| Author |
Message |
Sean Flynt
|
|
   |
 |
Alexander Hinman
|
 Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | How many members here care about the type of steel used in the swords that you buy? |
I do, but that's because I'm rather picky about those kinds of things.
Too much chromium or vanadium (more than 4%) in the steel makes me worried. I cannot defend my position on it logically, I just don't like it. Of course, this limits my choice of swordmakers to an unfortunate degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexander Hinman wrote: | | Nathan Robinson wrote: | | How many members here care about the type of steel used in the swords that you buy? |
I do, but that's because I'm rather picky about those kinds of things.
Too much chromium or vanadium (more than 4%) in the steel makes me worried. I cannot defend my position on it logically, I just don't like it. Of course, this limits my choice of swordmakers to an unfortunate degree. |
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but who uses steel with either 4% chrome or vanadium?
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
James A. Vargscarr
Location: Englishman living in Canada Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | I'm buying a product made of steel, not steel itself. If I was making swords, I'd care very much. Since I'm just consuming swords I rely on the expertise of the producer and expect them to be accountable for the quality of their swords when I chose to buy them. |
I'll echo Joe's thought's on the subject. I'm buying a piece of functional art made of steel; and the functional designation means I want that steel to be as tough as I can reasonably expect it to be in this day and age, regardless of historical accuracy.
As far as I know, steel is steel; in the sense that every type can be given an appropriate heat treat that delivers a blade of comparable resiliency. Putting aside certain steels that look drastically different due to higher levels of chrome, or steels like Howard Clark's L6 that are tied to a unique heat treat in a specific context; 1070, 1080, 5160, L6 etc. are of more interest to me when their properties and differences are discussed from a maker's perspective than from the perspective of a user. It's my understanding that different steels allow different makers to take different paths to the same destination - a properly heat treated blade.
However, I have read claims that 1070 is a shallow-hardening steel, and is either more difficult to heat treat correctly, or cannot ever be heat treated to the same level of toughness as an 'easier' steel such as 5160. There is some confirmation of this in Peter Johnsson's post above; and if true, that might bias me against the steel to some degree, depending on the significance of the deficiency. I would definitely be wary of production makers using the steel if I felt it would have an adverse effect on their products, either due to their ineptitude or simply because it increases the difficulty of thorough quality control.
I'd certainly welcome any further information on this subject from those in the know. Will a certain steel, combined with a through-hardening 50-55 HRC heat treat correct for its type, ever display different performance characteristics to a user? How much more difficult is it for a maker to achieve this 'correct' heat treat for one steel as compared to another? Abuse doesn't come into it if one steel will always fail against others when identical swords made from different steels are used for the same tasks, though the width of the performance gap is critical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James A. Vargscarr wrote: | | Joe Fults wrote: | | I'm buying a product made of steel, not steel itself. If I was making swords, I'd care very much. Since I'm just consuming swords I rely on the expertise of the producer and expect them to be accountable for the quality of their swords when I chose to buy them. |
I'll echo Joe's thought's on the subject. I'm buying a piece of functional art made of steel; and the functional designation means I want that steel to be as tough as I can reasonably expect it to be in this day and age, regardless of historical accuracy.
As far as I know, steel is steel; in the sense that every type can be given an appropriate heat treat that delivers a blade of comparable resiliency. Putting aside certain steels that look drastically different due to higher levels of chrome, or steels like Howard Clark's L6 that are tied to a unique heat treat in a specific context; 1070, 1080, 5160, L6 etc. are of more interest to me when their properties and differences are discussed from a maker's perspective than from the perspective of a user. It's my understanding that different steels allow different makers to take different paths to the same destination - a properly heat treated blade.
However, I have read claims that 1070 is a shallow-hardening steel, and is either more difficult to heat treat correctly, or cannot ever be heat treated to the same level of toughness as an 'easier' steel such as 5160. There is some confirmation of this in Peter Johnsson's post above; and if true, that might bias me against the steel to some degree, depending on the significance of the deficiency. I would definitely be wary of production makers using the steel if I felt it would have an adverse effect on their products, either due to their ineptitude or simply because it increases the difficulty of thorough quality control.
I'd certainly welcome any further information on this subject from those in the know. Will a certain steel, combined with a through-hardening 50-55 HRC heat treat correct for its type, ever display different performance characteristics to a user? How much more difficult is it for a maker to achieve this 'correct' heat treat for one steel as compared to another? Abuse doesn't come into it if one steel will always fail against others when identical swords made from different steels are used for the same tasks, though the width of the performance gap is critical. |
"Shallow Hardening" steel in this case is relative. Most swords are 1/4 inch thick at the thickest, 3/8 inch thick material is used in a few cases, and .47 inch thick steel on one extreme case. And all of your better sword makers know what distal taper is, so that the blade gets continuously thinner as you approach the tip. With a 1/4 inch thick steel, another way of looking at things is that its only 1/8 inch to the center of the piece. So, done correctly, with 1/4 inch steel, you'll have martensite to the center, yes, even with 1075.
A blade with 1075 as its steel can be plenty tough, and still hard enough to have an effective edge. 1075 is actually an excellent sword steel, and I doubt seriously that most participants of myArmoury would be able to tell the difference between a blade of 1075 and 5160 if it was the same model blade by the same manufacturer.........
They do heat treat differently yes. But they are both excellent sword steels..........I've done enough testing of 1075, that I could safely say I could use it if 5160 became unavailable...........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: |
At certain price points, one may not reasonably expect elaborate mechanical properties data on tempered steel. On the other hand, at costs of $1000 each, many aerospace parts (anything from plain pipe to custom machined parts) require extensive post heat treat "Batch certification" with proof tests on coupons of similar thickness. Without this, even small nuts and bolts parts "won't fly." Some tests could be done at very low costs...selective location/ depth Brinnell indentation hardness test for example (I recently requested this on a sword purchase with a generous price limit increase, but the manufacturer declined and did not really seem to know of any local method or facility capabilities.) I do agree that the very best craftsmen I have known depended mainly on; experience, color, feel, etc....qualitative things. But, they were eager to have the results of their work subjected to testing.
|
Using a rockwell machine to test a finished or semi-finished sword blade is chancy at best. Ideally you would have two parallel surfaces to get a true reading when the diamond is shoved into the material.
Because of this, very few smiths or makers actually know how hard their blades are. Its real easy to get a false reading from a rockwell file. One can easily get that 50 to 55 rc test with a file, and actually have a real hardness of 40 to 45.......
Since my heat treating is done by an aircraft certified heat treater, a percentage of every batch is tested at the base of the tang {within 1/2 inch of where the tang and shoulder meet}. So, when I say my blades are 52rc, I have certs to back that up......
I don't think anyone else does in this industry {except Tinker} does, and requiring such a test is probably unrealistic..... If the sword actually does what its supposed to, does it matter if its 47rc, or 52? Would you even know? Frankly, most folks are satisfied when the manufacturer tells them that their rc # is xx....... And they'll never know the difference, whether its 50rc, or 45...........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Hinman
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angus Trim wrote: |
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but who uses steel with either 4% chrome or vanadium? |
No-one, Gus. I should have said .4 (slaps forehead) As for why .4, it's just my arbitrary number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ross
Location: Nashville, TN Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angus Trim wrote: | "Shallow Hardening" steel in this case is relative. Most swords are 1/4 inch thick at the thickest, 3/8 inch thick material is used in a few cases, and .47 inch thick steel on one extreme case. And all of your better sword makers know what distal taper is, so that the blade gets continuously thinner as you approach the tip. With a 1/4 inch thick steel, another way of looking at things is that its only 1/8 inch to the center of the piece. So, done correctly, with 1/4 inch steel, you'll have martensite to the center, yes, even with 1075.
A blade with 1075 as its steel can be plenty tough, and still hard enough to have an effective edge. 1075 is actually an excellent sword steel, and I doubt seriously that most participants of myArmoury would be able to tell the difference between a blade of 1075 and 5160 if it was the same model blade by the same manufacturer.........
They do heat treat differently yes. But they are both excellent sword steels..........I've done enough testing of 1075, that I could safely say I could use it if 5160 became unavailable........... |
Gus, hypothetically speaking, what would be your second choice as a sword steel if 5160 were to become suddenly unavailable?
|
|
|
|
|
James A. Vargscarr
Location: Englishman living in Canada Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angus Trim wrote: | "Shallow Hardening" steel in this case is relative. Most swords are 1/4 inch thick at the thickest, 3/8 inch thick material is used in a few cases, and .47 inch thick steel on one extreme case. And all of your better sword makers know what distal taper is, so that the blade gets continuously thinner as you approach the tip. With a 1/4 inch thick steel, another way of looking at things is that its only 1/8 inch to the center of the piece. So, done correctly, with 1/4 inch steel, you'll have martensite to the center, yes, even with 1075.
A blade with 1075 as its steel can be plenty tough, and still hard enough to have an effective edge. 1075 is actually an excellent sword steel, and I doubt seriously that most participants of myArmoury would be able to tell the difference between a blade of 1075 and 5160 if it was the same model blade by the same manufacturer.........
They do heat treat differently yes. But they are both excellent sword steels..........I've done enough testing of 1075, that I could safely say I could use it if 5160 became unavailable........... |
Very useful information Gus, thanks for the post. Glad to know I'm not going to have to cultivate a prejudice over any particular steel.
Peter, if you're reading this thread, would you mind clarifying this statement a little?
| Peter Johnsson wrote: | 1070 was for a time used in the production of all Albion blades. 1070 can provide a blade that is very close to what a historical sword would be, but it will also be a little bit more demanding on the user.
Now a steel that provides deeper hardening, higher hardness and a very fine grain has been put into production. This is partly because customers expect such performance in a sword today, but also to have a steel that will work well in the Maestro line of training swords: these will have to stand for heavy daily work out in training and must therefore be according to modern standards. |
No need to go into the confidential details of the new steel of course, but I'd be interested to know why properly heat treated 1070 will be "more demanding on the user", and why a change in steel should equate with tougher swords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Wed 24 May, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ross wrote: | | Angus Trim wrote: | "Shallow Hardening" steel in this case is relative. Most swords are 1/4 inch thick at the thickest, 3/8 inch thick material is used in a few cases, and .47 inch thick steel on one extreme case. And all of your better sword makers know what distal taper is, so that the blade gets continuously thinner as you approach the tip. With a 1/4 inch thick steel, another way of looking at things is that its only 1/8 inch to the center of the piece. So, done correctly, with 1/4 inch steel, you'll have martensite to the center, yes, even with 1075.
A blade with 1075 as its steel can be plenty tough, and still hard enough to have an effective edge. 1075 is actually an excellent sword steel, and I doubt seriously that most participants of myArmoury would be able to tell the difference between a blade of 1075 and 5160 if it was the same model blade by the same manufacturer.........
They do heat treat differently yes. But they are both excellent sword steels..........I've done enough testing of 1075, that I could safely say I could use it if 5160 became unavailable........... |
Gus, hypothetically speaking, what would be your second choice as a sword steel if 5160 were to become suddenly unavailable? |
Hi David
A lot of that depends on availability. If I could just "spec out" what I wanted, it would be 4360 or 4160 in that order. Since 4360 is completely unavailable, and I have no idea where one could get rectangular bar in 4161, I think this would just be wishful thinking. Carpenter L6 specs out similar to 4360, so this is a possibility, but availability in my sizes is questionable, price also........
From what I know of availability now, I'd change a bit of what I do. For the thinner, more flexible swords I do, I'd like 6150. Because I couldn't find 6150 in larger sizes than 1/4 inch thick, I'd go 1075 for the thicker stuff......... Though it would be 1075 at a true 50rc, rather than the 52 for the 5160 and 6150.
There are advantages one steel has over another, in general. 5160 and 6150 are premium spring steels, and resist fatigue, in general, better than the 10xx steels. They also tend to have a finer grain than the 1075, thus you can go just a tad harder and retain the resiliance I think you need. The 1075 on the other hand, can develop more "free carbides" because of the higher carbon content, and can {at least theortically} have better edge retention.....
Long and short of it is, if I didn't tell folks I'd been forced to change steel, I doubt that anyone would know the difference........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ross
Location: Nashville, TN Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Thu 25 May, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Angus Trim"][quote="David Ross"] | Angus Trim wrote: | "Shallow Hardening" steel in this case is relative. Most swords are 1/4 inch thick at the thickest, 3/8 inch thick material is used in a few cases, and .47 inch thick steel on one extreme case. And all of your better sword makers know what distal taper is, so that the blade gets continuously thinner as you approach the tip. With a 1/4 inch thick steel, another way of looking at things is that its only 1/8 inch to the center of the piece. So, done correctly, with 1/4 inch steel, you'll have martensite to the center, yes, even with 1075.
Hi David
A lot of that depends on availability. If I could just "spec out" what I wanted, it would be 4360 or 4160 in that order. Since 4360 is completely unavailable, and I have no idea where one could get rectangular bar in 4161, I think this would just be wishful thinking. Carpenter L6 specs out similar to 4360, so this is a possibility, but availability in my sizes is questionable, price also........
From what I know of availability now, I'd change a bit of what I do. For the thinner, more flexible swords I do, I'd like 6150. Because I couldn't find 6150 in larger sizes than 1/4 inch thick, I'd go 1075 for the thicker stuff......... Though it would be 1075 at a true 50rc, rather than the 52 for the 5160 and 6150.
There are advantages one steel has over another, in general. 5160 and 6150 are premium spring steels, and resist fatigue, in general, better than the 10xx steels. They also tend to have a finer grain than the 1075, thus you can go just a tad harder and retain the resiliance I think you need. The 1075 on the other hand, can develop more "free carbides" because of the higher carbon content, and can {at least theortically} have better edge retention.....
Long and short of it is, if I didn't tell folks I'd been forced to change steel, I doubt that anyone would know the difference........ |
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I didn't realize that the steel chosen for a blade was so often limited by the availability of differnt sizes of bar stock. I would have thought that, given the massive size of the steel industry overall, that most any modern steel would be available in a variety of sizes. It is somewhat reassuring that to the average end user these issues are not that likely to be very noticable. That said, to me at least, the knowledge that a given sword I purchase is made as tough as possible by use of optimal steels and heat treat is worth something, even if I never push the sword's limits personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Fri 26 May, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="David Ross"][quote="Angus Trim"] | David Ross wrote: |
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I didn't realize that the steel chosen for a blade was so often limited by the availability of differnt sizes of bar stock. I would have thought that, given the massive size of the steel industry overall, that most any modern steel would be available in a variety of sizes. It is somewhat reassuring that to the average end user these issues are not that likely to be very noticable. That said, to me at least, the knowledge that a given sword I purchase is made as tough as possible by use of optimal steels and heat treat is worth something, even if I never push the sword's limits personally. |
Hi David
Its too bad the steel selection part of this isn't another thread.
However, steel and heat treat is only a part of the whole. Without a decent dynamic balance, blade geometry, and edge geometry, the finished sword might be really tough, but might resemble a crowbar in handling more than a sword's dynamic principles are in line with the principles of the existing antiques........Peter Johnsson just responded on the "Historical Accuracy" thread in a very meaningful way, bringing up the properties of a sword too......
On steel selection though, a small outfit has to use what is available. A larger outfit that can go the steel mills and reach their minimum weight, can have one provide them with a steel of their own spec. You'd have to buy a minimum amount of steel, say 50,000lbs {this would vary depending on the steel producing companies policy}. This is what Howard Clark did with his 1086M........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Martin
Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 165
|
| Posted: Fri 26 May, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
How many members here care about the type of steel used in the swords that you buy? |
I care about the steel used because I have yet to see anyone review a sword using methodology that is completely replicable and totally objective. What I’m referring to here is empirical methodology, as is utilized in good quality scientific experiments.
Because of this inherent subjectivity in the review process, buying a sword becomes a matter of trust. I can read the various reviews of weapons and try to get a sense of the person who has written the review and attempt to ascertain if there is any kind of hidden agenda present. Most reviews are pretty straightforward, but many lack the detail to really make an informed decision about the weapon in question.
The bottom line for me is that it boils down to an interaction of the knowledge I have gleaned over the years and the trust I have of the craftsperson in question. For example, if I learn that the sword I’m looking at is made of 420J Stainless, I’m going to pass. In a similar vein, I probably won’t purchase a sword from someone who doesn’t have much experience in the trade.
Getting back to Nathan’s question, I like to know what steel is being used because it affords me the opportunity to research the steel and compare it to what other reputable manufacturers are using. I also appreciate the honesty of a craftsperson who will readily disclose this information. This is why my first sword is being made by Angus Trim. Not to denigrate other sword smiths, but I have found Gus to be very forthcoming in all aspects surrounding the manufacture of his blades.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 26 May, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Rockwell test is not difficult to do on sloped surfaces.
To do this on a sword, you would make a shim block with an angle that is complimentary to the total angle of the sword cutting edge. This shim would be placed under the sword edge so that the indenter can apply pressure perpendicular to the surface, with good support underneath. ACME "C" clamp indenters work pretty well and can reveal indication of hardness as deep as 1/16" into the material with cosmetically noticeable indentation that woud be percieved to only be around 1/32" deep. I doubt a shim would really be needed for tests of fuller areas with most "C" clamp type models as these have a throat reach near 2 to 3" (50 to 75 mm.)
The indentation method is recognized for certification purposes to an accuracy of Rc of +/- 1 (the indenter's have limited ranges within about 15 points, so the sword would have to be reasonably close to the range of the indenter, or a new indenter would have to be selected if the sword were found to be off it's scale range.) There are some well known knife makers who have done this for years and concealed the indent mark on the tang (covered by grip.) One was featured on the Sword Forum.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 26 May, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In production, you could prove the method using a sloped block as described above, but compare it with some flat stock (cupon of the same material as used to make the sword) machined to some different thicknesses (1/8", 1/4") and passed through the same heat treat and quench as the sword. Once it was demonstrated that the flat stock indicated within 5 points the same Rc as the sword, you would no longer bother with angled shims.
I admit all of the above is pretty obsessive, but for some of these steels there is a world of difference mechanically between Rc 40 versus Rc 50. I figure the makers obsess over it much more than I do.
http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Sun 28 May, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | In production, you could prove the method using a sloped block as described above, but compare it with some flat stock (cupon of the same material as used to make the sword) machined to some different thicknesses (1/8", 1/4") and passed through the same heat treat and quench as the sword. Once it was demonstrated that the flat stock indicated within 5 points the same Rc as the sword, you would no longer bother with angled shims.
I admit all of the above is pretty obsessive, but for some of these steels there is a world of difference mechanically between Rc 40 versus Rc 50. I figure the makers obsess over it much more than I do.
http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html |
Hi Jared
In production of a high stress aircraft part, or something else with a high stress factor {in service} and reasonable profitability. In practice, in the low profit sword industry, that much testing is not practical, and not going to happen.
I did something similar years ago, after a swordsmith who destruction tested one of my swords said publicly that the blade he tested to destruction was 56 rockwell. That particular blade here was tested 52 rockwell {at the time I still had the certs}. So for my purposes, I left "tool tabs" on five blades on the edge, .08 thick. When the blades came out of temper, and were tested, they were tested on the tang as ussual, and on the tool tabs. The readings at the tab were generally 2 to 4rc higher than the tang reading. If the tang read 52rc, the tab would read either 54 to 56 rc.
I haven't done it since, there's been or reason to........
Now, I use a "commercial heat treater", a Boeing certified vendor, which means the highest aerospace certification available. This means that the furnaces all must be certified every six months that every measurable spot will be within 5 Degrees Fahrenheit within the furnace. They actually check this every three months, and religiously change sensors, and what have you, when they get to worn. Considering the heat applied, this is something that must be done frequently if you expect a consistent and reliable product. I also get the same certs as an aircraft supplier who must have that for their business with Boeing or Airbus..........
Most individual swordmakers and small swordmaking firms do "in-house" heat treating. Its probably a bit unreasonable to expect the same kind of control for these small firms. Its very costly, and really not necessary for most folks to do............
Heat treating sword blades is both a science and an art. Warpage and sabering are as much a problem as consistent heat treating results. The treatment that most heat treaters would give a sword blade would be disastrous to the outcome of the blade. Thus its not a viable alternative for a lot of small firms to do {and all US firms are small} When a small firm develops some success with this {like Albion has}, then they really deserve plaudits, not kicks in the head........
Ok, there've been some problems, and these have come out publicly........ But Albion has a good return policy, and they are working the problems......... And with some time, and patience they'll succeed..........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic