Reinhardt Sword Testing

[Jeffrey Hull]

This testing of a modestly priced sword is worth seeing in light of a number of recent failures of very expensive swords described at this forum and elswhere. For some reason, this cheap Windlass sword can better-take challenges and abuse than the pricey wares of some makers, which sadly end up having their edges fragment like icicles, into saw-teeth, and so forth:

http://www.museumreplicas.com/WebStore/GenPage.aspx?srcPage=/StaticPages/swordtest.htm&pgTitle=Hank's%20Sword%20Test&ActionSource=LINK:17

[s_taillebois]

Well, windlass comes and goes on their reputation.
That said, have done some fairly rigorous test cutting with mine, and its held up well. Just not quite as aesthetic as some of the other equipment about. Breakage, oh well, too many variables there...namely who made it, and what was done with it. Balance and all, very subjective.
Tends to be a lot of mysticizing in regards to swords and knifes anyway. Methinks some of MRL's stuff, probably as good as what most of our ancestors may have carried.
(and having made swords, from my example, MRL doesn't do a bad job for the price)
What I'd wish they'd do though...is have a bit more metal in the weak of the blade...a little too much flexing there...

[TimSheetz]

Honestly, the slab of metal they begin with it too thin. 3/16th of an inch is not enough. IT should be 1/4 inch and work on a good distal taper IMO. Also, a REAL TANG would be great too.
Tim

[Brian Hunt]

Depending on the sword, you could even start with 3/8" and then give it a proper distal taper. From what research I have been able to find, some rapiers were that thick at the forte, and some of the swords I saw at the Met were about that thick at the forte. Proper balance in a sword is about proper mass distribution, IMHO.

Brian Hunt
GFS.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Brian,

I agree, but my biggest criticism of MRL usually would be fixed if they had more mass in the blade.

Tim

[GaryGrzybek]

Hi Tim!

I agree to an extent but not all swords were made starting with 1/4" steel. It's really about placing the volumes in all the right places and the thickness throughout the grip area and forte is obviously a key ingredient. MRL misses this key ingredient in many cases I think. Most I've handled were too flexible or whippy near the hilt.

[Shane Smith]

The only MRL model I have handled several decent examples of is their "Arbedo" sword. I have had my hands on five of them and like them very much for what they are...Crossguards need a bit of tightening with epoxy in most every case though it seems. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I have broken more prestigious blades than cheaper blades by MRL and DelTin. MRL has it's own issues but the ones I have handled are tough of blade if a bit whippy in some models. DelTins tend to be very tough but are at the upper end of historical weight parameters for type sometimes.

What good is the lightest, fastest blade in the world if it shatters on impact with maille or some other odd bit of the opponents armour?

[Bill Welch]

Shane wrote " What good is the lightest, fastest blade in the world if it shatters on impact with maille or some other odd bit of the opponents armour? "

AMEN!!
Here.......Here..(sound of applause in background) Could not agree more.

[GaryGrzybek]

I never said that MRL blades weren't tough. What I tried to say is that they are often designed in a way that makes them too flexible in areas that they shouldn't be. A blade that wobbles near the hilt just feels wrong to me. A hilt that loosen after a short while also seems wrong to me. I have an old MRL side sword that's very tough and stiff but without any distal taper it's a wrist braker after a while. I also have an Armour Class bastard sword that's rebatted. It's very flexible but not whippy. It's also never come loose, even after a year of hard training.

[s_taillebois]

On the historical blades, some of the thickness likely related to the metal work of the time. Ironic, insofar as they could produce a steel (of sorts) but once they had it, they didn't have the ability to remelt it into a consistant mass. Essentially, they seemed to have ended up with what amounted to as a type of carbonized iron core with a exterior of something close to a steel. The ability to remelt steels didn't exist till Huntsman (during the enlightenment).
MRL, methinks they're using a steel stock from an outside vendor, and CAD/CAM milling it to size. Could be why they don't start with a thicker stock...either non-standard with their suppliers, or too high of a cost.
Still wish they'd make the weak of the blade a bit stronger, or increase the center fuller/taper to make these move a bit less. Don't see why it couldn't be done...after all these things are not epee's...and due to edge form and general shape...not really suitable as blunts.
Haven't had any real flaws in the blade, despite a fair amount of use...did remount the hilt though...

[JeanryChandler]

Mr taillebois,

I usually agree with most of your posts, so I'm surprised to read this comment, as it seems to differ with much of the research I've been able to come across in about five years of study on spathology. Best I can determine, from a lot of reading and my own handling of a lot of replicas of every cost range, and a (very) few actual old blades, the edged weapons from the Renaissance on back seem to have been of far better quality (on balance) across the board than any modern reproduction to date.

Yes, the modern steels are more chemically perfect and reliable in terms of the consistency of alloys, certainly when measured by volume, but certainly they understood how to make steel in the Renaissance. Or are you referring to some much earlier period? What you are describing sounds the metalurgy of the La Tene era Celts or the Romans.

My understanding is that by the time the of the Cistercian reforms (12th century IIRC?) around the overwash water wheel, and the resulting technologies such as the barcelona hammer and mill-powered bellows, you did actually had fairly widespread large scale steel and iron production. By the later Renaissance they were even making armor out of tempered steel...

Whatever advantages modern sword reproducers seem to have in terms of homogeniety of their steel (and actually with things like the availability of wootz, for example, on the open market, it's even debatable how much better modern steels really were), lasers for measuring strait lines, or automation in grinding processes, the ancient Masters seemed to have been far ahead in the art of heat treatment and all the other more important subtleties which go into making a truly fine killing blade.

Understandable when you have a direct feedback loop between the makers of these products, and the "consumers" whose lives depended on their quality, (and who in many cases had explicit or de-facto life or death authority over the very artisans who made these items in their employ) i.e. bad swordmakers wouldn't be in business long in "the day" nor would their consumers be delighted by a nice finish and the ability to slice through a plastic bottle or a cardboard tube.

Contrary to your opinion, and with all due respect, I'm personally rather disgusted by a certain trend within the sword reproduction and collecting communities who are delighted to have swords seem specialized to perfectly cut through water bottles that they are now claiming they have surpassed the original masters in actual quality of these things as swords.. when meanwhile the simplest tests immediately prove that many of these incredibly expensive uber weapons are incredibly fragile and dainty. (Not that I'm saying you are one of these guys....)

This also when not even 5 years ago they couldn't even get the weight down on the basic ball park of the real thing. Even now you are still seeing a lot of replicas which are 1 - 2 pounds overweight...

Some may feel that the old swords are over fetishized, but I personally think there actually isn't enough respect paid to the real deal. Not that every weapon made before the 19th century was a mastepiece, to the contrary, consistency was undoubtedly less than that of modern factory perfection of making 10,000 toasters exactly the same, but lets put it this way... if there were Leonardos and Michelangelos in the fields of painting and sculpture, there were clearly the equivalent around in some of the ancient sword making houses of Europe.

Jr

[s_taillebois]

As noted, they could make steel. But the ability to make it a consistant quality, was a problem to them. So should have rephrased on my part to state that what they made was not a consistant steel in the modern sense. The metullurgy to do such things, was more a product of the modern armour industry (tanks and dreadnaughts). So from an alloy sense, what they made was a bit contaminated and very, variable...which would be inherent to steel made via wood, charcoal, and early blast furnaces. And as far as the ability to successfully and consistantly remelt it all....once again that was Huntsman's doing, and later refined by Bessemer and company. So even today even the lesser companies have a basic material for which the original makers could only have dreamed. The difference is in the loss of the handwork techniques, and the associative attitudes of the guilds. Granted the apprentices would have made the kitchenware or arrow heads, but any armourer who made master...did so by literally creating a masterpiece. And that, and all the social context it implied, is a faded memory.
The Cistercians, true, largely responsible for the late medieval industrial revolution. And on that basis, parts of the armament industry of the time, in its own way, mass produced. The primary thing which seemed to have kept them from going all the way to the final step, was the guilds and the general obsession with social heirarchy.
Concerning the care and reverence, nice when a craftsman does it...but mayhaps many of the surviving armaments from the early modern era...survived because they were made by the best craftsmen. And mayhaps not subject to the usages of the less well executed pieces. A good example would be the periods tendancy of cutting down broken or obsolete swords to make daggers and other lesser implements. I wonder how many of these things ended up slaughtering pigs.
Or were, in their own right, junk. Carried by those who used what they could afford.
So mayhaps it would have helped if I had clarified the original post a little better...but alas, time and the sometimes wonky ISP here, can make that troublesome.

[JeanryChandler]

Point well taken my friend, I always enjoy your well considered and well informed posts here,

Jeanry

[s_taillebois]

Thanks. And a good observation that the old masters were very well aware of the subtle aspects making a good weapon by the standards that were expected.
In the case of modern makers, perhaps that's wherein the mystic got involved. Once the initial and unfortunate purpose for these implements was (thank god) generally superceded, had to be something to keep the sales up.
Hence, 'battle ready' and all the other implications of being original in design. Approachable, but not entirely possible as the intent and need is quite different.

[John_Clements]

I must agree with S_Tailleboise here, as Windlass quality is so constantly inconsistent and reliably unreliable with its ups and downs that one can never know from purchase to purchase at any given time what you will get. Could be pretty good, could be pretty awful. We've gotten so many that fall in each category. It's been a total crapshoot for us for years, which makes it nearly impossible to confidently recommend models to students.

Also, their obsession with making so many of their swords as wobbly and flexible as possible to appeal to naive sword-bending aficionados often makes matters worse. I wish they would over come this error as their range of styles and prices are good.

I also agree with Jeanry as that with many makers today their pieces are just not based on completely accurate 3-dimensional measurements of the true geometrical cross-sections of actual pieces either, not that this is absolutely vital in producing a decent replica of good weight and balance for modern training, but it is definitely worth pointing out so that no one is fooled.

JC