I hope this is the right place for this kind of question...

Anyways, I would like to know what make a good sword? It has to hold an edge. It needs to be flexible so it doesn't shatter.

Or, do such things only matter depending on the use/style of the sword? What about where on the blade you cut? Like a Machete I suppose, it's kind of like and axe?

I understand that fuller grooves are used to make a blade lighter (please correct me if I am wrong), but is it best for a blade to be solid all through? Can it have areas where there is no material, would that make it weaker in some way?

Or is that all getting ridiculously complicated? :confused:

Hrm, i assume your doing this for research for one project or another, if you are making one yourself you really need to get a book on the subject. That being said i will offer a very very breif note of some features of a sword. All swords are lighter than you think they are... There has never been a practical 30# sword. Traditional hand and a half swords i would say averaged about three pounds. Even claymores or broadswords were at max 6 pounds a heavy blade might as well be a morningstar or mace. Depending on time period and region many sword had a differential quench meaning different parts of the blade were hard while some were softer, a hard blade shatters and a soft blade bends, it's about finding a happy medium. The way a blade is secured to the handle depends on what type of sword, but frequently in european blades it would be peened in the pommel securing the crossguard and grip. Blade geometry as previously metioned is vital to the application and not only to what the blade will hit but in what way it will be swung. Katana swords an excellent example of this, they rely more on technique than a razor edge as is commonly the misconception. You will never find a durable blade that is not solid throughout it's length. You will find blades that are 'hollow ground" which means there is an inward bevel reducing weight and increasing blade strength. You may also find 'fullers' sometimes refered to as blood grooves (although that is not their purpose) they are channels either pounded or ground into the blade before heat treat, they increase grain strength and decrease weight. Now these are simple a few tiny facets, if you want more info you will need to be more specific.

I had the good fortune to be at Owen Bush's sword - oriented weekend last year, and got to wield a hand-&-half sword made (iirc) by American Arms. It was pretty unwieldy - felt it's weight, and was hard to move around. Then I had a go with the same design, but made by Peter Johnsson. It was near identical to look at (Apparently the AA is one of Peter's designs?) but the difference was astounding. It went exactly where you wanted, without you even needing to think about it. I reckon you could have used that sword all day & hardly noticed it.
Peter explained in his lecture that it's all down to the nodes & harmonics, which is a function of getting the ratios & balances in the whole sword exactly right. I wish I had a transcript or video of his lecture, it was both amazingly good and outstandingly informative.

In short, looking like a sword doesn't make it a sword!

Here's a link to the thread on British Blades in case you're interested.

Edited August 3, 200916 yr by Ratel10mm

I had the good fortune to be at Owen Bush's sword - oriented weekend last year, and got to wield a hand-&-half sword made (iirc) by American Arms. It was pretty unwieldy - felt it's weight, and was hard to move around. Then I had a go with the same design, but made by Peter Johnsson. It was near identical to look at (Apparently the AA is one of Peter's designs?) but the difference was astounding. It went exactly where you wanted, without you even needing to think about it. I reckon you could have used that sword all day & hardly noticed it.
Peter explained in his lecture that it's all down to the nodes & harmonics, which is a function of getting the ratios & balances in the whole sword exactly right. I wish I had a transcript or video of his lecture, it was both amazingly good and outstandingly informative.

In short, looking like a sword doesn't make it a sword!

Here's a link to the thread on British Blades in case you're interested.

To follow up on Rate's remarks the following link goes a long way toward explaining the difference between the two swords:
Sword Impacts and Motions

ARMA has made a study of swords and other hand weapons. The information they provide can be thought of as authoritative as any available today.

No one has mentioned blade harmonics. You want the COP and grip at nodes (zero points) rather than max's to get a blade that will stay in your hand and deliver the most energy to the target.


May I commend to your attention swordforum.com for their Performance Swords Question and Answer Forum

Heh, I'm not doing any sort of project, I'm just curious looking through post on the forums I see tons of stuff that looks like a blast and is interesting, but I know little to nothing about any of it. Thank you for the links! I'll check them out!

I recommend you read the Wikipedia articles on swords. Each one has a different design, forging method, and purpose.

What makes a good sword? Shouldn't it be "Who makes a good sword? I'm always struck by this question when asked as to what makes a good sword when really it is the "who" not necessarily the "what" that makes it good. You can have the best "what" and turn out a very poor sword and have so so "what" and turn out a very good sword because of a very good "who".

What makes a good sword is a relevant question, I think. There are several contemporary swordsmiths that make competent swords.

The question becomes what do these swords have in common that similar swords, manufactured with nearly identical material, do not have that results in one sword being a good sword and the other being a SSO.

There are actually several things which the cited links posted here attempt to address.

Who made the sword is like asking who made the violin. A good question and often an indicator of quality. But what makes a good violin is still a relevant question when attempting to make a new violin.

Ah... what makes a good anything? My favorite answer is 'what the customer wants', sometimes they don't know and it doesn't matter what you do!
I'm no sword swinger but i know those experianced at it come up with very interesting details as mentioned above; harmonics, centres of percussion, balance, flex etc etc.
Some sword customers are ecstatic with a alumninium foil covered ply cut out.
Its fun seeking out.
Andrew O'C

A Good swordsman...

Rikadyn said:

A Good swordsman...

 

I have to disagree, No level of swordsman can transform a broom handle into a sword. Make it a weapon yes; a sword, no.

To quote a past teacher of mine, "one can't polish a xxxx, and expect to end up with anything other than a piece of dung"

 

Musashi Miyamoto once won a sword duel using a wooden sword whittled out of a spare oar while a boatman was taking him to the island the duel was to be held on.

I have the book of 5 rings, but it was still a chunk of wood, while the oar made for a good weapon, it was not a sword, I would have assumed Thomas would have known the difference ;)

Perhaps your definition of "sword" is too limited? Look at what the aztecs used or other peoples who used wooden "blades".

Musashi WAS a Swordsman, but he did not limit himself to swords, he used a Kusari-gama in one fight (I'm probabley wrong about what it's called), his best weapon however was his mind. I wouldn't call him A Swordsman, I would call him an Excellent Warrior...

I have to agree with Steve. A sword has defining characteristics, define the weapon without the user and i feel you will approximate the primary definition i cited here:
Use sword in a Sentence

Doesn't mention metal now does it?

So ummm... A blacksmith from 'back then', if brought to our time, would no doubt throw out the steel they had, with which they had to go through a ton of processing to get it decent and even then it was poor in favor of the steels we had today. Perhaps it's a foolish question, but if we used their methods as well (pattern forging, folding) would that make our stuff worse or not matter? The two I mention I know make the carbon in the sword spread out (Better) but possibly with big clumps or not enough (Bad)? I dont really know how it works or understand all the numbers so... Meh... XD

Edited August 11, 200916 yr by mod07
language edit

Processing non-homogeneous steel by folding and welding to make it more homogeneous improved it. Processing homogeneous steel by folding and welding opens you to all the problems that folding and welding can cause: inclusions, cold shuts, decarburization, grain growth, etc.

So in general yes it would make things worse than sticking with a good uniform steel. Where it helps is in the inherent beauty of the pattern welded steel. If you are really good at it you run less chance of ruining the steel; but it's still a chance that need not be risked if you are willing to use a single composition steel to start.

Thats what I thought... So patern welding and such only matter if:

- Your working with 2 or more 'bad' metals
- Or you want to make it look pretty

Right?

As far as carbon goes, it is one of the most mobile elements in steel. I found a copy of a paper by Thomas Nizolek, regarding carbon diffusion in pattern welded Damascus.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fasmcommunity.asminternational.org%2Fvgn-ext-templating%2Fviews%2FASM%2FOpenDocument.jsp%3Fvcmid%3Df83e5bc60524f110VgnVCM100000621e010aRCRD&ei=SHqDSpSAAo24M_bRndUE&rct=j&q=carbon+diffusion+in+pattern+welded+steel&usg=AFQjCNFb4Q2O_GnipL6WOA84RzvNB7DcBg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lehigh.edu%2Fsymposium%2F2009%2Frceas%2Fattach%2FNizolekPoster.pdf&ei=SHqDSpSAAo24M_bRndUE&rct=j&q=carbon+diffusion+in+pattern+welded+steel&usg=AFQjCNHYTRKSXxuGLZCr99oHQ9CwXmWm5w

Carbon is equalized very quickly, while other elements are not, allowing for decorative effects in pattern welded steel. In his example carbon was equalized by the 4th fold and weld.

Carbides can form from these less mobile elements and carbon changing the hardness of individual layers some.

Phil

So what do we do differentley now that makes our steel better? I know you can either mold blade (Literally using a mold, or using your hammer and shaping it), or carve it out. Or do you do both?

Just like there are a few difference between medieval medicine and modern medicine there are a heck of a lot of process differences in medieval and modern steels. ( eg: vacuum processed and electric arc furnace steels just were not very common in medieval times.)

The big difference is the non-homogeneity of medieval steels as in early medieval times the bloomery furnaces never melted the iron/steel reduced from the ore and so the starting product---the bloom was full of crap that the folding and welding was done to reduce the amount and make what's left in much finer sized inclusions.

The melting of these inferior steels into cast or crucible steels dates to the mid 1700's when Huntsman worked out a method of doing so. (In europe, central asia had been making crucible steels for centuries by then)

Not as early as medieval but perhaps you might profit from "Steel making before Bessemer, vol 1 Blister Steel, vol 2 crucible steel"

Also look up Blister steel, shear steel, cast steel.


Note that the japanese tatara furnace used to make the starting material for traditionally made japanese swords is a form of bloomery furnace and so they have retained the labourious process of refining the bloom into a usable material. (one thing many people do not realize is that all the folding and welding on the japanese blade *DROPS* the carbon content, the starting content being close to 2% and ending up close to 0.5%)

Other differences is alloying, control of not wanted elements like Sulfur and Phosphorous, understanding heat treat processes, knowing what is in the steel we are using...

I have smelted iron/steel from ore using Y1K european methods and while it is a lot of fun and work the end product is much inferior to modern steels indeed!