[Peter Johnsson]

[Michael Pearce]

I think that Peter is spot-on here- 1075 is about as close to a 'period' steel as can be obtained from a steel-mill product and is a very low-alloy steel. It's going to behave more like a period steel as a result- though of course different heat-treating processes will determine the degree to which this is true. Albion made a conscious decision to use the materials and methods they do at least in part to make the most 'accurate' sword that they can. Modern alloys and processes might make for a 'better' sword- but that is very much in the eye of the beholder! I think that of the swords being marketed today Albion's NG line and Museum line are likely to give results closest to what might be expected of a quality 'period' sword- which to many is a value in and of itself! I hope that people will continue to test blades from all manufacturers and report the results honestly- the customer, makers and collecters will all benefit!

[Jesse Frank]

Just my 2 cents, but I don't really see having a slightly lower hardness at the forte as a flaw. That is where a good portion of the stress is going to be, and one does not tend to do the majority of cutting with that area.

As far as I'm concerned, that may show a certain degree of sophistication of heat treatment in some ancient swords. They very well could have been engineered that way.

If it were me, I would be happy with the results of the hardness test

Jesse

[Kel Rekuta]

[Patrick Kelly]

This thread could have easily turned into an instance of finger pointing and accusation. Instead, there seems to be quite a bit of very constructive knowledge being exchanged. Thanks to all for approaching this on a mature level, and for turning a potential flame war into something constructive.

[Angus Trim]

Since my name was brought up in the beginning of this thread, and Peter posted something about heat treat I don't understand, I thought I'd mention my view from my experience on heat treat.........

Nearly six years ago now, I started the swordmaking game working with Michael Tinker Pearce. We started with 1065 for the few blades, but eventually dropped it for 5160 {I don't believe there's more than 4 1065 Tinkerblades swords out there}. We did not drop this steel because of hardness problems, we dropped it because of the exceptional warpage we were experiencing.... meaning that the hardness readings of these blades was similar to what I have now with the 5160. Check the blade's hardness initially at the tang/ shoulder at 52rc, test it down the blade, and it will be within 3rc of the initial test.

Three to four years ago, I tested some 1075, and some 6150. I tested the 6150 because the little bit of Vanadium is supposed to be a good thing, and it likely is, but I dropped it because I prefer the bar stock of the 5160 instead of the sheet 6150, and I like the extra bit of carbon.....

The 1075 had a bit of an advantage over 1065 as it could be hardened enough using oil to quench with. Thus, warpage was not the problem that it was with 1065. The 1075 could be had in the stock sizes of the 5160 I used at the time, which was a potential plus. And it could be hardened as reliably as the 5160, 51 to 53 rc at the base, not more than 3rc harder at the tip.

I dropped the 1075 because 5160 proved to my purposes to be more flexible, more resiliant, hold an edge better, and be less brittle than the 1075 at 52rc..........

But, the important thing is, that if the supply of 5160 became scarce, I could use 1075. I might be better to drop things a couple rockwell points, to 48 to 50 rc, but it would make for a good quality sword steel.......

For my purposes, I'd reject a blade if it had too much variation in hardness. I like uniformity, I like tempered martensite. I like things I can depend on.......

I made my name initially as a swordmaker, by making lighter swords than the general market. In order to do this, the heat treat has to be top notch, and if a sword fails {which has happened} it should be in my mind because the sword was used in a situation that a much larger sword should have been used in.

What I'm trying to say here, is that its alright to have a lot of pearlite in a larger sword, or a sword with a wide, thick forte. But a light slender sword that might be used heavily, had better have a body of tempered martensite, or with the custom guys, maybe lower bainite....... A lot of pearlite in a lighter sword would likely leave the blade vulnerable to taking a set in a pooched cut.......

Modern cutting targets didn't exist "in period". Today's swords could face things like pool noodles, Bugei wara, and water filled milk jugs {meaning no real resistance, very easy targets to cut}, or could easily face more resiliant targets like Mugen Dachi mats, water filled pop bottles, and relatively light cardboard tubes. These latter targets in a pooched cut, could bend a light blade if it wasn't tempered martensite, or lower bainite. The tougher targets, like the heavier cardboard tubes, plywood, pork shoulders, etc, will test a sword even more than the previous targets, edge and body........

Then of course, we get to the real abusive stuff, things like maille, 55 gal steel barrels, and the like.........

Now, heat treat isn't the whole thing. The heat treat though is important, as important as blade geometry {for resiliance and resistance to failure be it taking a set or breaking}, or edge geometry {edge durability}........ I like the odds in my favor, and I like to have as tight an edge geometry as possible, and I like to take as much of the fat out of a blade as I can...... therefore its extremely important for my blades to have a very high percentage of tempered martensite from the tip of the blade to the end of the tang........

This is in reference to the AT reference at the top of the thread. To differentiate between what Peter mentioned, and how I see things. Two very different philsophies in making a sword blade....... Not that one is better than another, just the difference between the two.......

[Lancelot Chan]

This could be slightly straying off topic but maybe not if we are talking about edge retention.

Peter Johnsson mentioned that my sword was honed to super sharp level based on my idea 3 years ago in private email exchange. Albion has agreed to ship me a new replacement so this time I want the sword to have an original sharpness on the antique.

Thus, I did a little searching on the original. I happen to have the book Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Art of the Longsword by David Lindholm and Peter Svard. On page 219, the last page of Peter Johnsson's article of "What is an edge?", there are diagrams of the cross section of many antique blades at the COP spot.

What caught my eyes are their very fine sharpness. Even the #5 Warsword Svante Nilsson Sture is very sharp on the drawing. Perhaps more than the Brescia Spadona due to the hollow grind effect.

The #3 Brescia spadona on the drawing, doesn't have a secondary bevel. I took my own spadona out and compared the blade geometry by putting the sword on the paper. It turned out if the drawing is indeed accurate to the original, it was even sharper than the one I have on my hand.

So this is a question for Peter. Is the drawing accurate to the original antique cross section and sharpness? If so, then my sword shouldn't be considered "super fine sharpness".

[Shane Allee]

I have been very busy lately and have avoided getting into some of these threads recently. It is pretty late, but hopefully I can add something to the discussion.

The first thing I would like to address is one of the latest things brought up by Gus in grouping different levels of cutting medium. Maile was mentioned as being more abusive, while dead bone was just mentioned as a tougher medium. Personally I don't know that I would agree to that, or at least without being more specific and qualifying it somewhat. It has been mentioned recently as well as numerous other times for as long as I can remember on the forums that bone starts getting hard as soon as the organism dies. I think most understand that cutting rock is bad, there are a lot of rocks I would rather cut than dead bone though. Just saying that maile is more abusive than dead bone is pretty broad. Are we talking modern or period? Is it on a more period type of backing and support, simply hanging, a solid none giving backing, etc...? Hacking at a piece of modern hardened steel mail laying over a piece of wood or something and trying to cleave dead bone are pretty much abuse IMHO. Period iron maile over 1" plus padding on a person is different and wouldn't be the abuse dead bone would be.

One thing I'm seeing, might not be a bad thing even, but people anymore really are expecting more out of their modern swords than what most period swords would deliver. Part may be because of the whole myth that modern made swords are crap compared to the old ones. Part may just be because people like to use their swords for things swords were not really made for. Some just seem to expect certain things out of modern swords, and forget just how many people died at the hands of old bronze and iron swords. From reading some of the studies conducted on older blades, many were pretty much crap to todays standards. The old bronze sword or the old iron sword that might have one steel edge that was hardened did its job. People don't need to kid themselves, it doesn't take much of a sword to do its intended job. Do I want more out of my swords? Without a doubt. Each person out there has to educate themselves enough to know exactly what they want to be able to do with a give sword, and find what best works for the need.

Shane

[George Hill]

The issue of dead bone comes up repeatedly.

What I would like to know is just how bone changes after death. It seems to me a dead animal should be an idea sword target, Since this would teach you how to hit actual flesh and get you used to it. IE, forensics can sometimes tell by the stroke in a knife murder if the weilder is experinced or an amature, (Withen reason of course)

So if your goal is to become a modernday swordsman, without dismembering the neighbors, a deer or a pig hung up should be ideal...... Really get you used to dismembering something without those pesky murder charges, and really get a look at what a blade can do to flesh. This is my thought, and the thoughts of many others, see the old cow test, the ARMA deer videos, ect.

But it sounds like the bones turn to stone very quickly.

Just how much harder is a dead bone? Does this vary much by speicies? Should I start a new thread on this subject?

[Nathan Robinson]

[Peter Johnsson]

[Lancelot Chan]

Just for a reference, in historical Japan, cutting human dead body with flesh and bone was done to record how good a sword cut. The tester always used the same hilt (a special made one), same form of cutting and same gripping to isolate subjective factors as much as possible. Then the result would be recorded on document. Sometimes the tang of the blade would be engraved with the result as a promotion too. I suspect that historical Japanese would not take cutting dead body as an abuse as most people on this forum do nowadays. They had their school of "dead body test cutting" that made use of a well-documented stand called toten. Even the height of the toten has a limit.

[Nathan Robinson]

For the record, Lance, I don't think cutting your pork roast (bones included) is "sword abuse." I do, however, think it's absurd to think that doing so will cause no deformation or change of any kind to the sword's finish and edge. Thinking that a sword will do these things without needing maintenance is not realistic given my own personal experience and what I've learned from reading.

[Peter Johnsson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

I don't play golf,. but if you use a putter to make a drive or a driver to make a putt, the ball may just get to the hole somehow, but you are going to complain that each club was a lousy golf club.

My attempt to rephrase what Peter was just saying about using the right tool, in a different way. ( Not that he didn't explain it very well, but sometimes making a comparison like this might be useful. )

[Lancelot Chan]

[Thomas Jason]

FYI Lance:

The Japanese cutting of dead bodies was considered a form of destructive testing. The cuts were made until wither the blade failed to go the whole way through or the edge sustained a certain level of damage, at which point the cuts were generally ended. Swords that survived were then repolished and returned to the customer.

GEnerally only a single sword that was representative of the maker's work was used in the testing. And even then swords from highly prized makers were not subjected to the tests.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Oh, and I think the bone was still alive as was the unfortunate test subject: Usually a criminal already condemmed to death or an unlucky peasant meeting a samurai with an untested new sword.

[Lancelot Chan]

Thanks for the information. Would you mind providing the source of the info so that I can do some more reading myself?

[Kenneth Enroth]