<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Arland:
<B> You wouldn’t insist that hockey players lighten up so everyone who wanted to play could...would you?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would if we were just getting together to play as a HOBBY!! When we start getting paid to play SCA, then I may change my mind -and even then we would need to have a uniform calibration.
I just love how people feel that if were not trying to crush someones head in then we must be playing LARP! I play in minimal armor most of the time. I am ok with getting bumps and bruises because of this, but not broken bones and concussions because some people take the game too serious.
I really have not had too many problems with people swinging too hard (except when they hit me low) -I find that most people who swing for the moon are nothing more then a target! My concern is the people who swing to hard and don't take clean solid shots. The person who grimices in pain, and then says "too light" is the bane of all we stand for.
I hope to someday meet and possible fight everyone on this site (those who fight that is) if for no other reason then to compare notes. I find that talking in person is so much better then talking over the internet. It is suprising how people can seem so different in person...
(^_^)
------------------
Hjalmar of Sognefjord
House Bearkiller
Barony of Grey Niche, Meridies.
"True nobility is not measured by being superior to another, but rather by becoming superior to oneself."
16 Gauge Mild Steel Is Plenty!
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
liz....
just to be clear....
"mild" steel is a modern invention
From what most of the experienced armourers and researchers on this board have said ...its was a high carbon or a case hardened steel which varied by time period and geography....
I think the general consensus last time we talked about this was that modern spring steel was as close to the qualities of medieval steel used in armour of the later periods...however your statement that armour was always very thin is flawed at best.
It all depends on the time period and the use of the armour in question.
There are jousting kits that are from the later periods that are far heavier than anything reenactors wear.
You have some good points but your general statements are suspect and can be easily refuted with exetant historical examples.
We also have to take into account that we are trying to judge the actions of people of the 10th through 16th centuries with a 21st century mindset and belief system....those two do not and cannot mesh...no matter how good you are at living history you CANNOT think like a person from 12th century England...no matter how hard you try.
You can speculate and surmise...but that is about it.
And if you have evidence of a single handed sword being effective against plate armour (other than the halfswording and use against unarmoured spots like Jefferey already suggested) then I suggest you post it because it is contrary to 99% of the current information out there that is being researched by many notable people in the field, and I, along with many others, would be interested to see it.
..............and dont even get me started about John Clements!....geez...
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-08-2003).]
just to be clear....
"mild" steel is a modern invention
From what most of the experienced armourers and researchers on this board have said ...its was a high carbon or a case hardened steel which varied by time period and geography....
I think the general consensus last time we talked about this was that modern spring steel was as close to the qualities of medieval steel used in armour of the later periods...however your statement that armour was always very thin is flawed at best.
It all depends on the time period and the use of the armour in question.
There are jousting kits that are from the later periods that are far heavier than anything reenactors wear.
You have some good points but your general statements are suspect and can be easily refuted with exetant historical examples.
We also have to take into account that we are trying to judge the actions of people of the 10th through 16th centuries with a 21st century mindset and belief system....those two do not and cannot mesh...no matter how good you are at living history you CANNOT think like a person from 12th century England...no matter how hard you try.
You can speculate and surmise...but that is about it.
And if you have evidence of a single handed sword being effective against plate armour (other than the halfswording and use against unarmoured spots like Jefferey already suggested) then I suggest you post it because it is contrary to 99% of the current information out there that is being researched by many notable people in the field, and I, along with many others, would be interested to see it.
..............and dont even get me started about John Clements!....geez...
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-08-2003).]
-
Anvil Dragon
- New Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: Soda Springs Idaho
while this was originally posted in response to my Lady Wife, it is in my field of study so I'll respond
****I think the general consensus last time we talked about this was that modern spring steel was as close to the qualities of medieval steel used in armour of the later periods...
I would be very interested in seeing the information that led to this conclusion. I would believe that some, though few armours of the post medieval period into the late 16th early 17th c. could have reached the equivelent of spring steel, but to state that Medieval armours were equivelent to spring steel seems extremely optimistic in light of the processes being used and the metalurgical analysis that I have seen. The slag inclusive in bloomery iron has a profound affect on the charactoristics of the metal and modern spring steel is a very different beast all together.
****however your statement that armour was always very thin is flawed at best.
It all depends on the time period and the use of the armour in question.
There are jousting kits that are from the later periods that are far heavier than anything reenactors wear.
But, reenactors in the SCA are not jousting, and I think therefore we can logicly leave those pieces or armour as a separate issue. Primarily, what is being discussed is infantry and cavalry armour which is what the SCA theoreticly portrays.
****You have some good points but your general statements are suspect and can be easily refuted with exetant historical examples
As can Everyone's statements in dealing with most of our time period. There are few if any hard and fast rules of history and we speak in generalities. . Let's face it, grilles on bascinets were rare at best, but are the most common thing on SCA battlefields, because there is some documentation they existed and the rules of the game make them superior to the medieval counterpart.
****And if you have evidence of a single handed sword being effective against plate armour (other than the halfswording and use against unarmoured spots like Jefferey already suggested) then I suggest you post it because it is contrary to 99% of the current information out there that is being researched by many notable people in the field, and I, along with many others, would be interested to see it.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't believe that My Lady Wife was trying to say that such was the case. I believe she was discussing the topic with assumed reference to the fact that SCA combatants are supposed to be calibrated off of chainmail and open faced helms. She is well aware of the very limited effect of a single handed sword upon plate.
Adrian
****I think the general consensus last time we talked about this was that modern spring steel was as close to the qualities of medieval steel used in armour of the later periods...
I would be very interested in seeing the information that led to this conclusion. I would believe that some, though few armours of the post medieval period into the late 16th early 17th c. could have reached the equivelent of spring steel, but to state that Medieval armours were equivelent to spring steel seems extremely optimistic in light of the processes being used and the metalurgical analysis that I have seen. The slag inclusive in bloomery iron has a profound affect on the charactoristics of the metal and modern spring steel is a very different beast all together.
****however your statement that armour was always very thin is flawed at best.
It all depends on the time period and the use of the armour in question.
There are jousting kits that are from the later periods that are far heavier than anything reenactors wear.
But, reenactors in the SCA are not jousting, and I think therefore we can logicly leave those pieces or armour as a separate issue. Primarily, what is being discussed is infantry and cavalry armour which is what the SCA theoreticly portrays.
****You have some good points but your general statements are suspect and can be easily refuted with exetant historical examples
As can Everyone's statements in dealing with most of our time period. There are few if any hard and fast rules of history and we speak in generalities. . Let's face it, grilles on bascinets were rare at best, but are the most common thing on SCA battlefields, because there is some documentation they existed and the rules of the game make them superior to the medieval counterpart.
****And if you have evidence of a single handed sword being effective against plate armour (other than the halfswording and use against unarmoured spots like Jefferey already suggested) then I suggest you post it because it is contrary to 99% of the current information out there that is being researched by many notable people in the field, and I, along with many others, would be interested to see it.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't believe that My Lady Wife was trying to say that such was the case. I believe she was discussing the topic with assumed reference to the fact that SCA combatants are supposed to be calibrated off of chainmail and open faced helms. She is well aware of the very limited effect of a single handed sword upon plate.
Adrian
-
sarnac
- Archive Member
- Posts: 5874
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Windsor, ON, Canada
- Contact:
ah...
I misunderstood....
my apoligies.
But even then the effects of a single handed sword against riveted maille (which was used a great deal then) is minimal at best...as many tests have shown, so once again I am not sure of the validity of her statement.
I cant remember who pointed it out...was it Chef, Vitus or Rhys....that the properties of Spring steel allowed the thickness of period armour with the correct resilient properties needed for combat... Was it Mac that was making it?
I will send out some inquiries and get back to you.
Also jousting armour was only one reference...you could use any number of examples that still exist today to refute the statement that ALL armour was thinner than we use...its just not true...
There are examples of mongol and chinese lamellar in museums that are far thicker and heavier than what I use today in my kit on the field....
I think it was Chef deChambre rebuking me one time for using sweeping general statements that finally proved to me that in order to represent historical facts correctly we CANNOT speak in generalities and must focus on the facts at hand supported by the historical evidence we have available to us...NOT speculation alone.
Took a long time for me to learn that.
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-08-2003).]
I misunderstood....
my apoligies.
But even then the effects of a single handed sword against riveted maille (which was used a great deal then) is minimal at best...as many tests have shown, so once again I am not sure of the validity of her statement.
I cant remember who pointed it out...was it Chef, Vitus or Rhys....that the properties of Spring steel allowed the thickness of period armour with the correct resilient properties needed for combat... Was it Mac that was making it?
I will send out some inquiries and get back to you.
Also jousting armour was only one reference...you could use any number of examples that still exist today to refute the statement that ALL armour was thinner than we use...its just not true...
There are examples of mongol and chinese lamellar in museums that are far thicker and heavier than what I use today in my kit on the field....
I think it was Chef deChambre rebuking me one time for using sweeping general statements that finally proved to me that in order to represent historical facts correctly we CANNOT speak in generalities and must focus on the facts at hand supported by the historical evidence we have available to us...NOT speculation alone.
Took a long time for me to learn that.
[This message has been edited by sarnac (edited 01-08-2003).]
McMonkey:
Have you missed the posts where 16ga steel made into a helmet is no longer 16ga? That it becomes thinner and thus making it too thin for SCA combat. Unless of course you know someone who’s raising helmets instead of dishing them.
Hjalmr:
So what you have a problem isn’t with people hitting you a decent power level, but people hitting you too hard. There’s a world of difference there.
You’ll also note that not once did ever suggest hurting someone or hitting excessively. If you can’t take the level of calibration that your kingdom hit’s at, either move or play another game. I agree that some kingdoms hit harder than I like. Atlantia being one of them.
Anvil Dragon:
I think spring steel isn’t the word that should be used here for the most part. However high carbon, hardened steel is what they were producing in Germany and Italy in the 14th century. Have a look at the Wallace Collection and check out the hardness tests they’ve done on some of the armor. They rated fairly high on the Vickers and Rockwell scale of hardness.
Sarnac:
Riveted maille itself holds up well against a hack from a sword. The person under it fairs less well.
Have you missed the posts where 16ga steel made into a helmet is no longer 16ga? That it becomes thinner and thus making it too thin for SCA combat. Unless of course you know someone who’s raising helmets instead of dishing them.
Hjalmr:
So what you have a problem isn’t with people hitting you a decent power level, but people hitting you too hard. There’s a world of difference there.
You’ll also note that not once did ever suggest hurting someone or hitting excessively. If you can’t take the level of calibration that your kingdom hit’s at, either move or play another game. I agree that some kingdoms hit harder than I like. Atlantia being one of them.
Anvil Dragon:
I think spring steel isn’t the word that should be used here for the most part. However high carbon, hardened steel is what they were producing in Germany and Italy in the 14th century. Have a look at the Wallace Collection and check out the hardness tests they’ve done on some of the armor. They rated fairly high on the Vickers and Rockwell scale of hardness.
Sarnac:
Riveted maille itself holds up well against a hack from a sword. The person under it fairs less well.
-
QueensThief
- New Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:01 am
- Location: WI USA
Greetings!
I know next to nothing about this subject but I wanted to say one thing. I take part in the Ring Game, a Lord Of The Rings role playing game where you don't fight but you walk around in all sorts of weather dressed in armour ranging from plastic swords to real armour. we may not fight but we have the best time in the world. When I'm older maybe I can do serious stuff but as it is, they'd knock me over by touching me.
I like having something to do thats acually fun, so you go ahead and hit people. Theres nothing for kids to do these days and I'm glad to have the ring game.
------------------
Talli
I know next to nothing about this subject but I wanted to say one thing. I take part in the Ring Game, a Lord Of The Rings role playing game where you don't fight but you walk around in all sorts of weather dressed in armour ranging from plastic swords to real armour. we may not fight but we have the best time in the world. When I'm older maybe I can do serious stuff but as it is, they'd knock me over by touching me.
I like having something to do thats acually fun, so you go ahead and hit people. Theres nothing for kids to do these days and I'm glad to have the ring game.
------------------
Talli
-
wcallen
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4713
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: North Carolina, USA
- Contact:
On the Spring steel topic....
I am one of the proponents of using it.
A.R. Williams has done (and published) significant work on the types of steel used in armour of the period.
The metal is not identical to anything we have available. It did have a lot more 'slag' in it - lots of impurities that can lead to all sorts of odd behaviour. That means that we really don't have access to anything that is exactly right (even the wrought iron sheet that can be gotten is wrong because its carbon content is off).
Since we can't be identical, what we can do is get close.
The average carbon content he has found in decent to good armour is .3 to .7 percent carbon with a lot of it really near .5. This was hardened in all sorts of ways - from not hardened at all to well tempered.
What this means is that we can choose to use mild steel (which is wrong) and mimic what they used for low quality armour, we can use a 1050-ish steel (which is also not quite right) and mimic what they used for good armour, or we can just give up since we can't get exactly what they used (unless we really want to set up bloomeries and make the steel ourselves).
I have been using 1050 of and on for 20 years. Mac has moved to it almost exlusively. Jeff is working with it more now. Tom is working in it. James (Tom's former apprentice) is using it. Others are playing with it with good results.
I have played with a reasonable amount of real armour. It almost always shows signs of the crud that was in their steel, but its hardness and springy-ness is best imitated using a spring steel.
Each of the pieces I have made for my kid have been spring. I have not bothered to temper them (he is only 3 after all), but the results (even un tempered) are much more reasonable than mild.
If someone has some medium carbon wrought sheet in reasonable thicknesses I would love to play with it. I am sure it will work very differently - but I haven't seen any, so I haven't been able to try it.
As is always the case, I am quoting normals and commons - the armour I have seen analyzed varied from 0% to at least .7% carbon. Thicknesses on pieces vary from very thin (less than 20g) to over 1/4 inch on one of my breastplates (NOT a jousting piece - they could be really thick). There is no really good rule.
It does seem fair to say that most legs and arms were thinner than thick SCA stuff. Many helmets were thinner than 12g, but not all. Backplates were normally thinner than breastplates. Breastplates seem to be in the .050 to .3 inch thickness range (not a very narrow range). Armour thickness seems to have varied based on the piece, the desired protection, the type of steel and the quality of the piece so there is almost no 'right' weight for anything.
Wade
I am one of the proponents of using it.
A.R. Williams has done (and published) significant work on the types of steel used in armour of the period.
The metal is not identical to anything we have available. It did have a lot more 'slag' in it - lots of impurities that can lead to all sorts of odd behaviour. That means that we really don't have access to anything that is exactly right (even the wrought iron sheet that can be gotten is wrong because its carbon content is off).
Since we can't be identical, what we can do is get close.
The average carbon content he has found in decent to good armour is .3 to .7 percent carbon with a lot of it really near .5. This was hardened in all sorts of ways - from not hardened at all to well tempered.
What this means is that we can choose to use mild steel (which is wrong) and mimic what they used for low quality armour, we can use a 1050-ish steel (which is also not quite right) and mimic what they used for good armour, or we can just give up since we can't get exactly what they used (unless we really want to set up bloomeries and make the steel ourselves).
I have been using 1050 of and on for 20 years. Mac has moved to it almost exlusively. Jeff is working with it more now. Tom is working in it. James (Tom's former apprentice) is using it. Others are playing with it with good results.
I have played with a reasonable amount of real armour. It almost always shows signs of the crud that was in their steel, but its hardness and springy-ness is best imitated using a spring steel.
Each of the pieces I have made for my kid have been spring. I have not bothered to temper them (he is only 3 after all), but the results (even un tempered) are much more reasonable than mild.
If someone has some medium carbon wrought sheet in reasonable thicknesses I would love to play with it. I am sure it will work very differently - but I haven't seen any, so I haven't been able to try it.
As is always the case, I am quoting normals and commons - the armour I have seen analyzed varied from 0% to at least .7% carbon. Thicknesses on pieces vary from very thin (less than 20g) to over 1/4 inch on one of my breastplates (NOT a jousting piece - they could be really thick). There is no really good rule.
It does seem fair to say that most legs and arms were thinner than thick SCA stuff. Many helmets were thinner than 12g, but not all. Backplates were normally thinner than breastplates. Breastplates seem to be in the .050 to .3 inch thickness range (not a very narrow range). Armour thickness seems to have varied based on the piece, the desired protection, the type of steel and the quality of the piece so there is almost no 'right' weight for anything.
Wade
-
Kit Houston
- Archive Member
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
After lurking..
My thinking is...
Talli has said one of the most important things.
'Its meant to be fun'.
The game!
The armour!
The movement!
Before you join anything else Talli, make sure its as fun as what you have going now.
Also remember its a *hobby* not a *life*, people get so hung up it because they have nothing else.
When the fun stops, move on , if you stay you have no one to blame but your self!.
I'm part of a metal weapons group and for those of you who don't know we use....
2mm round edged weapons
Period helms, open face ,nasal full face with no restrictions ( no *grills* )
Full armour to the highest level each person can come to.
No discrimination , No Politics and No SCA style 'Power positions' ( no King's, no queens, no crap)
We have a standed rule that all clubs use when meeting and minor rules for internal club.
What divides us form the SCA is we are Reinacting not Recreations. *I think we got all the brains off the medieval god when it comes to combat!*.
I still am to hear something good about the SCA, the discussions form this post are what the general public thinks, ( well when i was the public i thought it)
'majority of Sca ' It's a skill less whacking game , full of idiots who backstab their way up a political ladder.
The above doesn't apply to some people on here (as far as i can tell) but shit people you only ever hear bickering and wankiness coming from the SCA.
90% of the time, metal weapons group here, are about the Fun and provide a place for like minded people to enjoy the best possible closeness to 'Ye Old Times'.
I'm very happy I'm in this now because god dame i would have gotting sick of the SCA quickly.
Kit
*go back and read the first post on this topic! Did that post deserve this much discussion??*
My thinking is...
Talli has said one of the most important things.
'Its meant to be fun'.
The game!
The armour!
The movement!
Before you join anything else Talli, make sure its as fun as what you have going now.
Also remember its a *hobby* not a *life*, people get so hung up it because they have nothing else.
When the fun stops, move on , if you stay you have no one to blame but your self!.
I'm part of a metal weapons group and for those of you who don't know we use....
2mm round edged weapons
Period helms, open face ,nasal full face with no restrictions ( no *grills* )
Full armour to the highest level each person can come to.
No discrimination , No Politics and No SCA style 'Power positions' ( no King's, no queens, no crap)
We have a standed rule that all clubs use when meeting and minor rules for internal club.
What divides us form the SCA is we are Reinacting not Recreations. *I think we got all the brains off the medieval god when it comes to combat!*.
I still am to hear something good about the SCA, the discussions form this post are what the general public thinks, ( well when i was the public i thought it)
'majority of Sca ' It's a skill less whacking game , full of idiots who backstab their way up a political ladder.
The above doesn't apply to some people on here (as far as i can tell) but shit people you only ever hear bickering and wankiness coming from the SCA.
90% of the time, metal weapons group here, are about the Fun and provide a place for like minded people to enjoy the best possible closeness to 'Ye Old Times'.
I'm very happy I'm in this now because god dame i would have gotting sick of the SCA quickly.
Kit
*go back and read the first post on this topic! Did that post deserve this much discussion??*
toweyb
Archive Member posted 12-20-2002
"All you saps with your heavy helms are just putting yourselves at a competitive disadvantage.
16 ga. is plenty. Anybody who hits hard enough to dent it should be jailed for battery."
That was the original post.
No. The discussion was good. I like metal talk.
My opinion: 16 ga. is to light for rattan.
Hal
Archive Member posted 12-20-2002
"All you saps with your heavy helms are just putting yourselves at a competitive disadvantage.
16 ga. is plenty. Anybody who hits hard enough to dent it should be jailed for battery."
That was the original post.
No. The discussion was good. I like metal talk.
My opinion: 16 ga. is to light for rattan.
Hal
-
toweyb
- Archive Member
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Durham, NC, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kit2:
*go back and read the first post on this topic! Did that post deserve this much discussion??*</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, of course not. It was a straw man argument.
Fact #1: The SCA rules say 16 ga. is the minimum for helms.
Fact #2: The SCA confuses things by also specifying an exact thickness that is a bit thicker than what is commonly called 16 ga.
Fact #3: The Indian armor invasion has so far been slowed by Fact #1. They are beginning to rectify that, making helms that they advertise as "SCA combat legal," and "16 gauge." But, now they are running afoul of Fact #2.
Fact #4: Every time you try to discuss facts 1 through 3, you will be shouted down rudely by people who think the minimum is too low. Well, maybe it is. I personally fight in a much thicker helm. But, I think that the Indian armorers who are trying to meet SCA standards are a more interesting topic.
This thread was created to give people a place to vent. Maybe if they get it out of their systems, we can someday have a polite discussion of Facts 1 through 3.
[This message has been edited by toweyb (edited 01-10-2003).]
*go back and read the first post on this topic! Did that post deserve this much discussion??*</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, of course not. It was a straw man argument.
Fact #1: The SCA rules say 16 ga. is the minimum for helms.
Fact #2: The SCA confuses things by also specifying an exact thickness that is a bit thicker than what is commonly called 16 ga.
Fact #3: The Indian armor invasion has so far been slowed by Fact #1. They are beginning to rectify that, making helms that they advertise as "SCA combat legal," and "16 gauge." But, now they are running afoul of Fact #2.
Fact #4: Every time you try to discuss facts 1 through 3, you will be shouted down rudely by people who think the minimum is too low. Well, maybe it is. I personally fight in a much thicker helm. But, I think that the Indian armorers who are trying to meet SCA standards are a more interesting topic.
This thread was created to give people a place to vent. Maybe if they get it out of their systems, we can someday have a polite discussion of Facts 1 through 3.
[This message has been edited by toweyb (edited 01-10-2003).]
From the Marshal’s Handbook
<I>1. Helms
a. Helms shall be constructed of steel of no less than 16-gauge, or of equivalent material. Be aware that steel of less than .0625 inch (1/16 inch or 1.6 mm) is too thin, even if it is sold as 16 gauge. Alternative materials such as stainless steel, brass, bronze, or like materials are permissible as long as the material is equivalent to 16-gauge steel. (Note also that the mass of the helm is an important part of the protection. No titanium, fiberglass, or other ultra-light materials may be used.) If a spun-metal top is to be used in the construction of the helm, it shall be a minimum of 14-gauge steel. The process of spinning the top thins the metal, thereby requiring a heavier gauge.
Under Appendix:
5. Gauge: U.S. sheet metal standard. Note that 16 gauge is officially 1/16 inch (.0625 inch or about 1.6 mm), but commercially available sheet frequently is rolled to .058 or even .055 inch — much too thin for helms. </I>
While the rules may overly vague for some reason they are none the less the rules as stated (minus kingdom minimums). Helmets must be constructed of 16ga (1/16th inch, not 16ga American Wire standard, etc). Metal that is .058 or .055 is too thin. So with a bit of precaution you could construct a helmet out of 16ga (.0625) can keep it list legal. I’ve yet to see someone pull out calipers to test a helmet in my short 10 years in the SCA, but if it happens, my 14ga helmet will pass.
[This message has been edited by Arland (edited 01-10-2003).]
<I>1. Helms
a. Helms shall be constructed of steel of no less than 16-gauge, or of equivalent material. Be aware that steel of less than .0625 inch (1/16 inch or 1.6 mm) is too thin, even if it is sold as 16 gauge. Alternative materials such as stainless steel, brass, bronze, or like materials are permissible as long as the material is equivalent to 16-gauge steel. (Note also that the mass of the helm is an important part of the protection. No titanium, fiberglass, or other ultra-light materials may be used.) If a spun-metal top is to be used in the construction of the helm, it shall be a minimum of 14-gauge steel. The process of spinning the top thins the metal, thereby requiring a heavier gauge.
Under Appendix:
5. Gauge: U.S. sheet metal standard. Note that 16 gauge is officially 1/16 inch (.0625 inch or about 1.6 mm), but commercially available sheet frequently is rolled to .058 or even .055 inch — much too thin for helms. </I>
While the rules may overly vague for some reason they are none the less the rules as stated (minus kingdom minimums). Helmets must be constructed of 16ga (1/16th inch, not 16ga American Wire standard, etc). Metal that is .058 or .055 is too thin. So with a bit of precaution you could construct a helmet out of 16ga (.0625) can keep it list legal. I’ve yet to see someone pull out calipers to test a helmet in my short 10 years in the SCA, but if it happens, my 14ga helmet will pass.
[This message has been edited by Arland (edited 01-10-2003).]