How do traditional hand forged katanas compare to modern high end swords?

[Artfully Martial]

It is only science if it can be recreated and repeatedly tested on this and other materials, otherwise any conclusion, is just idle speculation.

n2s

The falsifiability criterion of science has some legitimacy, but I think the issue with the unstated conclusion here is that there is an implicit premise--that the test can't be or hasn't been repeated. The falsifiability criterion doesn't demand that actual repeat tests be performed. It only demands that it's logically possible for repeat tests to be performed. Otherwise, the original results can't even hypothetically be falsified.

At any rate, this test could be repeated. So the criterion is satisfied. We have a scientific result. We know that THAT particular sword can survive a full impact on that PARTICULAR PART of the CUTTING EDGE from a PARTICULAR ROUND fired from THAT INDIVIDUAL gun. So we do have a good result here, but it's quite limited. Repeat testing with different guns, swords and other factors would give you a much broader and more useful result.

Besides, there are many more factors to the steel that aren't even being discussed. I'd pretty much guarantee that 440C will be more rust resistant than even the nicest traditional blade.

Those miscellaneous factors aside, I find this to be a rather simple question to answer. If the question is "do modern steels compete with traditional Japanese sword making." The answer to this is probably no. As far as I'm aware, no one's investing vast amounts of money into developing super steels to perform in full combat situations against other people with hardened steel katanas and samurai armor.

If the question is, however, can modern technology hypothetically exceed traditional Japanese sword making? The answer is obviously yes; traditional Japanese sword making has gone through many technological improvements over the many century history of the (recognizable) katana--the new innovations even 400 years ago surpassed the technology of a hundred years before that. There's no reason, in principle, that modern technology, with sufficient research and investment, wouldn't exceed yesteryear's designs.

The question effectively boils down to: did the Japanese actually finalize the perfect steel for katanas--a steel that could not ever be improved--and I see no reason to believe that's the case. Certainly the traditional swordmakers didn't think so.

 

[Kohai999]

The question effectively boils down to: did the Japanese actually finalize the perfect steel for katanas--a steel that could not ever be improved--and I see no reason to believe that's the case. Certainly the traditional swordmakers didn't think so.

I'm no expert, that would be my sensei, Masayuki Shimabukuro, or my Sempai, Erik Tracy, but will take a shot at it anyway.

You have to look at that question in a historical perspective. The Japanese Government under US General of the Army Douglas MacArthur were occupied from 1945 to 1951. During a meeting with General MacArthur, Dr. Honma Junji produced blades from various periods of Japanese history. MacArthur was so enchanted by the elegant weapons, he amended the ban on katana so that swords of artistic merit could be owned and preserved.

If MacArthur had not done so, current production of katana in Japan would not exist.

As it is, swordmakers in Japan are LEGALLY BOUND to use tamahagane(sword steel) from the Tatara(metal smelter) under government aegis. There is a set limit of katana that can be produced by any one swordmaker. A foreigner attempting to bring a monosteel katana into Japan would at the very least have said item confiscated and destroyed, as katana in Japan are not produced as weapons per se, but as items of cultural importance.

IF a Japanese swordmaker in Japan COULD produce bainite bodied L6 swords or swords of INFI, or even some super duper Japanese carbon steel like Hitachi White or Blue with a san mai construction, you can bet they would, but that is not even an option.

The initial question posed by the OP wrt edge contact shows a certain lack knowledge vis-a-vis edge-to-edge dynamics. It is something to be avoided at all costs. At the very least, if there is no catastrophic blade failure, there will be severe dulling of the edge. Even fencing swords that have no edge to speak of can be chewed up and chipped due to excessive or overly forceful contact

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Burningcort]

what about a traditionally made sword with todays metals best of both worlds for the win

 

[Kohai999]

what about a traditionally made sword with todays metals best of both worlds for the win

It depends upon how you define traditionally made.

Traditionally made swords from Japan have blades where the steel has been folded many times. Many of the better performing steels of today would suffer a performance disadvantage from that treatment.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[ttoney83]

How would a hand forged san mai katana, forged by a master using traditional techniques and steel compare to modern swords like the Busse AK 47 and other high end swords made with cutting edge steels in terms of durability, edge holding, and overall cutting ability?

What would happen if the two swords clashed? Would stock infi prevail over hand forged japanese san mai?

discuss.

I personally would LOVE to see some destructive testing done on short sword or broad sword length blades made of various steels. In particular I would love to see INFI compared with a modern traditional 5160 and a traditional tradtional steel smelted and forged in a tradtional manner.

Now, my take on "traditional" steels and methods of smelting and forging. "Traditional" steels, that is those found in older blades, simply cannot compare to modern steels in consistency of the material. Traditional steels would have been subject to the hit or miss of minerals/alloying elements by location of the foundary and the quality of the workmen forging the billets.
So, my bet would be on one of the modern steels being far superior to any traditional steel blades. My question is how would INFI fare against 5160?

 

[ttoney83]

what about a traditionally made sword with todays metals best of both worlds for the win

Folding was only done to make the billet more consistent, i.e., that all 'impurities" were worked out, much the same as a potter kneads the clay, to work out air bubbles and such. Modern steels do not need this process as the proceedures for smelting iron and adding carbon and other alloying materials is far more consistent than any traditional manufacturer could accomplish. So, the modern steels wouldn't gain anything from folding as all that work is accomplished at the foundary. When the modern swordsmith gets his steel from the foundary he can be assured that it meets all the appropriate ASTM standards for composition of the material. The tradtional manufacturer was working with only intuition, experience and tradition.
The following quote from wiki is consistent with other references I've come across regarding the smelting of the steel from which the Katanas and such would be forged.

Tamahagane
Tamahagane (玉鋼:たまはがね?) is a type of Japanese steel. Translated as "jewel steel", it is mainly used to make Samurai swords, such as the katana, and some tools. The steel is made from black sand.

The smelting process used is different from the modern mass production of steel. A clay vessel about 4 ft (1.2 m) tall, 12 ft (3.7 m) long, and 4 ft (1.2 m) wide is constructed. This is known as a tatara. After the clay tub has set, it is fired until dry. A charcoal fire is started from soft pine charcoal. Then the smelter will wait for the fire to reach the correct temperature. At that point he will direct the addition of iron sand known as satetsu. This will be layered in with more charcoal and more iron sand over the next 72 hours. Four or five people need to constantly work on this process. It takes about a week to build the tatara and complete the iron conversion to steel. When the process is done they will break the clay tub and take out the steel bloom known as a kera. At the end of the process the tatara will have consumed about 10 short tons (9.1 t) of satetsu and 12 short tons (11 t) of charcoal leaving about 2.5 short tons (2.3 t) of kera, from which less than a ton of tamahagane can be produced.[1]

The swordsmiths will carefully break the kera apart, and separate the various carbon steels. The lowest carbon steel is called hocho-tetsu, which is used for the shingane, (translated as “core-steel”) of the blade. The high carbon tamahagane and higher carbon steel, called nabe-gane, will then be forged in alternating layers, using very intricate methods to form the kawagane (or, “skin steel”). The most useful process is the folding, where the metals are forge welded, folded, and welded again, as many as 16 times. The folding removes impurities and helps even out the carbon content, while the alternating layers combine hardness with ductility to create toughness.[2][3][4] Traditionally, tamahagane is only made three or four times a year by Nittoho and Hitachi Metals[5] during winter in a wood building and is only sold to the master swordsmiths to use once it is made.

The process described in the first bolded section above is what the modern swordsmith does not need to do since modern steels have all been smelted and forged to fairly tight specifications. This process would have been taken on by the traditional swordsmith with varying degrees of consistency from smith to smith and I would say even from year to year with the same smith. Either way there was some element of imprecision which would make "tradtional" steels of lower quality than modern steels.

In the second bolded section, again the modern swordsmith does not need to fold his steel as the material would arrive at his shop already forged to an exacting ASTM standard which garauntees minimal, if any impurities and consistent distribution of carbon and other alloying minerals in very specific percentages. And this is all done by machines which do not experience fatigue like the swordsmith.
A traditional smith on the other hand, may or may not be on top of his game on a given day and the quality of the welds in his folding may not be up to snuff. I'm sure a master smith could produce high quality highly consistent steel repeatedly, but nothing like today.

 

[Kohai999]

The process described in the first bolded section above is what the modern swordsmith does not need to do since modern steels have all been smelted and forged to fairly tight specifications. This process would have been taken on by the traditional swordsmith with varying degrees of consistency from smith to smith and I would say even from year to year with the same smith. Either way there was some element of imprecision which would make "tradtional" steels of lower quality than modern steels.

In the second bolded section, again the modern swordsmith does not need to fold his steel as the material would arrive at his shop already forged to an exacting ASTM standard which garauntees minimal, if any impurities and consistent distribution of carbon and other alloying minerals in very specific percentages. And this is all done by machines which do not experience fatigue like the swordsmith.
A traditional smith on the other hand, may or may not be on top of his game on a given day and the quality of the welds in his folding may not be up to snuff. I'm sure a master smith could produce high quality highly consistent steel repeatedly, but nothing like today.

At some point in the last 20 years, Yoshindo Yoshihara crafted a sword that was used by a proficient Japanese tameshi(cutter) to cut a 2" gash into a traditional kabuto(helmet). I have seen the video of it, but am not sure of the date. There was no damage to the sword, and minimal if any, damage to the edge.

The point that I am making more as a general statement than a challenge to the bolded portion, is that even though Japanese makers would probably use other materials when making a PURELY performance designed sword, they do a "pretty fair" job with what they have access to, and would not abandon the traditional tamahagane if they could, because.....

Aesthetics are HUGE in Japan. Hada(damascus like patterns) can only be imparted by the folding of the steel, and is crucial to the Japanese in katana. They value the hamon(hardening line) about as much as any other aspect, and the two qualities of hada and hamon together are what they are looking for. Most Japanese do not study sword arts or cut, but they still value a "good" sword quite highly, and many desire them that just cannot afford them.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[ttoney83]

At some point in the last 20 years, Yoshindo Yoshihara crafted a sword that was used by a proficient Japanese tameshi(cutter) to cut a 2" gash into a traditional kabuto(helmet). I have seen the video of it, but am not sure of the date. There was no damage to the sword, and minimal if any, damage to the edge.

The point that I am making more as a general statement than a challenge to the bolded portion, is that even though Japanese makers would probably use other materials when making a PURELY performance designed sword, they do a "pretty fair" job with what they have access to, and would not abandon the traditional tamahagane if they could, because.....

Aesthetics are HUGE in Japan. Hada(damascus like patterns) can only be imparted by the folding of the steel, and is crucial to the Japanese in katana. They value the hamon(hardening line) about as much as any other aspect, and the two qualities of hada and hamon together are what they are looking for. Most Japanese do not study sword arts or cut, but they still value a "good" sword quite highly, and many desire them that just cannot afford them.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

No, I don't doubt that a high degree of consistency was/is achieved by some masters, maybe many masters. Traditional methods of manufacture of anything can result in a truely superior product. It's just not as consistent as modern methods.

To the Kabuto. If the Kabuto is materially similar to the helmets and armour worn in Europe then they were made with metal which was either Iron, or SLIGHtly carbonized VEry mild steel. I wish I could find the info right now but there were some fairly extensive metalurgical studies done on many pieces of surviving European armour. It was found that most of it was Iron. There was some evidence of attempts/success to "case harden" the armour. So, if a traditionally made Katana was used to cut a traditionally made Kabuto it doesn't surprise me that it was effectively cut without damaging the Katana.
Steel was very expensive relative to Iron etc. and the very best would be used to make swords. It was this way in Europe so I suspect it was the same in Japan. I'm just sayin. I'm not attempting to argue a "point' per se, just sharing what I've learned.

I have no doubt that European swordsmiths practiced similar techniques or, probably more likely, the European manufacturing style resulted in forge welded billets being available to the European swordsmith which were already worked (folded). But I don't know that for sure.

Aesthetics and tradition. I love the artistry of Japanese swords and armour too. But I must admit, after learning about the rich history of the European Martial Arts, I've been more impressed with European weaponry and fighting styles. I personally think that strict adherence to tradition is the reason why Japanese swordsmiths never produced the variety of styles that the European swordsmiths did. Tradition can be very restrictive of innovation. I also must admit that I get some enjoyment from debunking myths surrounding swords, both Japanese and European.

 

[Kohai999]

No, I don't doubt that a high degree of consistency was/is achieved by some masters, maybe many masters. Traditional methods of manufacture of anything can result in a truely superior product. It's just not as consistent as modern methods.

That is true, it is not as consistent, but the great swordmakers of Japan are quite adept at heat-treating the swords to get the results they want out of them.

Scott Rodell who is an expert on Chinese swords and cutting, has often said something to the effect that the modern swords are so good that students don't have to focus as much on basics to be good cutters. There is something to that, I have personally heard of cutters in Japan who cut bamboo with the BACK of the sword, which would require excellent technique, better than mine, be assured of that.

Aesthetics and tradition. I love the artistry of Japanese swords and armour too. But I must admit, after learning about the rich history of the European Martial Arts, I've been more impressed with European weaponry and fighting styles. I personally think that strict adherence to tradition is the reason why Japanese swordsmiths never produced the variety of styles that the European swordsmiths did. Tradition can be very restrictive of innovation. I also must admit that I get some enjoyment from debunking myths surrounding swords, both Japanese and European.

Unless you know something that I don't that has recently come to light, after a fair amount of conversations with Hank Reinhardt(RIP), John Clements, and Brian Stokes, the amount of unbroken and verifiably accurate(recreated as best as possible using available source materials)European Martial Arts is quite small in relation to the unbroken lineage of a vast number of Japanese Ryu and available reference materials.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[not2sharp]

Unless you know something that I don't that has recently come to light, after a fair amount of conversations with Hank Reinhardt(RIP), John Clements, and Brian Stokes, the amount of unbroken and verifiably accurate(recreated as best as possible using available source materials)European Martial Arts is quite small in relation to the unbroken lineage of a vast number of Japanese Ryu and available reference materials.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

European swords have been in decline since the 15th century, driven out by firearms, and relegated to secondary and decorative arms. But, in its heyday, the European sword and swordsmanship, were likely as advanced, if not more so, then the Japanese. In Europe, the swordsman had to contend with better armor, and a broader diversity of techniques.

n2s

 

[Kohai999]

European swords have been in decline since the 15th century, driven out by firearms, and relegated to secondary and decorative arms. But, in its heyday, the European sword and swordsmanship, were likely as advanced, if not more so, then the Japanese. In Europe, the swordsman had to contend with better armor, and a broader diversity of techniques.

n2s

I don't dispute what WAS, only how what was then, is not now.

An astounding amount of Japanese swordsmanship is concerned with unarmored street fights or fighting within a house, akin to rapier fighting...tight spaces, thrusting, slashing....

The part that is NOT up for discussion is that while EMA practitioners are re-creating and moving forward, there has only been the need for JSA practitioners to continue evolving, changing the small things..not to recreate..my Sensei's Sensei started swordsmanship when he was a young man, he is well past his 80's now, my Sensei is over sixty and has been studying sword since he was 16...you don't currently find that in the EMA(unless you count sport fencing, but that is NOT the same thing), but you probably will in 50 years.

In other words, show me a school in Europe that has been teaching both battlefield and urban swordfighting with an unbroken lineage since say 1565 like Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and I'll shut up.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[JParanee]

How would a hand forged katana, forged by a master using traditional techniques and steel compare to modern swords like the Busse AK 47 and other high end swords made with cutting edge steels in terms of durability, edge holding, and overall cutting ability?

What would happen if the two swords clashed? Would stock infi prevail over hand forged japanese san mai?

discuss.

The Op asked what would perform better

first i don't consider an Ak 47 to be a high end sword. Dont get offended it is a dam fine sword like pry bar and definately a very well made prouduct but i had one and its cutting performance was poor compared to say a modern sword from Hartsfield , Clark , Bell or the like.

In terms of toughness the Busse will win but in terms of cutting power and handleing you can't compare them. Not a knock on Busse prouducts I have many they are just different. Like compareing a BM to a Bagwell HB both will work and the BM will excel at camp chores but in a fight the HB will be the better blade

As for European and Japanese swords thats a whole different subject . I have alot of respect for both but STeven is correct in saying that the European arts where lost and do not share the same uninterupted lineage of the Japanese arts . As for quality of the 2 I would have given the nod to the japanese blades but The late great Paul Champagne had alot of respect for the European swords and I have immense respect for him If interested in European sword arts watch Reclaiming the Blade. good stuff

 

[edmundl]

Since the "Rodent Waki" has a 17" blade, "Scrapizashi" a 17.375" blade and the "Ak 47"a 18.5" blade. Perhaps we should be attempting to analyze the combat qualities of the "traditional" Japanese Wakizashi vs. the above Bussekin blades. From my understanding, anything over 12" in blade length but under 23-24 inches a "wakazashi.

 

[Triton]

The Op asked what would perform better

first i don't consider an Ak 47 to be a high end sword. Dont get offended it is a dam fine sword like pry bar and definately a very well made prouduct but i had one and its cutting performance was poor compared to say a modern sword from Hartsfield , Clark , Bell or the like.

Now you've done it...

 

[Kohai999]

How would a hand forged san mai katana, forged by a master using traditional techniques and steel compare to modern swords like the Busse AK 47 and other high end swords made with cutting edge steels in terms of durability, edge holding, and overall cutting ability?

What would happen if the two swords clashed? Would stock infi prevail over hand forged japanese san mai?

Since the "Rodent Waki" has a 17" blade, "Scrapizashi" a 17.375" blade and the "Ak 47"a 18.5" blade. Perhaps we should be attempting to analyze the combat qualities of the "traditional" Japanese Wakizashi vs. the above Bussekin blades. From my understanding, anything over 12" in blade length but under 23-24 inches a "wakazashi.

You seem confused.

The OP was asking about qualities almost completely in the province of steel, heat treat and edge geometry....regardless of short sword or long sword lengths.

AND...fyi, look up O-tanto, and ko-katana.....your understanding could use an expansion.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[BryFry]

Yeah, I think some of us are getting a bit off topic here. I believe the OP's question is more about the overall performance traits of the steels (ancient vs modern) ...not about the technique of the person using the sword.

I agree with the above statement that if you are going to compare the AK or Swamprat WAKI to something, compare it to another waki. But even then it's not that fair since the old blades are designed for fighting, where as the Bussekins are made more for bashing up trees and stuff.

That's why I think the question should maybe be: Could a modern swordmaker using the best modern steel and heat treat make a sword the exact size and shape of an ancient katana, that will out outperform its ancient masterfully built counterpart?

 

[Kohai999]

That's why I think the question should maybe be: Could a modern swordmaker using the best modern steel and heat treat make a sword the exact size and shape of an ancient katana, that will out outperform its ancient masterfully built counterpart?

IF you are talking about scientific criteria, such as durability, edge holding, and overall cutting ability, VERY probably the modern swordmaker could make something that will outperform "its ancient masterfully built counterpart"....

with maybe two caveats...

1. It would have to be a "healthy" relatively unused blade from the ancients, and we are pretty sure that steel age hardens to the point that the comparison may be impossible to make.

2. Most likely, some aspect that the Japanese hold dear would suffer....be it geometry, mounting, hamon or hada. This wouldn't matter very much to the Westerner only looking for performance, but it would matter GREATLY to the Japanese.

Oh yeah...the last part.....pretty much doesn't matter who does it, for it to be right....it's going to be more expensive than 99% of any Forumites will want to pay.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[SShepherd]

IF you are talking about scientific criteria, such as durability, edge holding, and overall cutting ability, VERY probably the modern swordmaker could make something that will outperform "its ancient masterfully built counterpart"....

with maybe two caveats...

1. It would have to be a "healthy" relatively unused blade from the ancients, and we are pretty sure that steel age hardens to the point that the comparison may be impossible to make.

2. Most likely, some aspect that the Japanese hold dear would suffer....be it geometry, mounting, hamon or hada. This wouldn't matter very much to the Westerner only looking for performance, but it would matter GREATLY to the Japanese.

Oh yeah...the last part.....pretty much doesn't matter who does it, for it to be right....it's going to be more expensive than 99% of any Forumites will want to pay.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

considering the historical cost of a sword ( relative to todays value), most would need a home equity loan

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Actually, buying a sword back in the day was much like buying a car. There was a whole range of quality for different budgets, going from "Yugo" to "Lamborghini" equivalents. They represented a considerable investment for sure--you wouldn't own racks of the things unless you were considerably wealthy--but they weren't out of reach if you just wanted a basic model. That being said, which culture/nation/time period you were from determined whether or not you were allowed to have one, of course.

 

[LorenzoL]

Somebody earlier mentioned how the edges were never supposed to make contact with each other during a combat. How so? Does it mean that parrying was always done with the flats or the spine? But in that case the attacking sword would hit those flats or spine with the edge, resulting in some kind of damage...