|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 12, 2015 0:19:52 GMT
I was looking at the Windlass Munich but the 3.7mm thickness put me off. Ulahn said his was 4.2 at the ricasso but that still seems a bit thin to me but most account put the Munich as a good sword. Same with the Ulfberht, gets good buzz but 3.5mm is less than 1/8 of an inch. So I ask you, are these too thin or am I obsessed with size? Does size matter? With swords I mean.......
|
|
Alan Schiff
Registered
Manufacturers and Vendors
Posts: 463
|
Post by Alan Schiff on Feb 12, 2015 0:37:40 GMT
Hey Ric, 3.5mm is .138 inches, more than 1/8 inch, although not by much. Windlass pretty much exclusively uses 3/16 stock, so you're going to get a sword no thicker than .188 inches, or 4.77mm. From what I've read and seen in my time collecting, the way the sword is made is more important than the thickness of the blade, although I would think each type should be within a certain range in order to handle properly.
Hope that helps, Alan
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 12, 2015 0:37:54 GMT
I've been pondering this one, too. Kind of forgot about it, actually, but now that you've reminded me, it's back at the forefront. I'm not much for Euro swords, but my AT 1315 is about 6mm at the guard, and even out at the very tip it's only just 3mm. I can't get at it to measure, but I'm sure my Hanwei William Marshall is thicker still. Only other non-kat I have is a Hanwei Shashka, which is hard to measure as most of the width of the blade is fuller. I measure the spine at ricasso at 8mm, but the edge bevel is only 3mm. Between them the fuller is even thinner, and probably accounts for 80% of the overall blade's width. Mind you, the single-edge...dness?...keeps the spine pretty thick, so the sword is very stiff and certainly no lightweight, despite probably sneaking down to 1.5mm at the low point in the fuller. Only other "sword" I have with a particularly thin blade profile is an old "Khyber knife" which for the entirety of its length is 2mm thick, but it has a T-section spine which keeps it rigid and loans support. Very stiff blade, very sturdy, no doubt credit to the T-section. I have a rather large folding knife, about 9" long, with a 2mm blade thickness that is a bit more flexible than I'd like, bot not overly so. I question whether anything as long as Windlass' Munich (33+ inches) with a <4mm thickness would be substantial enough for, well, much of anything. That aside, though, I can't say that I've heard any complaints about this model. It's really thin, but either it's not seeing the circulation most Windlass get, or the folks buying aren't really pushing them. With so little taper (3.7 down to 2.4 mm) it sounds like the classic "wet noodle" to me...then again, which one was (also Windlass) that was renowned as floppy but cut like a champ despite it? I remember a video, years ago, of one of our members twisting the blade around before pulling off some pretty impressive cuts... Edit: Pulled up a bunch of random Windlass swords at KoA, and while I'm not sure sabers can be counted (found one with a 7.3mm thickness) the fattest in my random sampling was the 15th Century Longsword measured at 4.6mm. Seems the average is around 4-4.2, some dipping down to 3.5. Still strikes me as very thin, but it seems they do all right.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 12, 2015 0:50:52 GMT
Well I just measured some of my Albions and they seen to run 3/16 to a 1/4 inch so I would say 1/8 of an inch is definitely on the thin side. But there's nothing wrong with thin if it's strong.
|
|
|
Post by Rabel Dusk on Feb 12, 2015 1:16:48 GMT
Interesting - if you compare the thicknesses of the Windlass Town Guard sword to the one made by A&A
Windlass - 3.7 to 2.4mm
A&A - 6.6 to 2.1mm
A&A is the better sword by a wide margin. (not just because of the blade geometry)
I think that the thicker a blade starts out, the more creative a swordmaker can get with blade geometry. If you start out at .150 in., you don't have much to work with.
Would you say that dedicated thrusters tend to have thicker blades than dedicated cutters?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Dayne on Feb 12, 2015 1:24:22 GMT
The blade thickness of my:
VA Kriegschwert is about 6.1MM at the base, 4mm at midpoint and about 3mm near the tip. VA Knights Templar is about 6mm at base, 3.8mm at the mid point and 2.8mm near the tip.
Both blade types are Type XIIA and favor the cut over the thrust.
I have a Huawei 8 sided Han Jian that is about 8mm at the base, 6mm at midpoint and 4mm at the tip. That blade is very stiff and is a scary thrusting sword but is wide enough with great edge geometry for chopping hardwood apart.
Also have a Hanwei Tinker Bastard sword that is around 5.3MM at the base, 3.8mm at mid point and 3.1mm near the tip. It's stiff and a decent thrusting sword but light weight.
Latest sword VA/CSS Limited Edition War Sword 6mm at base, 4.4mm at mid point and 3.43 near tip, very wide and moderately stiff sword that seems to tear chunks out of wood. New favorite sword.
Disclaimer: My final comment doesn't give a $$$$ about historic accuracy
I think a sword blade should at least meet these measurements whether for cutting or thrust or both-
6mm at base, 4mm at midpoint & 3mm near tip (exceptions include 2mm to 3mm for tip as long as it is somewhat supported > )
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 12, 2015 1:36:01 GMT
Out of antiques, I have blades with maximum thicknesses varying from 3.8mm to about 13mm. (Maybe I have a tulwar that is thinner than that, and maybe something thicker. So the range is at least that large.)
The Thorpe falchion is 2.5mm at the thickest - that's the thinnest that comes to mind. Thickest that comes to mind is a parang latok that was 16mm at the base of the blade.
But a lot of Windlass swords are thinner at the base of the blade than originals of the type. (And the same is true for many makers.) Some are reasonably accurate.
Kult of Athena lists the thickness of the Albion Saint Maurice as 1.7mm-0.7mm. That's pretty thin.
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Heff on Feb 12, 2015 1:43:25 GMT
Great question. What I have come to realize is I like a thicker blade stock to begin with but depending on the length and width your overall stiffness seems to be a combination of multiple factors. The length and the geometry and probably the tempering All come in to play. And of course the distal taper.
my windlass ulfberht is pretty stiff but I wouldn't think it's any more than 3/16 inches thick. It is however a fairly wide blade at the base and has quite a profile profile taper to it. Quite a few of the Albion single handers that I have either owned or handled seem to be just over 3/16 inches thick. My opinion based on my personal experience...several factors involved. Biggest gripe is if the blade is floppy, whippy is the term and people poo pooed it, but it's real. And overly floppy blade or a whippy blade, sucks, no matter what the type.
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 12, 2015 1:52:39 GMT
Hey Ric, 3.5mm is .138 inches, more than 1/8 inch, although not by much. Windlass pretty much exclusively uses 3/16 stock, so you're going to get a sword no thicker than .188 inches, or 4.77mm. From what I've read and seen in my time collecting, the way the sword is made is more important than the thickness of the blade, although I would think each type should be within a certain range in order to handle properly. Hope that helps, Alan i stand corrected, I was using a bad conversion chart. Still I think 3/16 in. would be the cut off for me personally. For sure the the way it's made and the type makes a difference. With that in mind the disparity between the Munich and the Town Guard gives me pause but then they aren't in the same league as far as make goes anyway as has been pointed out by Rabel Dusk already.
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 12, 2015 2:01:23 GMT
Would you say that dedicated thrusters tend to have thicker blades than dedicated cutters? My first impulse is to say yes. But then I think stiffness is the issue for a thruster and does that always mean thicker?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 12, 2015 2:33:01 GMT
Would you say that dedicated thrusters tend to have thicker blades than dedicated cutters? My first impulse is to say yes. But then I think stiffness is the issue for a thruster and does that always mean thicker? Sort of. If the geometry is otherwise the same, thicker means stiffer. Wider also means stiffer, but it has less effect than thickness. The stiffness is proportional to the thickness cubed, and only linearly proportional to the width. So, to double the stiffness by making it thicker, you only need to make the blade 26% thicker, but to double the stiffness by making it wider, you need to double the width. Of course, it depends on how much steel is at that maximum thickness - the details of the geometry still matter. It doesn't depend on the carbon content or the heat treatment (well, a tiny bit, but not enough to worry about). Doesn't depend on the alloy very much, as long as it's steel - even stainless steels will have close to the same stiffness. As for cutters versus thrusters, there are plenty of cutters with blades 10mm or more thick, at the thickest. Thrusters tend to be thicker at the tip than cutters, even if the cutter is thicker at the base of the blade.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 12, 2015 2:37:47 GMT
Would you say that dedicated thrusters tend to have thicker blades than dedicated cutters? My first impulse is to say yes. But then I think stiffness is the issue for a thruster and does that always mean thicker? This is a pretty weird one. Narrower blades get between armory bits better, but too thin and you're likely to bend or break it in the endeavor. An icepick is a fantastic stabber if there's nothing in the way, but I'd want something more substantial, just in case. One of the reasons I've become so fond of T-section blades and utterly obsessed with the Afghan/Indian pesh kabz/chooras/whatever. I have two daggers that are scary thin and pointy, but backed up by just-beefy-enouogh T-section spines that I can comfortably say they'd stab something without much trouble. Same for the old Gras bayonet, even with its spear point after the T fades in. But the "typical" diamond-section blade? Eeeehhh...something hollow-ground with a nice ridge down the center, maybe. Depends how wide, perhaps? Torque being what it is... Edit: Timo beat me in with the idea I was aiming for, but he said it better, as usual. I'll leave mine up, but add a note here to say "What he said."
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 12, 2015 3:04:24 GMT
Great stuff, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 12, 2015 9:42:01 GMT
A sword's "ideal" thickness depends largely on its size, type and intended function. As others have pointed out, there is a HUGE variety on originals but it's possible to devise some general rule of thumbs. Earlier, cutting-oriented and shorter blades (X, XII, etc) tend to be between 4-6mm base thickness. Many sport long and wide fullers and sometimes make due with not a lot of distal taper though a gradual concave or linear distal taper to 2-3mm (or less) tip thickness is the norm. Cutting-focused early two-handed swords (XIIa, XIIIa, etc) often have similar overall and base thickness but due to their length, proper distal tapering is of more importance. Too thin a base thickness and/or improper distal taper and you'll end up with a wet noodle. Later, more thrusting-oriented swords with narrower blades (XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, etc) tend to have thicker base thickness (over 6mm usually and sometimes going as high as a full cm or more) and more convex distal tapering and often retain more thickness at the narrow tip. There are notable exceptions though, for example the very wide and quite thin XVIIIc from the Alexandrian collection.
In general, it's all a matter of form follows function.
|
|
ShooterMike
VIP Reviewer
Senior Forumite
I like swords, and my snowman did too!
Posts: 9,094
|
Post by ShooterMike on Feb 12, 2015 10:31:37 GMT
^ | THIS!
As a general rule, earlier period medieval sword designs start thinner at the guard, though there are exceptions. As you move to later period swords, the first few inches of the blade generally start out much wider. My theory is that steel was very expensive to obtain in the earlier centuries, and smiths were used to designing swords with thinner distal sections. But as the fighting styles and armour progressed, and steel became relatively more available and less costly, we start to see the swords of the time getting a lot thicker near the hand and exhibiting a much greater degree of distal or profile taper.
But to Rick's question about the Windlass Munich, that seems very thin for a sword of that type. Those swords were historically a very specific design, built in a very specific time. I doubt you'd ever find an original that didn't have a thick cross section near the guard, much like the A&A Town Guard. IMO this is an example of Windlass falling down on the job. They seem to use 3/16" stock for almost all their designs, or at least all the ones they think they can get away with. For some earlier period designs it is perfectly appropriate. But for swords like the Munich, they really missed the boat.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Feb 12, 2015 11:00:19 GMT
Out of antiques, I have blades with maximum thicknesses varying from 3.8mm to about 13mm. (Maybe I have a tulwar that is thinner than that, and maybe something thicker. So the range is at least that large.) The Thorpe falchion is 2.5mm at the thickest - that's the thinnest that comes to mind. Thickest that comes to mind is a parang latok that was 16mm at the base of the blade. But a lot of Windlass swords are thinner at the base of the blade than originals of the type. (And the same is true for many makers.) Some are reasonably accurate. Kult of Athena lists the thickness of the Albion Saint Maurice as 1.7mm-0.7mm. That's pretty thin.
That thickness must be wrong for St. Maurice, it's just impossible. I think I also read somewhere that Thorpe Falchion is also thicker, that the 2.5mm is also a typo that occured somewhere and now it's going around. Or maybe it's a thickness at the CoP or tip.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Feb 12, 2015 12:38:49 GMT
I am sure the above comments are all to the point and worthy of much further thinking. To get back at the Windlass Munich that is up for sale and Ric seems to be lusting after still, I'd say there are, to my knowledge, no raports of bending and / or broken blades for that one and that combined with the popularity of said sword, tells me that though the stock is thin, most certainly compaired with antiques, the thickness here is not a liability. To Ric I say: If you want the Munich, go get it. I am pretty sure you will have a good sword. As to the thickness discussion: All my antique (battle) sabres are in the 8mm to 11mm class, so 0,314" to 0,43".
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 12, 2015 13:38:31 GMT
I am sure the above comments are all to the point and worthy of much further thinking. To get back at the Windlass Munich that is up for sale and Ric seems to be lusting after still, I'd say there are, to my knowledge, no raports of bending and / or broken blades for that one and that combined with the popularity of said sword, tells me that though the stock is thin, most certainly compaired with antiques, the thickness here is not a liability. To Ric I say: If you want the Munich, go get it. I am pretty sure you will have a good sword. As to the thickness discussion: All my antique (battle) sabres are in the 8mm to 11mm class, so 0,314" to 0,43". I don't doubt the Munich is a good sword, Ulahn. I have found a lot of people that have it seem to like it. The one up for sale is a one of with some history to it's credit tho I don't know how I feel about it being antiqued. I haven't shut the door on the model. Actually it's more the type I'm looking at lately, I seem to have a hankering for a complex hilt. I was bidding on a Hanwei side sword on ebay but it went a little higher than I wanted to pay for a sword with a plastic grip, plastic on swords puts me off it does. Ideally I'd like an A&A Town guard but I don't have the financing worked out for that one just yet but it's definitely on my list of lust. Anyway, all that got me pondering blade thickness on the whole, hence this thread which I'm finding informative and fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 12, 2015 15:06:34 GMT
I've been trying to convince myself I DON'T want a later-period cut-and-thrust with a complex hilt lately. All this fuss over the Munich isn't helping. At least I can say that particular sword isn't stealing my fancy, but that A&A...
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 12, 2015 15:29:38 GMT
I've been trying to convince myself I DON'T want a later-period cut-and-thrust with a complex hilt lately. All this fuss over the Munich isn't helping. At least I can say that particular sword isn't stealing my fancy, but that A&A... :( I'm starting to think the Munich might scratch my itch until I can work out a Town Guard...............
|
|