|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Mar 20, 2015 14:07:14 GMT
The general rule of thumb is that for swords, Stainless Steel = Wallhanger/SLO (Sword-Like Object). That's because a large majority of Stainless Steel swords are cheaply made. Stainless Steel has a lot of Chromium, which resists corrosion. The downside for its use in swords/weapons/knives however is the following quote from the British Stainless Steel Association (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=125): This means that Stainless Steel cannot take as much stress as Carbon Steel. Neither can it take as good of an edge, because of its generally low carbon content (http://www.inlandbonsai.com/articles/steel/steel.pdf). However, I've been made aware that there are limited instances wherein Stainless Steel is decent for a sword (normally, it's good enough for everyday knives and even machetes). There are types/grades of Stainless Steel that perform as decently as "high carbon" steel (http://www.knifecenter.com/info/knife-blade-materials). However, I believe that most swordsmiths won't use those kinds of Stainless Steel because an equally expensive piece of high carbon steel would still outperform it on sword-oriented tasks (aka, balance between edge retention, ductility, and toughness). I wish folks in the knife/sword community would stop using the term "carbon steel" and would use "tool steel" instead. All steel is "carbon steel", even stainless steel is carbon steel. The 440C steel that I use has 1.2% carbon which is significantly more carbon that the 1060 or 1095 that most of us are familiar with. But I can't change the world so "carbon steel" = "tool steel". Anyway, I'm glad to see someone using real experimental data to make a point. But in this case the steel used in the British Stainless Steel Association is "structural" steel and not cutlery steel. The steel isn't formulated for knives or swords, and I'm guessing it wasn't heat treated for knives or swords either. Not relevant data. Also, you can't generalize stainless steel or tool steel and compare one to the other. There are sooooo many types of SS and TS, and each with different properties, that you can't say one is better than the other. What you can assume (general rule of thumb is) that a $30 large sword or naginata is a wall hanger and not a quality item without even looking at the materials of construction. Once you get to $100 and up then you need to look at how it's made. " This means that Stainless Steel cannot take as much stress as Carbon Steel. Neither can it take as good of an edge" I think you're right that SS can't take as much stress as CS/TS. I think the best impact resistant steels are S5, S7, M4, etc. and all are tool steels. But it's a misconception that SS can't take as good of an edge. There are a lot of great edge holding SS and on par with TS. You're also right about the cost of SS to TS. Good SS tend to be very expensive, very very few exceptions (AEB-L is a great SS and very cheap).
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Mar 20, 2015 14:57:33 GMT
That's true, there is different grades of stainless steel. In diving knives we have both 300's series and 400's series. The 300 won't corrode but is softer and doesn't hold a good edge. The 400 has more carbon in the blade so it holds a better edge but it will corrode in salt water if it's not taken care of. Titanium gives you the best of both worlds in that it holds a great edge and will not corrode and it's a lot lighter in weight. The only drawback is it's three to four times the cost of stainless steel. It would be interesting to see a sword made in titanium but at three to four times the cost it would be a hard sell.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Mar 20, 2015 15:02:19 GMT
The general rule of thumb is that for swords, Stainless Steel = Wallhanger/SLO (Sword-Like Object). That's because a large majority of Stainless Steel swords are cheaply made. Stainless Steel has a lot of Chromium, which resists corrosion. The downside for its use in swords/weapons/knives however is the following quote from the British Stainless Steel Association (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=125): This means that Stainless Steel cannot take as much stress as Carbon Steel. Neither can it take as good of an edge, because of its generally low carbon content (http://www.inlandbonsai.com/articles/steel/steel.pdf). However, I've been made aware that there are limited instances wherein Stainless Steel is decent for a sword (normally, it's good enough for everyday knives and even machetes). There are types/grades of Stainless Steel that perform as decently as "high carbon" steel (http://www.knifecenter.com/info/knife-blade-materials). However, I believe that most swordsmiths won't use those kinds of Stainless Steel because an equally expensive piece of high carbon steel would still outperform it on sword-oriented tasks (aka, balance between edge retention, ductility, and toughness). I wish folks in the knife/sword community would stop using the term "carbon steel" and would use "tool steel" instead. All steel is "carbon steel", even stainless steel is carbon steel. The 440C steel that I use has 1.2% carbon which is significantly more carbon that the 1060 or 1095 that most of us are familiar with. But I can't change the world so "carbon steel" = "tool steel". Anyway, I'm glad to see someone using real experimental data to make a point. But in this case the steel used in the British Stainless Steel Association is "structural" steel and not cutlery steel. The steel isn't formulated for knives or swords, and I'm guessing it wasn't heat treated for knives or swords either. Not relevant data. Also, you can't generalize stainless steel or tool steel and compare one to the other. There are sooooo many types of SS and TS, and each with different properties, that you can't say one is better than the other. What you can assume (general rule of thumb is) that a $30 large sword or naginata is a wall hanger and not a quality item without even looking at the materials of construction. Once you get to $100 and up then you need to look at how it's made. " This means that Stainless Steel cannot take as much stress as Carbon Steel. Neither can it take as good of an edge" I think you're right that SS can't take as much stress as CS/TS. I think the best impact resistant steels are S5, S7, M4, etc. and all are tool steels. But it's a misconception that SS can't take as good of an edge. There are a lot of great edge holding SS and on par with TS. You're also right about the cost of SS to TS. Good SS tend to be very expensive, very very few exceptions (AEB-L is a great SS and very cheap). Thanks for the correction. I remember another post of yours that dealt with this debate and mentioning the SS you were working with that had high carbon content. I just didn't remember where you posted it. In this line of thought, do you know of any maker/manufacturer of SS swords that aren't badly made? Aside from individual makers, of course.
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Mar 20, 2015 15:18:20 GMT
Thanks for the correction. I remember another post of yours that dealt with this debate and mentioning the SS you were working with that had high carbon content. I just didn't remember where you posted it. In this line of thought, do you know of any maker/manufacturer of SS swords that aren't badly made? Aside from individual makers, of course. Actually I don't know of any reputable production type swords makers that use SS for swords. As you pointed out TS is the best choice for "balance between edge retention, ductility, and toughness" and cost. If you want a good SS sword then you need to ask a custom sword maker and pay the big bucks. And chances are a reputable custom sword maker will try to convince you to go TS rather than SS.
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Mar 20, 2015 15:28:27 GMT
That's true, there is different grades of stainless steel. In diving knives we have both 300's series and 400's series. The 300 won't corrode but is softer and doesn't hold a good edge. The 400 has more carbon in the blade so it holds a better edge but it will corrode in salt water if it's not taken care of. Titanium gives you the best of both worlds in that it holds a great edge and will not corrode and it's a lot lighter in weight. The only drawback is it's three to four times the cost of stainless steel. It would be interesting to see a sword made in titanium but at three to four times the cost it would be a hard sell. Minor correction (not trying to ague). All good points but titanium is not known for "great edge" holding. Actually, titanium has a RC hardness of 45-50 after hardening so actually the edge holding is quite poor. But if you carbonize the edge of the titanium blade then you have a great blade. I'm not sure how well a carbidized edge holds up to rust. But I am surprised no one has made a full Ti sword with a carbidized edge. That would be amazing! I hope this is not off topic.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Mar 20, 2015 15:31:21 GMT
Del Tin uses a Chrome Vanadium steel which is more resistant to corrosion than other steels and is conparible to 8650 in quality.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Mar 20, 2015 16:08:46 GMT
As for titanium all I can say is all the titanium dive knives I sold came with a razor edge on them. I carry a folding titanium knife that I use a lot and it has a great edge to it. I think in the past two years of using it I have resharpened it once.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 20, 2015 20:18:06 GMT
Not all Hanwei blades are equal. In particular, they're not all the same steels/alloys, and they're not heat-treated identically. Their differentially hardened blades are (usually) quite hard. Their naginata is differentially hardened, and having seen a photo of one with a big chip out of the blade, I don't think it would suffer a bent tip like the pudao above. I'd rather have the bend to be honest, it's breaking off a huge chunk that would force me to replace the entire blade instead of just getting minor repairs done to it or bending it back with a heat gun and a little elbow grease isn't much of a consolation to be honest. They harden their "traditional" Japanese blades traditionally, and get hard, hard edges. Their "beater" Japanese range (the Raptors) is softer, and much tougher. They know about this. But many people want a traditional real hamon. Their old Chinese blades (of which their pudao is one) tend to be on the soft side. Don't know the hardness of the Cutting Jian/Rodell jian (their new Chinese blade), but it's tough, so not ultra-hard.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 20, 2015 20:38:43 GMT
Cutting with a naginata, which I've never done, is different to cutting with a sword, which I have attempted and am lousy at. This is because you've taken a rather small blade (most historic examples ran 15-16" but Hanwei's is 20"), often rather thin, and put it at the end of a long stick. Torque is multiplied accordingly, and bad alignment (easier wtih the "teardrop" shape of a naginata haft than the "oval" of a katana, for instance) makes nasty things happen. On that note, I've seen a number of antique naginata with in-koshirae lengths of longer than eight feet. Hanwei's stands a meager 6 feet, if only just. 15-16" is a puny naginata. Pretty common though. Especially Edo Period naginata, but you could call those "parade weapons". Older naginata blades could exceed 3 feet, but they shortened to typically 1 1/2 to 2 feet in the 15th century (the Hanwei is a good representative naginata of this shorter time). There are 15-16" old naginata, too. The really big blades would have shorter hafts, maybe a 4' haft for a 3' blade; not that far from a nagamaki. The thin narrow bladed ones are often called "woman's naginata", but they're probably just parade arms. Need to have your retainers looking good when you make your regular trip to Edo. Oval is the most common haft cross-section.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Mar 20, 2015 20:49:56 GMT
I read often that naginata used to be 20+ inches quite more often than not, but I've never encountered a surviving example, myself. Biggest I've seen was right at the 20" mark, and most I've seen are 15.5". Edo, most, yes. My naoshi measures 17 1/2" and may well have been two inches longer at one point, but not much more than that. It is believed to be from the 14th century, but I have no verification to this claim.
I referenced the "teardrop" pole section as, I believe, that is the section used by Hanwei and possibly the other model.
Parade models, I can't contest, but it wouldn't surprise me if most surviving examples are from this range.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 20, 2015 22:25:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Mar 20, 2015 22:49:32 GMT
That Christies model is impressive, particularly the estimated price. As for the Hanwei, per Kult of Athena: Good call also on the nagamaki angle. Not many of those readily available for online viewing, but most are, indeed, very naginata-like blades in the range of two feet or better.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 20, 2015 22:59:57 GMT
Here's the fittings from the Hanwei: www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?100897-Hanwei-Naginata-Kanagu-(fittings)If it's tear-drop, it's a very subtle almost-oval teardrop. The early long blades (judging by survivors) were straighter than the typical more recent ones with very curved tips. Very nagamaki-like. Old artwork (e.g., Mongol invasion scrolls) shows long blades with very curved tips, but I don't know of any surviving examples. Exaggerated artwork, perhaps. But do they exaggerate length or curvature? Both? Or are they accurate?
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Mar 20, 2015 23:19:14 GMT
Hmm, interesting. Then again, I also remember reading the haft described as simply "round" a few years back. Really, I've been wanting to buy one for years, but the inconsistencies in description combined with the horimono and lacquer have put me off. Oh, and the price, too, I guess.
As for period art, well, it's hard to say. Especially given the Japanese style, which tends to exaggerate a lot. I've seen a few such scrolls on teh intarwebz, myself, and always look at them from a sense of "Yeah, that's weird-looking, but cool."
|
|
|
Post by Voltan on Mar 20, 2015 23:31:09 GMT
I had the opportunity to cut with one of these a few years ago---that exact one in fact. Fellow forumite thana357 brought it to one of Razor's meet-ups a couple years ago. That thing was a blast to cut with, and it seemed pretty solid to me. However, being a Euro-sword guy, I have no idea what to look for as far as construction goes with Japanese style weapons...
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Mar 21, 2015 0:23:22 GMT
Hmm, interesting. Then again, I also remember reading the haft described as simply "round" a few years back. Really, I've been wanting to buy one for years, but the inconsistencies in description combined with the horimono and lacquer have put me off. Oh, and the price, too, I guess. As for period art, well, it's hard to say. Especially given the Japanese style, which tends to exaggerate a lot. I've seen a few such scrolls on teh intarwebz, myself, and always look at them from a sense of "Yeah, that's weird-looking, but cool." Aside from historical correctness, I think I would want the haft to be oval so that I could get a better edge alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Kinjou Okumura-Ten on Mar 23, 2015 6:24:09 GMT
I own the SwordNArmory/Real Sword Master Naginata (still pulling my hair out trying to figure out who manufactures this one--anybody?) and it's quite decent for the money, though I feel it could stand to be re-hafted with a somewhat sturdier hardwood. Oddly enough we had the exact same problem (tip distortion) with my wife's Pudao. We re-shaped the tip but it was really annoying to have it bend under light/medium use.
|
|