Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 4:00:14 GMT
Since i have an abundance of ignorance in this field, i felt that i should have someone educate me ;D. What is the average thickness at the base of the blade of, let's say, a type XII sword?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 4:07:45 GMT
width or thickness? They are two different things and people confuse them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 4:14:37 GMT
I have three blades that fall into this classification. The Hanwei Tinker is a full quarter inch at the base but the fuller is a good bit narrower. My Deltin and Albion are closer to three eighths of an inch thick at the base. They are more similar in blade shape then the Hanwei. They look more like a classic XII, having convex profile taper.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 9, 2009 7:54:05 GMT
here's an excerpt from my recent Antioch review. listed is thickness for a few different type XII swords. thicknesses are listed in inches so .225 = 0.225 inches. "I took measurements every 3 inches starting at the cross. Starting from the cross the blade thickness of the Antioch every 3 inches is: .225 / .165 / .158 / .150 / .144 / .130 / .128 / .125 / .115 / .110 / .065 (.25” behind the point) By comparison: MHAT XII thickness every 3” is: .240 / .195 / .187 / .180 / .165 / .152 / .139 / .120 / .108 / .097 / .079 (.5” behind point) Hanwei/Tinker EMSHS: .235 / .230 / .203 / .181 / .161 / .124 / .115 / .092 / .105 / .090 / .070 (.25” behind point) First generation AT303: .255 / .235 / .232 / .230 / .229 / .215 / .203 / .176 / .164 / .159 / .123 / .095 (5/8” behind point)"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 12:12:54 GMT
Hmm, okay, thanks guys! That's very interesting, i wouldn't have expected it to be around 1/4 inch, for some reason, i thought that would make it too heavy, lol. Bloodwraith, it was thickness, not alot of people measure that kind of thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 16:16:56 GMT
Nathan, hold on. 3/8 of an inch? That's almost a cm!! That's thicker than every katana I've ever seen and every medieval sword as well!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 16:22:42 GMT
He probably thought 3/16.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 16:27:33 GMT
Yes, that sounds more like it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 17:59:46 GMT
Nathan, hold on. 3/8 of an inch? That's almost a cm!! That's thicker than every katana I've ever seen and every medieval sword as well!! Three sixteenths is not unusual for modern reproductions but a good many swords of history were thicker at the shoulder. Gus and Tinker went on a bit of a campaign some years ago and lending to more mass towards the hilt (lower polar moment). It is not just a matter of balance points. Some that Tinker has posted in the manufacture section here and certainly on his site will bear that out. There are also a good many early discussions about this and put to word in Tinker's Performance subsection of SFI. These thicker shoulder blades span centuries in history and not just later sabers and even smallswords from the 18th century. I believe even some of the Albions may be thicker to start as well. (Look to their XVII type swords Sempach? maybe). Swords designed and built by Gus and Tink are not the only ones that have and continue in this trend and the distal lists above in one post here shows some of what goes on rather than what we see of KOA site specs which are helpful themselves. The KOA measurements relate that there is some distal going on even with third world production of medieval swords. Gus started grind 3/8" stock for XVa types and some others going back to 2005ish, thereabouts. Tink has done several with that stock. There is a thread somewhere on one or another of the sword forums relating an 18th century dress type sword going from 9mm (3/8 +-), radically to half that in about a hand span and then more gradually right out to four pointy inches at the end tapering from 2mm to nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2009 8:44:47 GMT
Sorry for the confusion, I meant to say 3/16ths. It is possible to have very thick European swords as Mole pointed out. But this is usually only on later swords and they also have larger amounts of both distal and profile taper. I doubt you would find a type XII much thicker than a quarter of an inch.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 10, 2009 11:42:00 GMT
in deed my MHAT and my at303 are both right at a quarter inch thickness and they are very stout blades, anything thicker than that would be really thick but I suppose for a thrusting longsword that wants a really close POB and super stiffness it would be a good idea but I bet even those wouldn't need to be much thicker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2009 6:59:18 GMT
here's an excerpt from my recent Antioch review. listed is thickness for a few different type XII swords. thicknesses are listed in inches so .225 = 0.225 inches. "I took measurements every 3 inches starting at the cross. Starting from the cross the blade thickness of the Antioch every 3 inches is: .225 / .165 / .158 / .150 / .144 / .130 / .128 / .125 / .115 / .110 / .065 (.25” behind the point) By comparison: MHAT XII thickness every 3” is: .240 / .195 / .187 / .180 / .165 / .152 / .139 / .120 / .108 / .097 / .079 (.5” behind point) Hanwei/Tinker EMSHS: .235 / .230 / .203 / .181 / .161 / .124 / .115 / .092 / .105 / .090 / .070 (.25” behind point) First generation AT303: .255 / .235 / .232 / .230 / .229 / .215 / .203 / .176 / .164 / .159 / .123 / .095 (5/8” behind point)" Ah, I was wanting to ask you a question about that... about the EMSHS - I see that there is a point where the sword is thinner, then becomes thicker again... what's the story here?
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 13, 2009 7:10:15 GMT
There's a slight swelling at the end of the fuller. I don't know why it is there and I doubt I ever would have noticed it without precision measuring tools, but sure enough it is there. I think it strange too and I noticed it right away when I took my measurements. I actually took the measurements on that sword several times just to make sure I had it right. 10 thousandths (one hundredth) of an inch is pretty dang small. I doubt it makes much difference.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Dec 13, 2009 23:38:10 GMT
1/4" is a nice thickness at the shoulder. 3/16" would be pushing toward the thin side in my opinion, though for a shorter cutting sword like an XII it would probably be ok. 3/8" wouldn't be unusual for a longer sword with diamond cross section.
I think the little swelling after the fuller is fairly common. Where the blade transitions from having a fuller to having a diamond (or flattened diamond) cross section. Doesn't have to have it but it re-enforces the point.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 14, 2009 2:00:39 GMT
in this case we are transitioning from fuller to no fuller and maintaining a lenticular cross section as it is a type XII, but I get what you are saying I think. I did measure the rest of my swords right after the fuller and did not see a swell like this one has. I think in the end it's just an artifact of being a production blade and the fuller transition/termination isn't as clean as the others.
one thing I find interesting about these swords is that while the EMSHS starts out as one of the thinner of the swords it also is undoubtedly the stiffest in the strong of the blade. I think the reason for this could be explained by two things: first the wide fuller places the thickest part of the blade (the ridge of the fuller) closer to the edges making a structurally stiffer shape, and the edges of the strong on this sword are left very thick and blunt so less steel has been removed near the edge. I suspect the first reason plays a greater part but I'm not about to discount the second.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 14, 2009 4:40:13 GMT
I don't know for sure since I don't have any swords tha go from fuller to diamond but I would think not neccesarily. the thickest part of a fullered cross section is the edge of the fuller. those come together in the center of the blade and flow smoothly into the central ridge so I don't see why the central ridge would have to be thicker than the ridge on either side of the fuller. it MIGHT be that way but I certainly think it doesn't HAVE to be. shouldn't be too hard to control such a thing. but I could be wrong, I haven't made a sword yet.
|
|
|
Post by mythosequidae on Dec 14, 2009 5:07:30 GMT
Well, it's about time you made one Tom. You can't be as obsessed and knowledgeable as yourself, and not eventually make one. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 14, 2009 15:06:56 GMT
oh trust me there will be a Fat Warrior Armory one of these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 3:20:38 GMT
one thing I find interesting about these swords is that while the EMSHS starts out as one of the thinner of the swords it also is undoubtedly the stiffest in the strong of the blade. I think the reason for this could be explained by two things: first the wide fuller places the thickest part of the blade (the ridge of the fuller) closer to the edges making a structurally stiffer shape, and the edges of the strong on this sword are left very thick and blunt so less steel has been removed near the edge. I suspect the first reason plays a greater part but I'm not about to discount the second. I agree both on the observation and the explanation. You can really feel it when wielding the sword - in fact, with a different foible, it would be a great forte for a trusting sword. One of my first thoughts when I got the sword was "now I know why Tom whacked a brick with it..."
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 15, 2009 20:15:25 GMT
yeah the Forte or strong of the blade is basically a bar-mace with a sword blade on the end of it. it is, I think, the stiffest blade I have owned, at least in strong.
|
|