|
|
Post by pellius on Jun 22, 2020 16:18:43 GMT
When I was an absolute noob beginner in learning about swords (as opposed to now, having recently graduated to regular beginner), I became aware of some of the dangers of poor steels and poor designs. Common wisdom warned of stainless steel sword blades snapping, rat tail tangs failing, and poorly/un-heat treated steel bending or breaking, any of which could send a sharp edge or point in some random unexpected direction. This gave me pause, making me want to avoid such risk when possible.
I’ve seen videos of swords breaking, and photos of swords that snapped right in two. I sure don’t want one that will do that!
For issues such as heat treating and tempering, I’m not aware of any method to test them other than through destruction. Only then, for example, will a glass hard tang (ahem..EC) or a peanut-buttery crystalline structure (lookin’ at you, first gen Hanwei Godfred) be revealed.
Further, many factory swords are assembled in such a way that they can’t really be disassembled to inspect the hilt and tang construction. (I suppose this is where katana really shine, since they are ideally easy to disassemble, and the standard tang design is quite robust).
I also really appreciate it when someone shares that their sword accidentally broke. Depending on the circumstances, I prolly don’t want one of those, either.
When IIHS smashes a car, I don’t blame the car for getting all crunched up. But I do want to know how the passenger compartment and safety restraints fared. (If I think of a more persuasive false-equivalent later, I’ll be sure to add it. 🙂)
Anyway, when it comes to modern mass produced blades, I’m in the camp that appreciates a sword being systematically abused/destroyed to test its.. uh.. mettle. 🙄
It adds to the collective knowledge of the community, exposes dangerous products, and strengthens the reputation of well constructed swords. It also fosters further related discussions such as this one, where appropriate use, technique, metallurgy, and history are given a context in which to flourish.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 22, 2020 16:38:57 GMT
I appreciate the thought, but don’t have 100% confidence in it. For the most part swords aren’t produced in an uniform manner of mass produced ticky-tack assembly line. They are to a large extent handmade. One batch may not equal the next. It’s nothing new. History shows that swords by reputable manufacturers made in a proven manner, Wilkinson for instance, breaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Jun 22, 2020 17:03:44 GMT
This popped up by chance this afternoon. It’s not the same sword but I think Matt’s review is more down to earth and some things carry over. So Matt Easton is not a reliable source either? It gets pretty unnerving sometimes to find a source appreciated by everybody... |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 22, 2020 17:18:51 GMT
This popped up by chance this afternoon. It’s not the same sword but I think Matt’s review is more down to earth and some things carry over. So Matt Easton is not a reliable source either? ????????????? I've made no comment concerning Matt's reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Jun 22, 2020 18:14:31 GMT
So Matt Easton is not a reliable source either?  ? I've made no comment concerning Matt's reliability. So sorry... i just have been explaned i completely misinterpreted your comment. Didnt get that down to earth thing right. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Jun 22, 2020 18:27:09 GMT
Pgandy - thank you for the video/link. That was quite interesting.
Also, I suspect “down to earth” is a colloquialism that may not be translating correctly for Dandelion. Just a guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Jun 22, 2020 18:59:23 GMT
So sorry... i just have been explaned i completely misinterpreted your comment. Didnt get that down to earth thing right. Sorry. Down to Earth means that something is accessible and relatable. I don't know if it is a phrase in Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Jun 22, 2020 19:03:31 GMT
So sorry... i just have been explaned i completely misinterpreted your comment. Didnt get that down to earth thing right. Sorry. Down to Earth means that something is accessible and relatable. I don't know if it is a phrase in Germany. its "bodenständig", most likely... |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 22, 2020 19:05:59 GMT
No problem. Being bilingual I understand the difficulties of translating. Other than the literal translation of a word the significance it carries can be another story, and then there are the expressions.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 22, 2020 19:18:29 GMT
Down to Earth means that something is accessible and relatable. I don't know if it is a phrase in Germany. its "bodenständig", most likely... That would be a literal translation, I’m not sure that carries the same significance. I worked with and have had German friends that taught me a little but they are long gone as is much of my memory now. I had one that I never heard say ‘with’, it was always mit. I know of one Latina that spoke to I think an American in her work place saying the a certain man molested her and nearly got him fired and locked up before finding out molesting in Spanish is simply ‘bothering’ and has no sexual implications. I could go on. |
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,659 
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 22, 2020 19:55:44 GMT
Most languages are full of idioms, and idioms rarely translate well in a literal sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 22, 2020 20:27:38 GMT
To me, using a sword for something it was never designed for isn’t a proper test. It’s just seeing how much raw damage it can take before it breaks. I much prefer tests that show that it is capable of doing its intended job. I get that. However, I think there is a certain appeal in seeing how a sword fares when getting smashed into stuff resembling polearms, shields, helmets, other blades etc. If I couldn’t trust s sword to take at least some of that, I wouldn’t want it on the (imaginary) battlefield. Yeah, the answer is BOTH proper intended use and testing limits, as a similar sword that can take more unintended abuse is always preferable. |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 22, 2020 22:24:05 GMT
Problem is, the more we gear toward "hulk smash" style of sword use, the further away we get from historic dimensions and handling.
Both are valid markets, and there can be some overlap, but in general we find very different tools in either category. Even among originals; a landsknecht's zweihander is a different beast than a jian, which is different to a katana, which differs from an "arming sword," which nobody would call a zweihander...
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 22, 2020 22:50:41 GMT
Problem is, the more we gear toward "hulk smash" style of sword use, the further away we get from historic dimensions and handling. Both are valid markets, and there can be some overlap, but in general we find very different tools in either category. Even among originals; a landsknecht's zweihander is a different beast than a jian, which is different to a katana, which differs from an "arming sword," which nobody would call a zweihander... Not necessarily. A more robust sword doesn’t necessarily need to be heavier than a less robust one of comparable design. It’s a matter of carefully weighing out all aspects of sword design (especially materials, methods of assembly and heat treatment) – and costs, of course. I find the idea that warriors of old would not have preferred to test their blades rather irritating. I would have liked to compare many different products on how they fare in circumstances I’m most likely to encounter (from most easy to worst), choose the best performer(s) and let a skilled, trustworthy manufacturer replicate this/these piece(s) as closely as possible, and as often as possible/economically reasonable. Without testing, we’re forced to act based on mere assumptions or deriving from very broad generalizations, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 22, 2020 23:42:15 GMT
Oh, necessarily. Steel is steel. "Robust" means "thick" which means "heavy" and shifts balance. Unless you add even more weight to compensate, of course.
Warriors of old may or may not have tested their swords. As far as I know the only culture with a recorded history of the habit is Japan, and they used anything from bundles of straw to bamboo to human bodies, living and dead. I'm inclined to believe most swords were "tested" on actual battlefields. Good swords made it home, bad swords didn't. Weapon makers tended to travel with armies so they'd have seen first-hand what their swords were getting into and what they survived and what they didn't, and would tweak them accordingly.
In fact, the legend of the creation of the Kogarasu Maru includes exactly these circumstances. Amakuni kept seeing battered, beaten soldiers coming home with broken swords, so he endeavored to improve their design. It took a few tries but eventually the soldiers came home looking better without broken swords.
There's also survivorship bias. Back in WW2, for instance, someone had the idea to study planes that came back riddled with holes to determine where and how to reinforce/armor them. Now, with planes especially, weight is very important, so it's crucial not to overbuild. Someone noted many planes coming home with holes all throughout the same general places, so figured "This is where they're getting hit the most, so we should reinforce them here," but someone else said, "Wait, they're getting hit here and surviving, so maybe we should reinforce everywhere else instead." Suffice to say, more planes made it home after the second guy's adjustments.
See also head injuries after soldiers started wearing helmets again.
Weight is crucial. You cannot overbuild something that needs to move quickly, an a sword is the definition of a thing that needs to move quickly to do its job.
Backyard cutting, of course, is a bit more forgiving of slow swords than active combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 23, 2020 0:54:21 GMT
Oh, necessarily. Steel is steel. "Robust" means "thick" which means "heavy" and shifts balance. Unless you add even more weight to compensate, of course. Warriors of old may or may not have tested their swords. As far as I know the only culture with a recorded history of the habit is Japan, and they used anything from bundles of straw to bamboo to human bodies, living and dead. I'm inclined to believe most swords were "tested" on actual battlefields. Good swords made it home, bad swords didn't. Weapon makers tended to travel with armies so they'd have seen first-hand what their swords were getting into and what they survived and what they didn't, and would tweak them accordingly. In fact, the legend of the creation of the Kogarasu Maru includes exactly these circumstances. Amakuni kept seeing battered, beaten soldiers coming home with broken swords, so he endeavored to improve their design. It took a few tries but eventually the soldiers came home looking better without broken swords. There's also survivorship bias. Back in WW2, for instance, someone had the idea to study planes that came back riddled with holes to determine where and how to reinforce/armor them. Now, with planes especially, weight is very important, so it's crucial not to overbuild. Someone noted many planes coming home with holes all throughout the same general places, so figured "This is where they're getting hit the most, so we should reinforce them here," but someone else said, "Wait, they're getting hit here and surviving, so maybe we should reinforce everywhere else instead." Suffice to say, more planes made it home after the second guy's adjustments. See also head injuries after soldiers started wearing helmets again. Weight is crucial. You cannot overbuild something that needs to move quickly, an a sword is the definition of a thing that needs to move quickly to do its job. Backyard cutting, of course, is a bit more forgiving of slow swords than active combat. I would not want to face an equally skilled opponent using a properly historically weighted, distill tapered sword while myself wielding one overbuilt, but an overbuilt Windlass or Cold Steel is still perfectly fine for home defense (I know, guns are better, but still) because you are not going to be facing a foe so armed (unless you are the most unlucky man in history). |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 23, 2020 1:23:19 GMT
And that's back where we started.
Do we want exact historic replicas, or overbuilt modern lookalikes?
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 23, 2020 1:49:47 GMT
And that's back where we started. Do we want exact historic replicas, or overbuilt modern lookalikes? Both for sure,but I'd want an exact historic replica more because it is most likely better (but you probably have to pay for it). Best of all would be historic originals, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 23, 2020 2:03:08 GMT
And that's back where we started. Do we want exact historic replicas, or overbuilt modern lookalikes? Both for sure,but I'd want an exact historic replica more because it is most likely better (but you probably have to pay for it). Best of all would be historic originals, of course. Well don't go chopping wood with any originals you get.  |
|
|
|
Post by joeyg on Jun 23, 2020 3:12:42 GMT
Oh, necessarily. Steel is steel. "Robust" means "thick" which means "heavy" and shifts balance. Unless you add even more weight to compensate, of course. Warriors of old may or may not have tested their swords. As far as I know the only culture with a recorded history of the habit is Japan, and they used anything from bundles of straw to bamboo to human bodies, living and dead. I'm inclined to believe most swords were "tested" on actual battlefields. Good swords made it home, bad swords didn't. Weapon makers tended to travel with armies so they'd have seen first-hand what their swords were getting into and what they survived and what they didn't, and would tweak them accordingly. In fact, the legend of the creation of the Kogarasu Maru includes exactly these circumstances. Amakuni kept seeing battered, beaten soldiers coming home with broken swords, so he endeavored to improve their design. It took a few tries but eventually the soldiers came home looking better without broken swords. There's also survivorship bias. Back in WW2, for instance, someone had the idea to study planes that came back riddled with holes to determine where and how to reinforce/armor them. Now, with planes especially, weight is very important, so it's crucial not to overbuild. Someone noted many planes coming home with holes all throughout the same general places, so figured "This is where they're getting hit the most, so we should reinforce them here," but someone else said, "Wait, they're getting hit here and surviving, so maybe we should reinforce everywhere else instead." Suffice to say, more planes made it home after the second guy's adjustments. See also head injuries after soldiers started wearing helmets again. Weight is crucial. You cannot overbuild something that needs to move quickly, an a sword is the definition of a thing that needs to move quickly to do its job. Backyard cutting, of course, is a bit more forgiving of slow swords than active combat. Well so heres the thing. Lets compare two theoretical peices of identical steel. I dunno lets make it 3 feet. One is a strait bar of .2" thickness and the other is a bar that goes from .3 "thicknesses to .1" thickness. They have the exact same mass, volume, and weight. The difference between the two is that the tapered bar is that the triangle taper helps keep it strait. And then theres the part where every inch of steel has to support the entire length that follows it. Changing it up to a triangle means the base has the strength to support everything that follows and theres less being asked of it. When you get to the tang youre comparing a .3 inch tang to a .2 inch though. Its not "oh its thick so its heavier" for this example there is the same amountnof metal. And in fact youd find the tapered bar feels lighter and needs less counter balancing because it did it on its own. |
|
