edge angle (khukri vs katana)

[bSquirrel]

Why is it that the two most popular sword designs (from what I can tell) are bent in opposite directions? the khukri is bent forward, and the katana backwards. WHat does the different angle of the cutting edge accomplish that a straight blade doesn't? what does one do that the other does not?

 

[Marok]

I know that swords curved in the manner of a katana or saber are meant to reduce the point of impact, thus increasing the pressure of the cut on the target. I'm not sure about the khukri, though.

 

[AfterTFD]

I wouldn't say that those are the two most popular sword designs, but they are both quite appealing. I don't consider most khuks swords, but some of them definitely have earned that title. If I see that blade shape on a long piece I tend to think "falcata" whether it actually is one or not. One thing worth considering is that the blade shape is not the only difference. For example, it's possible to make a much longer katana than khuk with the same amount of steel. In iron-poor Japan this meant that the katana was a much more practical design from a cost standpoint. A khuk is also more forwards-heavy.

Why is it that the two most popular sword designs (from what I can tell) are bent in opposite directions?

Because they're made for different uses. Not only are their fighting styles very different but the khuk is suitable for a far greater range of tasks.

What does the different angle of the cutting edge accomplish that a straight blade doesn't? what does one do that the other does not?

You might enjoy reading through this article.

The simple way to describe the difference is that a katana is better for saber-like draw cuts and stabbing. A khuk is better for chopping and violent shearing. It allows for a more natural forceful cut. Khuks are able to effectively bite into a greater variety of materials.

 

[Head_Hunter]

I wouldn't say that those are the two most popular sword designs, but they are both quite appealing. I don't consider most khuks swords, but some of them definitely have earned that title. If I see that blade shape on a long piece I tend to think "falcata" whether it actually is one or not. One thing worth considering is that the blade shape is not the only difference. For example, it's possible to make a much longer katana than khuk with the same amount of steel. In iron-poor Japan this meant that the katana was a much more practical design from a cost standpoint. A khuk is also more forwards-heavy.


Because they're made for different uses. Not only are their fighting styles very different but the khuk is suitable for a far greater range of tasks.


You might enjoy reading through this article.

The simple way to describe the difference is that a katana is better for saber-like draw cuts and stabbing. A khuk is better for chopping and violent shearing. It allows for a more natural forceful cut. Khuks are able to effectively bite into a greater variety of materials.

I agree with this statement.

The katana is more suited for a slicing action, hence the deep curve, while the kukri is more of a shearing action due to the way the edge is more pronounced when used in dragging motion while cutting. I literally bites into the object you are chopping, instead of slicing. If you like the type of reverse curve blade style of the kukri, and want it in a narrower and longer sword, you might be interested in the Filipino ginunting, which is now the sword the Filipino marines carry into battle while conducting jungle warfare.

Funny when you think about it, the only two swords carried into battle today (ginunting and kukri)both have a large “reverse” curve that is well defined on them, and differ greatly from the Japanese and European blades that were so popular and so common on battlefields around 100 years ago.

 

[averageguy]

It is my understanding (thanks to the History channel) that the curved blade of the katana transmits less impact to the hand of the user vs. a straight blade.

For the khukri I suspect that having the point of impact ahead of the line of the arm makes for a more effective chop - like an axe.

 

[Watchful]

It is my understanding (thanks to the History channel) that the curved blade of the katana transmits less impact to the hand of the user vs. a straight blade.

I don't see how, but in fairness, I'd need to think about it. I may be missing something, but it seems that impact is impact in this case, since we're dealing with a very small total surface area either way.

One of the (only) benefits to a curved blade is that it has plenty of belly with minimal cross-section, and that can aid in cuts and thrusts to do more damage.

I thought Head_Hunter and AfterTFD covered this pretty well in their posts.

 

[senoBDEC]

It is my understanding (thanks to the History channel) that the curved blade of the katana transmits less impact to the hand of the user vs. a straight blade.

For the khukri I suspect that having the point of impact ahead of the line of the arm makes for a more effective chop - like an axe.

Probably not to the first, usually it has to do with harmonics and how the blade and handle are constructed.

The second is almost certainly (generally) true. The larger amount of mass AHEAD and above the arm allows one-handed use much like an axe, with similar advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Wolf_1989]

Because of the distribution of weight with a khukri, it can deliver a vicious cleaving blow which will either kill or maim with one strike.

The drawback of course is the same property makes recovery from a missed strike a bit slow.

 

[KILLAFORNIA]

The upswept blade of the katana was also easier to use as a slasher by the early horseriding samarai, but I've also heard someone theorize that the curve came unexpectedly from the quenching in the forging process, either way just my 2 cents ...AfterTFD summed it up and then some pretty thoroughly I might add:thumbup: