Thoughts on EN 42 steel for sword blade?

T

The_Monkeyboy

Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
168
Hey there. I am still working on that tulwar project I started a couple of years back. I am currently looking for an Indian-made blade to test against some of the American-made blades I have. I have found a shop in India that makes tulwar blades from EN 42 spring steel instead of the cheap tourist grade soft steel, or questionable damascus. Unfortunately, I am not that familiar with EN 42. Does anybody know anything about it? I have seen several comments on English knife-making forums where they discuss making various blades out of it, or incorporating it into their own home-made damascus, with a nickel steel for contrast. Has anybody on here had any experience with it? Do you have any idea how well it will hold an edge? The main purpose of this whole exercise is to see how well different sword types will cut through 18th century military uniforms, so I actually need something that will stay reasonably sharp while cutting through several types of wool and cotton cloth.

-Mb
 
EN42and45 are popular with British makers, as an available steel in England, India, etc. For smithing and grinding in America, seeking it out kind of defeats one own purpose.

If you are looking at swords made of the stuff from India, Weapon Edge and Universal Swords blades are tempered a bit soft. These shops ae much like the Windlass swords and knives.

As to cutting heavy uniform coats and stuff, one of the big complaints in that time was trying to cut them. Similarlly even thrusting home with many sabres, hence the heavy straight jobs finding favor, as they were less likely to fold when thrusting against heavy overcoats. The point was favored even on shorter infantry swords and you will see that the British maintained their dead straight cutlasses from the late 18th century right up to the 20th century. The French went with curved briquet from the mid 18th century until the stouter 1832 infantry gladius. Truly, the arrival muskets and pistols followed by bayonets, all but ended swords and pikes/lances as primary weapons.

Can you put you use in a context of cavalry, or infantry? Maintaining a sharp edge is of little priority compared to the fact that one is not goping to be able to cut through heavy uniforms regardless of the steel type and sharpness. There just isn't the impact in one hand, even on horseback. Open flesh, a better slashing target. There is an account of a brass dragoon helmet split from the crown to the chin but there are many more accounts of not being able to defeat heavy uniforms with sabres.

No doubt, 18th century western sabres were as soft or softer than what one will find in reproductions. EN 42-45 will be just fine.

Cheers

GC
 
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on this one. Real life issues and such. Yes, there were some major problems with cutting through cloth with period weapons. Many of the first-hand accounts I have read by the British in India complain about their military issue swords, which were very dull. And the metal scabbards they kept them in, which would rapidly dull any sharp sword stored in them for any length of time. The Indian weapons, on the other hand, seemed to have little trouble cutting through cloth uniforms and the cloth armor that was popular in India at that time. The reasons for this are twofold. First, they actually kept their swords sharp. Very sharp. As in sharp enough to cut through a silk handkerchief laid on top if the blade with a twitch of the wrist. And their scabbards were designed to not contact the edge of the blade with anything that might dull it. The second reason has more to do with their style of swordsmanship. Instead of hacking and stabbing, they tended to use more drawing cuts than anything else. The result of which was that they could take full advantage of the sharp edge and slice through the cloth, skin, muscle and bone. The wounds described by British doctors at the time make it sound like the people got into a fight with a deli slicer instead of being hit with a sword. Straight, clean wounds, with no bruising or crushing injuries to the tissue around them. Whereas a similar injury from a European swordsman would be just as likely to crush the bones and tissue in question.

At this point I am working with a Sikh swordsmith in India to have the larger tulwar hilt made. Assuming that this actually works out, and I haven't been taken in by the Indian version of a Nigerian Prince, intent on getting his father's fortune out of the country, I will look at having him make me a complete sword in the near future. For now, I am simply waiting to see if he follows through on the initial order for a basic tulwar hilt. He normally makes his sword blades out of EN 45 or higher, which they evidently salvage from railroad car suspensions. Supposedly it holds a decent edge, while remaining flexible enough to be used for a decent sword. I will, assuming I don't get burned here, probably end up with a tulwar, and a basket-hilted (the Indian version) tega, which looks rather like a cutlass in size and shape. Between the two, I should be able to conduct some decent tests.

-Mb
 
It seems that cutting through heavy cloth works better when only the very tip-end of the sword is used. Once again, I think of the Katzbalger and how well the rounded tip would work for slashing at poofy cloth!
 
Last edited:
The armor in India was typically 20+ layers of cotton or linen sewn together. Slashing is pretty much the only thing that is likely to get through it. Short of a purely thrusting sword with a heavy blade. The spadroons and blunt sabers issued to the British weren't really up to the task.
 
I was reading about "blunt sabers' over on the sword forum the other day and "experts" there were citing from British and Prussian cavalry manuals and regulations about how the sabers were kept blunt (my paraphrasing) until ready to go to war and then the sabers were sharpened. After returning to "peace time" there were special instructions for how the sabers were to be "re-dulled" until needed for war again. They also cited correspondence that included references to sharpening the sabers in the field.

The speculation that "dull in peace, sharp in war" was basically was to reduce training injuries and accidental injuries to the cavalry mounts. e.g., cut off ears, stabbings, etc. Since most of the sabers people see were put into the civilian market via pilferage or general disposal sales of arsenal weapons, said sabers would come out of the arsenals dull because they were deliberately dulled before being placed in storage.
 
The accounts I have been reading from the British army complain that they can't keep the swords sharp, mainly because they rattle around in metal scabbards all day when they ride. There are several that mention that even the sharpest sword will be dull in a matter of days. Also remember that they often only sharpened a narrow edge on their sabers. It sounds like it would be the same as getting a blunt sword today and just grinding a quick edge on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top