Hello all, as you can see this is my first post.

I am purchasing my first "real" sword in about 4 hours (when I get home from work) I had decided on the LE High Elven King Sword from Arms of Valor, My question is this.....

How easy is it to mishandle and warp or bend a blade ( I have only had wall hangers up to this point)
What would be considered "ill-advised"

From what I gather, Gen2 swords should take a lot of abuse, so to answer your question I don't think you have to worry at all if you're just swinging it around or doing some normal cutting (tatami, milk jugs full of water, pool noodles, etc.). Chopping wood or bashing against hard objects (including other swords) is not recommended for any sword.

However, and I'm going to "tread softly" here, I think you'll find that many here might not classify Gen2 swords as "real." At least, their weight, mounts, fit & finish, and blade shapes do not seem to be especially accurate or fit under the rubric of period aesthetic.

Have you lurked on this site for long before you made this first post? If not, you may want to hang around a good while (month or two at least) and do some research/study (online and in books) before dropping significant cash on a sword - if your intent is to upgrade to a "real" sword. Different people have different definitions of "real," and with a bit more time and information you may decide that your definition has changed.

There are a number of lower-cost options in the sword market that you may want to consider. Maybe not; maybe after all is said and done, you will find that Gen2 perfectly matches your tastes and budget and you'd be completely satisfied with them. But it cannot hurt to be sure, can it?

And welcome to myArmoury. :)

I have not read many of the topics here, I have done some looking online and I read the SBG (sword buyers guide)
So I know stainless steel is all but useless (unless to just hang on a wall) and heat treating and tempering are essential
and a full tang provides more durability ..

other than that I must admit I am very new to this

Depends on the individual weapon. In general, I'd be much more careful with a fantasy design at any price level because it's not directly informed by actual combat use. Further, it's most likely created as an art object rather than a tool. Historical swords were designed the way they were for life-and-death reasons. Departures from those designs presumably lead a weapon away from strength, efficiency and user-safety.

Even some cheap historical designs at least have the general form of original weapons, and might perform in a similar way. But I'd be very careful with even an historical design of unknown construction or heat treatment. Just keep in mind that no historic sword was designed to cut mats, milk jugs, saplings, etc. They were meant to destroy living human tissue and withstand the rigors of getting to that target. My somewhat heretical view is that it's almost irrelevant, historically speaking, how a modern sword performs in cutting exercises. I think the best we can do is have a weapon within the range of stats for documented originals of the same type. Then we just have to trust that it could perform in combat at something approaching the level of an original of that type.

I don't know that many people share my killjoy view of test cutting. It's not that I oppose the exercise. I've done some of this myself and enjoyed it, but I don't think it has much to offer beyond WMA training (footwork, judgement of distance, edge placement and alignment, power regulation, etc.). It also offers a "wow" moment of realization when you see what even a cheap blade can do to, say, a spaghetti squash. But I don't think cutting tells us much about how a given weapon would perform in the kind of combat that informed its design.

If you want to use your weapon to cut things historical swords never were designed to cut, just be very sure you trust the construction and heat treatment and take common-sense precautions when you cut. Observers/bystanders must be far behind you in case of a broken blade (which may go in surprising directions). You should also resign yourself to throwing away your investment.

Thank you both for your help and advice

Hi Sean,

Would like to expand on your last post a bit. Somewhat agree that cutting isn't really a direct test of a sword's effectiveness, that there are certainly many important factors that cutting simply doesn't address. But I'm a little confused by the phrasing of this line:

Quote:

...I don't think it has much to offer beyond WMA training (footwork, judgement of distance, edge placement and alignment, power regulation, etc.).

Which of the following did you mean?
1) WMA training offers something, and cutting exercises don't really offer much more, so the cutting is not necessary.
2) Cutting exercises form a quality component of WMA training (but not much beyond that).

My own experience with cutting and MA in general is haphazard and limited, but I found in the context of my introduction to Nakamura Ryu batto-do (Japanese sword art) that cutting tatami significantly informed my technique in forms, and vice-versa. Without either side of the equation I'm convinced that any training regimen would be incomplete.

I did view the forms and related training as much more important in many ways, but in terms of the mechanics of the cut (grip, posture, hip movement, edge alignment, initial extension, acceleration, placement of the blade on the target, etc.) the cutting was invaluable. It seemed to me as if training without ever cutting would be like learning golf without ever hitting a ball; I'm sure that you could become exceptionally well-versed in what strategies and club to use for what holes under what wind conditions, etc., and your swing would look good with proper instruction, but that if you went up to tee you'd be surprised by how little control you had over placing the ball.

Of course, with sword combat, there's a good argument that merely making a cut is sufficient, and that the cut doesn't have to be perfectly executed to do its job. But personally, that philosophy would seem contrary to the point of studying combat arts in the first place.

Just a thought, triggered by my being unsure of how precisely to interpret your comment above. I'm not assuming that you were actually discounting the value of cutting exercises from a training perspective, but if you were, the above would be my honest reaction. In fact this post is more of a statement on what I view as a somewhat impractical view held by certain iaido organizations...

Cheers,
GLL

I must admit my weapons training is limited to the Kamas I was taught, and I stuck with those for 9 years

this is my first step in the cross-over