Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2008 5:07:41 GMT
As I have discussed briefly in a couple recent threads, I had a major epiphany not too long ago regarding blade steels, hardness levels, and the amount of emphasis placed upon these aspects among modern sword and knife lovers. After re-reading several articles/threads at both myArmoury and SFI (and a couple PMs to another member here), not to mention the recent metallurgy thread here, I thought a good open discussion was in order.
With modern metallurgy, technology, and testing methods, it is quite possible to make very pure steels with very consistent amounts of various elements in them, such as carbon. It is also possible to heat treat these steels within very specific hardness ranges, varying only a point or two on the Rockwell C Scale (or any other hardness scale one chooses to use). As noted in another thread, it is good to have a curiosity and be eager to learn about what the various components of steels do and how heat treating affects the finished blade, but it can reach a point of obsession, as it had for me.
We often tend to think of historical blades as being of very high quality and virtually flawless in construction. While there certainly are extant historical pieces that are marvels of the swordmaker's art and equal or exceed modern high end repros in form (and perhaps even function), the truth is that many early steel swords were very low in carbon and varied wildly along the length of the blade in both carbon content and hardness, some portions (or even entire blades) not even registering on our modern Rockwell C scale and ranging from, perhaps, .15% carbon on up. Other blades were quite high in carbon and quite hard.
We look at a modern day replica of 1040 steel at 35-40HRC and see a barely functional or even non-functional blade, while historically people fought wars with and staked their lives on blades less durable and less pure than the "cheap" 1040 modern sword I just mentioned.
Obviously, I agree that we should take advantage of our modern technology and produce the best swords and cutting tools that we can (particularly in the higher-end market where manufacturers can afford said technology); however, I also think we should maintain our perspective and not become slaves to the numbers. What really turned me around was a recent discussion of modern 1796 LCS repros in which Hotspur posted a link to an SFI thread in which it was revealed that Indian manufacturer Weapon Edge makes (or made, as the thread wasn't current) their blades out of EN-8 (similar to 1040) at roughly 38HRC. I nearly decided that I'd never own one for just that reason; however, prompted as I was by the incident to do some more thorough studying and re-reading of some material I vaguely remembered, I came to the conclusion that to pass up such a sword, even though is meets all my requirements (aesthetically pleasing, affordable, perfectly suitable for light backyard cutting, etc.), simply because of a couple of numbers on a chart would cause me to miss out on a potentially very satisfying and beautiful sword. While we are perfectly capable of doing much better today, this sword would have been quite extraordinary in early medieval times for its purity of content and eveness of temper.
I could ramble on incoherently for hours, but the basic idea I'm trying to get across is that I think we could all do ourselves a huge favor by becoming less concerned with steel types and hardness levels and just start enjoying our swords. I'm not about to suggest that a sword made of 1040 steel @ 38HRC is the ultimate sword, but only that we should keep in mind that people in the distant past not only "got by" with swords of similar (and often worse) composition, but actually built, defended, and conquered empires with them.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jul 27, 2008 5:34:15 GMT
Well put, brother. It reminds me to not let my unreasonable expectations keep me from enjoying the diversity of choices we are fortunate to have. +1
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Jul 27, 2008 5:40:08 GMT
well, it's like I've said many times: your skill, or lack thereof, does more to determine the strength of your sword than anything else. that said I think I would have to be looking at one hell of a nice sword to buy it at 38 hrc. While I could defend my home with a piece of rebar or a stainless steel wallhanger, if we are talking about cutting for enjoyment and doing it safely I see no reason to "settle" for something simply because people in the past "made do" with equal or worse. also the whole point of our beloved E-home here is to help us seperate the wheat from the chaff in the sword world. these numbers tell us things we cannot know simply by looking at a digital picture, but would be able to understand with out the numbers if we could hold it and examine it with all our normal faculties. so while I see your point, I think the numbers are important as a reality check and we should keep up with them. while there are manufacturers that will fudge their numbers, they will be found out pretty quickly I think and the ones that are honest will be lauded as reputable and good.
I'm sorry man I just cannot swallow it. this sword made at 38HRC of 1040, if they made out of 1055 and hardened it to a respectable 50-ish HRC would it be any harder or more expensive to make? would it be worse of a blade? I don't think so. as far as price, plain carbon steel is CHEAP man and I just cannot see any reason to use 1040 instead of 1050-ish bare minimum. another thing, if you can bring a sword up to say 60 or so HRC at full hard and then temper it down to 50 HRC wouldn't it be tougher than a sword that was made full hard at 50HRC and left there? the point being that full hardness puts a lot of internal stress on the structure of the sword so if full hard is 60 then tempered to 50 that sword would have less internal stress thus making it stronger since it isn't being used at its limit. this is why the higher carbon steels are generaly better. they will have less internal stress at 45 or 50 HRC than a lower carbon steel straining to make the same hardness. I hope this all makes sense and I am understanding it correctly. I do not claim to be an expert here but this is my understanding.
I'll keep my numbers and will not be cutting with any 38HRC swords thank you very much.
great topic to discuss by the way, +1 when I recharge
|
|
|
Post by 293master293 on Jul 27, 2008 7:40:19 GMT
Well, nice write-up. +1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2008 8:24:49 GMT
Thanks for the responses, guys. I hope this thread generates many more, pro and con alike. My intent is not to suggest that people settle for inferior swords or that lower carbon, softer swords are necessarily desirable. I mainly wanted to encourage people to look beyond the oft-quoted numbers when looking for a sword. Take into account what you plan to do with the sword, and also take into account what was accomplished with swords in the past that would not necessarily have "measured up" to our modern expecations. A sense of historical perspective, one might say, is what I want to discuss and encourage.
I realize my argument could be taken to an extreme by suggesting that since the ancients used copper-bladed swords 4,000 years ago or whatever, we shouldn't expect our blades to perform any better than they did, but that's not what I'm getting at. I specifically mentioned early steel swords for just that reason.
When discussing the EN-8 @38hrc sword at SFI, one poster said, "Thanks for letting me know. 38HRC is way too soft." Or something to that effect. Such was my initial thought on the matter, but then I started asking myself why I thought this way. This lead me to the reading I talked about, which in turn left me with no really good reason why I held the opinion. Are these numbers truly unsuitable for a sword? Or do we simply believe that they are, based upon our modern "spoiled" perspective? I'm not totally sure, myself. What I can tell you is that I immedeately thought to myself, "If an 11th Century soldier could fight and survive a battle with a sword who's blade was from .19-.26% carbon and varied in hardness from less than 20HRC to 34HRC, then why am I hesitant to cut water bottles and beach mats with a sword made with .4% carbon and a reasonably uniform 38HRC?" Again, I'm not suggesting that these numbers are the height of desirability, I'm merely relating the question as it came to me and hoping to inspire some in-depth discussion on the topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2008 13:16:20 GMT
I think i brought up a similar point ages ago in the discussion about SLOs.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 27, 2008 14:00:43 GMT
The thing is that to use just part of that thread linked elsewhere Leaves out that it was one person's communication with www.weaponedge.com and that the manufacturer evidently explained the steel was tempered back to that level purposefully for what they expected to be durable and in line with their experiences (of forty odd years). As it is third person information at best, that needs to be kept in context as well. What is that I see on the Weapon Edge Page, a cutlass looking like the Cold Steel offering? A dirk like the Cold Steel offering? Gee, I wonder. Maybe the source is worth pumping for more information, or not. I don't want too seem to sarcastic about manufacturers/export specialists from India and claims made but the more one looks, the more ummm coincidences (ya, that's the ticket) one is going to find. The real truth is that unless someone runs hardness tests for themselves, it is all just numbers on a screen, talk and damaged swords from folk doing backyard theorizing and ad hoc testing. Not that there is anything wrong with that but even a past trend of going to the trouble/expense of buying hardness testing files can be a bit subjective (you mean there were instructions with those?), as they only test a range of increments. Some of my Fender amp knobs go to 12. ;D So, have you gone ahead and ordered from Military Heritage? I'm hoping if you have committed that you'll let us know your findings. The Hussar sword overviewed at myArmoury related some pretty hopeful signs as to good things. Freebooter had shared here some thoughts on the mameluke sabre and was quite pleased with it. Cheers Hotspur; I guess if one is going to want to cut wood and yellow bamboo a lot, they'll want something pretty darn hard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2008 15:33:43 GMT
It seems to me there are some very good points here...As a relatively new collector of swords, I am discovering that i feel differently about each of my swords.
The ones I like to cut with;Valiant Atrim LS, Albion Burgundian, & Gen2 claymore.
The wall-hangers; DSA's (very cool, just too heavy).
The curiosity's, swords that I find interesting for various reasons; A copper short sword, the windlass medieval-really all of the windlass swords that I own are representative of styles, Various daggers and non bladed weapons.
And finally: Originals, currently a bayonet, and a dagger.I am almost certainly going to acquire more.
All of them are "Functional" meaning serviceable as weapons. All Owned for different reasons. For some the "numbers" are more important than others. The ones that i use the hardest, IE cutters, i want to be hard but well tempered. Mostly for safety's sake. The re-pro's of weapons that i cant afford originals of, I want to match original specs as closely as is practical. For me each purchase is considered on its own merits. The final choice is going to be decided on the "numbers" because at the end of the day appearance(we judge quality largly on fit and finish) and specs are the only real things separating 2 similar swords.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jul 27, 2008 17:40:41 GMT
I agree, Steve. What I took from Krieg's post wasn't that lesser swords were just as good but that there is a spectrum. I limit myself when I expect all blades to be super tough. I can enjoy a variety if I collect different pieces for different reasons.
As for cutting with "softer" steel. Would that be a safety issue? I would think they might bend easier but that wouldn't compromise safety would it?
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 27, 2008 20:41:24 GMT
See, now, the manufacturer wrote the fellow who related it to the boards that the soft temper was to assure springiness and to keep the blades from breaking. It is part of the problem with sharing some details about what others write, or simply pointing the way. Even then there is a wide range of interpretation possible. even the fellow who related this tale may have spread it out it more than one thread (even I forget sometimes). It is though, an instance of looking at a raw number and going OH MY, without really thinking it through much futher. I will retrieve the relevant threads and post them to this one. One is posted in another section here. forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=81331Nope, I guess not but the user posting the information forums.swordforum.com/member.php?u=28885has not been around since March. One of my inferences about the Indian swords in general is that if actual hardness tests were done, I think a lot of folk would be suprised (and maybe dissapointed) by the numbers that are likely only marginally greater than what Weapon Edge has openly announced. Note the post from a metallurgist in the thread and the last post regarding the steel refered to. I'm not out to pump the company. What I had pmed mr Scott and had related to him regarding a more recent thread regarding Military Heritage www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=13666is about information related in one of several threads here where folk are mulling over reproduction sabre purchases. This last thread linked was quite interesting to me because it shows the source actually doing a pretty good job on the distal taper (compared to other sources in India). I'll take a trade off of a few points in hardness for better handling just about any day. The reported weight was suprisingly in the ballpark as well. If it's numbers you want (and I never said I didn't. Simply that one number on a screen doesn't say much) there are some more to be found in that overview. The truth is that the discussions are frequent yet the subject of hardness a fairly popular one, not just here. another blessing of lower hardness numbers is the ease of sharpening and ability to be brought to very sharp pretty quickly. I bought my India produced sabre to cut things with. I have no idea of the hardness but it files like butter, took a very sharp edge fairly quickly and is great fun. I have not put it over a knee or pinned it in a vise to see if I can make it stay bent. I have absolutley no need to. As to going by ad copy, there is an example in the Metallurgy thread posted yesterday. The seller is using information from Darksword that should probably read "sililar to 1060". Instead it reads that it is 1060 and relates a composition for something else. It would not suprise me at all if the same vendor actually has a relatively comprehensive guide to steel somewhere else on their site. Darksword themselves may be seen by some as a serendipitous treasure, yet compare their swords and mechanics to Strongblade, spend some time researching the company and owner; Spend time on import and export sites researching sword producing/selling sources. Cheers Hotspur; Don't ever stop questioning and wondering. It can be a good thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2008 1:34:15 GMT
Ric, I would like my main cutters to be hard and well tempered because the hard steel holds a finer edge longer and "dull knives are dangerous" read that as I am lazy and don't want to sharpen them any more than I have to. Well tempered mostly for shock resistance. I don't think softer blades would be particularly dangerous for reasons stated in the OP, Just not as durable/ resistant to abuse. I agree that for my purposes of practice cutting there is no reason for me to not use the toughest steel that I own. That is not to say that i will not cut with other swords. Just for general practice "the best tool for the job".
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jul 28, 2008 2:29:14 GMT
I hear ya, Steve. I'll bend a sissy sword quick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2008 3:39:27 GMT
I think i brought up a similar point ages ago in the discussion about SLOs. Sorry, I seem to have missed that. I'll search it out. Hotspur is correct. I did neglect to mention Weapon Edge's response to the guy I mentioned who thought their sword was too soft. Good call. I think RicWilly said it well. I am not going to tell anyone to trade in their Albion or Atrim for a Deepeeka, but I do believe there is a much broader range of products that would be acceptable for the casual backyard cutter than "conventional" wisdom seems to indicate. Nor am I suggesting the complete abandonment of peoples' interest in the properties and heat treatment of steel. These are things I am very interested in as well. I only wanted to point out the recent change in the way I look at swords and to maybe get other people with similar requirements to sit back and question their own logic in choosing a sword and to rethink what they really expect a blade to be able to do. As to Weapon Edge, I am still waiting for some price quotes and a bit of further info, but I do have the ball rolling, so to speak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2008 4:00:22 GMT
One more thought. Hotspur's comments on hardness testing reminded me of a past thread on the same subject in which Dan Davis discussed the inherent difficulties of hardness testing a shaped piece of steel and said something to the effect that either a blade holds an edge or it doesn't, either it flexes and returns to true or it doesn't, either it cuts well or it doesn't. I think that's part of what I'm trying to get across. Just don't get so hung up on numbers that they overshadow every other consideration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 19:12:13 GMT
I think that what you say is very true, and I'd also like to expand on a point that you touched on above.
As you say, many battles were won with swords made of bronze. Now we know that steel is a much better blade material than bronze, but if I bought a replica of a bronze age sword, I would expect it to be made from bronze. You could argue that a steel sword that had been plated or suchlike to resemble bronze would be a more efficient cutter, but it wouldn't be the same.
This is not to say that we should deliberately make bad swords in order to be 'authentic', as one steel generally looks pretty much like another, and the technology to make superior steel is readily available.
What I think, however, is that a medieval warrior would react with slack jawed horror if they witnessed some of the things us modern folk put our swords through. Once they got over the shock that someone would treat such a valuable object in that way, they would probably sell everything they owned to possess this 'magic' sword that could endure such abuse.
I have often wondered if some of the famous and mythical swords were maybe happy metallurgical accidents that gave the sword 'mystical' properties?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 19:46:27 GMT
I'm not about to suggest that a sword made of 1040 steel @ 38HRC is the ultimate sword, but only that we should keep in mind that people in the distant past not only "got by" with swords of similar (and often worse) composition, but actually built, defended, and conquered empires with them. How many 1040 swords does it take to conquer an empire? HEHE . Good discussion Krieg, spot on, good to see someone who isn't obsessed over rockwell hardness as an indicator of quality. A sword made from real wrought iron is an awesome thing to hold and weild, even cut with, despite the fact it is relatively soft. IMO, these modern day swords are almost no longer weapons anymore!!!! Sword in olden days were not meant to cut anything more than soft human flesh, which is like a .0001 on the rockwell scale ( ), but swords these days?!?! SHEEESH, cutting hard wood, plastic, all kinds of hard and abrasive targets, MUCH more so than flesh, no wonder they need to be made harder/tougher! Swords are more like a tool these days! For instance, if you wanted a hammer to kill people with all day, could be soft as iron, but if you wanted a hammer to put in nails all day, that hammer would be in pretty poor shape if it was that soft! So we think we are making things much more lethal these days with modern materials, BAH! A 2$ wallhanger is just as dangerous a weapon as that $3,000 Howard Clark, but the sword by Howard is a much better tool .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 19:54:29 GMT
I remember being yelled at for saying that about wallhangers back in the days of the SLO debate.
Funny that's it's now accepted by the forum at large.
|
|
|
Post by Matt993f.o.d on Aug 8, 2008 20:27:43 GMT
Over on anvilfire the fellow in the armoury section said that samples taken from old blister steels were often 40 point carbon steels. People back in the day would make every tool they could ever need out of that stuff. From cold chisels to files. I think it shows what you can make do with, at a push.
Remember, as long as a steel has 40 points of carbon or more, it can be hardened practically.
These days we just have the luxury of a greater selection of more consistant alloys, and the luxury of being able to choose the best steel for the job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2008 20:59:59 GMT
How many 1040 swords does it take to conquer an empire? HEHE . That's one of those age-old questions, like how many licks does it take to reach the center of a Tootsie Pop? I'm not sure anyone is truly wise enough to answer either one. ;D Kidding aside, good additions to the discussion, Sam and Matt. Adam, look at it this way. You were ahead of your time, and it's just taken some of us (me, for example) longer to get it through our thick noggins. Take comfort in the fact that others are finally coming around.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Aug 8, 2008 21:04:49 GMT
"Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger. What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?"
|
|