Gene's review of the CF ranger sword? -- myArmoury.com

David Stokes

http://www.myArmoury.com/review_cf_ranger.html

Good review Gene,but one part sort of caught me off guard. You have the weight listed as 2 lbs even. Did you do this weighing yourself? or qouting another source
Honestly I personally have NOT put a scale to my Ranger sword, but considering the EKS weights 2 even lbs according to the retailer site, i just dont think the Ranger is THAT light....... The 1415 stock sword (ranger undressed) weighs 2 lbs 10 oz i beleive..........

Not trying to be nitpicky just caught me off guard...

Björn Hellqvist · myArmoury Alumni

I have a problem with that review, too. Gene says that the sword is Light and fast, with enough reach to cut off the head of an 8' tall troll, a grip that can be used one or two-handed, this sword would have been able to do well in almost any battle a Ranger fought. But the Hill-Trolls of Northern Middle-Earth had very tough, scaly skin, and it is doubtful if the Ranger actually could decapitate such a brute. I would like to see some test-cutting results, please. Wink

David Lannon · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 12:37 am Post subject:

I believe Gus uses a 5160/mithril alloy for those blades ....quite capable of dispatching those pesky trolls Big Grin

David Stokes · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 5:09 am Post subject:

mine can easily pickle chip most 2 liter armored Orcs with much ease!!

:-)

Eugene George · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 10:25 am Post subject: Trolls...

Some literary license is necessary, but I would bet on the Troll vs. me, but not vs. Rangers. A couple to stick and hold with arrows and spears and some to worry the Troll while some hacking can be done with swords.

I use a fishing scale which has been known to be off by a few oz. but not much. It's been a while since I weighed it, so it's possible that the full weight was truncated. I will weigh it when I get home to confirm but as I wrote, it is one of the lightest, well balanced pieces I've handled, and certainly the best balanced and handling sword I own overall.

Geoff Wood · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:15 am Post subject:

The 1415 is 2 lb 10 oz on my scales, and Mr Trim did say it had similarities to the Ranger blade, but the pommel and cross are quite different. Whether they are 10 oz different, or the blade has evolved, ...... dunno ...... . Doesn't really matter if you like the one you've got.

Roger Hooper · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 12:59 pm Post subject:

I don't remember the exact weight stated when the Ranger was up on CF's website, but it was somewhere between 2 and 3 pounds, closer to 3 than 2. Still a light, fast sword.

Christian Fletcher · Industry Professional

Looking at a Ranger on my not-so-precise kitchen scale here.... 2 lbs 10 oz

Thomas McDonald · myArmoury Alumni

Sounds like you boys need 'The Baker's Dream' scale by Salter .....

http://www.xkms.org/Tabletools.com-up-to-10-7...-Scale.htm

These are the babies that give 'ol Mac & Vince Evans those reliable weight figures that our sword community demands *g*

Compact , accurate , and even doubles as a cooking aid !

Mac

Eugene George · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 5:01 pm Post subject: Well...

If it's off by 10oz I vote for it being truncated inadvertantly while I was editing it. I wrote that piece quite a while ago so anything is possible.

Eugene George · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 6:42 pm Post subject: OK

the fish scale says 2# even still. This is with a cheap digital fish scale. The same fish scale weigh out a 5# barbell weaight at hovering between 4# 15oz and 5# even. So I dunno. It's not cathcing resting hanging or suspended from anything other than the scale.

David Stokes · Posted: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 9:03 pm Post subject:

well thank you for looking into it, that is still rather odd, i have a feeling your scales are off though, i just dont see how the ranger and the EKS could both be 2 lbs...

Eugene George · Posted: Thu 25 Sep, 2003 7:08 pm Post subject: And wow...

Could I have some MORE typos in my reply... Jeez I must'a been tired.

If I hadn't gone and weighed a known weight and then the Ranger I'd be more skeptical. I Re-re-weighed it and the heaviest it tips the scale at is 2lb 4oz while the 5lb weight still comes in at 5 even or 4 and 15oz, the 7.5 weight comes in at 7.5.

So there you are. I promise I will weigh it again when I get a spiffy Mac-esque baker's scale. For my own sanity and edification as well as that of the group.

Chad Arnow · myArmoury Team

The scabbard pictured here (http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?reviews/cf_ranger_e.jpg) has gaps between the guard and the scabbard. It doesn't follow the exact shape of the cross.

Is that normal for a Ranger scabbard?

Angus Trim · Posted: Thu 09 Oct, 2003 2:22 pm Post subject:

My guess {and that's what it is} is that the fish scale is fairly accurate when the weight gets up to a certain point, but is a little off when the weight is light.

I have four Ranger blades in heat treat {the last four, finally } and will know by Monday how much they weigh. As of now though, I have weighed a sword that is made of a Rangeresque blade {except an inch longer tang, and inch longer blade}, and the weight of that pup is 2lb 10. I would estimate the Ranger at 2lbs 8 to 2lbs 10, but will know for certain on Monday........

David Stokes · Posted: Thu 09 Oct, 2003 5:31 pm Post subject:

so the stock 1415 is DEFINANTLY heavier than the ranger eh? the wheel pommel just more?

Dan Ames · Posted: Tue 18 Nov, 2003 9:06 pm Post subject:

The weight incorrect or not, just be glad you got one to compare!

Ken Demyen · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 4:43 pm Post subject:

Speaking of having one to compare, I am trying to make my first "real" sword purchase (as opposed to wall hangers) and have been looking for some time now, the RS is the one I want, but it looks like I am a little late. I have seen the 1415 referenced, just how close to the RS sword is it?

Nathan Robinson · myArmoury Admin

Ken Demyen · Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2003 8:00 pm Post subject: