Making Riveted Chainmail tools

[Erik D. Schmid]

William,

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

And a colourful bunch they are. If you ever find yourself in the midwest let us know and we will get together.

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

Yes, that does make them soft. However, as Brian stated the tongs can be then rehardened by bringing them up to heat and quenching them. I use water. All they need then is to be tempered.

Why are my ears burning?

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

For this blatant display of disrespect you shall suffer greatly. Just wait until next week knave.

[SIR ESME]

OK...i read the thread several times and looked at the pictures. But there is still this question.
Maybe i am especially stupid or only don't know what to look for but Erik (or any of the others) : What do you mean with "rounded shoulder area on either side of the lapped area"?
I know that this question has been asked before but i have not been able to find the answer.
When i look at the overlap-areas of the rings at the first two pictures of The Mail Research Society and the third picture i'm not able to see any differences. Both seem to have the watershed-effect...i'm simply clueless.
Any explanations, so i can understand it?

Regards and Thanks

[Pekka]

When you look at the overlap closely, you can see that the flattened wire of the ring goes under the wire end in the overlap and the wire end in the overlap does not blend completely with the flattened ring wire; there is a small step (a bit rounded) in the wire end in the overlap, where it meets the ring wire. That's how I see those 'shoulders'.
And that shows that the ring has been flattened prior to the overlapping.These 'shoulders' are common with the 'watershed' overlaps, they don't count each others out.
Now lets hear how some english speaking masters are going to explain the same thing.

Have fun, it's weekend again
Pekka

[Erik D. Schmid]

Esme,

What I mean by a link having rounded shoulders is that it has undergone only partial flattening. Here is the process used to achieve this efect:

1) Link is cut from coil.
2) Ends of link are lapped.
3) Link is flattened with a cocked, or angled, hammer strike that only slightly flattens the lapped ends while flattening the area opposite them much more.

Understand that when a link is lapped and placed on a flat surface, the lapped area will be taller than the other areas of the link. Were this type of link to be flattened completely it would look like the links being offered by Steve and the companies using his process. The lapped ends would be flattened quite a bit and as such be very broad.

With the type of flattening shown in the following picture the lapped ends are only flattened slightly, roughly half of what they would be using the previous method.

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

The area in the red circle is what is being referred to as the shoulder area. The green circle indicates the area reffered to as being opposite the lapped joint. Is this easier for you to understand? I admit that I should have done this sooner to avoid any misunderstandings.

Hope this helps.

[SIR ESME]

AAAAAHHHHH! :o)
I understand. The "shoulders" refer to the wire next to the overlap. When you first overlap and then flatten the ring you can not obtain a flat wire next to the overlap, without flatten the overlap to much. To flatten the overlap successfully you need the cocked hammer strike that leads to round wire next to the overlap and flat wire at the place that is opposite the overlap. Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge :o)

Best Regards

[Greyholt]

Hi.

Wow, this is very cool... going straight to the top for the info! [img]http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/grinser/grinning-smiley-043.gif[/img]
Anyway, enough brown-nosing...


Mr. Schmid.
How is the 'staple' form achieved? Are those actually two distinct rivet heads, or does the punch simply shape it that way? Also, if it's the former, then is the rivet really a staple shape, or are there two separate rivets?

I've seen pics of this type before, so I've always wondered.


Thank you very much.



.............Greyholt

[Erik D. Schmid]

Pictures really do add a lot to the explanation don't they? You have understood what I have been trying to say perfectly.

[Erik D. Schmid]

Grey,

How is the 'staple' form achieved? Are those actually two distinct rivet heads, or does the punch simply shape it that way? Also, if it's the former, then is the rivet really a staple shape, or are there two separate rivets?

The staple rivet is just that, a staple. The setting tongs are what gives shape to the rivet heads. The hole is pierced the same way as if you were only going to use a wedge shaped rivet.

[Greyholt]

So,

Are there actually two holes where the staple tips come through, or am I way off course here?



............Greyholt

[Erik D. Schmid]

There is only one hole. I should have been more clear when I said that the hole was pierced in the same way as if for a wedge rivet.

[Liebaart]

I have been following this discussion with the greatest of interest (of course). Time to throw in my thoughts.

The rounded shoulder effect should ALSO be possible to obtain with a standard piston flattening tool. There is only a small trick to it which is very simple. But pardon me for not reveiling it right now. I haven't actually tried it yet. Hope to do that tomorrow if I can find some time.


Question for Erik.
With your new insights and furthered studies of original mail items, what is the most common type of mail of the late 13th century in Western Europe? Does it have the rounded shoulders? Or is only the overlap flattened?

Joris

[Alexander of Derlington]

I have been trying to find info on 13th C maille as well for purposes of making my own set. I have a couple of questions and I hope someone can answer without violating any trade secrets.

I have a 1250-1300 persona from northern England and I am looking to complete my armour by addition of riveted maille. Would I be correct in assuming that a typical late 13th C maille for a minor landowner would be half solid, half riveted links of approximately 8mm internal diameter made of 18 gauge wire riveted links. 1.2 mm crossection solid links?


Rgds
Alex

[Mark D. Chapman]

1) Erik you stated “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.â€Â

[Erik D. Schmid]

Mark,

[quote]1) Erik you stated “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.â€Â

[Liebaart]

It does Erik, thanks for your answers.

As promised yesterday, I performed a small test trying to replicate the round shoulders with my normal standard tools including the flattening piston. Here is the result :

[img]http://home.tiscali.be/klauwaer/malien/roundshoulder.jpg[/img]

Hey, look !
They even are slightly oval ! This is not because of the flattening, but because I squeezed the rings slightly prior to punching the hole. This makes them oval and makes sure the overlap is nicely aligned for the hole punching.

These are just the very first three rings I did, and I am quite pleased with the result. With a little bit of practice, the result should get even better. They are made from 1,2 mm wire wound around an 8 mm rod.

How is it done? Simple. Do not put the flattening tool simply on top of the ring as is shown here :

[img]http://home.tiscali.be/klauwaer/malien/pletten2.jpg[/img]

Instead, make sure that one edge of the tool's base rests on a piece of wire or plate. This will make the tool tilt a bit, but enough to get the effect. Only thing to make sure is that the ring lies in the right direction.

Joris

[Alexander of Derlington]

Thank you for the information.

Rgds

Alex

[Angus Bjornssen]

you bastards!!! all of you!!! you've put it back into my skull to try maille again!! i hate you!!!

seriously though, my efforts at butted maille after a while just did not seem worth the effort since it would not be a truly effective material for almost any combat unless made from excessively thick wire wound to an unusually small diameter. which, as we all know, means it would weigh FAR too much for any sustained use. also, i started thinking that butted maille would make my kit look more like a toy while riveted would make it look a bit more convincing.

in another thread on the subject i theorized that a machine could be made to form, flatten and pierce rings for riveted maille, thus making them commercially viable in the US and Europe against the rings made in India.

Now for the question, would it make a lick of difference to anyone who is interested in the type of maille produced by Steve if the rings were machine made or hand made? i'm assuming that the rings would be sold in a sort of kit form. fully manufactured products would obviously be possible as well. my guess is that it would not since many solid rings, from what i have read, are punched and the difference between machine and hand punching are apparently negligible.

okay, there was a major drift off topic. sorry. we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

ps, Erik, your work is amazing. thank you for all the info you have let slip. i'm thinking about trying out at least a small patch using your techniques. once i figure out how to make the clenching too.

[Brian W. Rainey]

in another thread on the subject i theorized that a machine could be made to form, flatten and pierce rings for riveted maille, thus making them commercially viable in the US and Europe against the rings made in India.

Now for the question, would it make a lick of difference to anyone who is interested in the type of maille produced by Steve if the rings were machine made or hand made? i'm assuming that the rings would be sold in a sort of kit form. fully manufactured products would obviously be possible as well. my guess is that it would not since many solid rings, from what i have read, are punched and the difference between machine and hand punching are apparently negligible.

This is what Steve did, if I am not mistaken. You would be reinventing the wheel and you would have to charge mroe for it, most likely. I doubt you could make it in the US for less than what people are getting from India. The von Sussen, Historic Enterprises (GDFB) and SofC stuff is all made in India.

If I were you, I would talk to Steve and get his $.02 on the subject.

[Angus Bjornssen]

Brian, thanks for the answer. I'd thought that Steve just imported from india because hand made rings would be cheaper in bulk even after shipping and import taxes, if any. if there is a machine involved i'd like to see it. just for comparison to the crude design that began running through my head.

also, i would have thought that a machine would make for the price of manufactured rings very affordable in bulk even in the US. so much so in fact that it might be cheaper for one to be in each country to avoid tarriffs and so on associated with imports. even if it were the same company that owned them all. i'm not an expert on economics and so forth but it seemed to make sense for me. i think that maybe i should do a little study on the subject.

now that you've brought me back to the subject, Liebaart showed how a piston could be used to emulate a cocked hammer blow and achieve similar results. again my brain thinks that a machine could do the same sort of thing if built properly.

however, no matter how close a machine can come to creating historically accurate flattened and punched rings i think that there would still be a premium market for hand made maille such as made by Erik and others. personally i would love to be independently wealthy enough to pay Erik for a full hand made hauberk, circa mid 13th c., but i just don't have a spare few thousand pennies let alone dollars. i think that the sort of time and effort put into handmaking any maille from scratch makes the end product worth it's weight in gold. my guess would make that more than $90k u.s. for a hauberk. yep, Erik don't charge enough.

[Brian W. Rainey]

Brian, thanks for the answer. I'd thought that Steve just imported from india because hand made rings would be cheaper in bulk even after shipping and import taxes, if any. if there is a machine involved i'd like to see it. just for comparison to the crude design that began running through my head.

also, i would have thought that a machine would make for the price of manufactured rings very affordable in bulk even in the US. so much so in fact that it might be cheaper for one to be in each country to avoid tarriffs and so on associated with imports. even if it were the same company that owned them all. i'm not an expert on economics and so forth but it seemed to make sense for me. i think that maybe i should do a little study on the subject.

Not a project that I see much benefit in, personally. Things are produced overseas because labor is cheaper. Even WITH tariffs and taxes.. it is STILL cheaper to have something produced overseas.

You would need to house the machine, pay someone to operate it, pay for materials at US rates, etc, etc, etc. It would be very expensive as a one-off operation.

Talk with Steve, perhaps he can give thoughts on your ideas, given he has been there and done that.

now that you've brought me back to the subject, Liebaart showed how a piston could be used to emulate a cocked hammer blow and achieve similar results. again my brain thinks that a machine could do the same sort of thing if built properly.

however, no matter how close a machine can come to creating historically accurate flattened and punched rings i think that there would still be a premium market for hand made maille such as made by Erik and others. personally i would love to be independently wealthy enough to pay Erik for a full hand made hauberk, circa mid 13th c., but i just don't have a spare few thousand pennies let alone dollars. i think that the sort of time and effort put into handmaking any maille from scratch makes the end product worth it's weight in gold. my guess would make that more than $90k u.s. for a hauberk. yep, Erik don't charge enough.

Personally, I do not subscribe to the "pistion theory". It simply does not produce results that look like existing examples.

Liebaart's attempts are valiant. However, why would maker's of rings have made their process so difficult:

- Put ring inside apparatus.
- Ensure that ring is at the correct orientation
- set piston over ring and hold it at JUST the right angle
- smack with big, honking hammer (from Liebaart's pic)
- check results
- resmack if necessary (hoping that you don't screw up the orientation of piston/ring)

The piston provides not a single bit of benefit in this operation other than to make things more cumbersome and difficult, that I can see.

Also, it does not produce a result that looks like extant examples, from what I have seen either.

Now, let's review the process for flattening with a hammer:

- set ring on flat metal surface
- smack with light hammer
- resmack if necessary

I believe that the people who produced rings for a living would have developed the quickest and most efficient way to perform their job as possible. Do we make things difficult? Obviously some are trying to. Where is the benefit of using a piston-type apparatus?

Not buying the pistion theory, yet. Not a single person has pointed out a benefit of using a piston rather than a simple stroke of a hammer. Nor have I seen results that accurately mimic extant examples from the use of a piston to flatten rings.

At this point in time, until a strong argument is posted to the contrary, I think that the hammer is the only way to get a sufficiently accurate result.

[Steve S.]

I believe that the people who produced rings for a living would have developed the quickest and most efficient way to perform their job as possible. Do we make things difficult? Obviously some are trying to. Where is the benefit of using a piston-type apparatus?

Not buying the pistion theory, yet. Not a single person has pointed out a benefit of using a piston rather than a simple stroke of a hammer. Nor have I seen results that accurately mimic extant examples from the use of a piston to flatten rings.

The benefit of a piston type of tool is quite simple: It insures a direct hammer strike normal to the face of the anvil every single time.

When attempting to strike a ring with a hammer, one must, through practice, develop a consistent hand for striking each ring in a similar manner. No doubt this was done, as described above. The main purpose of the piston type tool, as I developed it anyway, was to take the skill out of the hammerwork involved with flattening a ring. The only variable now in the operation is the force of the hammer blow, and this is fairly easy to get consistent at very fast.

Yes, machinery can (and has) been developed to flatten rings. Obviously there is already machinery (spring winding/cutting machinery) to produce rings with the overlap already built-in. I designed automated flattening machinery and sent the design to my original manufacturer in India.

What cannot so easily be designed (and I am a mechanical designer by trade) is a tool that subsequently punches the rings. The reason is that it is not trivial to develop automatic machinery that can position a flattened ring under a punch with the necessary amount of precision. I have toyed with several concepts, but none were appealing enough to pursue.

It is conceivable that the ring can be aligned, or "registered" within an apparatus [i]before[i] flattening by using the "step" of the overlap region as a "key".

Anyway, a tricky problem to visualize, let alone describe.

Steve

[Brian W. Rainey]

It is conceivable that the ring can be aligned, or "registered" within an apparatus [i]before[i] flattening by using the "step" of the overlap region as a "key".

Only a small part of the overall issue of the process, as you mnetioned it would be quite an involved project to make a machine of sorts, however:

Wouldn't the "key" put an anomaly in the shape of the flattened rivet that would carry through to the end product?

[Angus Bjornssen]

Brian, i agree that it would not produce an accurately historic look to a ring. on the other hand, somehow i can visualise an angled piston, automated piercing machine coupled with a coil winder.

too late, a few beers, and i promise to attempt an idea in writing about my concept tomorrow. using as few words as possible.

thanks to you and Steve for your responses.

[Liebaart]

Personally, I do not subscribe to the "pistion theory". It simply does not produce results that look like existing examples.

Liebaart's attempts are valiant. However, why would maker's of rings have made their process so difficult:

- Put ring inside apparatus.
- Ensure that ring is at the correct orientation
- set piston over ring and hold it at JUST the right angle
- smack with big, honking hammer (from Liebaart's pic)
- check results
- resmack if necessary (hoping that you don't screw up the orientation of piston/ring)

The piston provides not a single bit of benefit in this operation other than to make things more cumbersome and difficult, that I can see.

Also, it does not produce a result that looks like extant examples, from what I have seen either.

Now, let's review the process for flattening with a hammer:

- set ring on flat metal surface
- smack with light hammer
- resmack if necessary

I have a few things to add :

1.
I NEVER stated that the piston tool was used in those days.

2.
I only use the piston tool as a way to simplify the process. And YES, it does just that. For me and a lot of other mail makers, the piston is in fact not more cumbersome and difficult, but instead a lot easier than trying to flatten rings with nothing but a hammer. That may differ in your own personal experience, but it does not give you the right to generalise.

3.
You may argue on this, but if you say that it simply does not produce results that look like existing examples, then just look again at the three rings I posted up the thread. They look MUCH more like the originals with rounded shoulders than standard flattened mail.

My point in this is none other than help other people achieving better looking mail with special tooling, designed to make the process LESS cumbersome and difficult. If someone wants to give mail with rounded shoulders a go, then fine, I just prooved to them that they can in fact give it a go with the piston tool too and are not confined to using only a hammer.

I rest my case.

Joris

[Giovanni Rocco]

Angus

I have been told that by using multi slide machines you can create just about any wire shape you could want.

Well that and about $50,000

http://www.jmsystemcnc.com/b2dgeneral.htm


Giovanni

[Brother Justin]

Sorry I have been absent from this thread. I was busy evacuating Ivan.

I have a suit of butted 18 ga. wire that is more or less useless to me, I was thinking of using the pre cut rings as my experimant rings.

The links are very small though....

Even though I am not completely unattached to the piercing tong concept, I will be making my first couple of rings with a sharpened and hardened masonry nail.

BTW, I made crimpers to overlap a ring cut from a coil... I will post pics soon, I don't even know the name of the tool I modified.

A huge and hearty thank you to the insane amount of experiance and advice in this thread. I'm truely grateful!

[Stewart Stone]

A few questions:

Are there any examples of flat, not ovoid, cross-section rivited links in origional mail. If so, when and where?

To take Joris' example one step further, any reason why a piston with a l l instead of round striking surface would not produce the same result as an angled hammer blow? Could also be done with a large rectangular punch and no cylinder. Note: as of tonite, I have not tried either method.

Unlike setting tongs for flat section rivited mail, tongs for ovoid rings would set and peen rivits at the same time. Am I correct?

Erik: Consider riviting tongs sales as just another part of your business. Most of us posting here could probably afford to buy a set or two, doubt if many could afford your high-end mail. Think of it as a sub-niche of a niche market. I can understand your concern about competition, but think of the hassles anyone selling brand X mail would have going up against your name recognition and reputation.

I could spent the next few months producing a correct set (that indeed would teach me something), but I would rather buy one from you or Mark. That would mean more time for reading primary sources, or landscape projects for the spouse (should have put that first).

Regards,
Stewart

[Andeerz]

AGH! This thread has so much awesome info that I've been looking for for ages!!! (well, more like weeks...). However, almost ALL OF THE PICTURES ARE GONE!!!! T_T And that's where some of the most important information is... *sigh*

[Leikr]

I agree. I am looking to make up some riveted but I need some tools. Was looking for that info as well.