Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 18:46:35 GMT
I would rather go with the imbelished tough model that can take some serious punishment over the historical less durable "I have to be careful and baby this". If durability is a non-factor you could save some money and buy historic SLOs. (I am not calling G2s SLOs, far from it, just taking what Ramm said abit farther)
But thats just me
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 4, 2007 18:49:47 GMT
Durability is important, very. But (and obviously this is preference) it is not the most important aspect of a MODERN replica today. Had I lived in the middle ages, I think I'd take a well handling baseball bat over a nice purty sharp piece of tin. We have the luxury today of not having to use our swords for combat. Now, I'm heavily against wlalhangers of course, but I don't think that durability is "as" important as it once was. Now, does this mean I'm going to buy a sword that lacks durability? Of course not, but my first priority is buying a sword that looks cool (*cough* historically accurate ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 18:58:23 GMT
If the problem with historic vs. durable is the extra weight involved.
I am reminded of a part in The 13th Warrior when he was thrown a sword and said "I cannot lift this" to which came the reply "grow stronger".
However if it is purely cosmetic.... I would pick a nice looking durable one ;D
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 4, 2007 19:08:37 GMT
I disagree, one sohuldn't have to mould their body because a sword doesn't fit them. First off, if a sword's too heavy, it's not a well made sword ;D.
Secondly, if we want to get really specific here, I think a sword should be made for the weidlers abilities and not vice versa. But then you have to remember that there probably wasn't "too" many custom made swords back in ye olde land of the saxons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 20:13:06 GMT
Yea that would go over real well when being handed a sword. "Uhmm do you have one a tad lighter and a bit prettier" sorry man couldn't help myself. conditioning to be able to perform at a high level is key in almost anything one does. I do not see why swords would be different. for example: If you are going into martial arts but cannot kick above your own waist, do you.... A) ask the teacher for a different style or B) grow more flexible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 20:16:19 GMT
I think we can trade a bit of extra weight from a thicker blade for durability. After all, we're probably fed a bit better than you're average medieval soldier. I agree especialy for hand and half swords where you have extra leverage.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 4, 2007 20:21:30 GMT
That's true to optimize effectiveness but a sword is a weapon. The body should not be what makes the sword lethal. Would you rather sharpen the sword or swing twice as hard? or in this case, would you rather get stronger to swing a 20 lb sword or use your same strength to sing a 3 lb sword? Obviously extremes . However absurd that may sound, that's excactly what we (or at least I) do when shopping for a sword. We have the luxury of being able to do that. I agree that in period times, that is VERY absurd ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 20:39:23 GMT
1)The body is not what makes martial arts lethal (but it helps) It is what one can and cannot do <---------------part that applies to this conversation. and what they know and do not know 2)Well I guess it would depend on what the 20lb sword could do, if for instance the 20lb is so much more durable that it will snap 3lb swords and I don't have to worry about damaging it and go clean through plate armor (you got to use extremes ;D) Then hell yes I would get stronger p.s It appears we have hijacked this thread
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 4, 2007 20:55:12 GMT
A martial Art is only potentially lethal. If the person can't perform the movements correctly, it's no longer lethal (broadly speaking). A sword on the other hand is lethal regardless of wether Stephen Hawkings or Hulk Hogan is pointing it at your gullet (though I would admittedly be more afraid of hulk hogan, but that's just me). Justin, I think you're not grasping what I mean here because your argument holds quite a bit of logic and I agree with them. However, they are beside the point. My point is that a sword should be built around it's user not vice versa, although the latter isn't necessarily bad, we are talking about optimal circumstances. Strength isn't really going to help you much when your sword is sharp and you posess the ability to kill someone regardless. Why use a 20 lb sword when a 3lb one would work far more effectively AND requires far less skill to use? Ok what are we talking about again ? Agreed, lets cease ;D. Karma for a nice debate though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 21:06:35 GMT
I thought we had been discussing durability vs preference and then we switched to conditioning based on a specific goal vs goal based on ability.
But agreed nice exchange.
Karma for knowing when to call it quits ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 22:08:38 GMT
G2's have always been sold as super tough swords that can handle a lot of hard use. Their historical accuracy has suffered in the past because of this. Why do you think they have those thick wood grips with steel endcaps and super wide, fat crossguards? Because they are "overbuilt" in every respect specifically to increase durability. Also remember that G2 started out making super heavy duty sparring swords, and these features are a carry over from those days, when their swords would be regularly whacked against other swords. What I and others have been suggesting since Clyde joined us is that certain overbuilt aspects of the swords could (and should) be redesigned. Things like adding more taper or waisting to the grips (depending on model) and making crossguards thinner to more closely resemble period examples. Since sharpened G2 swords are going to be used as backyard cutters, rather than as sparring pieces, these aspects can easily be altered to a more historical and visually appealing form without compromising durability. What I have never suggested changing (or wanted to see changed) were the blades themselves. The thick, overbuilt blades on G2's are the one aspect of durability that needs to stay. Okay, they are a few ounces heavier than one may expect. And the distal taper (or lack thereof) may turn off the hardcore historical nut. Big deal. I always assumed that G2 customers understood that certain trade-offs were being made in order to make a more durable sword, while keeping them in an extremely affordable price range. Yes, I'm back to defending Clyde/G2! ;D I was unaware, until his recent post, that somebody had recommended changes to the blades, which may very well be the culprit in these recent bending incidents. I'm guessing that the guys at the forge have been grinding the blades down thinner recently while maintaining the current heat treat, which is great for the previous thicker stock, but must be carefully modified to suit steel that is now likely 30-50% thinner near the end of the blade. Please, leave my G2 blades thick and tough! If you prefer historical accuracy to all else, but want to stay in our price range, buy a Windlass. If you want historical accuracy and better toughness than Windlass offers, save up your sheckles and invest in an Albion or Arms & Armor, or go with a custom sword...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 22:25:27 GMT
Cheers to that ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 22:33:48 GMT
I'm glad somebody agrees! ;D Thanks, j. I guess I should have put this in the thread Clyde posted earlier today on the subject, but I didn't see it until after I'd posted it here, so consider this an interchangeable answer for both threads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2007 0:26:05 GMT
What I think the Blackprince needs is a thicker diamond cross-section if it is to maintain its high taper. A thicker diamond cross-section will make it stiffer and it will thrust better which is its main purpose. To be sure its cutting ability will be compromised. It should no longer be able to cut effortlessly though watter bottles. The thicker cross-section will add resistance.
Gentlemen, a sword can either cut good with a wide thin blade or thrust good with a thick pointy tapered blade. We have to abandon this idea that a sword can do everything, because then we end up with pointy thin blades that do nothing well except cut those ridiculous water bottles. We need swords that can be used against semi-hard targets.
So the choice is wide/thin or tapered/thick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2007 1:17:55 GMT
kudos to Clyde. he returned my email and i will be returning the BP (call tag issued) and getting a maximilian (very robust sword). i'm with tsafa, i want a sword that will work against semi-hard targets. ya know, when the $htf and zombies are running around i want the best there is to offer as far as tempering, Clyde is right on. i have heat treated and tempered numerous blades. there is a fine line during heat treating. get the point too hot and risk burning the carbon out. when the sword is ready to be quenched, the whole blade must be at the correct temperature and immediately quenched. if there is a delay, the tip will cool below the threshold and the ausenite will not form to martensite hence will not be hardened and able to temper. when i heat treat my 5160 blades, i anneal them x 2, heat treat/quench x 3 and temper/draw x 3. i did this with a camp knife, took it out 1 week and chopped fire wood the whole time. when i got home, i could still shave with the knife.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 5, 2007 1:22:14 GMT
Tsafa, I disagree, there are several designs that can do everything. The type XIX comes to mind (talk to adam on this) but the XVI and XII were quite adept at versatility. These swords thrust and cut remarkably, rivaling the type XI in cutting prowess and the XV in thursting penetration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2007 2:26:11 GMT
Well, there is some degree of "jack of all trades, master of none" when you try to find a do-it-all blade. The Type XV, for example, strikes me as a blade designed as a thruster that also has fair cutting potential, while a Type XIV, on the other hand, looks more like a cutter that also has decent thrusting potential. The various Type XVIII's seem like a better attempt, overall, to strike that elusive "perfect" balance between the two. The point is, while there are swords that bridge the gap between cut and thrust pretty well, I don't know if any of these compromise blades would perform either task as well as blades that were designed specifically to fulfill one role or the other.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 5, 2007 14:41:08 GMT
They may not be perfect, but there are swords that cut and thrust very effectively, so therefore you CAN have it all, to some degree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2007 15:34:31 GMT
If we are discussing ALL types of swords, some excel at both cut and thrust, and I know I have been plugging this sword alot but Paul S. will back me up on this. Hanwei Ninja does both EXTREMELY well, if you have not had the oppurtunity to check one out you definately should. Paul's review will give you a great look at it, so check that out if you haven't. www.sword-buyers-guide.com/best-ninja-sword.html
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 6, 2007 12:49:05 GMT
Very true! One of the most versatile and practical swords I have ever have had the pleasure of cutting with. A very scary little sword that one...!!!
|
|