New Article on Swordmaking

[Gene Tausk]

For those who have not read it yet, our prolific Mr. Clements has written an outstanding article about the process of swordmaking Since presumably all readers of this forum have at least some interest in swordsmanship (if not, boy are you in the wrong place <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ), an article addressing the actual making and forging of our favorite weapon should be a "must read."

Link:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm


-----------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[JeanryChandler]

Gotta hand it to John on this one, it was well researched, well written and informative. One of his better articles.

Jeanry

[Jeffrey Hull]

I liked it.

Some time ago when John first made the distinction between "flexibility" and "resilency / plasticity", I did not take to it. But after a while I came to understand it, and in present article it is rather well explained for anyone trying to comprehend that distinction.

He spoke of how some modern makers cannot or simply do not replicate historical weapons accurately. I think John was being kinder than they deserve. I am now of the mind that some such makers will not replicate accurately. I have seen it time and again as the pattern of some makers, where they refuse to replicate accurately, and there is no damned excuse for it, of course.

I mean, even a first-year art student or design student could take a picture of an item from a museum and accurately scale a replica of the thing into two-dimensions (length &amp; width). But demonstrably, some makers cannot even do that (and yes I do have a specific recent example in mind). And as far as getting the third dimension (thickness) correct, then maybe the maker could at least familiarise himself with a variety of historic blades, if he cannot access the specific one replicated. But if he cannot even get the other two basic - and I do mean freaking basic - dimensions correct, then he need not even bother with the third.

It is as if some makers insist upon getting it pseudo-correct. Whether it be due to having a set of blanks which all items must somehow be fit into; or they lack the math skills; or they rely upon public ignorance; or they just do not care -- it is all quite tiresome.

[JeanryChandler]

It does seem to improve gradually over time. Ten years ago 4 and 5 lbs sword replicas weren't that unusual, distal taper was virtually unheard of....

JR

[Jeffrey Hull]

I guess that I should clarify that the kinds of things I meant are tend to be from some of the larger mass-production makers. And sometimes those guys still make 4 to 5 pound longswords without distal taper, for whatever reasons, I am sorry to say.

And I forgot to add that I liked how John presented the distinction and order of hardening then tempering. That may seem a simple point, but it can often get lost in the mix when someone is trying to understand the sword-making craft for the first time. So I applaude the article for tackling the crucial elementary process of the craft in a unified manner.

[JeanryChandler]

So am I correct to gather from this article that Mr Clements believes that stock reduction is an inferior or questionable method for making sword replicas?

JR

[John_Clements]

Incorrect.
Never said that.
It's just not historical.
And the products so far offered by the method to consumers have left much still to be desired. It hasn't proven as good as hand-forged pieces produced by experts, im my opinion.

[JeanryChandler]

It's just not historical.
And the products so far offered by the method to consumers have left much still to be desired. It hasn't proven as good as hand-forged pieces produced by experts, im my opinion.

I feel the same way, thats why I asked. It's interesting that somebody actually said it.

Jr

[Risto Rautiainen]

"Most swords today are produced as replicas or reproductions using a stock-removal process whereby a uniform bar of modern steel is shaped by machine or power-tools and then tempered to a certain outer hardness. This is sufficient for costume weapons and even for purposes of most martial arts practice. But such weapons are deficient for more energetic training and serious test cutting. They very likely would have proved quite deficient in historical combat."

I have to say that you can get the impression that you can't produce a proper blade with stock removal from the text above. Those were my first thoughts when I read that.

I think you can make a proper blade with stock removal, but most of the makers using stock removal don't. And it's "easier" to make proper shapes in blades by forging.

[John_Clements]

Well, the section does state that most are suitable for martial arts practice. What more are you going to do with one today besides that? Go into battle?

If you expect a blade produced by that method to be equal to a historical one carefully forged and heat-treated by hand, that would be a mistake (regardless of what a few companies like to claim).

JC

[Risto Rautiainen]

This is getting to be OT, but here goes anyway. You can produce a piece of metal (the blade) through stock removal to have the exact same proportions as you would by hand forging -right? That leaves us just the material. So do you think that the lack of hammering ie. packing in the blade material really affects the propertes of the blade that much, that you can say of blades made through stock removal that "They very likely would have proved quite deficient in historical combat." Or am I missing something here? I know that stock removal was used to some extent in making swords but making a blade by using only stock removal is not historical.

[John_Clements]

Well, I have asked that exact question to several smiths and their answers have not been uniform. It seems the technology IS there, but the production effort and work involved hasn't yet materialized becuase what would apparently be involved.

Personally, I think Albion understands this and is striving. But obviously as Peter J. has said they know the differences between hand forged / hand tempered and everything. Make sense?

JC

[david welch]

In my engineering classes, we were taught that with forgings, the grain pattern is effected, and a "grain flow" follows the outline of the piece:



In a milling process, the billet's grain flow is in one direction, and the milling cuts across it leaving weak spots where stresses can cause fatigue. Like this:

--------
--------
----------------------
----------------------
----------------------
--------
--------

The forged pieces are usually tougher. That is why you want them for piston rods and other high stress parts.

There are post machining processes that can approach forged pieces. But it is my understanding that they are very difficult, and very expensive. I am not sure how many sword manufacturers would have access to such high end equipment.

[JeanryChandler]

A lot of the eastern European companies still do hand forging though, don't they? I know of at least two smaller ones who do. I wonder why it's so prohibitively expensive. You would think they could at least create a "highest level" class of weapons for those who want them... the market certainly seems to be expanding, maybe not enough yet.

JR

[Risto Rautiainen]

Thanks David. I was pondering on that just yesterday. I knew that grain is apparent in period steels, but really didn't know that modern steels have the same property even to the point of having impact on their performance.

Thanks for the responses, this clears things up a bit.