Something has been bothering me for a while so I wanted to bring it up and possible get some discussion going on the subject. One very common complaint about reproduction swords that I often see/hear is that the guard is not tightly fitted to the blade. Why are we complaining about this!? If you look at originals It seems to be more of the rare exception that they were perfectly fitted to the guard. Often there are large gaps between the blade and guard, and they are often not even regular or symmetrical.

Just have a look at the fit on the Harriet dean sword below. It's awful by today's standards, and it's not even close to the worst that I have seen. There are a few sword makers that have adopted a wider groove approach which I personally like since it is similar to many originals.

I get that we have better tools these days to make things fit nicely, but they could also do it back in the day and yet they did not. In some cases I find that a perfect, zero-gap, fit appears out of place. Similar to a chrome finish on the hilt fittings. I'm not saying that I prefer a hack job, but I don't think it should be huge mark against a sword if there is a gap around the blade as it enters the guard as long as it is aesthetically pleasing.

Would love to hear some opinions on this.

---

 Attachment: 303.36 KB

Most people complains about guard fitting were comparing it to Albion reproduction. However I do have a nielo made katzbalger with large gap in guard and it's just loose no matter how much I peen it.

I'd recently begun worrying that gaps will allow moisture inside the hilt. On the last couple I assembled, I filled them with that beeswax-linseed oil mix, though maybe cutler's resin (or epoxy, for a modern-modern blade) would be a more appropriate choice.

Overall: the topic has been pretty much done before: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=36059

Dan D'Silva wrote:

I'd recently begun worrying that gaps will allow moisture inside the hilt. On the last couple I assembled, I filled them with that beeswax-linseed oil mix, though maybe cutler's resin (or epoxy, for a modern-modern blade) would be a more appropriate choice.

Whether moisture can go through the gap between guard and blade into the hilt depends almost entirely on whether you have a fuller. If you have a fuller, moisture can go in there through the fuller channel. The blade's shoulders should be "recessed" into the gap, which leads to a rectangular slot of the same dimensions as the tang, so that there's not actually any channel leading all the way to the grip if you don't have a fuller. If it's particularly loose-fitting, you may have one or two gaps, but that should be the exception.

Now, even if there is no gap leading from blade to hilt, moisture can still accumulate behind the blade's shoulders. Ballistol allegedly emulsifies with water, so I'd recommend putting a small amount of that into the gap for good measure, and if your sword got particularly wet I'd renew that layer.

Generally it seems to not have been a real problem for centuries in a time when swords were actually used.

Slight addendum towards the commonly-raised fear that a large gap between the blade and the recess in the guard:
I've been using a Swordmaker/Kopciuch-made longsword for the last two years or so. It's gone through about 200 training sessions. The entire front face of the crossguard has gotten heavily dinged up by (longsword) hits of all possible intensities. One of the quillons has taken a tiny set, barely noticeable. The assembly is still absolutely rock solid.

Contrast this with the two budget Czech-made swords my club got recently: The gap between guard and blade is considerably more miniscule. They started rattling after I whacked them into my helmet once (!) to test for fatal flaws in the material. Similar story with the Regenyei Feders my club uses. They generally have practically no gap between blade and guard. My personal one could move slightly from day one. All others started rattling rather soon.

Moral of the story: You can not tell from the gap if a sword will stay solid or start to rattle.

Possible exception: Messer guards that were slid on from the point, as well as guards that have the blade's shoulders visible from the hilt-side. Those should either be shrunk on, brazed/soldered tight, or at least back-peened.

Originals often have wide cross guard slots. They also often have wavy fullers or mid-ribs, unequal edges, blades aren't straight in either plane, pommels are off-centre, etc. These are all reasonable variation when you're working exclusively by hand, but nowadays cheap swords are made on machine and can be very consistent in features like this. You can only really get this sort of variation on handwork done by someone who really understands swords.

Fundamentally, this comes down to modern senses of aesthetics. We're so used to things being 'perfect' and consistent that the idea of stuff being wrong/flawed - especially on a product which is handmade and thus even more expensive than a cheap mass produced sword would be - seems pretty unreasonable. Another obvious case is the modern preference for very simple/'elegant' swords, with less of a tendency for decoration.

I should say, and I think everyone can agree, that a nice, tight fit with good alignment is always preferable to something that isn't as well made. However, I also think it's worth noting that there were and are ways around this that aren't always practiced as much as they can be:

1. I just noted/learned this from Damian the other day pertaining to fitting the crossguard. This is probably best employed when you do in fact have a good, tight fit on the part:

http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=353...;start=110

2. When the fit is looser, brass or bronze shims, or perhaps any other type of shim can be used to stabilize and secure the part.

3. More on-topic to the item of the large gap in the guard however, one thing I don't see often and wish I'd see more of is the use of cutler's pitch or an acceptable stand-in for that material. Cutler's pitch historically is a natural glue which you might use to partially secure the handle parts (such as the sword grip, as well as the wrapping on said grip). Pitch can also be used to fill in that gap between the blade and the shoulders of the guard, even more so the void between the guard and the fuller. When done neatly, the end result is really clean look that will also deny access to much of the debris or other... stuff that could get into the sword from this area. Although I didn't get pictures from the perspective of interest, my "classwork" sword, produced at Ric Furrer's Fall 2019 European Sword class, has a cutler's pitch substitute filling in at the front of the guard:

http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=38037&highlight=

...This is something that really should be done when the sword is assembled, and not after. Degreasing the sword and its components is also essential in getting a good bond between the glue and the steel or otherwise metal parts. Note that the "modernized" glue used in this sword was in fact epoxy.

Some really great points from all.

I should probably mention that when I was speaking of a guard that is tightly fitted to the blade, I was referring to the cross guard slot, and not to how tightly the guard fits on the tang. I agree that the cross guard should be firmly fixed to the tang/blade without movement. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Johannes, I appreciated your comments from a functional perspective. I was purely thinking aesthetically when I originally posted. It's good to bring in this side of it.

T. Kew wrote:

Fundamentally, this comes down to modern senses of aesthetics. We're so used to things being 'perfect' and consistent that the idea of stuff being wrong/flawed - especially on a product which is handmade and thus even more expensive than a cheap mass produced sword would be - seems pretty unreasonable. Another obvious case is the modern preference for very simple/'elegant' swords, with less of a tendency for decoration.

I think you hit the nail on the head here, but I also think that we have come a long way with this in recent years. It seems to me that the aesthetic of modern production blades is closer to originals now that it has ever has been. Perhaps the feeling about gaps between the blade and the cross guard slot can also change.

I do really like the idea of using cutler's pitch or a modern equivalent to fill these gaps. I think that would add to the authentic feel/look of a blade.

As long as it doesn't look like the groove was done with a vertical mill, and, preferably, wasn't made too large (even though the latter can be historically correct) I will be happy with it.

As someone who has worked on many real centuries-old swords, including long swords and great swords, as well as many other sorts of real weapons, I just shake my head when people worry about loose guards. I have not seen much in the way of evidence that they cared. Symmetry is poor, much of the time, and holes through pommels are drifted off center, which is bound to happen a lot when the work is done hot, not drilled. My last job was on a bastard sword of a mid 16th century German sort, a good solid plain weapon that most of you would be absolutely ecstatic to have in your hands. I say 'solid', because the guard was only a bit jiggly. Its asking price was well over 10 K. The photo I attach is from another fine weapon, a long sword, showing what I mean about off center drifting.

---

 Attachment: 43.74 KB
[ Download ]