Steel For Sword Blades

W

WaysofOld

Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
12
Hello again,

Here is the idea, If one wanted a sword that would endure active use and exceed all others, assuming all things but the steel that was used being equal, What would be the best steel to use for the making of a sword that could be functional and be passed down thru the family? CPM 3V, 5160, 6150, A9, D2, or S7 are what I have been reading About but its hard To decide with so little experience. The method of stock removal will be used.
 
Well, this is probably the answer you didn't want, but there is no best. I'm sure other guys will say otherwise, in fact I'm positive some will. But I do not believe there to be a best. To help you narrow the list at least, consider these options for a sword steel candidate:

- Do not use stainless.
- Do not use higly alloyed steels.

A very common and more than appropriate material is 5160. It is a very good choice for the beginner and the advanced smith. 10xx steels are also a prime choice. Also consider your method of heat treatment, this will change EVERYTHING.

Your next task, is to pick up a book on ferrous metallurgy. Why? You'll see. Good luck.

-Jason
 
Although I have never made a sword I would use 5160. It comes in 1/4" x 2" (probally thicker and wider also) can be forged or stock removal and can be heat-treated at home to any hardness desired. I think the heat-treat would be hardest part though because it is long and easy to get warping.
 
Yeah, this is one of those questions that can only get you in trouble by answering it, like the notion that "stainless' or "high alloy" steels shouldn't be used. :) I make swords of CPM-3V, and have made them of A2 and even differentially tempered ATS-34, without a failure even when put through some very severe testing.

Since S30V stainless is tougher than A2, which in one sword I made was tough enough to cut through a shank of beef including almost 3" of bone in a single pass and without any edge deformation at all, I'd say a high alloy stainless steel can probably make a decent sword. CPM-3V certainly does. An even stronger high alloy steel, CPM-1V, which is not presently available in blade sized dimensions, may be the best sword steel ever made - tougher than S7, even at Rc57-59.

I have to caution you though, if you plan on making a sword of CPM-3V, expect to have a VERY long day at the grinder. It is not much fun grinding very long blades of it.

This was my most recent in CPM-3V. 22" blade with an overall weight of just 20 oz.
 
Gee....another loaded question. I make all mine from 5160 or 10 series of one type or another. I consider 5160 to be the best using steel but the 10's are a close second and will produce a better temper line....Now that I said that, Jerry is right as usual. I have several swords that I did NOT make from high alloys. They are wonderful swords. When you talk about the perfect steel you need to ask yourself, "Perfect for what?" Are you chopping mats or looking for a wallhanger or do you want one for modern combat.

Swordmaking has changed with the times. Since people don't use hard body armor and you are more likely to be faced with someone armed with a firearm than a sword, the control of vibration comes second to speed and cutting ability and balance. You also need to change the guard to more protect your hand from slipping onto the blade than protection from someone elses cut. The steel you use for modern combat also has to have enough fles to allow a rather severe distal taper with a sharp false edge. Remember, disableing the strong (Gun) hand is a life and death matter. This must be done quickly, before he can draw and fire or before he recovers from the first shot.This can go on and on but for an all around sword I would chose 5160.
 
Hmmm, never done swords, and I'm only at my first knife, so I'm barely qualified to speak on this forum :)
But I've used some different swords, and I'd go for 5160.
I saw a test of how a well made 5160 blade went and I think it's a really, really good steel.
http://swordforum.com/forums/showth...Number=19827&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&part=
The pics doesn't show, but the text is pretty impressive.
10xx series is fine, too.
As for a guard, it's not for protecting your hand from your opponent's blows (unless you are making rapier-type blades.
Protection to your sword's hand should come through proper parrying techniques and skill.
In a medieval blade the quillons serve four main purposes:
1) stopping the opponent's blade from sliding onto your hand after a proper parry has been done.
2) protecting your hand from smashing into shields or armor should a blow be parried with a shield or block.
3) function as a flanged mace to disrupt enemy armor, or as a weapon against the enemy at close quarters
4) bind your opponent's weapon or disarm him

A proper hilt should therefore have quillons of sufficient size to protect the hand given the grip lenght, have quillons with sharp corners or ending in narrow flanges (and if you look at any period sword you'll see they have this feature), and have said quillons tempered in such a way they withstand the most harsh use, as being used as a mace, sword gripped by its blade and used as a pick against opponent's armor.

The blade should ALWAYS be properly balanced. Vibration control is as important for cutting soft targets than is for hard targets.
It's just a matter of wasting energy vs. efficient energy use.
The fact that cutting soft targets is more forgiving should not be tajen as an excuse for poor wokrsmanship, even more because "soft" targets, often, aren't soft at all :)
Parryies and blocks against an unbalanced blade, in fact, may even shatter it.
Blows against a hard obstacle with a severely unbalanced sword may cause fractures in the wielder's hand or wrist.
Swords in museums are all of about the same size and weight, for a given type (suggestion: read "records of the medieval sword" by Ewart Oakeshott if at all possible), and they were made so because that weight, that lenght and that shape worked together to create a functional, efficient sword.
You will probably never use your swords as weapons, against another armed man. If so happens, it means something probably got quite weird and you should have got a gun in the first hand :)
Swords for sparrying and for test cutting should be made as well balanced as possible.
The difference between a well balanced sword, with proper harmonic control, and a sword without such characteristics is immediately perceivable when you dry handle one and then the other: you will have no doubts about which is better.

Oh, and about cutting power, don't be fooled.
Some say a blade heavy sword will cut better. It's true, obviously, but this shouldn't make you think: the more blade heavy the better.
Even blade heavy swords have a balance of their own, which must be maintained.
Light bladed swords can cut incredibly well if properly used.
Actually, they may cut even better, if one is not truly expert, since blade path and alignment is more easier to control.
One should never rely on sheer sword mass to deliver a proper cut. It's not the sword that makes the difference: it's the swordsman.
 
Let's look at scenario one...you're the maker.

If you are curious what makes the best sword, why aren't you thinking about design instead of materials?

More and more makers nowadays are unable to experiment with different materials. This could be because of comfort, because of cost, or time. If you listen to makers' suggestions, typically it'll be what they have the best results with. Or it could be what the person they send it to for heat treating has best results with. One of the 'secrets' out there is that there is no adequately defined potential of any blade steel. If you experiment, you can probably find ways to prove the general public opinion wrong. Take for instance Barry Dawson. Most of the sword community says NO to 440C stainless due to what is considered chemical/structural faults in the steel. He is able to make high quality swords (although not in designs I appreciate too much, but that's more of a taste issue nowadays) out of 440C that are very durable and have good edge-holding. Since when was it impossible to make a good sword with 440C? Never. But still most people say 440C is a no-no.

Don't be afraid to experiment if you want the best sword. You can't expect to be as perfect as you want the first time around.

Next scenario: You're buying a sword from someone else.

This depends on the type of sword and the maker. Is it traditional? Then you have a certain set of criteria to meet prior to being tough as nails (though being tough as nails certainly is possible!!!!). Then ask your maker what he suggests. Not what we suggest. If people here say "A2 is the way to go" and the maker you talk to knows 10** and low alloys, you're not going to get a great piece. Makers like Barry Dawson are comfortable with 440C and can make excellent quality pieces with it. Jerry Hossom here can probably make excellent pieces with A2 and other moderately high alloys and CPM steels because he's done it before and is more comfortable with it. Don't rely on a public opinion to decide what something will be made of. It relies on how good a job the maker will do with it. And don't choose your maker based only on the materials they use...look at their final products and decide based on that.

There is no best. Screw the hype. Enjoy simple steels, alloy steels, or stainless steels, whatever the sword will come in. Let the maker figure out how to make the best possible piece for you, since he will have to make it. Not us.

Good luck :)
 
That was a pretty good documentary Alarion. However harmonics are a lot mor complicated than balance and cutting is a lot more complicated than the center of power on a balanced blade. I stand by my very limited statment on the guard. They have been misused from the beginning as everything from a hammer to club, the cowboys in America's west used their six shooters as fence tools but they weren't designed or intended for that.

Proper harmonics is also a very debated subject as to just where the nodes should terminate and a properly made blade that terminates under your entire hand (Worst case) will cut soft targets just as well as one in perfect harmony assuming good cutting style. I doubt you have ever seen a blade shatter due to improperly controlled vibration.

As to the sword being used in a modern fight. Well they don't much call them swords but in the form of big knives or corn cutters etc, they are used every day. A few years ago we had someone beheaded in Richmond. Many people have found that in the cities it is sometimes better to keep it quiet and walk away after the fight. I'm not taking a position on that train of thought, just stating it as a fact.

None of this has anything to do with the question other than what to make the sword from. That still depends on WHAT he intends to do with it.
 
Robert is right. It's not the material, is the design and how the sword is built.
Heat treatment, weight, balance, and so on.

Peter: true, harmonics aren't everything in a sword, but they are none the less important. Chop at something with different swords and you'll feel instantly which is the better performer. Some will vibrate, some will even kick back or rebound, others will go in with a neat chop and stop without much vibration. Those are the ones to look for. The others are just sword-like lumps of steel.
I agree that the worst blade will cut soft targets as well as a good blade. Even a wallhanger will do in most cases. But as said, the fact that even a POS can do the job doesn't mean all I want is a POS.
Moreover it's extremely improbable that my first strike will hit my opponent.

BTW, I've actually seen a blade go snap due to improper harmonics.
It's not that improper harmonics actually snap the blade, but bad harmonics will unnecessarily overstress the blade, which will fail much sooner than a properly made blade, usually over an imperfection or a stress riser a good sword would have lived with without problems.

Big knives may be very efficient in cutting, machetes too, but they are NOT swords. They are just big knives.

Of all the swords I've seen up to now (obviously excluding museum pieces) very, very few were properly made swords. Most were tough as nails, true. But I'm perfectly capable of making a long bladed weapon tough as nails. It's not a sword, though. It's some kinda crowbar.
You just take a quarter inch thick slab of steel and give it a swordish shape.
It will even shatter properly made swords, and some ignorants even boast about it.
But it's not a sword.
A sword blade must have proper thickness, weight, balance, distal taper, a hilt that matches swords function, a pommel that is not a weight put there to balance an improperly made blade but to give the wole well made thing harmonious structure.
The point of balance must be set at a proper point for the inteded use of the blade and the center of percussion must be placed in the same way.
The secondary node should fall so that you won't experience vibrations when hitting or getting parried or parrying.
Blade mass should be distributed so that when handling first and second order momentum will make so the sword is easily wielded without loosing cutting power.
The blade should be hard enough to maintain a decent edge but tough enough not to snap under stress. A bent sword can be straightened, but a snapped sword is useless.
It's a compromise between various needs, and is not an easy one to obtain.
I do not make swords, but I know pretty well what I want in a sword.
And even if it's the swordsman that obtains victory, and not the sword, a crappy sword can reduce to nothing even high skill, as one of the guys that study medieval sword with me has learned while sparrying with me.
He was much more experienced, but was beaten because his crowbar sword wouldn't allow him to strike quickly enough, or parry quickly enough, and was breathless after only a few minutes. ;)
 
Pardon me Alarion, but I think you have a very Western European view of what constitutes a sword. Or maybe it's the definition as seen by a few who make the kinds of swords you describe. Frankly, I've heard enough of that "it's just a big knife" or "it's a machete" crap to last me a lifetime. Many if not most Eastern swords may have looked like big knives but they conquered much of the world with them. A gladius is very much a big knife and it did as well. A Greek short sword was a big knife, and Alexander did well with a few of them. The fact is that Rennaisance swords, appearing after the advent of guns and with the exception of cavalry sabers, were often little more than decorations worn by aristocracy, used in the occassional duel. Those used in battle, such as the Scottish battle swords faired poorly despite the bravery of those who carried them.

The only recorded instance of a Filipino Espada (machete to you) engaging a Japanese Katana was when a Filipino prisoner dispatched three of six Japanese sargeants set against him at one time after he had been tortured for a few days. I'd say that "machete" earned its sword label by anyone'e measure. I should add that most of the sword masters in the Japanese army were sargeants, so these were not rookies he defeated.

There seems to be a determined attitude among some that resists the further evolution of the sword as a weapon, and they therefore deny the very existance of contemporary swords, preferring to label them with diminutive terms. The fact is, the Western European definitions are often as descriptive of the furniture as the blade itself. Garbage has been made in all eras, and many crap blades survive from among those you hold as legitimate swords. A great many museum pieces have never been more than decorations since the day they were made.

When you make a long bladed weapon that weighs less than an ounce per inch of length, balances perfectly, possesses an ergonomically precise handle, employs whichever guard you wish to give it, is virtually vibration free no matter what impact it sustains, and can cut through most blades plus the people carrying them, you have my permission to call it whatever you like. Until then don't label what I make as anything besides what I choose to call it.
 
By Golly Jerry, I was going to let this thread die because it was getting a little unpleasant for this forum...but you just put forth the one of the finest rebuttals I've seen for a long time so I just have to give you a double pat on the back!:) :) It's funny about the subject of swords, I have had two unpleasent threads on blade forums. One with a moderator who even after I backed out of the thread and it died, emailed me for a week to tell me how much he knew.. and this one!
 
Well, I should apologize for letting my emotions show, but I've been through this on three different blade-related forums now and have grown weary of the same old arguments that it's only a sword if one of a select few individuals chose to call it such.

I know there is serious effort on the part of some of today's blade makers to create *modern* swords - not machetes or long knives - possessing qualities that may rival even some of the myths of yore. We have available to us the finest steels and the best equipment ever created and there is no reason why we can't make swords that are worthy of any contest in any generation. It would be nice to discuss the subject without the need to defend the honest effort that goes into it.
 
No need to apologize from my perspective Jerry. I said the subject of swords was funny and I stand by it. People talk about Bowie's here and it is never centered around the onlly possible angle of the clip or the length must be X or the guard must be X wide...to be called a Bowie. The discussions are centered around heat treatment or methods to stabalize or dye the wood. Everyone grows from the work of others. Mention swords and people start deciding what is right or wrong based on their favorite sword or martial arts style. I don't understand it because there is no middle ground.

Even the steel type brings up heated arguments. I choose 5160 because of a number of factors. It has the all the using elements I look for and I can heat treat it. In fact it is very forgiving in the heat treat procedures. I also have a sword made from ATS-34 that I traded one of mine for. It is as fine a weapon as any I've ever made. I'm just not able to heat treat ATS-34. That doesn't make it any less a fine sword steel, it's just a failing on my part.

A lot of the swords I've made the last few years have had a definate Filipino shape. The reason is that they are almost as much tool as weapon. Ken Cook made the statment not too long ago, that a tool made a good weapon but a weapon made a poor tool. I tend to agree with that. That is reflected in that style of sword and in fact that race of people has never been overun by another so they must have done something right.

If there had never been improvements in the sword we would still be making them out of bronze. It's just unfortunate that others can't see that.
 
I think I've been a part in at least one of those little quarrels Jerry...but I believe you and I came to some degree of understanding.

There's been lots of discussions/arguments in trying to define a sword apart from a knife. But no matter what, you can end up with one concrete definition --with tons of exceptions.

I do however think that with naming, one should at least mindful that they aren't misleading customers. Contemporary swords are different from traditional ones, but both have room to exist. The problem is when people start playing the "superiority" game. Ideally, this isn't an issue, and one should feel free to enjoy all the sides of the spectrum for what they are.

And just for the record, I don't think I was the moderator that bugged Mr. Nap. Shocked? :D
 
Indeed Robert, I think we have achieved a comfortable understanding. I'm not sure there's a problem with customers being misled, at least not by custom makers. Our world is too small to get away with that, and most makers are like myself and will take back any blade a customer may not be completely happy with. I think most of the hype in the sword community may come from the bargain brand factory blades. Some too creeps out of the history books that may suggest a more romantic view than reality. If you love swords enough to be willing to do the work needed to create one, you probably have a great deal of respect for the history of the sword as well as the construction process. Being an avid student of history, I have profound respect for their role in shaping our world. Still they were and are created by mortals and are simple reflections of those who share human failings. Some are good; some not. Just as Richard Lionheart wasn't quite the guy history sometimes has made him out to be, his sword wasn't exactly Excalibur either.

Frankly, I've been surprised by the lack of interest in modern swords. I personally can sell all I can make, but there seems to be little enthusiasm among sword afficionados for innovation or their use in the modern world beyond re-enactment or fencing. Tomahawks have faired much better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top