Sorry for late answer, but I am really busy... :(

In my opinion 18ga is historical, but not in mild steel. I can make a … in 18 ga mild steel (for example in breastplate) only with my naked fist. Just imagine what could happened with sharp arm. And we are talking here about plate armour in 15th century and not about brigantine and cote of plate, or antient armour.

You should also remember about technique they used. At that time they forged with head treading on charcoal and thanks to this armour was getting bigger amount of carbon in itself. Hardness of steel depends, inter alia, of contest of carbon. Today mild steel contains small amount of it. Better is medium-carbon steel and the best is spring steel. I think it’s not possible that steel with similar contest of carbon like nowadays mild steel have been used in Middle Ages, because they just had to forge it with charcoal, so armours just had to have bigger amount of carbon than nowadays mild steel. Besides, in period we are discussing, steel was of very good quality and armourers were very skilled.

Also, using mild steel by armourers who makes for reenactors from countries where head shots and full contact fight is normal, caused something really bizarre. People need strong helmets, so those armourers makes helmet even of 3mm steel plate! That is curiosum, don’t you think? The helmet weights 5kg! The reason is people don’t know they should look for better steel quality and better armouring techniques, but not for bigger and bigger thickness. Besides, even helmet made of 3mm steel will never be so durable as helmet made of spring steel and hardened.

Randall, I agree with almost all, what you’ve written (except opinion about 18ga mild steel). I would like to add that the reason why armour made of medium carbon steel or of spring steel are more expensive that those made of mild steel, isn’t that medium-carbon and spring steel are more expensive. They are, but not so much. The main reason is those armours are made handly, they are forged, not pressed!

So, returning to Indian made armours. I totally agree with W. Shulz. Not only because of those are mass produced, often not historical accurate stuff. I am armourer, so I am a bit fanatic in this subject, so my private opinion is the same, like opinion of W. Shulz. But it’s not only about the look. It’s also about technique of producing and materials they use. They (so cold “Indian makers”) don’t forge it by hand, they just mechanical press it. So, steel doesn’t have a chance to become more durable thanks to forging. I know what I am writng, because I know personally armourer in Poland who press armour and I know the quality of his wares.

The truth is that way work not only Indian makers. We have to admit it. Lots of armourers all around the worlds works this way, with press not with real, hand hammers and anvils, because it’s simpler, easier and one can earn more. However I understand that not everyone can afford armour made with using historical methods. And I think that’s good that people can chose between cheap and exclusive items. But they should know what they are choosing, when they want to buy cheap as well as expensive armour.
What I hate the most is lying about hand forging. Not everyone is able to estimate if an armour was hand forged or not, from photos. And some people buy pressed armours thinking they buy hand-made.

Hm, I have some (I think mild?) steel sheets laying around my house I got over a year ago at an old job; never did anything with them though I had considered making a CoP or an armoured surcote.

M.

Thorkil,

You need to read William's Knight and the Blast furnace. Most armour of the medieval period was not heat treated to any meaningful manner. 1-1.2mm is a very common thickness in historic untreated armour I suspect though since the pieces that usually are tested for heat treatment are not the same as thickness that is hard to say for certain. One thing that is basically certain is that most armour even carbon steel was not heat treated. Sorry to have to tell you this but it is one of the LH/ reenactor myths that has permeated many stratas and embedded but it just is not backed up by the data availible. If you can make a breastplate with your fists thats dang impressive and you should do it. I personally do not use an 18 guage breastplate but they are fine for backplates, certain parts of limb armour etc. Period steel is not of overly good quality often, another aspect that is in Williams book.

The point about forging is a good one and I think overlooked often but I think it is dangerous to think that powertools are producing an inferior product as it can be proven that with things like a power hammer you get a very similar effect if not better than hand hamemring. There was a link to a website I had for engineers that explained this but I will have to look for it. I have never been a fan of presses as I find them somewhat of a pain and I understand the possible downsides to them but that does not mean that some of these tools cannot be used to make simialr armour. I agree that they are not made historically and should not be marketed so as well. That is about ethics though not safety.

Brigandines are very common in the 15th and early 16th as well.... not that ancient.

RPM

Again I have to agree with Randall; the majority of the Rhoads collection is low carbon, some was high carbon untreated, and a little was treated like modern spring steel is so from a historical stand point real armor was not a durable as people are looking for today.

Thorkil I understand why you make armor the way you do; your costemers expect armor to last forever even if used for heavy duety combat this is the same with SCA armors.

First, I am sorry, but there is an error in my previous post, in this sentence : I can make a … in 18 ga mild steel (for example in breastplate) only with my naked fist.

It should be : I can make a dent in 18 ga mild steel (for example in breastplate) only with my naked fist.

I left 3 dots in the place, where I want to put the word "hollow". I wasn't sure, which word is correct, so I wanted to check it in dictionary and I simply forgot about it. :blush: It is funny, because the sentense chached completely with this error and is like I was able to make breastplate with with my naked hands. :eek:

I just meaned that I can do a dent with my fist in 18 ga brestplate.

Now, I have to get back to my work. I will answer later. Hope that is OK.

Comparing the medieval steel/iron used with the material now adays you have to take into account more then the carbon content and gauge. Like mensioned above the factor of heat-treatment, the big change this has on the finished piece, the non-homogenic and slagrich structure of medieval iron/steel making it unrealiable and weaker (not to rust tho). Also the fact that whatever we can see and find out about historical irons structure the blacksmith of the day would not have known this, therefor we see examples of low-carbon bascinets that where quench-"hardened", but not hardened..
One thing to concider is also that armours of the time met weapons made from the same steel. If we make low carbon, unhardened armours but face them off with well-hardened spring-steel weapons we have an unfavourable "hybrid".

Another factor to take into account is thickness to work from and thickness of finished piece is not the same thing. A couter started at 2,2mm and then hotraised and grounded might end up at 1,4mm..

This is very interesting discussion. Thanks for that. That’s a pity I don’t have much time.

Quote:

Thorkil, >You need to read William's Knight and the Blast furnace.

First, thanks for telling me about such a great book. I didn’t know about it, but I found some fragments in internet. Everyone can read a bit of it here http://books.google.pl/books?id=GpVbnsqAzxIC&...st+furnace
It is very expensive book, but after having read only some fragments, I believe it is worth those money. So, I am really grateful.

Quote:

Most armour of the medieval period was not heat treated to any meaningful manner. 1-1.2mm is a very common thickness in historic untreated armour I suspect though since the pieces that usually are tested for heat treatment are not the same as thickness that is hard to say for certain. One thing that is basically certain is that most armour even carbon steel was not heat treated. Sorry to have to tell you this but it is one of the LH/ reenactor myths that has permeated many stratas and embedded but it just is not backed up by the data availible.

Wait a moment. I think there could be a problem with my English nomenclature… Could someone explain me what exactly means “heat treat” in English. I was using this expression in sentence of “forging with using a fire”. Now, I have some suspicions that I was using incorrect words. What is correct in English for this : “hot forging”? “hot raising”?

So, I wanted to write that steel is getting bigger amount of carbon when it is hot forged on charcoal.

Quote:

If you can make a breastplate with your fists thats dang impressive and you should do it.

Randall, I just love this sentence. ;) Honestly. However, I have already explained it.

Quote:

Period steel is not of overly good quality often, another aspect that is in Williams book.

I don’t know what you meant by “good quality of steel”, but if majority of armour examples from late XIVth and XVth centuries, that I found in mentioned book (scaned fragments), are made of about 0,5% carbon (author calls it “medium-carbon steel”), so I am not so sure if in regards to writing that majority of armours from period are of low carbon contest/low steel quality.

As far as I know, nowadays, 0,5% contest of carbon is present in good quality constructional steel (medium-carbon steel) and in spring steels (different types of this steel contain from 0,4% up to 0,6-0,7%). There are many kinds of spring steel, now – better and worse. I don’t know all elements contained in steel of period, but if it contained very small amount of Si, Mn and P (like it was mentioned in William’s book), so spring steel I use now is richer only with about 1% of Cr (Chrome) and this is really good quality steel, but some kinds of spring steel has only 0.3% of chrom. Very often I use hot rolled medium-carbon constructional steel (about 0,4% of carbon) and I think this is good quality for helmets, even without tempering and this is normal steel, without other additions. And I think even this constructional steel (cold forged, as well as hot forged) is much, much better than normal, cold-rolled mild steel of the same thickness.

If with “heat-treat” you mean hardening (tempering?), so even not-hardened (tempered?) medium-carbon and spring steel is enough durable and springy, much more then mild.

One more thing : from 0,8% up to 2% of carbon those are tool (tooled?) steel, that is too breakable and stiff (inflexible) to make from it an armour. It simply break under hit. So I think armour made from 0,5-0,6% carbon steel are very good quality armours.

I wasn’t able to read all book, but what I have read is : from XIVth century began fast progress of metallurgy and producing steel. Thanks to development of bigger bloomery and thanks to using higher temperature in steel production process, steel contained more amount of carbon. And this is nothing new for me.

Quote:

The point about forging is a good one and I think overlooked often but I think it is dangerous to think that powertools are producing an inferior product as it can be proven that with things like >a power hammer you get a very similar effect if not better than hand hamemring. There was a link to a website I had for engineers that explained this but I will have to look for it. I have never >been a fan of presses as I find them somewhat of a pain and I understand the possible downsides to them but that does not mean that some of these tools cannot be used to make simialr >armour. I agree that they are not made historically and should not be marketed so as well. That is about ethics though not safety.

Arms and Armour market is huge. Everyone can make the way he likes the best (and probably everyone will say his way is the best ;) ) and every customer can chose, whatever prefers. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have my own opinion. Most of reenactors use machine woven wool material and clothing machine sewn. But that doesn’t mean this is the best and the only way. Personally, we (me and my wife) are using hand-woven materials (only wool and linen) and we sew our clothes by hands. Of course by machine you can make it similar and it would be easier and faster and probably even more precisely, but in our opinion it wouldn’t be authentic. Of course I don’t say everyone should do this way. Everything depends of one’s requirements and attitude to recreation.

Quote:

Brigandines are very common in the 15th and early 16th as well.... not that ancient.

Randall, now you are a bit picking at me, aren’t you? ;) I meant we are talking about 15th century plate armour. Not about ancient armour. Not about brigantine. Not about cote of plates. Now it’s better? ;) Besides, there is big difference between large surface of plate armour or a helmet and brigantine with small overlapping plaques. We shouldn’t compare it.

Quote:

Again I have to agree with Randall; the majority of the Rhoads collection is low carbon, some was high carbon untreated, and a little was treated like modern spring steel is so from a historical >stand point real armor was not a durable as people are looking for today.

James, what do you understand by saying “low carbon” and “high carbon” steel? For one 0,3% it’s low carbon and for other it could be medium-carbon.

Quote:

Comparing the medieval steel/iron used with the material now adays you have to take into account more then the carbon content and gauge. Like mensioned above the factor of heat-treatment, the big change this has on the finished piece, the non-homogenic and slagrich structure of medieval iron/steel making it unrealiable and weaker (not to rust tho). Also the fact that whatever we can see and find out about historical irons structure the blacksmith of the day would not have known this, therefor we see examples of low-carbon bascinets that where quench-"hardened", but not hardened..

Once again : what do you mean by low-carbon steel?

I don’t know researches about quality of armour in Middle Ages – whether there were majority of bad quality steel, or good quality. I just have will and ambition to make the best armours I am able to make and I think no one should criticize this with saying it is not historical. Besides, I doubt that anyone would want to advertise one’s wares with saying they are of bad quality, because that is like it was in Middle Ages.

Quote:

One factor might also be that armours of the time met weapons made from the same steel. If we make low carbon, unhardened armours but face them off with well-hardened spring-steel >weapons we have an unfavourable "hybrid".

I am not a weapon specialist, but, as far as I know, even so called “Viking sword” often had pattern welded blades, made of few different kinds of steel. But, I am not a specialist in this field.

Could you help me with meaning of those English words?
Tempering?
Quenching-hardening?
Hardening?
Heat-treating?

I just don’t want to make mistakes anymore and in my dictionary says : in English tempering is the same as hardening. In Polish we have few words of different meaning : hartowanie, odpuszczanie, kucie na gorąco, nawęglanie etc.

About the Windlass sallet...

While I agree that almost all Indian import armor is junk, some exceptions should be made, especially for this sallet. While not perfect it shape, it is not incorrect, and while it does need some work (glued in liner needs to be replaced, catch pin needs to be installed, buckles replaced), it is an excellent helmet, if it fits you. The fit and finish of the piece is on par with what I've seen from Czech armorers (which is a very good thing)...the rolls are clean and the lines are good.

For 200 dollars, this helmet is a bargain, but it would be a serviceable piece at twice the price. I am in the process of relpacing all import armor from my kit with Czech stuff, piece by piece, and this sallet will be last to go, and even when it does, it will be used as a loaner.

My head is on the big side, and this sallet fits me perfectly. If you have a tiny head, it may not be for you. Also, the quality of Windlass products varies greatly from piece to piece. I've seen 2 of these, and both have been very good. Others may have had different experiences.

Speaking of the quality of Windlass peices, how good is the gamberson they offer?

M.

- "Once again : what do you mean by low-carbon steel?"

What i mean and what i think most people mean is steel/iron that has a carbon content that makes it unhardenable and anything below that in carbon content.

Hmm...

I think my question of equipment went overboard and became a discussion of steel.

What I want help with is to find prizeworthy equipment and armour for a German mercenary operating in Sweden around 1480.