khuks, in fact, she got me into them (smile). I appreciate someone giving us a better place to start.

Don