|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 11, 2011 1:01:31 GMT
Granted on the tatami; it was just the first thing to come to mind. Cardboard is very abrasive to more than just the edge so I'd not have suggested using it as a testing medium except in a harsher test, and to somebody comfortable with polishing after.
Steel on steel is...well, it IS a test, of sorts...but it doesn't really prove anything, unless there is a separate control factor. Striking one blade against another and then comparing the damage only shows which was harder or softer than the other, not if either was too hard or too soft. Besides, what IS, exactly "too hard" or "too soft" for a sword? It's only natural for an edge to chip or roll when striking another solid object, particularly one harder than itself, but who is to say that harder substance is not "too hard" for a sword?
|
|
|
Post by danmasamori on Jul 11, 2011 1:38:32 GMT
I'd give the blade a passing grade, I've done worse damage during routine cutting practices. Simply put, a katana is not produced to stand up to this kind of destructive test, even Nihonto will suffer signifigant damage.
|
|
|
Post by Opferous on Jul 11, 2011 1:45:00 GMT
Maybe, but that's still discussing heat treat (and even then, more controlled experiments are required) and not the steel itself. I can't say I'd agree with the general argument that the 1S steel itself is inferior to any carbon steel. And even if we knew the exact composition of the HWS-1S, which carbon steel are we comparing it to?
Semantics but important.
|
|
|
Post by mrvei on Jul 15, 2011 0:12:30 GMT
That looks about the same damage that was produced by a Kris Cutlery vs Munetoshi T10 Take took when I tested the blades edge to edge using very very hard strikes. T10 Take is a bit softer then the 5160 by Kris Cutlery. Both are differentially hardened. The take T10 mostly was cut not nicked.
It's normal damage sword vs sword I'd say. Not really a failure unless it was edge to edge and it literally did minuscule damage to the other swords. You can't fix a nick of that size without reshaping the entire edge. Trust me if you ever cut with that nick and your edge is not in a smooth transition, you will bodge up the cut. Atm my Take T10 cannot cut water bottles with the nicks it has,[/quote] do you have pics of the kc vs t10?? id love to see how the kc blade did ^.^ you should show what the pk looks like after as well
|
|
|
Post by mrvei on Jul 15, 2011 0:48:01 GMT
what you see in that pic is great not a bad thing, high end sword makers will tell you, that small half moon ship is idea. if its too hard the blade cracks, and the could lead to the blade braking in two later. too soft and it dents or gets cut, also very bad in the long run. a half moon chip will not grow later and make the sword useless. after looking at that pic i want a LD even more now lol. this test shows 1s is good steel and it has a very good temper ^.^
|
|
|
Post by mikejapan on Jul 31, 2011 4:29:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sir Tre on Jul 31, 2011 18:43:27 GMT
Chuck and Random have struck the head of the nail (not with a sword edge...LOL... but rather metaphorically)
when i performed a destructive test on a euro i used to own, i was not surprised that there was a slight rattle in the guard later. it is just what happens. what that told me is... in a true sword battle, i would be happy that the only problem i had is a rattle in the guard.
as regarding edge on edge destructive testing, what i said above stands, Random is correct. the harder the edge the worse the chip. one good reason that the katana is DH. that way it will not entirely break in a hard strike.
now to press the point (sword pun not intended... or maybe it could be), that is why some schools o thought stress the NON edge on edge parry. when you parry another sword with the flat o a two sword, or even the mune o the katana as another member has pointed out, you protect your edge. The edge that will be able to cut your opponent in sword combat. There are so called edge on edge parry but it usually calls to use the forte.... the duller or even ricasso style edge near the guard.
that is why to some chinese sword ans that have limited knowledge o this are surprised that the edge near the guard o jian is dull. but the ones who use the rapier are most used to.
that being said, the edge on edge strike is apt to occur in battle this is true, or the old adage "semprini happens". i have a wonderful Jin-Shi production jian that has such a nick in the edge because o emergency blocking my student messing up on a target cut, when i had to parry his sword to prevent him cutting himself on bad swing. it was strong hit also. what i am trying to say is that we as swordsmen, (another thread looking to buy perfect sword.. when there is none) need to stop believing in the inherent indestructibility o the sword. all swords are simple a chunk o metal that has a sharp edge, and are well balanced to use as swords. that is all they are despite the myths and legends o the shows we watch on TV.
speaking about TV or movie... watching last samurai the other day (like 7th time) i noticed that the edges o the katanas were chewed up in the battles. to me this added a touch o reality, that most TV shows neve deplict.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Tre on Jul 31, 2011 18:50:07 GMT
also i want to say that should my bakery ever have enough dough as it were, i would be proud to own suc a sword made modern the=at could take such a strike by a antique with such little damage.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Jul 31, 2011 19:02:18 GMT
Darkguy, what you did was strike a differentially hardened blade against a through hardened one. Of course a through hardened blade is more durable. the fact that a 4" section of your edge didn't break off means that the steel of the lion dog is good. Also, like others have said, the edge geometry of Hanwei is optimized for mat cutting. Their edges are relatively fragile as a result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2011 10:34:25 GMT
I just don't understand you guys. What I meant was simple. In a sword to sword battle (no matter what steel you are clashing against) the more durable sword wins - assuming the equal skill of the swordsman. The so-called modern steel (1S Steel) is much inferior to ancient tulwar steel (not even wootz). End of story. I don't know how you are still going around circles saying that it is built for chopping mats only etc., etc. A REAL BATTLE WILL NOT INVOLVE IN MATS OR JUST FLESH. You have to bang against armour, other sword's sharp ends and shields before you get to cutting flesh. The steel which retains the edge will win. Others will not. I'm happy with this conclusion. Thanks for your time guys.
|
|
|
Post by Student of Sword on Aug 1, 2011 11:20:57 GMT
I am sorry but I have to agree with others that your test is silly and means nothing. It shows the lack of understanding of edge weapons in combat. All swords are compromise. It depends on what one is willing to compromise. Your answer said it all. There is nothing simple about war or combat. It is complicate. Take a simple view of combat and you will get it wrong all the times. A KA-BAR knives are tempered at very low rockwell hardness. Why? Because it is so that marines can sharpen them easier on the field. If I take a KA-BAR knife and did a similar test, all the knives out there will cut into the KA-BAR. But what you view as a bug is actually a feature. It is you you don't understand. This is because you take a simple view instead of seeing the big picture. What constitute a good sword depends on the battlefield environment. A good sword in the Napoleonic War is not the same as a good sword in the War of the Roses. The blade steel was designed to be resistance to permanent bent. If you take it and bang it against a ceramic kitchen knife, the kitchen knife will cut into the sword. Ceramic kitchen knife have higher rockwell hardness than swords. Does that mean a ceramic kitchen knife is a superior battle weapon? No! That is why the test is silly. So what if the blade chip. It is still usable in combat. If you use "durability" as the criteria. Have you test "set resistance?" There are other aspects of "durability" other edge chipping. Have you done the Charpy Impact Test? It tests when the blade will break. (Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charpy_impact_test ) The Japanese Imperial Army did a much more meaningful test during World War II. The put swords in the vise horizontally and drop weights on them, progressively at increasing heights, until the swords break or bend beyond use. That is a meaningful test of durability.
|
|
ghost
Member
Posts: 1,323
|
Post by ghost on Aug 1, 2011 19:51:57 GMT
Not to come down hard on you either dark, but your conclusions are totally wrong. Perhaps a little bit on the history of katanas - their geometry has changed over successive Japanese periods. Most of the kats on the modern market exhibit Edo/post-Edo shapes and reflect relatively peaceful times. They adapted to duels/flashy status symbols etc. and drew away from the need to run into large-scale wars/armored combat. More recent katanas had very little niku (think meat behind the cutting edge) because it would be a downside to cleave through only cloth-covered flesh (mat equiv). The lighter and faster sword has a huge advantage in unarmored combat while the beefier one is better against the alternative. Older kats were very heavily built and would have been a more suitable test against a tulwar...though it still would not tell you anything useful about their steels. Therefore your comparison is invalid because you are comparing swords with two vastly different designs and purposes. As for the lion dog vs the elite...maybe the lion dog is sharper? Suppose you are a master swordsman...would cutting though 5 mats be easier/faster with the lion dog? And would this conclusively tell you that the lion dog has better steel than the elite? Really, all this test showed was geometry - I still cannot conclude one is better. Unarmored: supposed your tulwar can barely lop off an arm and leaves the enemy dangerous...yet the lion dog can go through 2-3 bodies...would the steel on the LD be any better? Also to clarify, the large majority of historical battles - choose your pick - Not all soldiers wore full sets of armor. Steel/metal is VERY very expensive...
|
|
|
Post by Opferous on Aug 1, 2011 23:11:19 GMT
Sorry, mate, by my issue here is that you're demonizing a STEEL due to your results from an inconclusive test on one particular blade. Like Student of the Sword said, there are plenty of factors to consider when looking at any blade. The steel alone doesn't determine the worth of a blade and how well it functions in its specified niche. And even then, half the battle is in the crafting rather than the materials. 440 stainless is typically considered junk in mass production knives/swords, but you still have smiths that can work miracles with it regardless of length.
Even if you were to do a whole slew of effective, well thought out tests, I'd say that the most you'd be able to argue is that this particular katana is good or bad at one specific task when comparing against the same type or niche.
tl;dr - Demonizing an entire steel due to one sword is an insult to smiths who can do (and do well) what they want to do with the steel.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Tre on Aug 2, 2011 5:55:13 GMT
to really be a strong minded advocate of already stated concepts concerning the reality about what makes a sword sturdy... i have a 3' waxwood staff with the correct taper and balance that i would not hesitate to carry into a sword match with extreme confidence that my outcome would be wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by mikejapan on Aug 2, 2011 6:20:36 GMT
Student of sword.... Are you a god 0_0
|
|
|
Post by gerbopyl on Aug 2, 2011 9:16:07 GMT
Wouldnt the stationary sword have more support thus able to disperse the force of the blow better than the sword being swung? I could be way off im no physics major.
|
|
|
Post by mikejapan on Aug 2, 2011 15:22:05 GMT
Well it depends on how it was stationed. I think
|
|
|
Post by chrisperoni on Aug 2, 2011 15:52:39 GMT
Worth repeating.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Aug 2, 2011 19:59:51 GMT
Reminds me of a German documentary, wherein a well-known German smith takes two of his own swords, one katana and I've basic longsword, one- or two-hander and Oakeshott type escape my memory, but he alternately put one in a set of vices on a table and struck out edge-on with the other. First he hot the longsword with the kat, resulting in a nasty chip on the longsword, but an even nastier one on the katana. He then put the same katana into the vices and struck it edge-on worth the longsword. This time the kat broke, while the longsword took a worse chip than the first round.
The conclusion was something like the longsword offering stronger support to the edge than the kat, by virtue of its geometry and spring temper, versus the katana being more rigid and thinner.
The smith seemed to prefer his katana for cutting and general forms stuff, but thought the longsword to be the "better battlefield weapon,"
Of course, that's assuming im eben remembering things right. Caused a lot of debate here over whether he'd made the kat too thin, aiming for a "mat cutter" type, neglecting the necessary niku for a proper "battlefield weapon" or if he'd overbuilt the longsword to sway the advantage.
Either way, it was a rather good show. Might try to find it again...
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Aug 2, 2011 21:14:50 GMT
@random: I know exactly what video you're talking about and you are misremembering slightly.
Both swords were made by him, both swords were tested by him, and he was trained to use both effectively. However, the sword he put in the vice was a Gen 2 12th Century Sword. The Gen 2 was relatively unharmed against the katana, though the katana suffered catastrophic failure with a huge chip in the blade and the entire blade bending forward, resembling a thin falcata more than a katana. He did the same test against the same Gen 2 with his longsword and severed the Gen 2 cleanly in two parts; a little too cleanly if you ask me.
He then goes on to say something like the results were exactly what he had expected from the beginning, yadda yadda. In the thread the video was originally posted on (one of mine), a few members got to wondering at the validity of the test since the longsword was a heavy, battle worthy war sword while the katana he tested was noted as an Edo period blade, light and not made for the rigors of battle against armor. Or something to that effect.
|
|