Hot riveting/peening of the tang against the pommel does not have to produce brittleness. It depends on at what temperature it was done and if it is propery annealed afterwards. This is of critical importance.
If done at near white heat and left as is, it will surely be brittle. One should not do that!
If done at lower forging temp the effect is very diferent. You will produce a rivet head that is larger than is possible if shaped through cold peening. A hot peened rivet will adjust to the countersinking perfctly and will have a fine graned perlitic structure when fisnished. This is a very tough and good rivet.
In earlier periods the tang was probably of a steely iron, that could be shaped more dramatically while cold without adverse effects. To mimic the shape of traditional mountings when working with modern materials we have to apply moderate heat in the shaping of the peened rivet.
Or we can choose to use a completely different method, like treaded nuts, pins or perhaps even super strong glue?
What matters is how the method is applied and the understanding of materials used and the design of the object being made.
Forging can indeed be used in making a superior blade, but it all depends on the knowledge and skill of the smith.
The quality of any blade is in part depending on steel and structure (resulting in part of temperature druing forging and certainly heat treat). Equally important is the shape of the blade. I cannot stress this last thing enough: it is often forgotten in these discussions.
If any of these lack in one or several aspects the blade will not reach its full potential.
Often "handforging" is used as a label and guarantee of superior quality.
This is miseading as the result is so largely depending on the individual skill of the craftsman (also, you never can tell just how much handforging was involved: this can and will vary between different craftsmen). If the smith knows what he is doing, is able to controll temeprature and has insights in heat treat, then the steel will have a good structure and a proper heat treat.
All this is wasted howerver if the smith does not have enough experience and knowledge about swords: what shape must a blade have to be a proper sword? This infulences heft, dynamic balance, cutting performance...just about every aspect of the finished sword.
Because of the importance of proper shape and proper heat treat, production method is not the single most important aspect in arriving at high quality. Forging can be a very good method in producing high quality blades. It is also the *only* method if you want to work with folded, laminated or patternwelded steel. Here is where forging really shines as a production method, especially in single unique project.
Otherwise
stock removal, by hand or by milling are perfectly good methods to produce blades, especially when many blades of exactly the sme shape are to be made with high precision. Needless to say, in all these production methods, the knoledge of proper blade shapes are equally critical for the outcome.
Also note that "stock removal" is also a step in the making of a forged blade. it is a natural part in the making of any blade, regardless of type and production method.
The way I see it forging can be important in the shaping of the shoulders of the blade even in a mono steel blade. Here is where forging can be used to some effect in shaping the grain of the material so that it follows the shape of the blade. This is however rather academic as a well proportioned blade will never have a single area where all stress is carried. If the blade has good proportions the junction of tang and blade need not be a weak spot. Again, the actual shape and proportion of the blade will be of grater importance than the production method. If the tang is too narrow, or the blade lacks in stress distributing qualities, then it matters little if forging or stock removal was used in the manufacture.
Sadly this aspect is very seldom adressed when makers describe their products, methods and materials. As a result customers are often mislead to think that one method or material is automatically superior to another.
Grips can also be made in many different ways. It used to be said the the solid wooden grip bored trough or burned through to accomodate for the tang was the dominant method in historical times. It has also been said it produces a stronger grip...
In my studies I have found many examples of the sanwich or composite method. So many that I now tend to think it could have been the most common method. A sandwich or composite grip core can be ever as "strong" as a solid grip core. In some types of grips (narrow and long and/or grips on thick and sturdy tangs) the composite method is usually the better.
Both methods were in use, however.
Both methods need a high degree of precision if the end result is to be satisfactory. Again, it is the application and execution, not the method itself that results in the end quality of the weapon.
There can also be modern methods of construction that can give satisfactory results, but again, it all depends on how it is done. It is not the method itself, but how it is applied and adjusted to the task, that yields the quality in the finished peice.
To Rob: All this is said just to bring perspective to the discussion. I absolutely do not intend this as a personal critisism to your work or your ideas.
Being a swordsmith myself I respect you as a fellow craftsman. Sadly, I have never seen any of your work first hand, only through pics on the internet: what I´ve seen seems to be fine work indeed.
I hope to visit your part of Scotland some time in the future, and look forward to meeting you then, if possible.
Until then: Best regards and keep up the good work!
Peter
Attachment: 85.82 KB