Tulwar hilt and disc pommel.....the reason for their design

katana · 8th December 2006, 07:16 PM

More evidence that the average Indian hand were generally smaller than Europeans. This is regards the 1908 pattern sword, quoted from the REME Museum of Technology.

"A modified version of our Sword Cavalry No I Mk 1* Patt '08 which was adopted by the Indian Army in 1918. The blade is identical but marked 'IP '08'. The hilt generally was much smaller to suit the smaller hand of the average Indian trooper. The guard of the Indian pattern, while generally the same shape, was without the reinforcing piece. The grip is only 5¾ inches long compared to our 6¼ inches. In addition, the bowl of the guard is smaller, at its widest point being 4¾ inches against our 5½ inches."

The link below is a goggle 'cached' page....pictures wont load

http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:...k&ct=clnk&cd=8

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

8th December 2006, 07:16 PM	#32
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	More evidence that the average Indian hand were generally smaller than Europeans. This is regards the 1908 pattern sword, quoted from the REME Museum of Technology. "A modified version of our Sword Cavalry No I Mk 1* Patt '08 which was adopted by the Indian Army in 1918. The blade is identical but marked 'IP '08'. The hilt generally was much smaller to suit the smaller hand of the average Indian trooper. The guard of the Indian pattern, while generally the same shape, was without the reinforcing piece. The grip is only 5¾ inches long compared to our 6¼ inches. In addition, the bowl of the guard is smaller, at its widest point being 4¾ inches against our 5½ inches." The link below is a goggle 'cached' page....pictures wont load http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:...k&ct=clnk&cd=8