I haven't done any training in years but I think this is exciting: http://www.museumreplicas.com/t-nylonwasters.aspx

They appear to be the same as these: http://www.theknightshop.co.uk/catalog/rawlin...cbf9e74323 so the U.S. price might be around $70.

sweet! Those look great! I especially like how you can customize the hilt components :D Hopefully they will come out with messer wasters...those are real hard to find and I have yet to find any in nylon.

Thanks for posting !

Purpleheart Armoury has those, too. Apparently, they also have a wheel pommel version available (and the pommels by themselves are $20). As a matter of fact, I just got a box from Purpleheart with one with the scent-stopper earlier this week.

Unfortunately, I don't really have the knowledge, equipment, or experience to give a down-and-dirty quick review of it.

These looked interesting till I saw this paragraph:

"The swords weigh about 2/3 of the weight of a real sword. This is designed to lower the impact when sparring. The weight is kept back towards the hilt further lessening this impact. They are very well balanced and are heavier than most wooden wasters on the market."

Which seems to be contradictory on a lot of levels. How can it be well balanced, yet have most of its weight "kept back towards the hilt"? Also the picture showing the bending at the tip implies to me that it will be overly whippy in use. To me, the concept should be a real reflection of the weight and handling of a steel sword, not the opposite. I would much rather that those in this art concentrate on training and control of their sword in order not to inflict injury than in relying on technology only to do this (by emphasizing the sword's characteristics only)...otherwise we might as well be playing with Nerf (TM) swords and boffing each other like five year olds. After all, if we aren't in this art to train and fight realistically, then what's the point. So don't build the training tools only for safety, build them for durability and realism as well.

For now, I'll stick with wood. In the future though, I can see the sport going in this direction for WMA fighting as long as the equipment reflects how a real sword handles and not an arbitrary ideal of a "safe sword". I will say that this concept is a bit of an improvement over other Nylon wasters out there that I have handled and seen.

Now when they can make a waster that weighs as much as a steel sword, performs and handles AND balances like a steel sword and doesn't have unrealistic performance, then I might be interested in purchasing one.

Thanks David for your insight...I do appreciate your input on this and your comments.

My main problem with Nylon wasters, was the handling issue. This is based, I admit, from handling Nylon wasters from other makers rather than this one. It is my opinion that they don't perform as well in replicating a sword as a well made wood waster does.

I find that if I use a waster that handles substantially different than the weapon I'm training for, then I tend to develop training artifacts that make me fight wrong with the real weapon. This is to some extent unavoidable since a real sword with proper balance and an edge can never really be 100% replicated by a dull edged waster, no matter what the material. However there are degrees to which I find a difference in the handling and so far, up to this point, I have not found a Nylon waster that matches handling I get from the wood ones I use from New Sterling Arms.

On the safety issue, I have to agree with you to a great extent...our sport can be very damaging on limbs and body...especially from thrusts. My main qualm about the Nylon is not whether it is safer, but any misunderstanding we might develop that gives us the idea that "a safer waster is the way to make fights safer". We shouldn't concentrate on the tool technology, but rather our training to make us safer. That in my opinion is a much better route to safety than relying solely on the tool to keep us safe.

Therefore, for me, at this time, this Nylon waster adds no value over a wooden one if it sacrifices performance to do so. As I said previously, if you want to be totally safe in our art then you might as well be using rubber or Nerf swords.

A time will come though when I think we will be using more wasters made of artificial materials and designed to replicate the performance of true swords...but I don't think this new MRL waster truly gets us there yet since it is designed not to perform as a true sword would. For me, that is unacceptable.

Note also, that an over-desire for safety over realism is what has made sport saber fencing so different from using a real saber. In a quest to make a faster and safer saber for sport they made one that doesn't in slightest perform like a real saber would. To me, it would be sad if our art devolved to such an extent.

Note...I just participated in a longsword tournament out here in Santa Clara, California two weeks ago. We used wood wasters, elbow and knee pads, thick gloves, fencing helmets, neck protection and thick fencing coats/gambesons. Rules kept us from hitting others on the back or back of head/neck, purposefully throwing opponents to the ground (there was a concrete floor), joint locks or pommel strikes to the head.

The only injuries sustained that were serious were some hand injuries (one new one and one on someone who fought with a broken finger anyway). The solution decided to solve this was to use thicker gloves and avoid hitting hands in the future. For this fight proper safety rules and training on weapon control worked fine. I also don't think the hand hits would of been lessened if the weapon was a Nylon waster rather than a wood one unless it was rubber or foam.

There were some thrusts though, and the MRL waster would be good protection for those, but again we had an understanding not to thrust too hard at each other and I myself don't thrust to the belly or neck area (or under the ribs) because no matter what weapon you use, this is dangerous unless your opponent is armored there. Nevertheless I can see the use of having a more bendable waster than a wood one when doing thrusts...they are very dangerous if done unsafely.

Again, thanks David for your contribution. I respect your opinion and agree with many of your points.

Regards,

Bryce Felperin

Messers! :D Can't wait to see those!

The Rawlings longsword does feel very lively. I can't speak as to whether or not it is balanced like a real sword, as my Albion Count is a much different sword than the Rawlings is supposed to mimic.

As far as fit-and-finish is concerned, there are only a couple of minor niggles. The crossguard has a little bit of wobble and the last third of the blade has "bent" just a touch in relation to the "cutting edges" of the waster. There are also a couple of blemishes in the synthetic material itself, but I do not believe that any of these would impede function in any way.

I have used these and other waster during training and free play. I agree with most of the above comments that these are great wasters.

Bryce Felperin wrote:

My main problem with Nylon wasters, was the handling issue.

The handling on these isn't perfect, but it comes a lot closer compared to other nylon wasters or wood IMHO.

Quote:

Therefore, for me, at this time, this Nylon waster adds no value over a wooden one if it sacrifices performance to do so.

Personally I find these new nylon wasters better than wooden wasters. I don't think they sacrifice at all. Compared to steel, yes. But not compared to wood.

Quote:

There were some thrusts though, and the MRL waster would be good protection for those, but again we had an understanding not to thrust too hard at each other and I myself don't thrust to the belly or neck area (or under the ribs) because no matter what weapon you use, this is dangerous unless your opponent is armored there.

With these wasters I have no problem with thrusts. No armour required except for a gambeson. Our group does full-speed freeplay with these. As protection we only use a gambeson, a fencing mask, a padded gorget and padded gloves. We haven't had any issues so far.

Hi David,

Regarding unarmoured technique fights that look armoured today, well...sort of.

All evidence points to conventional blows being used in armoured tournaments in the 15th c., not half-swording, which was for lethal encounters. Now, we don't know what techniques were used, but I think it's not too much a stretch to assume they fought as they trained, so I'd expect this would look much like a Blossfechten match, but fought (mostly) safely on account of the armour.

And it's interesting that armour is shown in the 'unarmoured' section of the Florius version of Fiore.

That's not to say it isn't cool that you can use minimal gear with these simulators, of course. :)

Cheers,

Christian

I ordered two of these swords from the Knight shop and eagerly await them. I think that they will be a useful new tool in my toolbox.

As a general rule, I use steel trainers where possible. I feel that steel swords demand a certain level of respect from the users that leads to safer behaviour. At the same time, sometimes the control is just not there and you need to amp up the safety of the equipment. For example, I teach classes to kids, and aside from the fact that they can't hold a steel sword up through a whole lesson, they also can't control how hard they hit with them.

For kids I usually use padded swords, at least initially. Padded swords often lead to unsafe practices because the user has no fear of them, but then, they also really aren't dangerous. Also, they really don't behave the same as steel swords.

In many ways, I think that wooden wasters are the most dangerous option, because they seem safe to novices, but in fact are in some ways more dangerous than steel. The actual danger is increased by the perceived safety and the unsafe behaviour that comes from the false perception.

My hope is that these swords will strike a nice balance where the perceived safety is less than the actual safety, if you see what I mean. And I hope they behave more realistically than padded boffers! We shall see.

Hi Sander,

It's more than that - it's a matter of the intent of the combat. Killing another knight is serious business (murder, depending on the context), and half-swording is for killing knights.

This is likely why we see little half-swording in iconography. In a battle, the ideal would be to beat down a fellow noble, then accept his surrender. Thrusting into the gaps of the armour is mostly for the agreed upon lethality of a judicial duel.

All the best,

Christian