The Ultimate Khukuri. How Do You Measure That?

Craig,
There is a good deal of expressed interest in the Reiger. I am more than interested... What are the possiblities of another run? Oooh, say 4 or 5 models? If possible I would yell out for an unadorned aluminium handle. Or rosewood. Or horn. Well, anything really, except brass.

Dan,
Can I call you Dan? Or do you prefer your honorific, Lt? We seem to be in the same kind of business, except I do minds rather than bodies (well I get to fix up bodies too, but it's a sideline). I'm more of a old-fashioned nurse rather than a technician. You may have guessed this from some of my posts I guess.
David
 
Blackdog, nice tip with the "bandaged" handle, thanks, I'll have to try it next spring when the yard work calls.

I have one of the original Cheetlangs with a horn handle & I'll agree with Mike, it "feels" like a weapon, not a tool - not that it couldn't be both but .....

I have an HI 15" AK blem that I've been using quite awhile for yard word, etc. I've bent the tip, folded a small section of the blade (it's me, the klutz, not the knife
smile.gif
) and this knife "feels" like a tool - a good one.

I gave my 12 year old nephew a SN #1 blem I got from Craig - it's the one he chose, out of a choice of 3 khukuris - and he's been driving my sister crazy "helping out" with the yard work this summer, so I guess it "feels" right for him.

I'll agree with the folks who go with the idea that a certain knife will "feel" right for a certain job for them.

 
Sounds like lots of forumites have found that handle styles can make a world of difference in how a khukuri moves. Even the same blade doesn't feel the same with another handle.

Khukuri blades, being very 3-D are each different. This really surprised me when I started looking at numerous individual knives of the same exact model. The thickness of steel in the same spots varies incredibly from knife to knife. If we took the time to map this out in numerous points, it would look a lot like fingerprints. The spines and tips are the most obvious, and I haven't found two exactly alike. This has GOT to account for handling characteristics at least as much as the handle, and I wonder if a whole lot more.

Since steel is man-made, the formula and workmanship can be tightly controlled. And if the metallurgy the same, it can come from Sweden, USA or anywhere and still be the same.

Here's where I'm going (and I don't intend to step on any toes): The technology is available to build khukuris to precise spec's...identical materials, consistent hardening, and exact distribution of weight and mass throughout. Now, if all variables have been eliminated, won't they all have the same feel? This won't mean that everybody will like them, or that they will fit all. Individuals need khukuris that are just as unique. (And I wouldn't have very many!)

The Kamis have great quality control for their situation, but all of these factors are variable to some extent, and that's a good thing. Individual requirements can be met when there are infinite handling characteristics available. I'm trying to learn how to identify khukuri traits will work best for me.

Different viewpoints are welcome.

David: Call me what you like, but just don't make it hard for me to live up to. "Lt. Dan" was picked up at work, and a reference to the movie, "Forest Gump". I'm not offended at being called a technician...used to think the CCU and Neonatal ICU were for technicians, until I worked there. The same w/OR. It's such a different world, and the pathophys really came to life when I got into it. No other specialty can prepare one for the OR, except maybe psyche, then you will know who truly owns the problem.

Lt. Dan, or just plain old Dan; take your pick.



[This message has been edited by Lt. Dan (edited 10-07-2000).]
 
Okay. It's Dan then. I'm probably never likely to meet you, but I kinda liked you from the minute I read the first post I saw of yours... It aint rational, but I trust my insticts.
I see you are a gentleman. I recognise that and respect it. I'd like to think of myself that way too, even if I have to cut loose now and then (and how!).
Have I ever mentioned that I am a keen khurkuri fan, and even own a few?
I guess I should have done.
Yours
smile.gif

David
 
BlackDog'
The Reiger is 18 3/4" OAL, and 2lb2oz weight. It is good to think that there may be interest in getting more made. I would like a second one to use as a serious user and keep this one for it's collectable nature. It does need a more user friendly type sheath though.
Does anyone remember the Blackjack/Reighnhart Khukris made some years ago? A fairly good job for a factory dupe. The thing that made it nice for me was the sheath. I wish I could scan mine to show what I mean. It was designed for rapid draw. The top half of the back of the sheath was open, with a double snap flap holding the blade in place. This let them make the sheath about the same exact shape as the blade, and only a half inch larger OD. nice concept. This Khukri also had a handle that was shaped in a similar design to that used in the Reiger. It was of a rubberish material though Anyway I think I got off topic although it is all loosely relatedl. Good talking to all of you people. It is great to hear from so many that know so much about my love. Knives of all types and shapes. The Khukri has a special spot though! Later Al.
 
I see this thread has taken on a life of its own and is becoming one of those situations that comprise the heart and soul of a good forum. Thoughtful questions are being asked, experience & knowledge are being shared and friendships are being formed out of mutual respect. I can't tell you how happy I am to see all of you here.

I don't know where we'll eventually find ourselves with this topic, but I sure am enjoying the journey.



------------------
Blackdog
ffca0608.gif.orig.gif
 
Sorry, double posting. Just a little too quick on the trigger.....
smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Blackdog (edited 10-08-2000).]
 
So, what makes a specific khukuri best for a given task? Trees seem to like more of a heftier blade. Weeds are cut better with a lighter blade and more speed; a slower swing pushes them aside more and cuts less.

The length, shape, weight/mass distribution, and handle shape provide lots of influencing variables that can be difficult to isolate and quantify. Blackdog had some evidence of this when he found the same blade to respond differently after putting on a new handle of another shape. I've seen that khukuris of the same weight, length, model, and made by the same kami will swing differently if the blade thickness varies in the same places.

These things seem to make one style cut and feel better than the other on various materials. Sirupatis are more popular in the jungle, AK's with hardwoods, SN1's for Gurkhas.

The individual user also has plenty to do with why the same khukuri works well for one and not for the other when cutting the same things.

I'm wondering if all these differences, when carefully quantified, can account for why any given khukuri works, or doesn't (!), for any person or task. Application of this understanding would speak to the uniqueness and variation of seemingly the same knives from Nepal. So much of what I've read on this thread and the archives about this seems to confirm all personal experience.

It's been said that without knowledge and understanding, superstition persists. All of this has me wondering how much "spirit" is really in a piece of steel. Can physics explain this? When I pick up any two khukuris that appear to be identical when carefully scrutinized, they seem to swing just alike. Also, each khukuri I've bought from my favorite dealer behaved exactly the same after I got it home. We just don't allow "spirits" in this house; it's not optional, as I've never met a demon that I liked. And attitude plays in here. People attatch feelings to things, and we really do look at them differently because of our emotional attatchments and experiences with "them". Add the ingredient of the best-suited tool for the job, and we have a lot goin' on here.

Well, is steel just a neutral entity? I'm convinced that guns don't have a way of making people misuse them. Why would a khukuri be any different? My firearms are well-designed and suited to their specific purposes, and it's not been my experience to ever incite me to use them. If so, it would be gray matter dysfunction. Is the current attempt to demonize weapons a means to convince the public to disarm the good guys?

Can the "feel" of a khukuri be explained by physical characteristics, suitability to task, and psychological factors?

Forumites, hope you will accept this post in the "spirit" it was intended. I don't know it all, and don't mean to offend anyone. But I would ask you to test what I say and offer criticism.

Respectfully....Lt Dan

David: You may think I'm someone I'm not. If you've ever seen the American TV show, "Andy of Mayberry", I grew up being much like Barney Fife, but with a foul attitude. I hope to someday be more like Andy. I have left, but haven't arrived.

 
Dan and all,
We have all got cars or bikes that are mere mechines that have individual personalities. Also, to some extent, as people we are all basically the same model, from the same original pattern. I guess you are right though, there is a tendency to over-dramatise our khurkuri's... Giving them personalities and even names. They are highly romantic 'things'.
My logic tells me that nothing as basic as a mere knife can be embued with a character or personality. I agree with your observation that the slight differences in manufacture produces handling variations.
When I was a young soldier I was issued and trained with a rifle, the British Army SLR, a 7.62mm variation of the Belgian FN. I kept it for around six years. It became an extension of my 'self' in many ways. I became a good shot with the rifle, won a few competitions. It got run over during an exercise in Germany by some idiot in a self-propelled gun, who strayed into our sleeping area and was ruined. Fortunately this mental dwarf didn't kill anyone.
I got a new rifle, made mostly of plastic instead of cherry wood. I never quite shot the same.
I don't know if this goes any way to support your statement. I am certain that my old rifle was a tool only, and the new one never quite fitted.
Having said that, I have three khuk's in front of me. All have subtle differences. I know which to call on for what task... I think they speak to me, and tell me how to adapt them for their best use. One of them frightens the pants off me. I don't have a logical explaination for this.
No, never saw that show, so I can't comment. Personally, I'm a kind of 'Withnail' guy, if you ever saw that movie, but somewhat tamed and contained by a successful marriage. (Thanks Peta!)
Best of wishes,
David
 
David...interesting experiences in your post that we can relate to. I've also had quite a few words of my own for these machines you mentioned. Many of thim I "like" more than others, and some of them flat out give me the "willies". We attatch emotions to things which range from positive to the negative. Fear is one of them. Don't some things scare us or look dangerous? I've gotten a little shakey when thinking about the kind of wounds that could be inflicted by sharp objects. A certain khukuri might be very suitable for combat, and it's easy to conjure up mental images of actual use while handling it. Maybe this kind of stuff feeds into why a knife may look "sinister".

As for why tools and mechnisms function a little differently, the answers can sometimes be found under magnification. My previous OR job kept me in the dark for eight years with eye surgery in the local university medical center. While I minored in some other surgical specialties, I majored in ophthalmology. The microscope opened up a whole new world and made sense of things that just can't be seen or understood without it. It amazed me to actually watch clumps of red blood cells moving through vessels in the retina, seeing what LASER does to cells, effects of cryotherapy, gasses, air, and how the anatomical structures function and respond to surgical techniques. Despite this, any neuro-ophthalmologist will make it known that we see with our brains and not our eyes. Yes, we have to do both: correctly sense what is truly there, and then interpret the message. There is lots of room for error along the way. There is so much we don't see and the squash can add, subtract, or change the rest.

Your shooting example applies here. Let's go to high magnification and look at the bore. The rifling is unique in each barrel, even if made with the exact same material and equipment and operated by the same person. The powder charge for optimal accuracy will most likely vary also, even when barrels are switched and fired in the same gun. The true reason would be unknown without closer examination.

Even when we might know the scientific explanation for why the same tool "feels" different, don't we develop feelings of some sort about it? For some reasons, things like khukuris become personal in our minds. When someone feels the "spirit" in a blade, it can mean more than one thing. Maybe it's due to physics, but it could be the user's own emotional response to that? Feelings can be strong within us, but is there more to life and steel than what we think?

BTW, I'm finding the postings to provoke lots of thought, and I catch myself reading them more than once.

Lt. Dan




[This message has been edited by Lt. Dan (edited 10-11-2000).]
 
Warning! Long ramble ahead!

There’ve been lots of interesting comments here, and this thread is giving me much to ponder. So far I’ve seen comments on the physical aspect (handle length, shape, and mass distribution, subtle differences in rifling, etc.) discussed as possible causes of different handling characteristics, and as I see it there may also be psychological and spiritual explanations.

The physical differences in any hand-forged tool/weapon will of course be much more evident than those in like machined objects, but at what point can a person point to a minor difference in rifling and say, “This is the cause”? (Of course I realize rifling DOES affect performance, but how much variation in a machined bore will it take to cause a miss? Wouldn’t this be detected and the offending barrel relegated to the scrap heap?).

The psychological viewpoint might argue that aside from differences in mood (I’m angry/depressed today/always”), minor differences in the physical makeup of the object might put a person in a ‘performing’ frame of mind (balance/wood stock feels right?) or subconsciously unsettle them to the point of poor performance. Do natural materials subconsciously put us more at ease? If natural materials “feel” right, are we in a frame of mind to perform better? If we are afraid of wounds, will that fear be carried over into a fear of the tool itself, also impairing future performance?

The question of ‘spirit’ is, of course, purely a subjective one, which can only be answered by the individual. The first question would seem to be: “Do I believe in the concept of spirit?” This doesn’t need to have anything to do with any church or religion, but would require a certain degree of faith since there’s no way to objectively verify it. Go with whatever your gut instinct says. If the answer to this is “no,” then the explanation of performance must be found in some combination of the first two possibilities (physical/psychological).

If the answer is “yes,” then you are confronted with other questions: “Can steel have spirit? Can wood have spirit? Can plastic?” I’ve heard stories of Japanese swords said to have spirits in them – some even considered to be evil or ‘bad luck’ blades. The Javanese keris is also frequently associated with spirits (good and bad), as were some of the swords used by the Norse during the Viking period. All of these blades were hand forged, sometimes with the spirit deliberately put in, sometimes acquired through use by, or association with a particular owner. History seems to indicate people believe materials such as steel and wood can at least acquire spirit. Perhaps in the practice of hand forging a blade it is imbued with some of the spirit of the maker? Can these materials acquire spirit more readily than plastic?

Personally I’d guess the answer seems to combine aspects of all of these – the physical considerations seem obvious, and the psychological ones make sense. The spiritual stuff can give me the willies sometimes, because of personal experiences.

Finally if you’ve actually read this far, thanks for your patience. Comments?

 
I've been thinking about "spirit" since it came up in this thread. If I were to use one word that places it all is a definable form to me it would be "Magic".

Do you remember being a child and seeing a magic trick? Remember the feelings of awe and wonder, remember the excitement? It was MAGIC, and that's all we needed to know. There were great things going on in the universe that we didn't understand, but we didn't care, it was Magic. We didn't question magic. Magic was... well, magic just was.

With enough time and information we could probably provide a scientific explanation for the "spirit" of our blades, or for falling in love, or for why our favorite flavor of ice cream tastes better than anything else on earth. I think that somewhere deep in our minds we all have one little spot reserved for magic. Perhaps there are some things that we really don't want to have an explanation for. Things that make our imagination soar and give us a feeling of delight and wonder. Things that give us that "OH WOW" feeling we had as children. Things like love & ice-cream and the spirit of our favorite tools. We all need a little magic sometimes. It helps keep that little kid alive that we all used to be.

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing.

------------------
Blackdog
ffca0608.gif.orig.gif
 
This is turning into a very deep and fascinating thread... Highly thought provoking about our relationships with the physical world, 'self', the child, love and magic. There has to be a thesis in here for some future scholar! I don't have any meat or potatoes to add to the meal today, I'm busy thinking about the literature I have read in the past, that I could re-read and get some clues about all this... "Golden Bough" a study of magic and primitivism, early human experience and so on, must be top of the list. I'll be doing some reading for a couple of weeks or so, I think.
Just as a by the way, I watched a TV show about the development of culture... A long and interlinked series presented by some charismatic social scientist in the 70's. Can't remember the name of the show or the guy's name, but was entertained by it. In one show about the 'dark ages' this guy took a double-handed broadsword and took a cut at a recently slaughtered pig, cutting it in half. It was highly spectacular, the mess it made. Then he started talking about the difference in knowledge over the last thousand years in medicine. It was such a vast gulf in what we know now and what was before, as I am sure you can understand. How many of us would even consider taking to a primitive battlefield without the support of antibiotics, analgesia and anaesthetics? Not me, that is for sure!
I don't think there is a point to this post, and if there is, I've lost it. Goodnight all!
David
 
A heartfelt thanks to all the forumites here. While brevity and clarity aren't my strengths, y'all have been most gracious. I really appreciate all the posts, opinions and thoughts.

The shooting example will run off topic and get much too detailed if I'm not careful. The shooting reference is about benchrest quality guns, equipment, brass prep, handloading technique and components. With all the knowledge, consistency, and fine tolerences made possible with current technology, there just aren't many gunsmithing mysteries left out there anymore. Almost all the variables can be isolated, proven and solved. This technology (e.g., CNC) could be used to make khukuris any way we like--every time.

Let's say it could be done, what then? Instead of talking about the feel of the thing, it might be about compound radii, weight and mass distribution. That would certainly change EVERYTHING about the way we feel about the khukuri. There would be all kinds of technological breakthroughs in materials and who knows what else. They might even be made better. Better? Yes, but better for who? It would all become an intellectual thing, and certainly not better for the fewer kamis (who might be making khukuris only for those who couldn't afford to pay the big bucks for the new-fangled ones).

I'm not sure how far to go when it comes to proving ancient ideas to be superstition. Is a belief about a spirit or anything else true because it's old? (Take medicine and science as examples.) A gifted master knife maker once told me his feelings on the knife spirit issue in no uncertain terms.

The more I consider the viewpoints into the how of measuring the ultimate khukuri, the more I question the value of explaining absolutely everything. I am doubting that all the detail will make them more enjoyable. There might be some valuable innocence lost here. I'm becoming convinced that too many details can take away from the simplcity and bliss of delighting in that unique khukuri.

Knowledge and understanding are good, but we pretty much like khukuris as they are, don't we? Is this an example of being better off not knowing some things? What an awful notion: unbridled technology without wisdom. There is more out there....Who's got it???

Lt. Dan

(The worst thing that could happen is that I be allowed to go my own way.)



[This message has been edited by Lt. Dan (edited 10-12-2000).]
 
Lt Dan has some good points there. I have noted that much 'ancient' knowledge, design and life-style is being re-evaluated at the moment, in many fields. It is becoming apparent that so-called primitive cultures were far more highly developed and 'civilised' than we can imagine. I'm thinking about neolithic man (and later) in western europe here.
I have studied agricultural communities and their work practices with an emphasis on timber use in europe, and have compared them to modern systems. The old, dead, guys win hands down!
Perhaps our love of kurkhuri's is an inherited memory we have of better times. Maybe it's a rebellion against uniformity. All I know is that it feels good to have my babies near me...
David
 
Hey Dan,
It wasn't much of a rifle! I think it was built in 1958 or 1959. I had to turn the gas down to maximum recoil to get the ole thing to reload at all, and even then it didn't alway do what it should have. Mostly used Swedish ball ammunition, which we believed was undercharged and 'humane'. I think it was fairly worn out. I wouldn't have been parted from it though, and was sad when I had to. (Dumb guy in massive machine crushed it into the ground, totally beyond repair - could have done the same to me and my comrades, but didn't, by some miracle. He was lost, and his commander couldn't read a map...) The modern rifle was the height of perfection, supposedly.
What has this to do with kurkhuri's?
See above.
Cheers, shipmates!
David
 
David, I also love old design and technology. We can all give examples of how ancient civilizations were able to build amazing things with methods that are still a mystery. As you were saying, some of those cultures appear to have been pretty sophisticated. Many of our present construction methods are influenced by labor and cost considerations. Of course, there was also poorly made old stuff, but it's usually the good that lasts and the lousy that doesn't stand the test of time.

That said, I wonder if people in general are really any smarter now. Sure, we have accumulated more factual knowledge, but I question if we truly have any more wisdom or intelligence.

On the other hand, there is a mindset now that implies old mystical ideas are true, simply because they were widely believed and they are old. Also, that old cultures untouched by our technology and social problems were more pure and uncorrupted. A deeper look into into many ancient civiliaztions will reveal lots of very ugly and terrible practices that co-existed with the more positive attributes. People have lived in cities farther back than all recorded history. Point being that a shallow understanding of ancient or primitive societies can give rise to a warm-and-fuzzy, but inaccurate worldview.

The khukuri may not be ancient, but certainly was designed long before our age of technology. There are things about it that seem elegant and timeless. We all know they are so much better than most current modern efforts. Understanding of its design features will help us choose the ones that suit us best.

Later....Dan

Addendum: Check out the handle on pic of the new Afghan that Craig just posted. Notice the way the handle tip on the spine side drops down. This design really works well for me, and I'm not the only one, as by his comment.

[This message has been edited by Lt. Dan (edited 10-17-2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top