Why tanto?

I'm reminded of two more wacko theories for Walt. ;-)

One: Perhaps if there were blunt or obtuse tipped katanas, but not tantos it bespeaks they're different roles. I can't really find much that would suggest that stabbing was considered as important a duty for the katana as was the sport of body severing. Nor can I find much that would seem to indicate that the orig. tanto was not optimized for stabbing. They may have just had radically different perceived roles.

Two: I've heard for years that the "Americanized" tanto shape was really the result of regrinding a broken sword. I've also heard folks far more knowledgeable than I will ever be claim that as BS, but what if that particular shape was the best that could be done to a previously more delicate shape that had to be reground in such a way as to not expose the softer core?

Those are just some off the top of my head thoughts. Likely they are quite wrong, but I just thought I'd toss them into the mix and see what came back. ;-)

mps
 
I'm back, been having internet access problems.

Wow, this thread got long. Here is more of my 2 cents(seems to be all it's worth).

The americanized modified tanto design such as the specwar and many of the new tanto's comming out actually has a point closer to the center axis of the knife which many of you claim is the big advantage of the dagger style or spearpoint style. Why does it all of a sudden loose all it's power when turned into a modified tanto. Let's talk folders for a second. Joe, you mentioned the AFCK. Well, I have both, the AFCK and the CQC7. Although I like the general ergonomics of the AFCK better, my CQC7 will outpenetrate it by far with a tip that is more inline like a dagger than the AFCK. The AFCK is a good slasher but not penetrator compared to the CQC7. I will agree that in larger knives the reinforced tip will provide more drag, but the tradeoff to strength is worth it in my opinion. No there are some saber grind designs out there that have the best of both worlds, but they are few and far in between. I guess maybe that's the reason I can penetrate better with a tanto, the extra strength gives me the security of not being worried about snapping or bending a blade and hurting myself in full power strikes. Anyway, Joe, don't worry about telling me how wrong I am, it doesn't bother me, since I welcome anybody who can bring up points that may change my mind about the way I think. I have yet ot hear them though. The modified tanto's are closer to a spear point than a traditional tanto and should behave accordingly.

Duel time, my CQC7 against your AFCK into GTE phone book.
 
Gee, I did not know what I was starting. I have learned much from this and am still learning. I hope others are enjoying this as much as I am.

Walt, I actually know both songs, as well as the Micky Mouse Club theme and the theme for "Colt .45". I waas a bit old for Micky Mouse, but I do remember Annette Funicello! So much for boomer (or pre-boomer, I was born in 1942) credentials.
 
Cobalt:

Okay, another good example. As Anthony and I have been discussing above, the chisel-ground tanto has different strengths from the Americanized reinforced tanto. Since you were talking about tanto tip strength, I assumed you were talking about the reinforced tanto (although looking back you mentioned the Specwar early and I should've picked up on it!). Yes, chisel-ground knives cut easily due to their mind-numbingly-thin edges -- though for deep penetration they can have real problems. And again, chisel-ground knives don't have the greatest point strength -- I've heard of more CQC7 points broken than AFCKs! The CQC7 penetrates as it does due to the chisel-grind, not the tanto shape; a chisel-ground AFCK would match it no problem, and it still has a belly for other uses. But now, to make the tanto penetrate acceptably, you've sacrificed some tip strength and the ability to cut straight. A perfectly reasonable tradeoff for those who are so inclined.

Other than that, I agree about the modified tantos. Bringing the tip lower solves the controllability and energy transfer problems of the high-point tanto, of course.

I think great penetration *and* strong points, is really an either/or proposition. The classic Americanized tanto doesn't outpenetrate most formats, period, but is strong. The chisel-grind tanto is like any chisel-grind vulnerable to damage at the very edge, and doesn't cut straight, but (especially for shallow penetration) penetrates well due to the grind. It still doesn't outpenetrate everything -- a thin-edged distal tapered blade should beat it just fine through thick objects, and any other chisel-ground format should be able to match it.

You have piqued my interest though. My custom CQC6 can't touch my AFCK for point penetration into a phone book. Of course, the CQC6 might have a thicker point than the BM-970. Has anyone else tried this, just out of curiosity?

Joe
jat@cup.hp.com

[This message has been edited by Joe Talmadge (edited 22 February 1999).]
 
Walter --

Japanese blades aren't my thing, so I really don't know the answer to your question. I have roughly the same guesses as MPS, especially about the katana being mostly a slashing weapon. But I did run home and check out Bob Engnath's old catalog, and noticed just as you said, the katanas had points somewhat reminiscent of the Americanized tanto (but still with a bit more belly). The smaller knives had bellies.

There's gotta be a Japanese cutlery expert around here somewhere!

Joe
jat@cup.hp.com
 
Joe-san; allow me to show you to the link site for Nihonto:

http://www.gemlink.com/~rstein/sites.htm

And, if one clicks on the site of Ari- Matti Saren, one will find the following:
************

A typical Kamakura sword was wider than before, with little difference in width between the top and bottom of the blade. Kissaki (the point) was often of the type ikubi ('bull's neck').

Late in the Kamakura period came the two mongol invasions (1274 and 1281) by Kublai Khan. The encounter with the new weapons and tactics of the mongols demonstrated some weaknesses in tachi. For example the point was easily broken and could not be repaired. These experiences affected the design of later swords
****************

Full score, maximum points, mps.

One thing I still don't understand, is that the original straight swords, originally imported from China, had tanto points for a few hundred years. Then came the transitional swords, of which Ko Garasu Maru (ca. AD 800) is the best example, and these had kissaki (tips) of varying shape, not tanto shape. Indeed 'the little crow' is sharpened on the top (mune) for about one third of the way!

Then, a few hundred years later we are back with the tanto (and its' variations) kissaki on taichis and katanas. Why?? Your comments and wisdom are welcome. Walt
 
I remember seeing a knife in one of the magazines that was a modified tanto designed by Fred Perrin. That tanto appeared to be so sleek that it would seem to be able to penetrate quite well. As far as chisel grind, I definitelly do not prefer it, but if I have a thick enough blade, I don't see it as a hindrance. I'm glad you mentioned what you did about that CS knife, since I was planning on getting one, but being that thin for so long is worthless to me in a camp type knife were strength is one of the factors. Do you really think you would break a CQC7 blade before an AFCK's blade. I don't think so myself. you might have a better chance at chipping the thinner edge, but the blades are equally thich and the CQC7 has more material to the end. But lets compare equal grinds. Do you think the AFCK will outpenetrate a Stryker model.
 
Ive read these variuous arguements and mulled all this over in my mind. I have been swayed towards both sides of the arguement. Then I realized that this issue probably doesnt matter nearly as much as we make it out to. I have used various types of point types. I have dressed dear and other animals with so many different kinds of knives I cant even remember them all. Ive used a Buck Vanguard, a Case blackhorn, and others. I even used my CQC7 to dress out a whitetail once. The bottom line is that in each of these cases, I was concentrating on the job at hand and didn't really notice the performance of the knives. That's a good thing-- they are all obviously good designs and their performance cant be too much different or I would have noticed if one of them was lagging seriously behind. I hate to admit that many times I base my knife purchases simply on what looks cool. I think us knife folks just like to kid ourselves into thinking these kinds of issues are really important enough to warrant a heated discussion( you know, kind of like when you rationalize to your wife why you really do NEED that 83rd knife you want to buy!).
 
Interesting discusion!

For more info on the traditional vs. the American read:

http://swordforum.com/swords/nihonto/americanized.html

------------------
Jan Dirk Wijbenga

Knife philosopher
 
mmWhaaahaahahaha ;-) This is funny.

You know that point shape made by two intersecting straight bevels that makes the shape I've been calling the "American" tanto because I figured that it wasn't of Japanese origins?

Well, I'm looking at a picture of a long straight sword from the Han dynasty in China. It's got a ring pommel and a long straight blade and a very angular point resulting in the secondary point that modern admirers of the CS style tanto point would quickly recognize.

Why do I think that's funny? Well, the Western Han dynasty that this example comes from existed roughly from 207BC- to 9AD. It marked the transition from bronze to steel. The text goes into a bit of detail about why the transition was from bronze to steel and not bronze to iron as I would've assumed. (Cast iron was not a suitable sword material and was used for bronze molds and ag implements.)

The point style that we're calling "American tanto" was called 'jian' and was similar to the points on the bronze swords of Qin, which was a preceding dynasty and the source of the terracotta army that you may have read about. Actually, I guess it's not clear if 'jian' referred to the whole sword or just the point style common on what must've been the epitomy of the long slender bronze sword.

Ok, so if you still haven't figured out why I think that all this is not only relevent, but down right hysterical, then try this hypothesis on for size.

The "jian" or "American tanto" point seems to have been the zenith of attempting a narrow strong point in bronze and early steel. But as soon as steel making got better and technology improved, (a period of several hundred years), the point evolved into the less abrupt, thinner and better point of the Japanese tantos, and warabiti-tachi on the East. Not to forget the West, apparently the early Turks invented the curved pointed calvary sword, long before the rest of the Asias got rid of the straight sword.

OK, so just suppose that a Calif. knife promoter wanted to make a modern day knife out of something like Aus6 or later Aus8, but he wanted to promote it as tougher than the thinner competitors knifes. You don't suppose he'd go back to the bronze age to compensate for choosing a cost effective material, do you?

Hahahahahahaha ;-0 ;-)

The last part of the above is purely an amusing exercise in hypothesis. The rest of what I mention can be found in a book called: "Swords and Hilt Weapons" that can be had from Barnes and Noble.

mps
 
That page that JD quoted was interesting. Basically a bunch of Japanese cutlery experts, saying the same things I've been saying about the Americanized tanto. [No comment on MPS's findings, they are kinda funny]

Cobalt: on the CQC7 vs. AFCK tip, my unscientific findings are mostly based on feedback from net folks and my own buds. On *both* knives, people tend to break off <1mm at the very tip where it's ultra thin. No one seems to be breaking off big pieces of either point. Hell, on the M-2 version, Thaddeus put the point through sheet metal, which is a good example of no-compromise: a penetrating point, an actual belly, *and* a strong point through good materials! This is my preferred solution to the "point strength" problem. Keep great penetration, keep the belly at all costs, get point strength you need through tough steel.

As far as the Stryker goes, I'll go back to my usual theory. It's the massive amount of metal up front on a reinforced tanto that makes the tip strong, and that makes it a bad penetrater. If you sweep the primary edge back hard, and you sweep the front grind bevels back so far it looks like a flat grind, then you'll have a tanto that penetrates as well as anything -- but has sacrificed point strength. In that case, since you've got great penetration but not great point strength, why not just round out the secondary point and at least have a belly, too? Anyway, the Stryker's primary edge is pulled back about as hard as the AFCK's belly. How well it penetrates vs. the AFCK would be dependent on how far back the front grind goes, and ergonomics. It'll be sacrificing point strength or penetration, and *still* doesn't have a belly. Which is why the format continues to be not a fave of mine.

Joe
jat@cup.hp.com
 
mps, and it's one big leaping hypothesis at that. But if you have to justify to yourself the merits of the weaker knives you prefer, that's fine. As for me, I'll stick to my sharpenned prybar theory, to which the tanto is far better suited and if the proverbial sh.t hits the fan, I'll have one full size knife and you'll have to little ones, one without a handle of course. hahaha.
 
Cobalt, et. al,

PEACE, man. I really, really don't care what you like or like to use. Buy what you like, like what you buy, and use whatever works for you. I have my own reasons for liking and buying what I do and they're largely not going to please everybody. I thought I'd share that bit that I dug up about ancient sword design not to justify anything, but rather just to share something that:
A. amused the heck out of me, and
B. just might contribute to somebody else contributing something that would make the rest of us go "Aha!"

Here's a free tidbit:
I have this ~9" red stone statue that some folks erroneously call "laughing Buddha". Folks may wonder why I have it, and ask if it's of religious or ritual significance. I respond, "Hell no, it's a figurine of a laughing jolly fat peasant with a sack of gold and the biggest, stupidest, most knowing grin on his face. I can't pass it without smiling." Well, often knife threads strike me the same way. Unfortunately, few will ever know how humorous I think spending hours each day on the technological marvel that allows this communication is when one considers that we're spending this time talking about man's oldest tool. I don't doubt that similar discussions occured 2000 years ago, but I doubt if they happened with this speed.

Does that not make you smile? ;-) ;-)

mps
 
I like the way you think, mps. It just made me laugh because even after several thousand years we still can't decide what is best. Maybe because there is no single best design, but different designs needed for different uses. take care.
 
mps; The Han Dynasty was mighty indeed; they traded with the Roman Empire. I was fortunate to see an exhibit of objects from this period a few years ago, including weaponry, but, alas, no swords.

You could have avoided some misinformation had you visited the site I mention above. Early swords WERE iron, not steel. Here is the information from the site in question:

**********

Oldest swords on record in Japan are the two that were sent as a present to queen Himeko from China during Wei-dynasty in 240 a.d. In 280 a.d. many more iron swords were imported from China to Japan.

It is believed that the art of forging a steel sword came soon after from China and Korea, but the details are unknown. We do know that in the 5th century steel swords were already made in Japan. These were of the straight, single-edged type called chokuto. The method of hardening the steel that is so typical of Japanese swords was first used in 6th century.
**************

Hope that this clears up your misunderstanding. Walt
 
Walt, I did indeed go to the site you mentioned:
http://www.gemlink.com/~rstein/sites.htm

In fact, I liked it so much that I bookmarked not only it, but several of the sites that I found as a result of branching out from there.

I did not click on the Ari-Matti Saren portion simply because there were too many other distracting things like "history" etc. and I forgot about the fact that your posted link required several steps. I chose to look at other steps. So forgive me if I didn't find the exact paragraph by the one expert you wanted me to see.

Here's another take on swords not just Japanese and is what I was referencing. It's from "Swords and Hilt Weapons" ISBN=1-56619-249-8:

pg 174, heading= "Iron and Steel" chapter= 13. China and Central Asia

"_Iron and Steel_
Long before iron was used to produce weapons in China, it was used in the form of cast iron to make agricultural implements and also moulds for bronze weapons. But, as Joseph Needham, author of _Science and Civilisation(sic) in China_, has astutely commented:'... the transition was not so much from bronze to iron, as from bronze to steel'. "

(I'll take credit for any typos except the one I've marked (sic). )

It goes on from there, but I wonder how much retyping fits into 'fair usage'. Basically, in or about 250BC a philosopher named Xun Qing commented on steel, (not iron) spear heads from Wan.

It goes on and on, but the gist is that Japan was not the only culture, and this is not the first or the only reference I've seen to a sort of simultaneous rejection of bronze for steel even though iron was certainly known well prior to this adoption of steel.

As to your q regarding the emergence and re-emergence of the reinforced "tanto" point, I've just asked that on the swordforum and we'll see what fetches back.

The one thing that I *do* want to appologize for is my initial misunderstanding of the word "jian". Apparently, it's a catchall much like "parang" in another culture. It's listed variously as a straight two edged thrusting sword, (with pictures that look much like Roman Gladii, and later as straight flat spined "tanto" pointed ring pommel swords of the Han.

mps
 
According to Zen and the Art of the Sword, an excellent book on Japanese philosophy (i.e., how to reconcile internal harmony with that 36" long curved razorblade you habitually pack), Japanese swords were almost exclusively used for cutting/slashing, not stabbing. One 'exercise' in a darkened room was to be able to draw from a sitting position and in one harmonious move, draw, slash four targets around the corners of the room, resheathe and presumably, then finish your tea... much more effective than trying to stab four points, I would guess. The hard outer steel on good katanas/tantos etc. wrapped around the tip (one of the several indications that can indicate a good sword), so maybe tip design isn't entirely superfluous. I had a chance to view some 15th century Japanese swords at a museum in Montrel a few years ago, I would guess no more than 20" long (magnificent detail!), and their curvature made me think they were used for slashing, not tip penetration.
 
Does posting in this thread jinx your computer??? I notice several people are having difficulties ... my computer blew up, but now I'm back with a brand new and much better computer.
smile.gif


I haven't done any real penetration testing with knives (though I have with pens). Now I have an urge to make up some test blades and spend some time stabbing things. Much of the apparent disagreement in this thread looks like people talking about different things, comparing apples to oranges. As someone pointed out earlier, a target arrow penetrates farther than a broadhead -- because it doesn't have to make as big a hole, obviously. Likewise a thin narrow blade will penetrate farther than a thick wide blade (if it doesn't break). The only way to compare blade profiles is to compare blades with the same thickness and width.

It seems to me that a strong point is essential before you can even talk about penetration. A thin weak point may penetrate meat (or Jello) with great ease, but so will any knife. I have a number of knives (especially folders) that I have no intention of testing because I'm sure a good strong thrust into soft pine would break them, and I see no point in discovering what kind of knife will penetrate meat with a tiny bit less effort than others....

So I'm only interested in testing penetration in resistant materials (YMMV). Off the top of my head it seems to me in the real world you're always trying to penetrate all the way through a relatively thin resistant target -- you never have a need to penetrate as far as possible into a block of steel or bone a foot thick, do you? You only have to punch through a car roof or a can or a skull. It's more convenient to test on thick pine boards than steel or bone, but it seems to me a blade that tapers its whole length, even if it penetrates farther into thick pine than a tanto, isn't performing better -- my question is, which knife would have penetrated to the hilt if the target were thinner?

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
Cougar --

I'll assume we're explicitly talking about reinforced tanto tips here, since we're emphasizing points strength again.

I understand your response as an effort to bring real-world examples into the discussion. However, I don't think this is quite real world enough. I'd like to see these points explicitly addressed:

- Okay, the tanto point makes it through the steel drum (or thin hard "punch-through" example of your choice, e.g., skull), but the clip point breaks. But if I get the same clip point in A-2 steel, now it makes it through the drum also. It can be argued we can get the tanto in A-2 also, and now we have a tanto tip that can make it through kryptonite. Well, who cares? Isn't some level of penetration at some point "good enough", to the point that other factors become more important, like having a belly, or being to work with the tip easily for other uses? In the real world, you won't be punching through skulls daily, right?

- For a defensive situation, emphasizing punch-through too much is questionable. *If* you outclass your opponent so much that you get a dead-on full power thrust to his skull (to use your example), then maybe I can see this emphasis on punch-through. In the real world, maybe that thrust will have only 75% power when it lands. For that reason, penetrating easily is a wonderful attribute of a defensive knife. If I have a knife with a good penetrating point, and he's wearing a protective vest or even a leather jacket, and as in any realistic scenario my thrust does not land at 100%, I may still make it through. Those who know more history than me can perhaps respond -- have fighting knives traditionally had stronger less-penetrating points, or thinner better-penetrating points?

- In most scenarios, using the knife for utility work, it will not be a punch-through situation. Rather, you'll be working with the tip piercing things, and want to use as little pressure (for as much control) as possible. I walked around with a reinforced-tip folder for a while -- what a pain! Of *course* I want the tip to be "strong enough" for my tougher punch-through scenarios, but punch-through ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY is not the last word in penetration.

In closing, if you've got a tanto with say a 4.5"-long 1/8"-thick blade, what is it you're doing with the tip that, say, a Lab Rat's tip won't do? Meanwhile, the Lab Rat's tip penetrates easier, and the belly makes it 100% more useful for almost all utility uses... My view is most emphatically not that punch-through is not important, merely that you can get "enough" punch-through from other blade formats without having to sacrifice penetration, the belly, point control, etc.

Joe
jat@cup.hp.com

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top