Knife Test?: I called BS on this.

Ankerson said:
Back in the days when men used steel to fight instead of guns it was a valid testing process. If the Sword is too soft it could be cut through by another sword in battle. If a sword was too brittle it would shatter or break in battle.
Click to expand...

Well, blade-on-blade contact was certainly a concern, but cutting a through as sword with another sword is a movie myth. A sword might break from impact, but it's practically impossible to cut through another sword. Unless we're talking about steel against bronze, or an exceedingly poor iron/steel sword, perhaps.

And I'm not a historian, but it's my understanding that sword technology/evolution/fashion was usually a cause/effect relationship with armor technologist more than how it did against other swords, at least in the Western world. In the Eastern world (specifically Japan), blade against blade contact was avoided as much as possible, and if a sword strike had to be blocked with the sword, it was preferred to be done with the flat or back of the blade rather than the edge.
 
heekma said:
I'm with Ankerson on this one.

It was an interesting test, plain and simple. Not meant to be definitive, not meant to prove anything other than what happens when a harder edge meets a softer edge and a swift force is applied.

I would expect a Mazda Miata to fair poorly when being crashed into a Buick--similar to the Busse vs. Dragon here.

What it showed me was that two well made blades held up in surprisingly good ways. The surprising part being that the only damage to each was a small chip/deforming of the edge.

If anything, the Mazda in this test (Busse) held its' own in a surprising fashion.

Neat read.

Best,

Heekma
Click to expand...


I didn't see the Dragon blade hardness mentioned anywhere. Or is it common knowledge that Philippine or these Dragon sword blades are higher hardness than Busse's 58 - 60 HRc?
 
Planterz said:
Well, blade-on-blade contact was certainly a concern, but cutting a through as sword with another sword is a movie myth. A sword might break from impact, but it's practically impossible to cut through another sword. Unless we're talking about steel against bronze, or an exceedingly poor iron/steel sword, perhaps.

And I'm not a historian, but it's my understanding that sword technology/evolution/fashion was usually a cause/effect relationship with armor technologist more than how it did against other swords, at least in the Western world. In the Eastern world (specifically Japan), blade against blade contact was avoided as much as possible, and if a sword strike had to be blocked with the sword, it was preferred to be done with the flat or back of the blade rather than the edge.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I was talking about, poorly treated steel compared to correctly treated steel blades.

If you have ever been to a Museum and looked at the very Old Swords that were really used in battle they will have all kinds of gouges and chips in the blades from steel on steel contact.

Cutting though a sword can happen in certain situations depending on the quality of the steels in the swords used, breaking would be more of a real situation though.
 
PatriotDan said:
I didn't see the Dragon blade hardness mentioned anywhere. Or is it common knowledge that Philippine or these Dragon sword blades are higher hardness than Busse's 58 - 60 HRc?
Click to expand...

Depends on the HT, and Type of HT, but usually Swords that are ment for real use (Steel on Steel) are not the same RC all the way though, the Edges will be a higher RC than the Spine of the blade for toughness and flexibility.
 
Ankerson said:
Depends on the HT, and Type of HT, but usually Swords that are ment for real use (Steel on Steel) are not the same RC all the way though, the Edges will be a higher RC than the Spine of the blade for toughness and flexibility.
Click to expand...

I know... but that fact doesn't tell about the actual hardness that the edge has. Nor does it explain the result. I did not see the Dragon hardness anywhere in that knifetests thread, Busse's is known to be at 58 - 60 HRc which is not that low. Maybe Falcor can chime in.
 
PatriotDan said:
I know... but that fact doesn't tell about the actual hardness that the edge has. Nor does it explain the result. I did not see the Dragon hardness anywhere in that knifetests thread, Busse's is known to be at 58 - 60 HRc which is not that low. Maybe Falcor can chime in.
Click to expand...

I would say the Dragon was at least 60 at the min at the edge given the results as they turned out.

If it was softer than that the Busse would have caused a lot more damage to the swords edge that it did.
 
Ankerson said:
I would say the Dragon was at least 60 at the min at the edge given the results as they turned out.

If it was softer than that the Busse would have caused a lot more damage to the swords edge that it did.
Click to expand...


I disagree about that one. I think the edge geometry was the dominant factor here. There was a large difference between the two edges which in my opinion would explain the results. Im no expert though :)
 
PatriotDan said:
I disagree about that one. I think the edge geometry was the dominant factor here. There was a large difference between the two edges which in my opinion would explain the results. Im no expert though :)
Click to expand...

It will effect it some, but that's not all of it, RC and tempering will take over as the main factor.

Just like you can take harder steel and drive it through softer steel.

Or pound a knife through a Pipe etc.
 
PatriotDan said:
No worries, not the first time I disagree with some one here :)
Click to expand...

Yeah. :D

One thing that I really think is funny is how people today talk about things that happened 400 or thousands of years ago like they were there.... ROFL

Truth is none of us were there so none of us really know what was going through the men's minds when on the battlefields or what was edge to edge or not.

These Modern day Instructors would like us to believe certain things so they can sell people lessons.

Truth is they weren't there either so they don't really know either.

With Hundreds, even thousands of people fighting each other do you really think everything was a perfect as they want us to believe? Perfect form and everything else was perfect etc, that's what they would have us believe today.

IMO Staying alive and or surviving the battle would be the most important things going through their minds, not my form has to be perfect or my slice has to be just so. :rolleyes:

When things are real, and I mean people really are dieing, getting chopped up etc things are a lot different than in some Dojo or training class.
 
Ankerson said:
One thing that I really think is funny is how people today talk about things that happened 400 or thousands of years ago like they were there.... ROFL

Truth is none of us were there so none of us really know what was going through the men's minds when on the battlefields or what was edge to edge or not.
Click to expand...

True, but you must admit that the typical warrior back in those times probably knew very little about metallurgy (or anything scientific for that matter). It is not hard to imagine that they could easily rationalize a test like this.

If a sword is the mightiest hand weapon known to man (as it may have been at the time) it seems like an obvious gauge for testing another blade. Fortunately the common forumite is probably more scientifically equipped than the common warrior 1000 years ago...and some forumites understand how differences in edge geometry and hardness can trump the differences alloys.

Surely we all understand that a competition grind is optimized for tasks that do not involve contact with hardened steel!
 
unit said:
True, but you must admit that the typical warrior back in those times probably knew very little about metallurgy (or anything scientific for that matter). It is not hard to imagine that they could easily rationalize a test like this.

If a sword is the mightiest hand weapon known to man (as it may have been at the time) it seems like an obvious gauge for testing another blade. Fortunately the common forumite is probably more scientifically equipped than the common warrior 1000 years ago...and some forumites understand how differences in edge geometry and hardness can trump the differences alloys.

Surely we all understand that a competition grind is optimized for tasks that do not involve contact with hardened steel!
Click to expand...

That's a given really. :D

I believe all the common warrior wanted back then was to have a sword that worked and wouldn't break on him. Anymore than that wasn't really needed I don't think.

Today we don't fight with swords steel on steel and haven't for awhile now, once reliable firearms became available that started to end.

In today's world do we really know what metals would work the best for those uses? Would they be any different than even 500 years ago, talking steel on steel here now, real life somebody dies in the end fighting with swords.
 
I'm going to vote on the geometry side. Thick trumps thin in durability, and to overcome that by other means would be quite a feat.
Also, if force isn't applied downward perfectly, the edge on top could apply lateral stress and fold the one on the bottom.

I'd like to see the test repeated with a Scrapyard Regulator, stock edge, both blades taking turns in the vice.
 
Ankerson said:
That's a given really. :D

I believe all the common warrior wanted back then was to have a sword that worked and wouldn't break on him. Anymore than that wasn't really needed I don't think.

Today we don't fight with swords steel on steel and haven't for awhile now, once reliable firearms became available that started to end.

In today's world do we really know what metals would work the best for those uses? Would they be any different than even 500 years ago, talking steel on steel here now, real life somebody dies in the end fighting with swords.
Click to expand...

You know....

there is a lot of similar lore about bisecting the bodies (multiple) of slaves as a test of swords. So in truth, I guess the debate of slicers (# of bisected slaves in single swipe) vs. hard users (Blade on blade test) was going on way back then too LOL!

Oh, no I didn't!!!

Fun thread (thanks for sharing). One thing for sure, there are plenty of tests out there and I bet there is no blade (other than Vorpal) that will win them all. Vorpal...I gotta get me one of those....Manila rope is NO match for that sucker.
 
This test is as necessary as taking the Busse and smashing its edge with the sledgehammer then complaining that the knife's edge mashed instead of chipped. I have a respect for Busse and kin knives this is no way to test anything except that knife with a Rc hardness can cut another knifes blade.

That test is really ridiculous unless sword fighting for balut is in the daily calling for your chosen EDC.
 
me2 said:
It is a great demonstration of how geometry is extremely important. There are limits however, and this is where heat treatment comes into play. Try that same test on a piece of unhardened steel with as obtuse an edge as you want and the results will be very lopsided.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but as JAXX commented on a first page, Busse was never about making a hardest blade either.
That hand forged sword might be "better" than that Busse, but the posted test does not really prove it. There are too many unknowns in the mix.

me2 said:
However, with no actual goal and no agenda, as stated by Falcor, I see no way to make the test "rigged." That implies a certain outcome is desired, when this is more curiosity than anything.
Click to expand...

Well, I might be totally wrong and I mean no disrespect to Falcor or the bladesmith, but when I was reading that thread, the comment by the tester (Falcor) made me a bit suspicious. Tester says:
"I am now his online sales agent."
Maybe it was a joke. Otherwise, you might say that "certain outcome is desired".
I know the bladesmith definitely has a desired outcome in mind. It's a natural thing, but it doesn't mean that his blades are better or worse.


I would love to see that bladesmith from Philippines selling knives in USA, that are at the same time cheaper than Busse, tougher than Busse, holding better edge than Busse. If he can do it, it would be pretty awesome.
 
PatriotDan said:
I disagree about that one. I think the edge geometry was the dominant factor here. There was a large difference between the two edges which in my opinion would explain the results. Im no expert though :)
Click to expand...

Yes, edge geometry is the only factor. Thinner edge loses. Unless one is dead soft, and the other hard. A couple points is negligible.
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
Yes, edge geometry is the only factor. Thinner edge loses. Unless one is dead soft, and the other hard. A couple points is negligible.
Click to expand...

No, not really....

To a point it will make a difference, but it's not the only factor, that is when the blades are close that is, nothing crazy like comparing a razor blade to a 1/2" thick blade.

You can't get away from harder steel cuts softer steel, there is just no way around that. ;)

If the testing continued until one was cut in half, the one that is harder would win in the end, edge profile wouldn't matter a bit as the hardness would completely take over.

That's like saying a marshmallow with cut a diamond if one had the thinner edge profile.
 
Last edited:
I'm totally amused by this thread!
In all of this rhetoric, it has never been defined what the arbitrary "success" in the "test results" means in a real-life scenario.
Does a "smaller dent" mean the one holding that blade survives a CQC encounter?
One thing is certain, both manufacturers know something about HT, and almost nothing about modern standardized QC testing methodology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top