Making Riveted Chainmail tools

[Pekka]

Hello Steve,
It is funny, in how many different mail pieces you can see that 'step' when you learn what to look at.
About the rivet setting: The hand pressure is sufficient enough to peen the rivet well. It's all about the tools. With peening pliers made of end nippers you defenetly need to hit with a hammer. With the pliers I use there is no need for that. When making 'Steve-mail', that is (I really hope that you don't mind me calling The Mail with that name ?).
And I was speaking of making modern mail and I was speaking of modern tools.
I never mentioned, that piercing pliers might be authentic tools. But they are damn good tools today.
And people, use glass drill bits to make the best and strongest piercing bits into your pliers.

Erik,
Lacking in quality ? Yes, maybe. But I think it's better that people can freely speak of they tryings and tell if they find something new, instead keeping things on themselves. That's the best way to learn. Can you say that you haven't learned anything new about mail in the last few years. I certainly have. So some of my old posts are full of shit and can make me look like an eejit today but I try to learn something new allways and if I learn I try to tell everybody else as soon as I can. How many else does that ?
As I see it, mail doesn't need to be as authentic looking as possible if person making it doesn't care a shit about authenticy. I do care when I make mail, but I don't yell people who just want to make somekind of riveted mail. It's nice to have choices.

At last but not the least,
It's all the same, whether you use a hand drift or a pair of piercing pliers. That damned rivet hole will look exactly the same.

Drink beer and have fun, it's friday !
Pekka

[Brother Justin]

I feel as though I've brought out the heavyweights. Erik because he's the authority, and Steven because it was his site that got me thinking that rivited maile was even possible

I have quite a bit of hole punching and riviting experience that has gone along with my SCA armour construction. I have a hard rubber sheet a quarter of an inch thick that I use to absorb my leather punches that I was thinking about using to punch a hole in the rings.

If I am going to convert my process tongs to a hand drift, it would stand to reason that as my approach comes closer to how it was conjecturely done, there is less of a reason to drop the little bits that would make the armour 'wrong'. (That is because I actually find no process wrong, just at different places on the authenticity meter.)

I am probably annealing the rings wrong. Maybe I'll let them cool in sand or in the sun to really slow down the cooling process. I worry about them being too soft when done though. But here's my next big problem (now that I have y'all's attention)

Most of the cutters for rivited mail that I've seen have a groove in it so the rings are cut perfectly round with a preexisting overlap. But most of the history books say that the rings were punched through a cone to get them to overlap and stay round. But I have also read that most rings are oval or D shaped (that is, in early to high middle ages european mail) So it seems reasonable enough to me that cutters were problematic enough to make back in the day in the first place and a cutter with a groove in it might not be too feasable. The shoving a ring through a tapered cylinder seems too slow. Couldn't something like a jump ring plier be used to squeeze the ring into an overlap making it slightly oval and after that it would be flattened? How authentic would that step of the process be?

[Brother Justin]

With the pliers I use there is no need for that.

So Pekka, what kind of pliers do you use?

[Erik D. Schmid]

Hello Steve,

This is interesting - I have never seen any maille example that looked like it had been flattened and then lapped. As was noted, doing this would result in a definite "step" where the lapped ends overlap. All the historical maille I have seen had the ends crushed into one another.

You have seen it. Remember A2? The thing is that you did not know what to look for. The action of the setting tongs crushes the lapped ends together and wipes out much of the evidence that shows the stepped look you described, but not all of it. If you know what to look for it is readily apparent. Don't feel bad about not noticing it though as it has taken me years to see it.

For the longest time I refused to accept the fact that the links had been flattened before they were lapped. One reason was that it meant I was doing part of my process wrong for certain links. After I opened my mind to this idea I found the solution I was looking for. In the following picture you can see that there is no rounded shoulder area on either side of the lapped area.

[img]http://www.cloudnet.com/~erikdschmid/3.jpg[/img]

Had the links been flattened after they were lapped they would resemble those I posted earlier. As you can see they don't. Another thing that is readily apparent on these links is the amount of flattening they have received. Notice how the section width on each of the links is not uniform. They were clearly flattened with a hammer strike to the link and not with a piston type assembly. Had they been flattened with a piston the links would be almost identical to each other with regards to section width and they clearly are not.

Pekka,

But I think it's better that people can freely speak of they tryings and tell if they find something new, instead keeping things on themselves.

People can speak as free as they want about what they learn. I am not one of those people. I do this as a business. Were I to divulge every little nuance I have discovered in the years I have been doing this to everyone who wanted to know would not make for very good business sense would it? I believe in giving people a little bit of information and then seeing what they choose to do with it. What I don't believe in is holding someones hand through every step. One person who used to post on these boards wanted both Steve and I to give him all the information we learned so he would not have to reinvent the wheel. He did not want to do any of the legwork. What he did get was an education as to how I feel about individuals like him.

Over the years I believe I have given out a good deal of information in order to help people out. It is when that information is taken for granted that I tend to get a little hot under the collar. As you can see by what I wrote above I have learned a few new things about mail. You have to understand that because I do this as a business I am not going to be as forthcoming about new discoveries as someone who does this as a hobby. If everyone could do what I do there would be no point in my being in business. It is my tight lipped attitude that has allowed me to get to where I am today.

There are people out there reaching a point in their efforts that I was at several years ago. Could I have helped further their progress? Of course, but again that would not be a wise business move. Call me a prick, but that is the hard truth of the matter.

Justin,

The history books you are looking at are wrong. The cone/funnel/tapered hole ideas for link lapping have long been discarded. There are links that do look as though they are perfectly round, but upon closer inspection they are shown to be slightly elliptical. This goes for both round and flat section links. The flattened links are usually much more distorted than the round ones. I lap my links with only my fingers and a pair of pliers. This process results in subtle distortions. I have witnessed these same distortions on many of the original links I have examined.

Your idea of using a jump ring pliers is a good one. For clipping the links a simple side cutters is the best in my opinion. It gives an accurate look to the ends of the link.

[Steve S.]

About the rivet setting: The hand pressure is sufficient enough to peen the rivet well. It's all about the tools. With peening pliers made of end nippers you defenetly need to hit with a hammer. With the pliers I use there is no need for that.

Well, I should clarify. If you have a set of tongs with sufficiently long handles, you will be able to generate enough force to expand the rivet. It is important to note that, with wedge riveted maille at least, it is not sufficient to simply pein the point of the wedge into a head. With many, if not most, authentic examples, the main body of the rivet is expanded also, so that it completely fills the hole that it was driven in to.



I have found hand force to be insufficient to do this consistenly, and my own rivet setting tongs have handles roughly 6"-8" long, I'd guess. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how the force is applied to the rivet. But it is a significant amount.

And I was speaking of making modern mail and I was speaking of modern tools.
I never mentioned, that piercing pliers might be authentic tools. But they are damn good tools today.

Yes, I realized that.

And people, use glass drill bits to make the best and strongest piercing bits into your pliers.

Yes, glass/tile drill bits, with the tungsten-carbide bits, were one of my first candidates for punches. They make fine punches. As it turns out, though, you don't need to go to the trouble/expense. 3/16" drill bit blanks work just fine.

You have seen it. Remember A2? The thing is that you did not know what to look for. The action of the setting tongs crushes the lapped ends together and wipes out much of the evidence that shows the stepped look you described, but not all of it. If you know what to look for it is readily apparent. Don't feel bad about not noticing it though as it has taken me years to see it.

For the longest time I refused to accept the fact that the links had been flattened before they were lapped. One reason was that it meant I was doing part of my process wrong for certain links. After I opened my mind to this idea I found the solution I was looking for. In the following picture you can see that there is no rounded shoulder area on either side of the lapped area.

An interesting idea - that the rivet setting tongs are what are crushing the ring ends together and into one another, but I'm not convinced yet. I'm not sure what you mean by the "rounded shoulder area". In your latest picture, all I can clearly see are tool marks from (presumably) the rivet setting tongs. But, just as clearly, the ring ends have been crushed into one another. At which stage of construction this happened I cannot make out from the picture.

I'm not particularly worried about the order of the crushing-together, so much as the fact that with all historical examples that I have seen the ends are crushed into one another. You never see this kind of condition:

[img]http://www.forth-armoury.com/Product_Catalog/competition/competition3.jpg[/img]

Do you agree?

Another thing that is readily apparent on these links is the amount of flattening they have received. Notice how the section width on each of the links is not uniform. They were clearly flattened with a hammer strike to the link and not with a piston type assembly. Had they been flattened with a piston the links would be almost identical to each other with regards to section width and they clearly are not.

It is not easy to tell from the pictures - are the individual rings uniform in thickness? Because a piston flattening tool can also easily produce rings of varying thickness (say, by striking the piston harder or softer each time), though each individual ring should be of uniform thickness. Now if the individual rings themselves vary in thickness individually, then I agree this is a great indicator of "hand" flattening.

I just noticed what you were saying in your previous picture:
http://www.cloudnet.com/~erikdschmid/1.jpg

That is weird! The side of the ring opposite from the overlap has obviously been flattened, and the overlap has of course been flattened, but the wire in between has not! That is very strange to me. I cannot explain how the overlap region would get flattened, and the opposite side, too, but not the wire in between. Very cool.

Steve

[Erik D. Schmid]

Hey Steve,

You never see this kind of condition: Do you agree?

Yes I do.

It is not easy to tell from the pictures - are the individual rings uniform in thickness? Because a piston flattening tool can also easily produce rings of varying thickness (say, by striking the piston harder or softer each time), though each individual ring should be of uniform thickness. Now if the individual rings themselves vary in thickness individually, then I agree this is a great indicator of "hand" flattening.

Yes, but a piston will flatten the link uniformly all the way around, whereas a hammer strike can be tilted one way or the other. One spot on the link will be slightly more broad than the area opposite. I have seen this characteristic on numerous pieces. The easiest way to duplicate it is by flattening the link with a hammer. Also, the links that have this feature are thinner where the face is broader.

I cannot explain how the overlap region would get flattened, and the opposite side, too, but not the wire in between.

I can. The link was lapped prior to flattening after which it was flattened by a cocked hammer stroke. I have duplicated this effect countless times. As you know the lapped area is higher than the opposite side of the link, so a cocked stroke is needed to keep from flattening the lapped portion too much.

[Mark D. Chapman]

I can't resist participating. Unlike EriK I do not produce mail in volume, however I have researched the subject for quite a few years now (as long or longer than Erik and am published on the subject. Our experience usualy complements as he has research and volume experience and I have research and metallurgical / microscopic analysis experience.

1) A properly shaped pair of clenching pliers (or tongs) with concave wells top and bottom acts as a forming die. As such it willl compress thetips of the overlap into a tight fit and smooth transition with the ring wire. It should be noted that since we are talking about hand made tools there will be (as you see when studying multiple samples) a fair amount of variation in the finished product. I have experimented extensively with this and I am convinced that the end result we see is for the most part due to the final action of the clenching tongs.

2) In the german style of mail I agree with Erik that the wire was first flattened and then overlapped. I also think that shaped wells were used in the anvil surface when the overlap itself was flattened to help maintain its thickness for later shaping during the clenching process. This naturally tends to result in the effect seen in A2 where the thickness of the flattened wire increases slightly as it appraoches the overlap region.

3) Hammer strikes for flattening vs piston tools.
While I think it was poossible to make a smoth lapped piston tool (witness the process that David Sim came up with for making a matched punch and die using ground glass, I kind of doubt this was actually done.

Erik in doing many manufacturing runs has experienced the same effect that was seen in the middle ages. If you are assigned to doing the same thing over and over you get very good at it. You also get very CONSISTANT which modern people sometimes forget. As a devil's advocate I will admit that it is possible that with a piston tool whoose bottom is not perfectly parallel with the anvil surface and which is free to rotate in its socket you perhaps could produce the same effect that Erik is noting. That said with the medieval labor situation the greatest likelihood is that the links were flattend by a hand hammer.

4) The staple mail is interesting I will have to try a couple of ideas as to how to produce that result. Erik may be completely correct with his "cocked hammer stroke"

5) Steve, the picture you showed with the distinct steps at the overlap tips shows what I consider the biggest flaw in most modern attempts at riveted mail. That being an absolutely flat overlap with a rivet dome appearing above it. You just never see this in period mail.

6) On the subject of mail tools. Based on known medieval tools it was within their capability, at least in the 14th and 15th centuries to make a pair of piercing tongs by hand. earlier than this it might be possible but I at least have a lot of doubts. With this said we should all keep in mind that NO, I repeat NO, recognizable tools for making riveted mail dating from any era have ever been found. For piercing a hand drift is the most likely tool for the period. This is not to say that a pliers piercer could not in our time produce the same end result. The only way to settle the question would be a close microsopic examination of the pierced holes to see if there were distinguishing characteristics at the micro level that allowed one to tell the two processes apart.

7) Shape of the links
As has been said before medieval links are rarely found to be perfectly circular. Many factors contribute to this.
a) My studies have indicated that it is highly likely that most links were cut non-overlapped and overlapped by hand. (Squeezing with tongs, tapped with a hammer etc.) Mechanical aids like the suggested tapering hole (suggested by Burgess and as Erik says now out of date) or clenching around a mandrel produce very uniform circular links which are too uniform for medieval mail.
b) In many cases the metallurgical studies of even iron links show that the maker chose to heat the finished shirt to the critical temperature and at least normalize the finished product. In the cast of the few steel examples examined the links were heated and then quench hardened. Heating a shirt to forging temperature will soften the links enough that their shapes will distort. We see this in shirts where links are not only not circular but show some planer distortion as well.

7) Justin you do not need to fully anneal the mild steel wire before flattening or piercing. A normalizing step (heat to red heat and allow to air cool) will soften the links an adequate amount and be far easier than a true slow cool anneal. You can do this with a charcoal fire in a large tin can or with a propane torch.

On degrees of accuracy I would submit that my research samples are up at the same "accuracy" as Eriks. His volume is far higher though.

9) Square vs round wire to start with
To try to settle this a bit. There are micro characteristics of the mail link wire that clearly indicate, in every link In have examined so far, that the starting point was round wire. Yes there is wear and tear on mail but not too the extent that it completely obscures the original form.


Regards,
Mark D. Chapman
Mail Researcher

[Russ Mitchell]

Gentlemen: I need to beg a question at this stage of the discussion. I have recently performed ballistic tests designed to ascertain performance differences between different types of arrows against mail. Edit for clarity in avoiding cans of worms... NOT to determine the performance of arrows against mail, in which I believe the historical records can be taken at something very close to face value.

In almost every case of penetration, the links failed at the rivet. Now, partially, this may be due to the ridiculously poor metallurgy of the arrowheads involved. **BUT**, preliminary results from said shooting showed no effective difference in protection between typical Indian "import mail," and a swatch of Steve's manufacture. With a noted difference in rivet structure and position within the finished ring, I need to ask:

1. The pictures are a bit unclear to me, and this is not my specialty at all. To what extent are the rivets in Steve's work comparable to that of surviving mail?

2. In the surviving shirts of mail, at what point does one consistently see an attempt to produce a hardened mail shirt, as opposed to one of soft metal?

3. I have handled 15th-century mail from Hungary, and examined at a "observation distance" mail from the 16th century. Both sets of links involved were round wire. At the time, I was fairly convinced that the rivets were also round... after having seen various images, I'm withholding judgment on this. But my basic observations have indicated to me that under impact, round-sectional wire tends to take more damage, but deform relatively less than the flat-sectioned mail (which bent much more under sword strokes and arrow hits, but showed less outright damage from the treatment -- assuming cases where the link was not destroyed due to rivet failure). Given all of this context, and given the ability to do a metallurgical conversion vis-a-vis Chap. 9 of K&BFurnace, what are your opinions regarding expected performance characteristics with the hand-wrought mail or period-surviving mail. NOT DEGREE of performance, but QUALITIES... in other words, how, not how well?

Thanks, gents.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Russ,

Edit for clarity in avoiding cans of worms... NOT to determine the performance of arrows against mail, in which I believe the historical records can be taken at something very close to face value.

It does depend on the source of the historical record, but I understand what you are getting at.

To what extent are the rivets in Steve's work comparable to that of surviving mail?

In some ways they are similar, but in others not. The two main differences in Steve's rivets are the manner in which they are piened and in their length. Many of the historical pieces I have seen have rivets that are almost twice as long as the ones offered by Steve. Instead of them being more of an equilateral triangle they are instead shaped much like the wedges used to split wood. The piening that Steve's rivets receive is close to what was done historicall, but due to the steps preceding it the rivets do not flatten out on the underside as much as their historical counterparts.

As Steve has stated on this thread, his goal was to provide a way of mass producing riveted mail in a timely fashion utilising modern techniques that had somewhat of an accurate look and feel to it and be more affordable than the custom work offered by another well known manufacturer. Much more than the currently imported Indian pieces. I feel he has accomplished what he set out to do.

In the surviving shirts of mail, at what point does one consistently see an attempt to produce a hardened mail shirt, as opposed to one of soft metal?

Mark can probably answer this one better than I, but I will give it a go. First I will state that an extremely small number of original mail items have been subjected to metallographic testing, so our knowledge of this is going to be quite limited. Hardened and tempered mail does not seem to make an appearence until the 15th century. Some of the pieces analysed do show signs of being heat treated to some degree, but it seems that it was done in order to soften the metal and make it tougher rather than to harden it. Also, some of these hardened shirts were not meant to be worn in a combat environment, but instead to be worn under civilian clothing to protect the wearer from assassination attempts. One of the Medicis was protected in this fashion.

Given all of this context, and given the ability to do a metallurgical conversion vis-a-vis Chap. 9 of K&BFurnace, what are your opinions regarding expected performance characteristics with the hand-wrought mail or period-surviving mail.

I am going to be a little dense here and ask you to explain this last question a bit further before answering.

[Russ Mitchell]

Okay, Erik, let me rephrases it based on your reply. Given what you know of the mostly-unhardened mail, do you think that the difference in rivets between what Steve has done for production purposes would have an effect on how the link would move under stress? Or, since the rivet holes are effectively filled in the process either way, do you see there being little to no difference in how the two links would behave?

[SIR ESME]

Erik...it seems that we have different views concerning "steps". What i meant were steps as seen on the pic posted by Stephen. And as you already did you agree with me that period maille did not have such steps. And now as we are all happy we can concentrate on our hobby/work: riveting small iron links :o)

P.S.: My hint to be a german was only to make clear that i have probably higher chances then most of us (except of you) to see such maille in real, though i don't know how much of this stuff is out there in other countries.

Regards

[Erik D. Schmid]

Russ,

One advantage that wedge shaped rivets have over round ones is that wedge rivets make the link less prone to scissoring at the joint than round ones do when force is applied.

In the many destructive tests that I have done the links almost invariably fail everywhere but the joint. This could be due to the hardening effects caused by the rivet setting tongs on the lapped area.

[Russ Mitchell]

And wedge vs. triangle?

It's an interesting problem. Unfortunately, I can't afford to buy and trash one of your mail shirts (would love to have a swatch to test under the same circumstances as the others for comparative purposes, depending on what you'd need to charge), but if there is that significant a difference between failure at rivet, and failure elsewhere, then I'll have to look into that very closely. Won't affect my latest research, since the quality of the mail was explicitly "factored out" as an issue, but if your experience holds as standard, it will make the arrowhead metallurgy a significant issue down the line.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Wedge is the same as triangle. The cost for a swatch depends on several factors, size being one of them.

[Russ Mitchell]

Let me take that part offlist rather than hijack the thread...

[Steve S.]

It is not easy to tell from the pictures - are the individual rings uniform in thickness? Because a piston flattening tool can also easily produce rings of varying thickness (say, by striking the piston harder or softer each time), though each individual ring should be of uniform thickness. Now if the individual rings themselves vary in thickness individually, then I agree this is a great indicator of "hand" flattening.


Yes, but a piston will flatten the link uniformly all the way around, whereas a hammer strike can be tilted one way or the other. One spot on the link will be slightly more broad than the area opposite. I have seen this characteristic on numerous pieces. The easiest way to duplicate it is by flattening the link with a hammer. Also, the links that have this feature are thinner where the face is broader.

I think you missed my question up there. I agree that a piston type of tool will result in a completely uniform thickness of ring, which is why I asked:

"...are the individual rings uniform in thickness?" when referring to your picture.

What I'm getting at is the picture you provides clearly shows that the each ring varies in thickness from its neighbors. But the picture does not clearly show if each ring varies in thickness itself. Do they? If each ring varies in thickness itself, then clearly you ar correct, this is great evidence for hammer flattening over piston flattening. If the rings, individually, are relatively uniform in thickness, then even if they vary with respect to their neighbors this would not rule out a piston flattening tool, as rings of varying thickness would be the simple result of striking the tool with different amounts of force for each ring, which happens naturally.

Note that I'm not really arguing for the piston tool, just trying to clarify that the rings are really varying indivdually, not just neighbor-to-neighbor.

And, of course, the ring you show with the dimple on the opposite side of the overlap is an extreme example of non-uniformity in individual ring thickness, and is a great example of a "non-piston" flattening scenario.

I can. The link was lapped prior to flattening after which it was flattened by a cocked hammer stroke. I have duplicated this effect countless times. As you know the lapped area is higher than the opposite side of the link, so a cocked stroke is needed to keep from flattening the lapped portion too much.

Very cool. I've never tried to flatten rings with a hammer without actually holding the ring down to the anvil face by pressing on the ring just where that hammer dimple is - on the opposite side of the ring from the overlap. I used to use a penny to hold the ring to spare my finger as I hammered the overlap. I'll have to play around with trying to flatten some rings with a hammer without touching the ring. Obviously with the rings I was hand-hammering the ring could not get hammered opposite the overlap because I was holding it there.

1) A properly shaped pair of clenching pliers (or tongs) with concave wells top and bottom acts as a forming die. As such it willl compress thetips of the overlap into a tight fit and smooth transition with the ring wire. It should be noted that since we are talking about hand made tools there will be (as you see when studying multiple samples) a fair amount of variation in the finished product. I have experimented extensively with this and I am convinced that the end result we see is for the most part due to the final action of the clenching tongs.

I have carved numerous sets of tongs with depressions, trying to duplicate the finished swaged look through the tongs, and have had little success. Obviously this sort of thing can work, because there are examples of maille with little designs embossed into the rivet face, but either my wire is not terribly plastic or I'm not making my tongs right. I'm envious that you guys have gotten this to work.

3) Hammer strikes for flattening vs piston tools.
While I think it was poossible to make a smoth lapped piston tool (witness the process that David Sim came up with for making a matched punch and die using ground glass, I kind of doubt this was actually done.

For clarification, note that I have never advocated the "piston tool" as being historically correct, though I am certain that some kind of coining process was used for some maille, notably the shirt in the Higgins with writing stamped into each ring. These rings almost had to be coined, and this could not be done during rivet setting, as the writing goes around the entire surface of the ring.

The primary motivation for the piston tool I developed was to create a uniform way to consistently flatten rings with little skill. In other words, I wanted instant repeatability (manufacturability).

Erik in doing many manufacturing runs has experienced the same effect that was seen in the middle ages. If you are assigned to doing the same thing over and over you get very good at it. You also get very CONSISTANT which modern people sometimes forget. As a devil's advocate I will admit that it is possible that with a piston tool whoose bottom is not perfectly parallel with the anvil surface and which is free to rotate in its socket you perhaps could produce the same effect that Erik is noting. That said with the medieval labor situation the greatest likelihood is that the links were flattend by a hand hammer.

I don't disagree with any of this, and in fact I say in all my demos that the most likely way things were done (punching, flattening) is likely the most simple, that is, by hand, and that if you are required to do this all day if you want to eat you will probably get quite good at it.

1. The pictures are a bit unclear to me, and this is not my specialty at all. To what extent are the rivets in Steve's work comparable to that of surviving mail?

I use small wedges (triangles) of steel, which were used in some varieties of medieval maille. Erik's criticisms of my rivets are right-on. Originally they were even less pointy, and caused production problems as there was not enough rivet protruding to make a good rivet head. Going much longer was causing a problem with "curly-que" or fold-over rivet heads, but we probably don't have good, correct clinching tongs.

2. In the surviving shirts of mail, at what point does one consistently see an attempt to produce a hardened mail shirt, as opposed to one of soft metal?

The only research I am aware of in this regard is the work by C.S. Smith, where he analyzed 16 rings of known provinence. Of those, only some 3 or 4 (memory fails) contained enough carbon to be considered steel, and thus to respond to heat treatment. There was also mention of which rings had been attempted to harden by quenching (even ones without enough carbon to respond to it), but again I forget the specifics.

There is also the passage in "Natural Magic", circa 1558, I believe, which provides a complete passage of instructions for the carburization, quenching, and tempering of maille specifically.

As Erik notes, I doubt sufficient metallurgical analysis has been done on a wide enough range of samples to draw many conclusions, though based on what is published and available today, one would likely conclude that most maille was made of low carbon steel (iron), and was occassionally made of higher-carbon steel and/or was carburized.

Steve

[Magmaforge]

Going to stick my neck out a bit here. Russ, I think you missed one variable; the hardness/purity level of the iron in the rings. Erik's maille is pure iron. It is soft compared to galvy or some carbon steel. I have been told that with pure, unhardened iron, the ring flexes more when struck, deforming under extreme pressure rather than being forced apart. You may not have worked with such rings yet, and I consider it an important variable. Since you seem to be working out a deal with Erik, you'll get some of this type of maille anyways =)

edit: thanks for the discussion!
-Mag

[Brian W. Rainey]

Erik's maille is pure iron.

While Erik is definitely more qualified to answer this question...

I think you meant some of Erik's mail is pure iron.

I am aware of one Roman(?) piece that was pure iron mail (I think he was working on it the first time I met him, it was a truly a thing of beauty). And there were probably others. However, I think most is made of mild steel.

Also, I believe Erik was referring to mild steel in regards to the strength conversation in question.

Erik?

[Pendragon]

Frederick,

Wonderful and very informative shots of your maille making process.

Does your punch have a sharp point and stretch out a hole in the metal or is it flat on the end and shear out a plug of metal?

Also what diameter wire are you starting out with?

I have a zillion 1/16" rings here to make rivetted maille but put the project aside after striking problems punching the holes. Perhaps this will motivate me again.

Best regards
Mike

[Erik D. Schmid]

Steve,

What I'm getting at is the picture you provides clearly shows that the each ring varies in thickness from its neighbors. But the picture does not clearly show if each ring varies in thickness itself. Do they? If each ring varies in thickness itself, then clearly you ar correct, this is great evidence for hammer flattening over piston flattening. If the rings, individually, are relatively uniform in thickness, then even if they vary with respect to their neighbors this would not rule out a piston flattening tool, as rings of varying thickness would be the simple result of striking the tool with different amounts of force for each ring, which happens naturally.

I think I see where you are going with this. Yes, the links do vary slightly in thickness from one another at the flattened areas. Some are more and some are less. The unflattened areas to the left and right of the lapped joint are fairly consistant between the links which would indicate that they were all made from the same thickness of wire to begin with.

The links with the staple rivet are an extreme case I will admit, but it gets the point across much easier for most people to see than one with a very subtle degree of variance. The other links that have been flattened prior to lapping are a little more difficult to discern whether they were flattened with a hammer or piston. However, if you know what to look for it is readily apparent in most cases. In this area I am lucky in that I have figured out what to look for after crafting several hundred thousand links. I would look at the original links and then try and figure out how it was done. Using the simplest methods I was able to achieve the same results I was observing in the original links.

I have carved numerous sets of tongs with depressions, trying to duplicate the finished swaged look through the tongs, and have had little success. Obviously this sort of thing can work, because there are examples of maille with little designs embossed into the rivet face, but either my wire is not terribly plastic or I'm not making my tongs right. I'm envious that you guys have gotten this to work.

As Mark can readily attest to, crafting mail in such a way as to make it look practically indistinguishable from the original examples is a very fussy operation. Getting the tongs just right is one of the most difficult parts in this operation. The funny thing is that there is a large number of people in the UK who don't believe in the setting tong idea. These are people within the academic community no less. There are going to be several very informative articles about this theory in future issues of the journal that are being written at the moment.

For clarification, note that I have never advocated the "piston tool" as being historically correct, though I am certain that some kind of coining process was used for some maille, notably the shirt in the Higgins with writing stamped into each ring. These rings almost had to be coined, and this could not be done during rivet setting, as the writing goes around the entire surface of the ring.

I also will readily agree that a coining operation was done on some mail. However, most of this was done on non-European mail it would seem judging by the pieces we have left. To clarify, the coined links in European mail seem to be confined to makers links and talismanic links, whereas on non-European mail it was done to every link. The example you cite in the Higgins indeed was crafted with coined links. I would venture to say that after looking at the links closely, that they were coined and then lapped, pierced and riveted. The final clenching of the lapped area looks to have been done by a shaped set of dies.

Going much longer was causing a problem with "curly-que" or fold-over rivet heads, but we probably don't have good, correct clinching tongs.

Funny you should mention this. I have noticed this effect on A2. Also, it is readily apparent on many of the links that make up the mail sleeves A10-11.

Brian is correct about the metal I use. For the most part I use pure iron, but mild steel is also used. I even use wrought iron once in a whole, but that is rare as I have to make my own wire.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Since this thread is about riveted mail tools and the effects they impart to the links, I thought it would be interesting to showcase a few modern examples of mass-production mail. Namely, that offered by Steve Sheldon of Forth Armoury. I applaud Steve for stepping up and discussing his mail in this thread and accepting criticism of it in a very diplomatic fashion. It speaks a lot about his character. While we are at it we will also look at that being offered by Von Sussen Enterprises and the new mail being offered by Historic Enterprises. Now I hope my analysis of these pieces does not offend anyone.

As has already been discussed in this thread, the setting tongs used to set the rivets are what imparts the final shape to the lapped area of the riveted links. However, there are a couple of things that must be done to the link prior to the rivet setting in order for the tongs to properly shape the link.

This first image is of the small link mail being offered by Forth Armoury. Notice how the lapped area is extremely flattened. This is a result of the initial link flattening procedure. The link is completely flattened after it has been lapped, or in this case cut with the ends already lapped. When it is then flattened, the lapped area is twice as thick as the rest of the link which causes it to be much more broad than it would have been if the link had been flattened prior to lapping, or if the link would have been selectively flattened like the example of the mail links closed with a staple where only the lapped area and the area directly opposite were flattened leaving the shoulders on either side of the lapped joint rounded.

[img]http://www.cloudnet.com/~erikdschmid/forth-mail.jpg[/img]

Because of the way these links are flattened, there is not enough material for the setting tongs to properly shape. In essence they simply flatten out the area a little more and slightly peen the rivet. However, were these links to be done in an historical fashion the time of manufacture would be increased as would the cost, so all in all this is not a bad compromise.

As a comparison to the above sample we have the wedge riveted mail being offered by Von Sussen Enterprises. Notice the similarities in construction? It seems that Steve's method of mass-production is well thought of. Also, notice on Steve's mail and this mail how the rivet bulge is encircled by a slightly raised area. This comes from the rivet dimple in the setting tongs being larger than the amount of material that is meant to be shaped by it. This can be cured by either using a larger rivet, or by having tongs made with a smaller dimple.

[img]http://www.cloudnet.com/~erikdschmid/sussen-mail.jpg[/img]

The method in which these links are lapped and flattened is essential to having them mass-produced. It makes the piercing operation that much easier. For them to be done in a more historical fashion like that done by both Mark Chapman and myself would require more skill on the part of the workers doing this in India. Not that they could not do it mind you, it would just increase the cost of production. So, again here is an area that for all intents and purposes is able to be streamlined. The loss of accuracy is greatly offset by the low purchase price.

Now we come to the new mail being offered by Historic Enterprises. This is also the same mail being offered by Get Dressed For Battle. In this example you can easily make out the little ridge that encircles the rivet dome. Here again it seems that Steve's method of mass-production is being employed.

[img]http://www.cloudnet.com/~erikdschmid/he-mail.jpg[/img]

Gwen wrote:

This maille is not the same as what is being offered by either von Sussen or Forth Armoury. This maille is being made for Get Dressed for Battle (UK) in a factory dedicated to maille production, and we are the exclusive US distributor. GDFB are the same folks who supplied the maille for the Ridley Scott movie "Crusade".

As we can see by the above pictures there really is no difference at all in the manufacturing process used to create these links, so this statement does not really hold true other than Steve's mail does not have the baked oil coating offered by Sussen and HE.

Now, as has been shown here and previously in this thread the setting tongs are key to getting a proper shape to the lapped area. But, the lapping and flattening stages must be done correctly in order to allow the tongs to do their job. For those of you who are thinking about crafting your own mail, please take to heart the things that have been gone over in this thread. Another thing, ask some more questions. This thread seems to have disolved to having only a few posters. I know there are good many people out there who have questions, so please ask them.

I want to close this post by saying that Steve has done an admirable job of developing a process of manufacture that has allowed more people to have a more accurate riveted mail product than the original stuff that Museum Replicas offered several years ago.

Cheers to you Steve

[William de Grey]

Erik

Also, notice on Steve's mail and this mail how the rivet bulge is encircled by a slightly raised area. This comes from the rivet dimple in the setting tongs being larger than the amount of material that is meant to be shaped by it. This can be cured by either using a larger rivet, or by having tongs made with a smaller dimple.

Would a smaller dimple cause more material to end up in the raised area, or would this allow enough material for the tongs to properly shape the overlap? Are the tongs hammered on to set the rivet or is hand preasure enough? The tongs I made were from 8 inch pliers and almost all of the rivets I set curled or folded.

Thank you for all the info

William

[Erik D. Schmid]

William,

Would a smaller dimple cause more material to end up in the raised area, or would this allow enough material for the tongs to properly shape the overlap?

A smaller dimple will get rid of the small ridge that encircles the rivet bulge seen in the above examples as all of the material will completely fill the dimple. Now this is taking into account that all of the other factors will remain the same. The material needed for shaping by the tongs comes from the link itself and not from the rivet. This is why the lapped area should not be flattened much at all. Only enough to allow piercing. As an example, if the wire being used is 1.3mm thick, then the lapped area should be flattened to only about 1.5mm - 2mm. Granted this only leaves a very small area to be pierced, but if it is flattened any more than this the lapped area will not be able to be formed. The reason is that you can't push the flattened metal of the link back into the wells of the tongs. It doesn't work that way.

Are the tongs hammered on to set the rivet or is hand preasure enough?

Yes, the tongs have to be struck with a hammer blow in order to properly set the rivet thereby strengthening the lapped joint. Hand pressure alone is not enough.

[Steve S.]

Gwen wrote:

This maille is not the same as what is being offered by either von Sussen or Forth Armoury. This maille is being made for Get Dressed for Battle (UK) in a factory dedicated to maille production, and we are the exclusive US distributor. GDFB are the same folks who supplied the maille for the Ridley Scott movie "Crusade".

Hi Erik! Thanks for the kind words.

In fact, the maille being supplied to GDFB (UK) is virtually identical to the maille that I taught the Indians to make, and, in fact, is being manufactured by the Indian manufacturer Indian Handicrafts & Textiles. The only real difference is that the maille produced by Indian Handicrafts & Textiles is delivered exceptionally grimy and oily, and requires extensive cleaning and polishing before I feel good about shipping it to my customers.

Indian Handicrafts & Textiles is not the original manufacturer that I taught to make this maille, but, as I have known for several months now, now several manufacturers have picked up this style of maille. In fact, I suspect that my original manufacturer either sold off or outsourced production of this maille several months ago.

I had recently switched to buying from Indian Handicrafts & Textiles, because their prices were much cheaper than my original supplier. This was going to allow me to start selling all-riveted maille at the prices previously used for alternating-row. However, I was recently informed that they would no longer sell to me because GDFB had exclusive rights to the maille, including the US. According to Historic Enterprise's web site, they are now the US Distributor for GDFB.

This is to be expected - I knew when I got into this and taught the Indians how to do it that it would not be long before the process was copied and widely distributed. I never expected to be cut out of being a buyer, though. However, as I told my supplier, I taught the Indians how to make it, I can easily teach the Pakistanis, Mexicans, and Phillipinos how to make it, too.

Ultimately, I hope my contribution to the reenacting world will be to have brought a highly authentic version of riveted maille to the public at an extremely affordable price.

Steve

[Brian W. Rainey]

I never expected to be cut out of being a buyer, though. However, as I told my supplier, I taught the Indians how to make it, I can easily teach the Pakistanis, Mexicans, and Phillipinos how to make it, too.

Ultimately, I hope my contribution to the reenacting world will be to have brought a highly authentic version of riveted maille to the public at an extremely affordable price.

Steve

Getting tossed off the boat that you set to sail. Now THAT is a rough lessen!

If it helps, at all..... It is generally understood by most in the community, I would hope, that you did the research and footwork to make a style of more accurate rivetted mail accessible to the masses.

For that we salute you, Steve!

Without having a sample of each in hand... I would be hard pressed to believe that SofC, von Sussen and GDFB/Historic Enterprises were NOT made by the same manufacturer or two seperate manufacturers using a similar copy of the same type of tooling.

This said, it would appear obvious that the GDFB mail is a direct result of Steve's efforts!

I would think that the shape of the overlap, cut of the links and peened rivet are suspect. This along with the raised area around the rivet are simply too coincidental in all THREE examples!

[Erik D. Schmid]

Since you got hosed on this deal I wonder where Sussen is getting his stuff then and if he will eventually be cut out as well.

[William de Grey]

Erik
Do you have a photo of the setting tongs that you use? Are they the same style that Steve sells?

William

[Erik D. Schmid]

William,

No, I don't have any pictures of the tongs I use. They are one of my little trade secrets.

Besides I don't use just one set of tongs, but instead have a different set for every link style I make. This also means that I have one for each wire size as well. In other words I have a whole box full of them. They are nothing like the ones Steve sells. I start with a pair of needle nose pliers and modify them to suit my needs.

The only way people get to see my tongs is by either coming to the Minnesota Renaissance Festival and seeing me do demos at the Arms & Armor booth or by stopping by my house. On Friday the 24th of this month there is going to be an informal armour gathering at my place. Brian Rainey and I will be the hosts, so you can expect an interesting evening. As such my workshop will be open for perusal by interested parties. Those interested in attending should contact either Brian or myself for more information.

[William de Grey]

Erik

No, I don't have any pictures of the tongs I use. They are one of my little trade secrets.

I figured as much, but it was worth a shot.

The problem that I have with my tongs is that the top and bottom of the outside are rounded. This causes hammer hits to glance off and the tongs to slide around on the anvil. I will have to try to modify them to compinsate for this.

The only way people get to see my tongs is by either coming to the Minnesota Renaissance Festival and seeing me do demos at the Arms & Armor booth or by stopping by my house. On Friday the 24th of this month there is going to be an informal armour gathering at my place. Brian Rainey and I will be the hosts, so you can expect an interesting evening. As such my workshop will be open for perusal by interested parties. Those interested in attending should contact either Brian or myself for more information.

I would love to make it to these gatherings, however the mileage from California makes the trip prohibitive.

[Erik D. Schmid]

William,

The problem that I have with my tongs is that the top and bottom of the outside are rounded. This causes hammer hits to glance off and the tongs to slide around on the anvil. I will have to try to modify them to compinsate for this.

An easy cure for ths is to heat up your tongs until they are a bright orange colour and smack them with a hammer. This will help to flatten the top and bottom enough so that they will sit flat on the surface of your anvil. This will keep the hammer from slipping off when they are struck.

I would love to make it to these gatherings, however the mileage from California makes the trip prohibitive.

Yes, that would tend to make it a wee bit expensive. You could always move to either Minnesota (preferred) or Wisconsin (okay, but not as good as Minnesota, but far better than Iowa). That way you would be closer to many of the most colourful people in the armouring world.

[Brian W. Rainey]

That way you would be closer to many of the most colourful people in the armouring world.

Why are my ears burning?

[William de Grey]

Erik,

An easy cure for ths is to heat up your tongs until they are a bright orange colour and smack them with a hammer. This will help to flatten the top and bottom enough so that they will sit flat on the surface of your anvil. This will keep the hammer from slipping off when they are struck.

Wouldn't that make the tongs as soft as the rivet and the link, or is that hot enough to remove the hardness?

You could always move to either Minnesota (preferred) or Wisconsin (okay, but not as good as Minnesota, but far better than Iowa). That way you would be closer to many of the most colourful people in the armouring world.

As appealing as that sounds, I would hate to have to leave my Wife and boys behind. They are happy where we are.

I will have to settle with the archive to provide contact with the colourful people.

[Brian W. Rainey]

Erik,

An easy cure for ths is to heat up your tongs until they are a bright orange colour and smack them with a hammer. This will help to flatten the top and bottom enough so that they will sit flat on the surface of your anvil. This will keep the hammer from slipping off when they are struck.

Wouldn't that make the tongs as soft as the rivet and the link, or is that hot enough to remove the hardness?

If I may, without stepping on the GRAND MASTER's toes (or ego):

If you pruchase decent tool steel pliers they will be made out of a steel that is superior in hardeness and durability than the metal used in the links even after the heatinging and air cooling.

However, if you would like to bring them back to a more hardened state you can heat them up (after flattening them out, as Erik mentioned) and then quench them by submerging the heated section in cool water. This would help with the durability, also. They should last quite a bit longer if this step is performed.

[William de Grey]

Brian,
Would it be better to use oil to quench tool steel? I have herd that using water to quench tool steel can cause cracks. Water would be easier, as I am not sure what type of oil would be needed.

William

[Brian W. Rainey]

Brian,
Would it be better to use oil to quench tool steel? I have herd that using water to quench tool steel can cause cracks. Water would be easier, as I am not sure what type of oil would be needed.

William

Yes, quenching in oil can be better. However, I doubt that you would get any cracks or significant issues with water for this use.

I think Steve has mentioned this in one or more of his tooling threads/articles.