![]()  | 
	
		
			
  | 
	|||||||
![]()  | 
	
	
| 
		 | 
	Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes | 
| 
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#1 | |
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Sep 2021 
				Location: Leiden, NL 
				
				
					Posts: 617
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 Quote: 
	
 This one likes to live dangerously, but flinched.  | 
|
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#2 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Mar 2006 
				Location: Room 101, Glos. UK 
				
				
					Posts: 4,259
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			A KLO may be a perfectly good knife, thai eneps, Viet knives, other recurved knives, kopis, yataghans, etc., it's just not a khukuri. it's Not a disparaging term. 
		
		
		
			Kothimora scabbards with good functional older design khukuri are cool. The kardas and chakmaks (aux. blades;m karda is a utility knife, chakmak is a hardened very blunt 'steel' for rubbing out dents in the edge.) don't have a cho (and are not khukuris). My Hanshee and my Enep: (and I eventually found a nepali museum with an 18c Khuk with a cho-less ricasso. It does have a proto-cho notch. The swords to the left are Indian sosun-pata KLOs. Last edited by kronckew; 18th June 2022 at 08:40 AM.  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#3 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Sep 2021 
				
				
				
					Posts: 113
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Thanks everyone for this information! I was asking more about the traditional Nepalese form, but I like the direction this went with the Kukri Like Objects. Thai enep knives were one of the closest things I have found that resemble a kukri without the cho. Certain examples of Chammoro knives can also resemble a kukri lacking a cho. While I was mulling over this topic I found the Heritage Knives website that features a section dedicated to the history of the military from John Powell, and there is this photo showing multiple kukris. If you look at the one at the very bottom, that example seems to lack the cho entirely, possibly not even having a ricasso. This kukri is the only one that I have seen in the traditional Nepalese form that doesn't even show a trace of the cho.
		 
		
		
		
			 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#4 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Apr 2020 
				
				
				
					Posts: 233
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Here is one of mine without a kaudi.
		 
		
		
		
			 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#5 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Mar 2005 
				
				
				
					Posts: 568
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			SidJ 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			Very interesting. Could you supply close ups of the cho area (most especially), hilt, and blade? Blade and hilt lengths would also be good. Sincerely, RobT Last edited by RobT; 24th June 2022 at 07:59 PM. Reason: additional info requested  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#6 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Mar 2006 
				Location: Room 101, Glos. UK 
				
				
					Posts: 4,259
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Hard to tell on that sirupate, sidj. 
		
		
		
			Some had a closed form like mine:  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#7 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Mar 2006 
				Location: Room 101, Glos. UK 
				
				
					Posts: 4,259
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			More cho/kaudi forms:
		 
		
		
		
			 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#8 | 
| 
			
			 Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Dec 2006 
				Location: Idaho, USA 
				
				
					Posts: 230
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
	
		
		
		
		
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
		
		
	 | 
![]()  | 
	
	
		
  | 
	
		
  |