|
|
Post by howler on Jun 23, 2020 3:44:03 GMT
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.  Oh God, I wouldn't even disrespect a Mall Ninja sword like that  . I think I would scream my lungs out if I saw anyone doing such a horrible thing to history in an attempt to stop him, either that or offer him some cash on the spot to buy the thing, as it would probably be far more expensive than he believed it to be (because he's chopping with it like a moron). |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 23, 2020 5:13:27 GMT
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. Well, yes, but at the end you still have a very thin piece of metal. It may be thicker at one end, but let's say this piece of metal is a sword. You're not hitting things with the thick end but the thin one. This loops us back to the original "problem" and, ironically, the sword that started this very thread is a case in point: the thin part is more susceptible to damage than the rest. If the whole sword was an even thickness over its whole length, it would not only suffer poor balance, but it's likely the tip would be, shall we say, droopy. The whole sword would be pretty floppy, really, because the length couldn't support the weight of the thickness anymore. We've seen swords with little or no distal taper, and they weren't good. howler - I should hope not  |
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 23, 2020 6:11:57 GMT
I think you did your best of trying to misunderstand me, Randomnobody.
I also think Joeyg made some great contributions – welcome to the forum.
The thought that people whose lives depended on weapon didn’t test is as much as we do (for fun) is very foreign to me. They developed the pieces we’re playing with nowadays. Also we have plenty of evidence from sword testing, especially from the younger past.
I had tested thin swords of the same model vs. thicker ones and the thin ones showed being more “robust” than the thicker ones (anybody can look up my previous threats, talking about the CS Backsword here). There are many variables involved.
I really wonder how some people look at their contributions to this forum, aside from linguistics tweaks and self-display, while secretly profiting from others experiences and expenses. |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 23, 2020 6:44:07 GMT
Hmm, perhaps I need to go back and re-read. I concede I am not as active on this forum as I once was and many members (yourself included) are unfamiliar to me as I don't generally partake of the same subforums and threads as they/you do.
Most of my involvement here is but a quick perusal where time permits and perhaps a bit of devil's advocate for the sake of it.
I'm not saying nobody tested their swords in the past, just that I'm not familiar with their methodology and I doubt trees were involved in any way. Obviously, more modern periods saw more thorough testing and documentation (British Proof Test, Japanese tameshigiri) but these are also accepted as harsh tests in their own.
Otherwise, I'm not sure where we're circling each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 23, 2020 20:27:35 GMT
The first problem i had was with the scabbard and that it balances higher then the hanging point, the scabbard is a bit too loose and iv been offered suggestions for a patch fix from LK staff for that. The general problem with it hanging off the belt is a very quick lunge step can cause the blade to dislodge from the scabbard and since it hangs higher then the belt... Well you get the picture. I found that was fixed a little if the scabbard was on the inside of the belt and not the outside, which is the traditional/historical way to wear a sword in most cases. Welcome to the forum! Just to go back to this, these and similar European scabbards with a belt slide were in fact intended to be worn on the inside of the belt, with the scabbard against your body and the often decorated slide on display on the outside. That's the historical way to wear them, and unsurprisingly much more convenient and ergonomic than letting them dangle on the outside of the belt!  If you want to make it more stable, you can insert the belt through the slide, but then loop it back around between the scabbard and your body, and put it through the slide again; this forces the scabbard to hang at an angle, and helps keep it from flopping around or sliding along your belt unintentionally. If you have trouble drawing a long sword, consider wearing the belt lower on your hips, gunslinger style.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 20:52:27 GMT
I think you did your best of trying to misunderstand me, Randomnobody.
I also think Joeyg made some great contributions – welcome to the forum.
The thought that people whose lives depended on weapon didn’t test is as much as we do (for fun) is very foreign to me. They developed the pieces we’re playing with nowadays. Also we have plenty of evidence from sword testing, especially from the younger past.
I had tested thin swords of the same model vs. thicker ones and the thin ones showed being more “robust” than the thicker ones (anybody can look up my previous threats, talking about the CS Backsword here). There are many variables involved.
I really wonder how some people look at their contributions to this forum, aside from linguistics tweaks and self-display, while secretly profiting from others experiences and expenses. One of so, so many threads and discussions sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/51640/leadcutters~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In one case, one is testing and training ability In another case folk are proofing swords. I don't find it necessary to link for the upteenth time to show how swords were proofed in an earlier context of production, swords flexing to the hilt and returning back or blades presented coiled in a hat. All these tests and parables are out there. A producer could underline in their ad copy if a sword can handle more than "Proof" levels of capability and some indeed do. The latter, the makers sharing those destructive tests. For those that choose to test ordinary swords beyond expected results are welcome to do so but the original post means little or nothing to me, as no one bothered to link the video I know what I will see anyway Cheers GC |
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Jun 24, 2020 5:10:04 GMT
I guess Google really is watching everything.
This popped up on my YouTube home page:
So, I watched the video.
My personal takeaways:
There were some pretty poor tatami cuts that torqued the blade dramatically as shown in the slomo replay.
The fallen wood branches used as targets were only a couple inches in diameter, but looked like dry dead wood. The branches were at odd angles laying free as one would find them in the woods. Nothing crazy, but likely outside of the sword’s intended use.
The bend/set was not dramatic. The blade was still functional despite the set. There was a twist to the set that was consistent with being caused by one of the horrible tatami cuts.
The blade’s performance looked really good to me. I was impressed.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Jun 24, 2020 5:20:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 24, 2020 11:05:33 GMT
The blade’s performance looked really good to me. I was impressed. I concur. Definitely not a design I would prefer under most circumstances, and heat treatment maybe could be optimized just a tad further, but a very good sword most definitely, especially at the price point. I was impressed, too. |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 24, 2020 12:54:50 GMT
Skall’s video was what I was referring to when I said that Matt’s video was more down to earth. Skall gets off base frequently. That sword was never designed to be used in the manner in which Skall shows and I can in no way fault the sword. And maybe one day I'll be lucky enough to own a LK Chen. I forgot now how I worded it, but questioned Skall's cuts but fell short of accusing him.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrbadexample on Jun 24, 2020 14:24:13 GMT
There was a twist to the set that was consistent with being caused by one of the horrible tatami cuts.
The blade’s performance looked really good to me. I was impressed.
Cheers. [/quote]
Yup. I’ve been hesitant to chime in because I didn’t want my two cents understood in the wrong way, but I’ll share. I actually managed to slightly bend the last 3/8” or so on the tip of my striking eagle. Thing is, it was my fault. I was thrusting into bamboo and I totally messed up my footwork and all of the angles. Thrusting into bamboo in the first place was fairly risky, but I wanted to see how it did on a rib analog. The first few were fine. The minor bend I got from my error wasn’t surprising, and I feared it would be worse. At the end of the day, I only had a slight bend that you have to look for to notice as a reminder not to mess up my footwork. So, do I have personal experience with a similar sword bending? Yes. Do I think it’s a problem? No. Bad cuts or thrusts can damage swords. I’m comfortable saying that as a blanket statement. I’m impressed by the limited nature of the bend on my sword, and even Skal’s video doesn’t give me pause about LK Chen.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 24, 2020 15:27:15 GMT
Don’t be so shy. We learn from our good experiences as well as our bad. I dare say more from the later. Sharing helps us all to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Jun 24, 2020 15:59:08 GMT
Done plenty stupid things myself that wish I knew better earlier. So that's normal I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 26, 2020 13:46:39 GMT
Oh, I‘ve bent the tip of the HT EMSHS I use for training dozens of times, thrusting at plywood boards and hanging logs of fir wood. User error? Nah... Surely nothing that exceeds the stresses and strains of a real fight. Cannot always control the angle(s) in a real fight, people twist and turn during and after being hit. May be a belt buckle in the way, who knows. Etc. Always could bend back the tip and even a bent tip can still penetrate. Will not hold up forever, of course, that’s why I keep a spare blade or two.
|
|
. I think I would scream my lungs out if I saw anyone doing such a horrible thing to history in an attempt to stop him, either that or offer him some cash on the spot to buy the thing, as it would probably be far more expensive than he believed it to be (because he's chopping with it like a moron).
