Why tanto?

Of course Joe is absolutely right. There is such a thing as enough strength and there is such a thing as enough penetrating power, and the tanto shape is not very versatile. As some have pointed out above there are some things it's good for, but it's not my choice for my carry knife. It makes a great steak knife, though.

Re penetrating power in a fighting knife, Mad Dog McClung has on display in his shop a large dog's skull with a Frequent Flyer sticking out of it. (It was a vicious pit bull or some such that needed to be stopped in a hurry -- I'm not sure who killed it.) A dog's skull is much thicker than a man's -- that's enough penetrating power to suit me, and enough strength, too. I'm not sure which Frequent Flyer it is, but neither is a tanto shape (and they're not even steel).

I have this urge to make some test blades and test some of these theories more out of academic interest than anything else. I'm thinking about going to a symmetrical dirk shape for a carry knife for various reasons, too, and I'm wondering how well that will penetrate resistant materials. Well enough, I expect, but it'd be interesting to see how it compares with other shapes.

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
By the way, I wouldn't try to penetrate a skull with a forward grip thrust. Use a reverse grip and strike to either side of the ridge of bone in the middle of a dog's head (or to the temple if it's a man attacking you). It's about the only way to stop a dog fast, faster and surer than bullets if you can do it.

Also by the way, do we have a Japanese speaking member who can tell us how to pronounce "tanto"?

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
As an Iaido (the art of drawing and cutting with a Japanese sword) student, I can say that, though most of the cutting techniques we us are slashes, there are many thrusts used as well. Several of them involve turning the blade sideways when thrusting to the chest to allow the tip to penetrate between the ribs.

Earlier swords (Koto or old sword era) had greater curvature for slashing from
horseback. They were also generally longer and more tapering with small, delicate points. In the Shinto (new sword) period, swords became straighter, shorter, and heavier, with large, strong points. This because fighting was primarily done on foot and thrusting was required to pierce the boiled leather and bamboo body armor worn at that time.

My understanding is that tanto were used primarily for thrusting and the fact that most had little or no curvature bears this out. It's interesting that Tanto were almost Always hira zukuri (no longitudinal ridge) and never had a yokote (transverse ridgeline at a right angle to the point). In other words, the Japanese Never used a "tanto" point on their tanto! Even the extra thick "armor piercer" had a continuos edge that gently curved up to the point.

I think that what we refer to as a "tanto" point style was developed in the early Koto period to strengthen those old tachi with their small fragile points which were never designed for much thrusting.

Personally, I think the strongest attribute of the "American tanto" is that it looks high tech and looks sell.
 
If you want a blade that has proven itself in pearcing armour, it might be educational to see what types if knife were historicly used by armour waering societies for the purpose of percieng armour. Of the top of my head I can think of two types, there are more, the Indian/Afghan pesh-kabz and the European misaricorde daggers. Neighter has a American-tanto point. They do both feature narrow reinforced points. Look them up. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Does anybody know other traditional armour piercers?

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

Knife philosopher
 
Actually, my understanding was that the dagger was not used to penetrate armor, but more to slip between armor blating due to it's symmetrical, easy handling shape. Truth is if you want to penetrate armor you better build up tip strength in a hurry or you will bend or break blades.

Now having said the above, I think this has been an excellent discussion with many points of views that are reasonable. I myself don't think that there is much of a difference between the best of all the styles. Let's take some examples of the different styles, at least what I feel are the best examples.

Bowie- the SOG knives come to mind with very well designed point forward and centered with a lot of material near the end and can penetrate well.

Modified tanto- with it's point near the centerline of the axis this knife will penetrate like crazy and has tip strength.

CS tanto- this is more traditional style of tanto with the point at the spine level. This type is great for reverse grip penetration were a lot of force can be used and all the power is along the spine. Will have a slight disadvantage in penetration in direct forward thrusts, but will also due more damage due to it's forward edge that provides almost a forward slash.

Standard dagger- Very symmetrical and good handling usually. Excellent for soft tissue penetration but weak for armor penetration.

Modified Dagger style- This one is probably the most efficient design in my opinion. The tip is not perfectly centered, it is closer to the spine. Blade thickness is maintained to the near end and has excellent handling and penetration qualities. I'm thinking of a style similar to the KATZ Alley Kat knife for example.

Clip points are decent and simple and penetrate well, but can be weak for chopping due to the usual flat grind starting at the spine. I like folding knives made this way.


These are my opinions only
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top