|
Post by Arthur Dayne on Feb 17, 2015 18:41:53 GMT
Avery, I applaud your efforts here. Good job putting that blade through it's paces. Excellent process and wonderful documentation and review. But, well...
I guess...I just...have a different opinion of what should be a sword and what should be considered "abuse" of one. I didn't see anything in that video that should be considered "abuse" in any way. It wasn't put in a vise and bent back and forth. It wasn't beaten edge-on against any hardened steel, or even soft iron. All I saw were some moderate strikes against light targets and unanchored wood. Probably a lot less abusive than would be encountered fighting sword and shield. Especially if the shields had light metal rims. Or cutting into a pike formation. Or deflecting spear thrusts. Or parrying blows from another sharp sword blade against the flat. You know, what swords were used for back in the day.
Looking at pictures of the tang/pommel junction, it was easy to predict the point of failure. IMO this is a totally unsuited way to secure a longsword pommel. On an arming sword, it can work OK. But longswords are designed for the pommel to be a point of leverage. Some will point out ATrims as a similar method, but I will argue to the contrary. ATrim pommels when properly assembled, are pressed onto the tang and leverage against the tang. The threaded portion only keeps them from coming loose. At least that's how the design is supposed to work. I certainly won't argue that Gus didn't let some out with grip cores that were a bit long, thus preventing this press fit. But it doesn't negate the design.
Bottom line, I've never seen a single longsword or any hand & a half design with a welded tang like that shown above, that had a loose pommel fitment, that didn't break with even moderate use, such as that depicted in the video above. You guys can rag on me all you like. But when I see stuff like this being considered "acceptable for the price point" it just makes me cringe.
Sorry...[ /rant]
Well said Shootermike (thanks for the valuable input on the Albion Count in another topic). I'm glad you mentioned that the pommel needed to be press fit onto the tang as it was something I took for granted because I assumed most longswords are made this way but apparently not. Even with the threaded tang portion properly welded on there's still a chance that additional stress on it would break the weld since the pommel is not assembled in a manner where it is pressed onto the tang due to the long wood/leather handle. A proper weld (or solid heat treated & tempered tang) combined with a proper press fit assembly could turn this lineup around for the better. In addition I had issues before when swapping out different Hanwei Bastard & Longsword blades on the same hilt where the pommel wasn't properly pressed onto tang or the fit was not secure- Wood shims/copper sheets/electrical tape helped along with cutting off a bit of the wood grip. To be far, when I cut into 2x4s or 4x4 cutting stands with a sword they are sometimes not anchored, especially when using the more delicate Malatesta sword, but when cutting with the Kriegschwert or War Sword for example an anchored 2x4 or 4x4 isn't really unreasonable abuse. We are living in the 21st century with modern steels/heat treatment knowledge and manufacturing techniques so when someone tells me that a historically accurate or inaccurate sword is expected to break when hitting a 2x4 or a thick hardwood cutting board anchored to a workbench focusing all the stress unto a 4cm portion of the blade I can't accept it with a straight face because I think we should expect a bit more (No, I'm not advocating cutting into aluminum blocks or engine blocks and expecting no damage...nor am I encouraging unreasonable things like taking a 2mm thin cutting sword and chopping a Douglas Fir down). When a solid tang breaks/snaps due to heat treatment I am pretty confident that a replacement would work just fine because the blade could have been the odd one out on the side when the blade batch hit the ovens, but when the lineup has the threaded tang welded like this combined with the pommel/hilt assembly placing extra stress on that weak point I say: back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 17, 2015 19:10:04 GMT
Avery, I applaud your efforts here. Good job putting that blade through it's paces. Excellent process and wonderful documentation and review. But, well...
I guess...I just...have a different opinion of what should be a sword and what should be considered "abuse" of one. I didn't see anything in that video that should be considered "abuse" in any way. It wasn't put in a vise and bent back and forth. It wasn't beaten edge-on against any hardened steel, or even soft iron. All I saw were some moderate strikes against light targets and unanchored wood. Probably a lot less abusive than would be encountered fighting sword and shield. Especially if the shields had light metal rims. Or cutting into a pike formation. Or deflecting spear thrusts. Or parrying blows from another sharp sword blade against the flat. You know, what swords were used for back in the day.
Looking at pictures of the tang/pommel junction, it was easy to predict the point of failure. IMO this is a totally unsuited way to secure a longsword pommel. On an arming sword, it can work OK. But longswords are designed for the pommel to be a point of leverage. Some will point out ATrims as a similar method, but I will argue to the contrary. ATrim pommels when properly assembled, are pressed onto the tang and leverage against the tang. The threaded portion only keeps them from coming loose. At least that's how the design is supposed to work. I certainly won't argue that Gus didn't let some out with grip cores that were a bit long, thus preventing this press fit. But it doesn't negate the design.
Bottom line, I've never seen a single longsword or any hand & a half design with a welded tang like that shown above, that had a loose pommel fitment, that didn't break with even moderate use, such as that depicted in the video above. You guys can rag on me all you like. But when I see stuff like this being considered "acceptable for the price point" it just makes me cringe.
Sorry...[ /rant] To be far, when I cut into 2x4s or 4x4 cutting stands with a sword they are sometimes not anchored, especially when using the more delicate Malatesta sword, but when cutting with the Kriegschwert or War Sword for example an anchored 2x4 or 4x4 isn't really unreasonable abuse. We are living in the 21st century with modern steels/heat treatment knowledge and manufacturing techniques so when someone tells me that a historically accurate or inaccurate sword is expected to break when hitting a 2x4 or a thick hardwood cutting board anchored to a workbench focusing all the stress unto a 4cm portion of the blade I can't accept it with a straight face because I think we should expect a bit more (No, I'm not advocating cutting into aluminum blocks or engine blocks and expecting no damage...nor am I encouraging unreasonable things like taking a 2mm thin cutting sword and chopping a Douglas Fir down). While I agree with Mike and you regarding what a sword should be able to shrug off, I completely fail to understand why you cut into your cutting stands (repeatedly and on purpose). What you do expect to learn from that? Just because a sword can handle punishment doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it...
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Dayne on Feb 17, 2015 19:33:44 GMT
I usually reserve that honored privilege to a new sword for the first 1-3 weeks to see to see if it'll break and kill me. Or fly away into something- then, if I live long enough, to contact the vendor/manufacturer and tell them how the sword broke and send pictures etc, and get an exchange or refund.
When I get a new sword, tool, car or gun, I put it to work right away to make sure I didn't get a lemon or one with a severe flaw. I like to find out fast or sooner rather than later before return policies expire and because waiting around doing nothing doesn't appeal to me. Cutting into the cutting stand so to speak exposes flaws and potential problems sooner and so far I haven't had any swords break on me yet though hex nuts have gotten loose and fittings don't fit so tightly- which were easily fixed with some blue & red loctite.
Correction: I did break a few things but they were "Sword Like Objects" or things I thought were swords at the time, a wall hangar katana, generic longsword and a stainless steel jian, the blades got bent, handles fell apart and rat tail tangs got exposed- some snapped of course.
|
|
|
Post by Insane on Feb 17, 2015 19:52:24 GMT
Thank you for the review and the great pictures. That stuff you bash with your sword is what I consider the bare minimum of objects I like to cut into/smash/chop that I do with my Hanwei Tinker Bastard and Malatesta sword for example and so far the threaded portions of those swords have held up just fine. At this point I don't think I can ever justify the decision to buy a Ronin Euro sword, maybe rationalize but definitely not justify. You bash/cut cutting stands and small trees with your HT Longsword and your Malatesta? Really? I wouldnt consider stuff like that "the bare minimum of objects" for cutting...;-) Nevertheless welded screwing-rods are an absolute no-go for me..dont even trust the Lutel stuff anymore after the two Ronin-tests..:-( I train 3 hours a week with my H/T longsword (blunt) smashing on shields, pikes and other swords. So a Hexnut construction is fine when it's well made. What i found was when a pommel slides over the tang the Hexnut is only there to keep it in place. And the stress is on the tang and not on the threats.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 17, 2015 22:11:01 GMT
I usually reserve that honored privilege to a new sword for the first 1-3 weeks to see to see if it'll break and kill me. Or fly away into something- then, if I live long enough, to contact the vendor/manufacturer and tell them how the sword broke and send pictures etc, and get an exchange or refund. When I get a new sword, tool, car or gun, I put it to work right away to make sure I didn't get a lemon or one with a severe flaw. I like to find out fast or sooner rather than later before return policies expire and because waiting around doing nothing doesn't appeal to me. Cutting into the cutting stand so to speak exposes flaws and potential problems sooner and so far I haven't had any swords break on me yet though hex nuts have gotten loose and fittings don't fit so tightly- which were easily fixed with some blue & red loctite. Correction: I did break a few things but they were "Sword Like Objects" or things I thought were swords at the time, a wall hangar katana, generic longsword and a stainless steel jian, the blades got bent, handles fell apart and rat tail tangs got exposed- some snapped of course. Well, I can see your point but I'll tell you one thing, if someone took one of my swords, hacked his cutting stand apart with it and in the process bent the blade due to poor technique, I sure as hell wouldn't be fixing it for free... and I wouldn't blame a manufacturer for not replacing one if it broke (even though it probably shouldn't have, wrong behavior shouldn't be rewarded). If you want to test a new sword, CUT with it. That's what it's for.
|
|
|
Post by LemuelTheLemur on Feb 17, 2015 23:18:17 GMT
I usually reserve that honored privilege to a new sword for the first 1-3 weeks to see to see if it'll break and kill me. Or fly away into something- then, if I live long enough, to contact the vendor/manufacturer and tell them how the sword broke and send pictures etc, and get an exchange or refund. When I get a new sword, tool, car or gun, I put it to work right away to make sure I didn't get a lemon or one with a severe flaw. I like to find out fast or sooner rather than later before return policies expire and because waiting around doing nothing doesn't appeal to me. Cutting into the cutting stand so to speak exposes flaws and potential problems sooner and so far I haven't had any swords break on me yet though hex nuts have gotten loose and fittings don't fit so tightly- which were easily fixed with some blue & red loctite. Correction: I did break a few things but they were "Sword Like Objects" or things I thought were swords at the time, a wall hangar katana, generic longsword and a stainless steel jian, the blades got bent, handles fell apart and rat tail tangs got exposed- some snapped of course. Well, I can see your point but I'll tell you one thing, if someone took one of my swords, hacked his cutting stand apart with it and in the process bent the blade due to poor technique, I sure as hell wouldn't be fixing it for free... and I wouldn't blame a manufacturer for not replacing one if it broke (even though it probably shouldn't have, wrong behavior shouldn't be rewarded). If you want to test a new sword, CUT with it. That's what it's for. Pretty much this. I can get behind you trying to test the sword for sound construction, but I personally wouldn't risk damaging the sword in a way not covered by the warantee just to ensure it doesn't catastrophically fail.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 17, 2015 23:35:15 GMT
In this case, a key component of the review is the integrity of the welded tang, so I would argue its not unjustified to bash it until it fails.
As Avery mentions in his review, this abuse is above and beyond what the sword was meant for - and was only done to see if it would fail, and more importantly, how it will fail. Its like doing a crash test - sure, nobody will purposefully crash their car, but its nice to see how it will respond in the worse case scenario. Its behavior at the failing point also provides us with other useful information such as stress points and the construction/hardening of the tang - all valid information.
End of the day - the review is trying to provide information from which you can base your buying decisions. Extra information, be it in the form of destructive testing or otherwise, is never a bad thing.
Again, Avery states in his review that this is above and beyond what the sword is expected to do. The information is presented in an unbiased fashion, and its up to us what we want to make of it.
I personally think that I would shy away from this sword, because just knowing its a welded tang kind of spoils it - even though I do not do any test cutting whatsoever. Its like buying a truck. I am not going to tow 2 tons with a truck, but its nice knowing that the capacity is there. However, this is my own conclusion drawn from my own experience - others may differ, and that's fine. The important part is that the reviewer presented the information in a way which does not significantly favour one interpretation over the other.
Long story short - what you do with a sword is up to you. At the end of the day though, the goal of this review is to provide information and spark conversion, and that's what it does.
PS: good review. Would have liked to see more on the cutting and handling, but again, not going to complain about extra information given to me for free...
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 17, 2015 23:40:15 GMT
All I saw were some moderate strikes against light targets and unanchored wood. Probably a lot less abusive than would be encountered fighting sword and shield. Especially if the shields had light metal rims. Or cutting into a pike formation. Or deflecting spear thrusts. Or parrying blows from another sharp sword blade against the flat. You know, what swords were used for back in the day.
Mike, this is a good point and I stand corrected in my definition of "abuse". I think we sometimes lose sight of what a real sword had to go through when they were used in real battle situations. Sure, a sword is made to cut or thrust and in ideal situations this can be done unimpeded. I doubt most battle conditions were ideal and so the sword would encounter obstacles that would cause stress in real situations. I am also sure that real old timey swords would sometimes fail under these conditions. Still, the purpose of our reviews, imo, is to see how a particular sword holds up comparable to what we'd call a real sword. With the forgoing in mind, I'd have to say this one failed. In my opinion anyhow.
|
|
ShooterMike
VIP Reviewer
Senior Forumite
I like swords, and my snowman did too!
Posts: 9,094
|
Post by ShooterMike on Feb 17, 2015 23:50:38 GMT
I applaud the destructive review. Kudos to Avery. That said, I don't advocate or suggest that everyone do that with all their swords. However, when a new sword on the market has this type of obvious potential weakness, it begs for testing and verification.
These are supposed to be "war swords" with the emphasis on fighting. Though what we do with them doesn't fall remotely into that realm, they should be expected to at least handle a little of that treatment. To accept otherwise is just not reasonable IMO.
Chenessfan, I don't advocate intentionally and repeatedly whacking your cutting stand, but a lot of us are clumsy and do it over and over again throughout the life of a cutting sword (see this week's "Game of SWORD Week 11" video for just one example). Avery was just accelerating that process into a single video.
A lot of us seem to be content with a light cutter that will never see anything more taxing than water bottle cutting. I happen to think sword-looking things that can only be used for that fall into the realm of golf clubs. They are fun to play with. But not something I want to collect. I want real, functional swords that are made to do what swords were made to do. We can differ on that, or even what that means. It's all fine. But no one is going to change my mind and interests in this hobby, so...to each his own.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 18, 2015 0:31:21 GMT
Thank you.
I should also add the thought that this destructive testing provides us information. I get the sense that some people think that this is not the *most* productive way of using a sword, and that may or may not be true. However, at the end of the day, it still made a contribution to our overall knowledge base and experience, and that's what counts.
Back on the topic of the sword though - what I find most disappointing is that the Ronin sword is prices similarly (if not above) some other manufacturers such as Hanwei Tinker and CS, both of which have threaded tangs. From what I have read, it seems like the Hanwei's at least are more robust than the Ronin, which begs the question of why. Yes, the Ronin may be good, but there are better....
Also, does anyone have experience with similar CS swords? I have their sabres and they seem pretty robust, but I have not had the chance to disassemble them yet, nor am I brave enough to do destructive testing on them >.>
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Dayne on Feb 18, 2015 0:40:06 GMT
Afoo makes a VERY good point:
"As Avery mentions in his review, this abuse is above and beyond what the sword was meant for - and was only done to see if it would fail, and more importantly, how it will fail."
This is the essence of destructive testing. It was a "destructive test". What did you THINK was going to happen ?
Should you buy the sword? Should you not? That's not what this was about.... it was about finding the sword's weak point - muindyr (dear brothers) - EVERY sword has a weak point. This review provides great value in that it shows us the PARTICULAR weak point of THIS sword.
Were I to take the finest Albion, and hack away at an armored car.... that sword would break. No reflection on the sword, rather, an analysis of what might be the sword's weakest component. The cutting stand was not secured on the floor or anything, it had sufficient give so this RK Euro sword didn't just cut into an unforgiving unyielding wooden target and it was hardly anything like an armored car. Albions are renown for historic accuracy, fit & finish, assembly and nearly perfect consistent heat treatment but not invincible or endowed with traits beyond this world of modern science, that much is understood. Even if the review was intended by the author as just an information list that includes the sword's weak point, some readers will passively use it as just that and make no decisions from it but others like me will use it beyond just a "convenient fact Number 4" and make a conscious decision not to purchase said product.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Feb 18, 2015 0:48:54 GMT
Thanks for the review Avery. I'm curious now about the one handed swords in this line, and how well they would hold up to this kind of test.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 18, 2015 0:53:39 GMT
These are supposed to be "war swords" with the emphasis on fighting. Though what we do with them doesn't fall remotely into that realm, they should be expected to at least handle a little of that treatment. To accept otherwise is just not reasonable IMO.
Chenessfan, I don't advocate intentionally and repeatedly whacking your cutting stand, but a lot of us are clumsy and do it over and over again throughout the life of a cutting sword (see this week's "Game of SWORD Week 11" video for just one example). Avery was just accelerating that process into a single video.
A lot of us seem to be content with a light cutter that will never see anything more taxing than water bottle cutting. I happen to think sword-looking things that can only be used for that fall into the realm of golf clubs. They are fun to play with. But not something I want to collect. I want real, functional swords that are made to do what swords were made to do. We can differ on that, or even what that means. It's all fine. But no one is going to change my mind and interests in this hobby, so...to each his own. Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you. That sword should not have failed the way it did and I absolutely want my swords to be able to withstand what Avery was throwing at this particular one and in fact, much more. I absolutely believe swords are stressed tremendously during a fight and need to be build with that in mind (even if we don't use them for that anymore). I only felt the need to point out that "abusing" a sword to see what it's made of and then getting a refund if it fails is, humm, questionable and one shouldn't be surprised when the maker declares the warranty voided.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Dayne on Feb 18, 2015 1:03:34 GMT
Test driving and performing adequate tests on a product to make sure you didn't get a lemon or a badly designed item is hardly "abusing" (I like how you just had to put it in quotations) but as a seller of sword related services I can understand your concern and why you think my views are "questionable" just like how I as a buyer would find your comments and viewpoints about what constitutes as proper "cutting" and "cut" and "cutting targets" questionable too.
It would be in your best interests if customers would stick to low risk targets like water bottles and pumpkins since there's a low probability of even a 1/2 lemon sword requiring warranty service. Maybe tackle the rigors of cutting a straw mat with a bamboo core as the pinnacle of difficult targets the sword would face, heaven forbid if it were to hit a 2x4 or 4x4 that's standing around on grass.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Feb 18, 2015 5:41:50 GMT
Well everyone will have their own opinion on what constitutes use or abuse on a sword as the same people will have their favorite brands or makers.
I personally did not see where the sword was subjected to extreme abuse with what was being cut and it was not used to chop wood like an axe. The stand strikes were striking a moveable object. I would think a well constructed sword would handle what I observed in the video without any failure.
This sword has issues that needs to be addressed by the seller on the next run. It would have been nice to have had some of these in prototype reviewed prior to the line being launched. It appears just to me that these swords could function well as light cutters on soft targets, project swords or display swords.
Any of you guys remember the long term testing that Bill used to do while keeping count of hundreds of pell strikes?
|
|
|
Post by RicWilly on Feb 18, 2015 6:59:07 GMT
Yeah, I remember those, Bill. He use to wail on that tire pell of his! Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 18, 2015 8:56:40 GMT
Test driving and performing adequate tests on a product to make sure you didn't get a lemon or a badly designed item is hardly "abusing" (I like how you just had to put it in quotations) but as a seller of sword related services I can understand your concern and why you think my views are "questionable" just like how I as a buyer would find your comments and viewpoints about what constitutes as proper "cutting" and "cut" and "cutting targets" questionable too. It would be in your best interests if customers would stick to low risk targets like water bottles and pumpkins since there's a low probability of even a 1/2 lemon sword requiring warranty service. Maybe tackle the rigors of cutting a straw mat with a bamboo core as the pinnacle of difficult targets the sword would face, heaven forbid if it were to hit a 2x4 or 4x4 that's standing around on grass. The problem is simply that it's really hard to draw a line... What is adequate testing? I don't know how you cut into your cutting stands. I saw what Avery did and that wasn't too bad IMO (that's why I put "abusing" in quotations) though it certainly went beyond normal cutting stress. So you can have one guy doing some mediocre force whacking on 2x4s standing around and some guy who goes totally out and puts everything he has into strikes against a fixed 2x4 pell or something... if the first one breaks the sword, it's probably a lemon. If the second one does, he probably just pushed it too far, a sword is not an axe. But how are you as a maker able to distinguish between those two if they come back to you and ask for a refund? They both tell you the same thing, that they did some cutting on 2x4s (maybe because they saw it on SBG :D). I doubt the second one will say that he willingly pushed the sword to its breaking point (if he did, he'd have one hell of a cheeky attitude, asking for a refund). So it's much easier to just discourage such behavior from the start. You see what I'm getting at? Another thing: If you buy a high end sword, you can (should) be certain that it will hold up to the rigors of fighting without having to test it yourself. We've all seen the Albion destruction video, they're not the only makers making sure that their stuff holds up. I test every single blade I make to be sure everything is sound. The testing is pretty harsh (not abuse as I would define it but it's certainly pushing the limits of "use"). The reason I don't go out and post videos of it is that most likely, people would just start doing it as well ("hey, even the MAKER does it, so it must be just fine and a part of regular cutting use").
|
|
Avery
Member
Manufacturer/Vendor
"It's alright little brother... There are more!!!
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by Avery on Feb 18, 2015 12:35:47 GMT
I figured I'd wait a day or so and let the consensus get out there before I posted a reply. First off, Mike, I agree that the testing was not extreme abuse; it failed before I could get into the really fun stuff. I wanted to go in a very systematic process from what we consider to be normal use to a little more and then a little more. I didn't want to jump straight into strikes against a pell or rebar; figured I'd get loads of"of course it'll fail if you do that"comments. I'd consider what I did to be getting to the "moderate" abuse spectrum. I think it went further than what the average collector would do, and that's where it failed. I'm sure Chris is reading and taking in everyones input and looking into alternatives. I also agree that the point of failure was evident. I messaged Chris after the initial inspection and told him I had concerns. Personally, I think if he could fix this one issue, he'd have a pretty good winner here. @ Curtis Louis - I'm not sure what'll happen to the leftovers; I thought about shortening the tang to a one hander and peening the pommel. Then seeing what the blade itself could withstand.
My main goal in this was to put it out there as unbiased as possible and let the community decide for themselves and form their own opinions. In the end, I hope that is accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by KaOsBlaKbLaDe on Feb 18, 2015 14:07:56 GMT
I gotta agree with mike on this one. Not that i wanna be the guy to beat the hell out of my swords like this, but to know that they can do what they're designed to do is essential. I had "pretty" SLO's before i learned what swords really should be. That's one of the reasons i don't completely understand some people getting all worked up over light pitting, scuffs and the like. Swords were originally intended to be tools, instruments of war, if you will. I cant remember the last time i bought a hammer or a mattock and checked it for scratches and pits,or even cosidered making a display case and hanging it on my wall. I do understand the whole "collector" thing, but it would almost seem to me that to have a proper sword and not use it is just silly. I have my favorites sure, and i try not to ding/scratch them, but if that means i need to leave them on the wall to simply look at, well i might as well sell them off. Could you imagine a warrior of old showing up on the battlefield with a blade as pristine and pampered as some of ours would be?Kinda like a 10 year old carharrt with no holes, stains etc. As for this test, i must say that it held up better than i ever thought it would. If RK implements a design change for the thread setup, i'd pick one up for sure.
|
|
|
Post by svante on Feb 18, 2015 19:46:05 GMT
These are supposed to be "war swords" with the emphasis on fighting. Though what we do with them doesn't fall remotely into that realm, they should be expected to at least handle a little of that treatment. To accept otherwise is just not reasonable IMO.
Chenessfan, I don't advocate intentionally and repeatedly whacking your cutting stand, but a lot of us are clumsy and do it over and over again throughout the life of a cutting sword (see this week's "Game of SWORD Week 11" video for just one example). Avery was just accelerating that process into a single video.
A lot of us seem to be content with a light cutter that will never see anything more taxing than water bottle cutting. I happen to think sword-looking things that can only be used for that fall into the realm of golf clubs. They are fun to play with. But not something I want to collect. I want real, functional swords that are made to do what swords were made to do. We can differ on that, or even what that means. It's all fine. But no one is going to change my mind and interests in this hobby, so...to each his own. Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you. That sword should not have failed the way it did and I absolutely want my swords to be able to withstand what Avery was throwing at this particular one and in fact, much more. I absolutely believe swords are stressed tremendously during a fight and need to be build with that in mind (even if we don't use them for that anymore). I only felt the need to point out that "abusing" a sword to see what it's made of and then getting a refund if it fails is, humm, questionable and one shouldn't be surprised when the maker declares the warranty voided. Off-topic but nobles are immune to them: I am so PROUD of you son! You have finally seen the light on a real man's weapon. You have come so far in these past few month's i might even take you up as my squire, maybe a few more and you will see that the one true manliest sword in the world is mine . On-topic: I cringed at how little abuse that sword took, that is far from acceptable, i don't care what a maker says, these things are designed to go threw BONE, not to mention all sorts of much harder things, such as the ones i possess below my waist. ^^ To fail vs wood is disappointing and by making excuses for them we will not push quality in the right direction. Svante Nilsson, on Fire!
|
|