Forged Sword Vs Stock Removal Sword
Nov 4, 2012 15:32:01 GMT
Post by mrpercie on Nov 4, 2012 15:32:01 GMT
This probably isnt all that important as im told the heat treatment or tempering process will decide wether the blade will be functional or not as a sword could be made from stainless steel but if treated or tempered correctly it can perform as well as carbon steels where as a carbon steel sword without any treatment or tempering would be like butter.
Basically, are there any major differences when it comes to swords that are made by heating up a block of steel then hammering it into a sword shape (forging) or cutting a sword shape from a sheet of metal (Stock removal)? Someone said that the swords made from cut sheet metal would suck as the atomic structure of sheet metal is "Aligned into a random pattern" where as a forged sword aligns the atomic structure into one direction. I dont understand what that means, surely almost all blocks of metals, wether they are produced from modern industrial methods or from a smith's forge would all have the same or at least similar alignment of atoms.
He also said that by cutting the sword shape from a sheet of metal produces alot of heat which further destroys the internal atomic structure of the sword, making it mistempered along the length. But I thought this is why there was processes such as Normalisation, Quenching and tempering which would equally heat the sword and all the atoms so every part of the sword is at the same level of heat then slowly cooled so everything is even and balanced.
I read up on forged swords and that they can be better or at least a more durable sword to stock removal swords. When forging, the hammer must hit the sword with the same force, same direction and the same manner and this realigns the grain structure consistently but because of human error its said to be almost impossible for a smith to do and offers no or little benefit. The only arguement I could see for forged swords was that they allowed pattern welding but thats merely for cosmetic reasons rather than functional/practical ones.
Basically, are there any major differences when it comes to swords that are made by heating up a block of steel then hammering it into a sword shape (forging) or cutting a sword shape from a sheet of metal (Stock removal)? Someone said that the swords made from cut sheet metal would suck as the atomic structure of sheet metal is "Aligned into a random pattern" where as a forged sword aligns the atomic structure into one direction. I dont understand what that means, surely almost all blocks of metals, wether they are produced from modern industrial methods or from a smith's forge would all have the same or at least similar alignment of atoms.
He also said that by cutting the sword shape from a sheet of metal produces alot of heat which further destroys the internal atomic structure of the sword, making it mistempered along the length. But I thought this is why there was processes such as Normalisation, Quenching and tempering which would equally heat the sword and all the atoms so every part of the sword is at the same level of heat then slowly cooled so everything is even and balanced.
I read up on forged swords and that they can be better or at least a more durable sword to stock removal swords. When forging, the hammer must hit the sword with the same force, same direction and the same manner and this realigns the grain structure consistently but because of human error its said to be almost impossible for a smith to do and offers no or little benefit. The only arguement I could see for forged swords was that they allowed pattern welding but thats merely for cosmetic reasons rather than functional/practical ones.