A big and very old pira for discussion

kronckew · 9th January 2021, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Detlef,

... I'm not convinced the thinness of the wide part has an important functional reason; one possibility would be to increase cutting ability near the sweet spot.

...

I concurr, it's just adding weight to the tip to increase the cutting impact of the working area, much like the adding of a 'yelman' to the newer model shown in the thread.

Sajen · 9th January 2021, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

I concurr, it's just adding weight to the tip to increase the cutting impact of the working area, much like the adding of a 'yelman' to the newer model shown in the thread.

Hello Wayne,

Yes, this will be the reason, it's logically. Second point will be the strengthing of a weak point IMVHO.

Regards,
Detlef

kai · 9th January 2021, 04:55 PM

Hello all,

Is there anyone truly qualified to give some details on the actual use of the traditional gasah, especially moves commonly utilized during fighting?

IMNSHO, we need to get some genuine input before being able to reasonably discuss form & function.

As a guesstimate from handling, I'd suggest that the blade is optimized for cutting; poking with the tip is feasible though. In a way, it kinda resembles a barung with extended reach - possibly leaning more towards slashing than chopping compared to typical barung (however, the vast diversity of barung blades does not really allow for sweeping generalisations either).

Regards,
Kai

kai · 9th January 2021, 05:05 PM

Hello Detlef,

Quote:

Second point will be the strengthing of a weak point IMVHO.

Sure, even a slashing blade needs enough stability behind the edge near the tip since long distance cuts are likely being delivered with the tip of the blade.

Regards,
Kai

kai · 9th January 2021, 05:35 PM

Hello Wayne,

Quote:

I concurr, it's just adding weight to the tip to increase the cutting impact of the working area, much like the adding of a 'yelman' to the newer model shown in the thread.

I was trying to say that there doesn't seem to be any "added weight" with the traditional blades: I'd posit that the amount of metal behind the edge stays fairly constant (until for the very tip area, obviously).

Consider the bladesmith starting the final forging work with a billet of even width and thickness - probably quite close to the intended proportions at the future base of the blade. Then one starts to widen the blade by gradually forging out the edge: The wider the blade is forged, the thinner it gets; after the widest section, the back of the blade gets/stays thicker because the width is decreasing again. Only after the thickness is finally decreasing towards the very tip (and the width also being reduced towards the point, is there considerably less metal behind the edge...

If one were to (transversally) cut the blade into even slices (say, 10mm), each of them would weight (almost) the same if my observations are correct. It is possible that there is a bit of distal taper (actually quite inevitable if the bladesmith progresses from base towards the tip during forging) - often this seems to get overestimated though, especially when concentrating on the thickness along the back of a blade. The side profile can lead one astray as well. It really is important to see any blade as 3-dimensional object!

Regards,
Kai

kai · 9th January 2021, 09:34 PM

Here some data for my example:

weight 634 g

707 mm total length
450 mm blade length
264 mm hilt length (89.2 mm grip length including 33.75 mm ferrule)

102 mm point of balance (from ferrule)

303 mm from upper base to bump at back of blade
154 mm from bump to tip

thickness at base of blade
back: 9.8 mm
"edge": 8.0 mm
width: 20.1 mm

thickness - 151.5 mm from base
back: 3.75 mm
39mm from edge: 3.4 mm
30mm from edge: 3.1 mm
20mm from edge: 2.5 mm
10mm from edge: 2.0 mm
width: 47.3 mm

thickness - 303 mm from base (bump at back of blade)
back: 1.9 mm
10mm from back: 2.1 mm
20mm from back: 2.3 mm
[concave surface]
39mm from edge: 2.2 mm
30mm from edge: 2.0 mm
20mm from edge: 1.85 mm
10mm from edge: 1.5 mm
width: 68.5 mm

thickness - 77 mm from tip
back: 2.75 mm
max near back: 3.15 mm
30mm from edge: 3.1 mm
20mm from edge: 2.9 mm
10mm from edge: 2.1 mm
width: 38.8 mm

blade thickness - 44 mm from tip (local maximum)
back: 3.2 mm
max near back: 3.45 mm
20mm from edge: 3.4 mm
10mm from edge: 2.4 mm
blade width: 25.3 mm

Sajen · 10th January 2021, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Here some data for my example:

weight 634 g

707 mm total length
450 mm blade length
264 mm hilt length (89.2 mm grip length including 33.75 mm ferrule)

102 mm point of balance (from ferrule)

303 mm from upper base to bump at back of blade
154 mm from bump to tip

thickness at base of blade
back: 9.8 mm
"edge": 8.0 mm
width: 20.1 mm

thickness - 151.5 mm from base
back: 3.75 mm
39mm from edge: 3.4 mm
30mm from edge: 3.1 mm
20mm from edge: 2.5 mm
10mm from edge: 2.0 mm
width: 47.3 mm

thickness - 303 mm from base (bump at back of blade)
back: 1.9 mm
10mm from back: 2.1 mm
20mm from back: 2.3 mm
[concave surface]
39mm from edge: 2.2 mm
30mm from edge: 2.0 mm
20mm from edge: 1.85 mm
10mm from edge: 1.5 mm
width: 68.5 mm

thickness - 77 mm from tip
back: 2.75 mm
max near back: 3.15 mm
30mm from edge: 3.1 mm
20mm from edge: 2.9 mm
10mm from edge: 2.1 mm
width: 38.8 mm

blade thickness - 44 mm from tip (local maximum)
back: 3.2 mm
max near back: 3.45 mm
20mm from edge: 3.4 mm
10mm from edge: 2.4 mm
blade width: 25.3 mm

Hello Kai,

Fine that we have such detailed measurements from your example but a picture or two would be very useful also!

Regards,
Detlef

xasterix · 10th January 2021, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Kai,

Fine that we have such detailed measurements from your example but a picture or two would be very useful also!

Regards,
Detlef

I second Detlef's motion =)

Sajen · 10th January 2021, 03:52 PM

Here some more measurements from the pira in question, not so detailed but useful I guess.

Length overall: 790 mm
Blade length: 509 mm
Handle length: 280 mm
Length along spine from handle (base) until bump: 369 mm
Length bump until tip: 140 mm

Spine thickness:
Base: 10 mm
240 mm from base: 3 mm
Bump: 2,2 mm
approx. middle bump-tip: 3,3 mm
Tip: 1,7 mm

False edge behind handle: 8,8 mm

Weight: 750 gram

Point of balance is surprisingly at the same point as by the pira Kai own.

kai · 11th January 2021, 11:51 PM

Thanks, Detlef!

Maybe the other forumites could also add data for their pieces, please?

Regards,
Kai

kai · 11th January 2021, 11:54 PM

BTW, I'll try to take pics of my example - too busy this week though...

9th January 2021, 09:34 PM	#6
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,221	dimensions Here some data for my example: weight 634 g 707 mm total length 450 mm blade length 264 mm hilt length (89.2 mm grip length including 33.75 mm ferrule) 102 mm point of balance (from ferrule) 303 mm from upper base to bump at back of blade 154 mm from bump to tip thickness at base of blade back: 9.8 mm "edge": 8.0 mm width: 20.1 mm thickness - 151.5 mm from base back: 3.75 mm 39mm from edge: 3.4 mm 30mm from edge: 3.1 mm 20mm from edge: 2.5 mm 10mm from edge: 2.0 mm width: 47.3 mm thickness - 303 mm from base (bump at back of blade) back: 1.9 mm 10mm from back: 2.1 mm 20mm from back: 2.3 mm [concave surface] 39mm from edge: 2.2 mm 30mm from edge: 2.0 mm 20mm from edge: 1.85 mm 10mm from edge: 1.5 mm width: 68.5 mm thickness - 77 mm from tip back: 2.75 mm max near back: 3.15 mm 30mm from edge: 3.1 mm 20mm from edge: 2.9 mm 10mm from edge: 2.1 mm width: 38.8 mm blade thickness - 44 mm from tip (local maximum) back: 3.2 mm max near back: 3.45 mm 20mm from edge: 3.4 mm 10mm from edge: 2.4 mm blade width: 25.3 mm

10th January 2021, 03:52 PM	#9
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 8,561	Here some more measurements from the pira in question, not so detailed but useful I guess. Length overall: 790 mm Blade length: 509 mm Handle length: 280 mm Length along spine from handle (base) until bump: 369 mm Length bump until tip: 140 mm Spine thickness: Base: 10 mm 240 mm from base: 3 mm Bump: 2,2 mm approx. middle bump-tip: 3,3 mm Tip: 1,7 mm False edge behind handle: 8,8 mm Weight: 750 gram Point of balance is surprisingly at the same point as by the pira Kai own. Last edited by Sajen; 11th January 2021 at 12:15 AM.

9th January 2021, 04:55 PM	#3
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,221	Hello all, Is there anyone truly qualified to give some details on the actual use of the traditional gasah, especially moves commonly utilized during fighting? IMNSHO, we need to get some genuine input before being able to reasonably discuss form & function. As a guesstimate from handling, I'd suggest that the blade is optimized for cutting; poking with the tip is feasible though. In a way, it kinda resembles a barung with extended reach - possibly leaning more towards slashing than chopping compared to typical barung (however, the vast diversity of barung blades does not really allow for sweeping generalisations either). Regards, Kai

11th January 2021, 11:51 PM	#10
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,221	Thanks, Detlef! Maybe the other forumites could also add data for their pieces, please? Regards, Kai

11th January 2021, 11:54 PM	#11
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,221	BTW, I'll try to take pics of my example - too busy this week though...