[Vincent C]

I was wondering what some differences were in performance between various sword cross sections.

Specifically, I was wondering what the difference was in cutting/thrusting abilities of the hexagonal cross section when compared to the diamond or lenticular.

Another was question was that of durability, which cross section can take the most punishment?

Also, I realize that hollow grinding a diamond cross section makes it better suited for the thrust, but it seems that this would decrease both its cutting ability and durability, since it makes the edges so much thinner but with a high central ridge.

If someone could help me along or point me in the right direction, that'd be great.

[Toke Krebs Niclasen]

I am not an expert on this, but will not let that stop me.

The diamond section is stiffer than the lentil, but quite likely harder to make right.

As for hollow grinding, you are not supposed to grind all the way to the edge.
Ideally there is a ridge right behind the edge, giving it the same strength as a non hollow ground blade.

[Vincent C]

I'm more than aware of the comparisons between diamond and lenticular cross sections, my question states that I'd like to know how hexagonal compares between them.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're not supposed to hollow grind to the edge, all the diagrams and actual swords with hollow grinding I've seen have been diamonds with concave sides going all the way out to the edge.

[Toke Krebs Niclasen]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Vincent C]

Oh, I see it now.

I never noticed that on the earl before, it's practically in my face now.

So a lot of the swords (like some type XXI and some la tene swords) that look like they have really wide double-fullers are actually hollow-ground?

[Peter Johnsson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Thanks Peter for explaining it more clearly and with more " nuances ": I compared it to wide and shallow fullers as an example of a type of hollow grind and to get away from the extreme of the hollow grinds that meet in a thin edge without a secondary bevel. Some blades may have a subtlety thickening before the secondary bevel and other are just ground to the same thickness near the secondary bevel that an elliptical grinded blade would have before it's secondary bevel.

A blade meant for heavy duty work against armour, or just to handle edge parrying with less damage, will have thicker edges than a sword or knife meant for very fine slicing cuts.

Anyway, just repeating what Peter said.

[Michele Hansen]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Michele Hansen]

[Vincent C]

But what about inherent characteristics of hexagonal cross sections?

I've read a lot about how, in general, lenticular cross sections are better for cutting due to flexibility whereas diamond cross sections are supposed to be better for thrusting due to their relative rigidity, and a hollow ground blade being good for "cut and thrust" types of swords due to both rigidity and a nasty edge.

But I haven't found anything discussing the general characteristics of hexagonal cross sections.
I assume that having the center of the blade flattened may lend itself to a more cut-oriented type of cut-and-thrust type of sword.

But that's an assumption, I also had thought hollow grinding was done all the way to the edge.

I'd understand if it was done for display purposes, The National Native American museum in DC has a type XIX bastard sword on display, and it's quite stunning to look at.

Also, thank you all for the insight (especially into hollow-grinding), it's helped clear a few things up.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Vincent C]

The understanding blade properties article is good, but it still for the most part ignores hexagonal cross-sections.

What was their use? was it purely ornamental or did they actually have a legitimate application.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Peter Johnsson]

Comparing three blades with same width and thickness, one being lenticular, one diamond and the third hexagonal, the hexagonal will be stiffest, but also heaviest.

Diamond shaped blades can be made very stiff without adding as much mass as a hexagonal blade would get with same thickness.

With the alternative being a lenticular blade, you will get a slightly heavier but also quite stiffer blade if you give it a hexagonal section given the same width and thickness.
You can make a hexagonal sectioned blade thinner than a lenticular blade and still have same degree of stiffness.
For very thin and light blades, a hexagonal section is a way to provide some sturdiness to an otherwise too flexible a blade.

There are also reasons in manufacture why a hexagonal section is a good idea. This has to do with how blanks were forged and blades ground. As with most things concerning swords there are more than one reason why they were made the way they were.

[Vincent C]

[Kel Rekuta]