Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 1:13:35 GMT
micro damage and so forth that will lead to eventual failure or blade setting, is that what you are referring to marc?
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jul 23, 2009 1:37:05 GMT
micro damage and so forth that will lead to eventual failure or blade setting, is that what you are referring to marc? Absolutely...
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 23, 2009 1:39:29 GMT
Yeah... people dont understand that sword abuse doesnt necessarily equal immediate damage... as with many things heavy use, or abuse of swords can be a cumalative thing... Consider this quote from Gus Trim... forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=64481
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 15:14:17 GMT
I discussed the breakage with Gus. He said he could not say for sure without seeing the sword what caused the break. I will say that it is stated in our use and warranty that these are for soft targets only. I cannot say if cutting 1 and 1/2 inch branches had some effect or over tightening the thread or what. It might have been an inclusion of some sort in the metal. Anyway, long story short. We have decided to replace the Sword. We just hope he the in the future you go buy a Machete to clear your bushes and prune your trees. ;D ;D ;D Sonny wow... say, um... You guys got any Jian?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 17:26:57 GMT
Don't worry, Bloodwraith. What you said was true, and I was not offended by it in any way. Perhaps the way that I word my posts makes them confusing. It probably sounds like I am trying to state a witty fact that nobody else knows, but what I am really doing is trying to learn more. Apologizing is usually my way of showing that I am not afraid of correction, even though many times I still think that I am right. Anyways, I didn't mean that swords should be used as machetes. What I meant was that I think that a lot of people have this idea that swords shouldn't cut anything hard. This doesn't make sense to me, because while you shouldn't use a sword to chop down trees and the like, on a real battlefield the sword would go through what many of you would label "sword abuse". For instance, the human body might not be extremely hard, but it would still be a lot more abusive than water bottles. Someone already stated that even if you are careful, you will still have to deflect incoming sword blows, and more than likely one or two will end up being blade on blade contact. Then there is armor, which you generally wouldn't try to cut through with a sword, but if you are up against someone in chainmail and your only weapon is a sword, what would you do then? Some people would have wood shields, which are made for blocking arrows and swords. Landsknetch mercenaries used claymores to hack through tight pike formations, and pikes are made of wood. I know that it is unwise to abuse your sword, but I think that swords would have seen some rough treatment in battle. If you did use a sword to do abusive things like cut wood and bang on metal objects I could understand it breaking in time. If you don't abuse your sword at all though, but you accidently strike something hard and your sword breaks, it seems to me like your sword was poorly made. It's like Angus himself said in that SFI thread, each time you abuse your sword you are taking away a little of its life. I simply can't picture a sword breaking after a very small amount of mistreatment. And just so you aren't confused, I am not trying to argue with anyone or sound haughty. I'm trying to learn more about swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 19:21:56 GMT
Bloodwraith's point, Jonathan, is that you aren't going to see many swords on a battlefield these days. You are highly unlikely to use your own sword in a real fight. So why put your sword through that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 20:09:26 GMT
Who is to say that it will never be needed to do battle? the sword might be needed in its moment of strife, and fail, just because it is not necessary now, doesn't mean it will be, I want to think that my swords could be used on the battle Field and servive...but thats just my opinion.
............SanMarc.
(guns are not needed any more, why have any thing bigger than a 22, or just use a air rifle like they have to in England. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 20:22:06 GMT
And to put this thread to rest, it was a sub standard contractor who did a s%$#ty weld, if gus himself had done it, it would not have failed, the sword was not put though that hard a test, and gus's caviot emptor is what he has to do to cover his butt, as any of us has to do now days, Sonny is taking care of the sword, and all will be good....SanMarc.
(sorry for my rant, not enough COFFEE!!!!!)
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Jul 23, 2009 20:40:36 GMT
It's true that real swords in ancient times would have been "abused" as part of their normal use. I'd imagine that a good number of them would also be damaged or broken through this use as well, just as the armor and shields were. I'd also imagine that the maker wouldn't just send you a new one when that happened. If you were still alive, you'd probably go pay to have another one made.
Sword making is still a lot more art than science and even with carefully controlled construction there will be variance from blade to blade. Even in high end swords, there will occasionally be one that breaks for no immediately apparent reason, just like with cars, cameras, hand tools, whatever. If I have a shovel, I can use it to dig a hole. If I hit a rock in the hole I might damage the blade. If I try to pry the rock out, I might break the handle. I've had shovels that I've used for years and hit rocks and levered stuff around and the shovel was fine. I also had a shovel that I used as a lever once and snapped the handle. Stuff happens. The point being, if you use anything you are risking breaking it, and the harder the use the more the risk.
Maybe one day swords will all be magnifluxed and x-rayed as part of QC, but even then you still might get one that breaks because you never know when some dingleberry at the factory screwed something up and just covered up his mistake and figured "no big deal, it'll probably never be an issue".
$300 is a substantial amount of money, but a $300 sword is a very inexpensive sword. Great for those of us on a budget, great for some light cutting, but off to war?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2009 23:08:41 GMT
I wouldn't consider a sword used on the battlefield as being abuse though, that is what it was made to do, our swords today aren't. We don't go out and defend king and country with our steel shining in the sun as the trumpets sound around us and the swish of arrows fills the air like clouds of black death. Gone are the days when mighty men on mighty horses thundered across sodden battlefields to protect their lands and their homes and even then the sword was never really at the forefront anyway. If a sword is used for the purpose it was designed (and for the most part swords were designed for battle) then that isn't abuse. But swords weren't made to cut waterbottles or trees, even modern swords aren't designed for that, because for the most part our modern swords are based on ye old replicas that were used on battlefields in defense of home and hearth. I've cut waterbottles and branches an such, I will freely admit it, but I still consider it sword abuse and...it wasn't my swords . As to going off to war, I would be contacting Jim Hrisoulas and getting him to make the best L6 blade that I could afford Johnathan: no need to apologise mate, I wasn't having a go at you, I am sorry if it looked that way. We are all new at some point. Though in regards to "if you strike something hard your sword is poorly made" this is not entirely true, it depends on the type of sword, what you struck and how the blow actually landed. There are many factors in a sword breaking or setting, it doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad blade, 9 times out of 10 from my experience it is the person wielding the sword who is at fault not the swords construction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 10:30:42 GMT
I wouldn't consider a sword used on the battlefield as being abuse though, that is what it was made to do, our swords today aren't. If a sword is used for the purpose it was designed (and for the most part swords were designed for battle) then that isn't abuse. But swords weren't made to cut waterbottles or trees, even modern swords aren't designed for that, because for the most part our modern swords are based on ye old replicas that were used on battlefields in defense of home and hearth. Alright, so using a sword on the battlefield and hitting plate armor, wodden shields and that kind of stuff is not sword abuse. Then why the heck is cutting a one inch tree limb sword abuse?? Albion or ATrim or Tinker make their swords pretty historical accurate. At least their blades are as good as the normal medival blade. If this normal medival blade isn't abused when hitting steel plates and thick wood then why would you consider hitting a tiny tree limb with a historical replica (like an Albion) to be sword abuse? What you say doesn't make much sense to me. Please explain your standpoint. You say our swords aren't made to be used on the battlefield but then you say our swords are based on old swords that were made to do exactly that. So in fact, modern higher- end swords are made as though they are made to be used on the battlefield. And that means, hitting stuff like plate armour isn't sword abuse, since they were designed for that!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 10:36:19 GMT
never mind, you missed what I was saying
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 10:37:48 GMT
Well, then explain it, please!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 10:56:14 GMT
Basically, take the weapon out of it's element, its context, if you will, and use it for a purpose other than it was designed. When a sword was taken onto the battlefield it was to defend yourself or to kill your enemy, when you cut waterbottles and trees there is none of that element, it isn't contextual, that was what I was saying. There are many different understandings of the term "sword abuse" it doesn't necessarily mean damage. Also, I understand what you see in movies with two guys wailing on each others armour but if you have any background in swordsmanship you will know that this is not accurate. When fighting on a battlefield it is about finding the best and fastest way to kill your enemy, which generally meant driving the blade into a weak spot in the armour. It also depends on what battlefield we are talking about. Let's also not forget that plate armour and the like was never really a viable option for massed troops, more often you would be facing gambeson cladding, possibly with a little armour plating and a helmet, unless you came up against a knight and then you would probably be facing him with a polearm or an axe, swords were not as prevalent as hollywood would have us believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 11:20:29 GMT
Basically, say if I understood you wrong, you say sword abuse is anything, even if it would be considered light use in medieval times, that you don't HAVE to do with your sword. If that is so I actually agree with you, any cutting we do with our swords is abusing since we don't have to do this to swords, we have no important reasons to use our swords like defending our families and lands. BUT, such definition is of no use to us, bottle and tatami cutting community. We should come to terms with ourselves what level of active usage of swords should any sword endure and what level is to high, so if sword breaks or bends, we would have to say: it's not the sword, it's me. I abused it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 11:53:27 GMT
In terms of actual abuse as in "damage my sword" abuse, then bottles and tree limbs will cause the blade to accumulate damage after a while. Again am I saying don't do it, no, it is your weapon it is your choice. I have seen people damage swords on flubbed waterbottle cuts, if you don't cut cleanly you do realise how much weight that is on the sword right? Ok you can flub any cut but doing it on a waterbottle can be horrendous and the density of branches, especially green branches makes them particularly abusive. If you want to trim branches use the proper tools.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 15:39:58 GMT
I know when fighting armour you try to thrust the blade into a weak spot like the innerside of the elbow, the slot in the helmet or the armpit. But trust me, I've done enough fighting to know that occasionally you will hit something like the helmet with your sword, and be it just by accident. So a sword designed for fighting should be able to handle that without getting damaged badly. Sure the blade will be nicked and stuff but the blade still did what it was designed for. So if I go now, take my sword and slam it into a metal helmet it wouldn't be considered sword abuse, right? Of course, the blade wouldn't like such bad treatment but it would do what medival swords did, too. And they were designed for it. Basically, using a sword means it will get damaged but that damage doesn't mean the sword was abused. You did only what a sword was made to do. It was normal that a medival sword suffered damage on the battlefield and noboday would have said the sword was abused because the blade was scratched after hitting mail or a helmet. They would say it's completely normal that your sword has nicked edges and is scratched as hell. As long as it works for killing enemies, it's fine. When it breaks, then what the heck, I'll get the next one. I think, and that is just my personal opinion, that as long as a sword does what it would have done on a medival battlefield it is not abused, even if it hits a metal plate and breaks, it is not abused. If you try to make your car prettier by cutting away some metal with your sword and if it breaks, then I would consider it sword abuse. But again, taking a Albion and beating it on a metal plate comparable with a metal armour is not sword abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 17:08:52 GMT
I think what bloodwraith was expressing--and I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth--but if he is I agree with him, is this: There are certain uses for tools that are perfectly acceptable in the heat of a serious situation, but repetitive use of that kind will damage that tool, so that repetitive non-necessary use can be seen as "abuse."
If I were in a survival situation and needed to hammer a boulder with a prized Craftsman hammer, who would fault me? But if I go around beating on boulders week after week with that hammer for the fun of it, and the hammer breaks, well I can't say "it should have been stronger than that."
(Unless of course I am intentionally testing the hammer to possible destruction, as an empirical exercise. Perhaps this is where some contention comes in, if some of you are saying this is a legitimate test. I agree, and--again at the hazard of putting words in his mouth, I think blood would. It's just no one who's using their sword in such a way can really complain when their sword breaks.)
Historically, swords have always been a trade-off between cutting/thrusting ability, wieldability, and durability. While it's true that swords have been made in the hopes of standing up to collisions with wooden shield, steel, other swords etc., how MUCH they've been made to do it, and how OFTEN they would be expected to handle such situations, varies considerably.
Those on the lighter end of the balance usually weren't constructed for *repeated* contact with such materials. Some, however, were. (Some modern repros are historically plausible (e.g. the more realistic Darkswords but weren't made back in the day because, well, if you're going to go that route an axe or short polearm is a lot cheaper and easier to have someone make if you want something more durable. Still, I doubt anyone who really needed one would have poo-pooed using something like a DS Black Knight.)
All in all the moral is to understand your own weapon; understand its limitations and its capabilities. Most swords of historical weights and construction were built as something you hoped would stand up to an isolated instance or two of "abuse" on the battlefield, but just not much more, in order to get more out of their offensive capabilities. So what constitutes "abuse" is your motivation behind hitting certain materials and the frequency with which you do it--not so much the material itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 18:22:59 GMT
And you still had bad smiths and fitters back then to, many swords have been found at old battlefields that were broken, this particular sword suffered from a bad smith/fitter, and shouldn't reflect what the other swords of this line will or will not do.
Some swords are War swords and can take more abuse than the light swords or civilian swords.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2009 18:25:25 GMT
If swords today are not made to the standards of historical swords, then what good are they? I don't want a sword if it can not live up to its original purpose. Yes, it is highly unlikely that I will ever go out to a battle and use it in combat like historical swords were used, but I want to know that if I had to, I could. If it isn't a fully functional weapon that is capable of being used like it is supposed to, then how is a modern "battle ready" sword any better than a stainless steel wallhanger? I plan on using my swords. I may only cut thousands of water bottles, pool noodles, and cardboard, but I am going to use them often. I have no intentions of purchasing a sword just to own one. I respect the history behing it, but buying a real sword and not using it is like buying an other tool and not using it. You wouldn't hang a hammer on a wall just to look at, would you? What I am saying is that I will not be satisfied with anything less durable than an authentic sword. Sword manufacturers should not make a sword less durable than an authentic one just because I will never fight with it. So I guess that I want to know if these Valiant Armory practical and signature swords are a durable as historical swords are.
|
|