The Armour Archive

Stainless. Some people love it and some people hate it while most seem to be indifferent, Stainless steel has many applications in our world from automotive to cutlery. The question is does it have a place on the field of pretend combat?

It depends on who you ask. The "I'm just here to have fun" people don't seem to care. Mild or stainless its all the same to them. The period police will gasp. The stick jocks will talk functionality. The mundane career driven person will scream convenience. The frugal will sing the praises of the tride-and-true mild steel.

So does it really matter? Is it all that important. According to the S.C.A. charter it is.

From the S.C.A. website:

About the SCA
The SCA is an international organization dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of pre-17th-century Europe. Our "Known World" consists of 19 kingdoms, with over 30,000 members residing in countries around the world. Participants, dressed in clothing of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, attend events which may feature tournaments, arts exhibits, classes, workshops, dancing, feasts, and more. Our "royalty" hold courts at which they recognize and honor members for their contributions to the group.

Personally I used to abhor stainless. Yes, USE to. I still do under the right or shall I say wrong circumstances. For those of you who are surely going to reply to this saying, "stainless doesn't look anything like mild" your flat wrong.

I used to say that myself. "I can smell a stainless from a mile away!" I use to say. Then something happened. I had to use a piece of stainless armour a had stuffed away in a box. It wasn't mirror but still didn't look right. I thought maybe sanding it with a low grit sand paper will make it look better. So I did. I looked at it and felt it was a major improvement. Until I looked at a piece of mild armour I had just polished with the same paper. THEY LOOKED THE SAME. Surely it had to be the lighting in the house. I took them out side and it was sunny. They still looked exactly the same.

So is stainless still a problem I asked myself. Yes and no. Its not the stainless its the polishers. Lets face it. Theres a lot of matte finish pieces running around the field that look more like plastic than steel and even more thats blinding everyone from here to the international space station.

If it could reflect an attack by the death star its probably not that period looking. If pretty boys are coming up to you and saying, "don't move your head. Ok, thats better. No wait, I've got a stay nose hair. Ouch. Got it. Thanks buddy. By the way nice helm." Its probably not that period looking.

Performance. Contrary to what most have been told stainless is not lighter than mild. However you can have a tougher helm out of a thinner gauge with stainless because its harder than mild. 14G vs 12G helm is more weight than you would think but the weights of either would be in the range of period.

That being said you wouldn't have an unfair advantage by wearing stainless armour. If you are a person who worries about this sort of thing you are actually doing a bigger disservice to the sport by using a "sport stick" or "sport shield." Helms for example varied in weight from super light to F$%^&*# heavy. In the S.C.A. you atleast have to wear a medium/heavy helm by regulation.

Like most things in the middle ages armour was highly idividualized. Some armour was painted,blued, blackened, plain, russet, gilt, polished(not crazy mirror)

You CAN look very period in stainless but you will have less period options of how you want to finish it. For example you can't blue stainless. Not in a way that looks period at all anyways. You can paint it and do the plain steel look and maybe an oil baked finish.

I don't think people mind a little shiny. After all you can get mild pretty shiny as well. I think people(myself included) just can't stand the walking mirrors anymore.

In the end its up to you. Its about LOOKING period. Being period would bankrupt most of us since we'd have to make our armour out of steel billets hamered out 500 to 1000 years ago. What most are probably affraid of is where does it stop. Stainless steel one day synthetic silk the next. And seriously who wants more people running around looking like they are wearing pieces of the hubble telescopes mirror. Not me.

Below are some pieces of armour and steel. Which are stainless? Which are mild? Remember both are mostly made of iron!

I don't like mirror finishes but I'd like to point out to all those who will surely start the "they wouldn't want to stand out for archers to pick off" debate. That arguement doesn't hold much water in a time period when men went into battle wearing the brightest reds, blues, and yellows, they could get their hands on with their personal heraldry plastered all over themselves... I'm just saying...[/img]

more

I almost get your point but a set of photos taken under artificial light (and with a badly set up camera) won't really prove anything IMHO.

Personally, I find polished stainless has a white sheen to it which when compared to polished mild stands out a mile.

I have a piece of stainless I was given a while ago and one of these days ( ) I'll polish it up purely to take to events to help show the difference to the public who assume that because a lot of the armour is shiny it MUST be stainless.

For an opinion- I don't mind either way as long as it isn't portrayed as being authentic.

JonT

It really only gets that white look when its getting towards the mirror end. I'll take some pics of these in the sun tomorrow. Mild isn't purely "authentic" either if you really want to get down to it. The point I'm really trying to make is that stainless need not be an eye sore.

Most of my kit is stainless, but I dull it down with Scotch-brite pads and 3-in-1 oil. I don't like the "disco=ball" quality at all, but I prefer not to deal with the headache that is the humidity here in Florida.
The only exception to that would be my helm; it's mild and I'm fine with that. There's something relaxing about sitting after a good practice or day at War and caring for my helm that adds to the experience.

Point being, I don't really mind either way what YOU wear, but I myself prefer dulled stainless. One day, when I live in a climate that facilitates it, I'll probably switch over to more mild. I believe Leo did something like this, if memory serves.

I have to agree that, even as much as I dislike stainless, it has advantages that cannot be ignored for the conventions of our sport. I'm far away from a stick jock, but even I eventually had to concede that a fully period kit simply is not possible to do with regards to SCA conventions. The ubiquitous blue foam is ubiquitous for a reason. Having conceded that, it was a short skip to accepting stainless on the field because it does indeed allow for greater durability and corrosion resistance that we require as per the ways we use armour. The matte finish on stainless goes a great distance to mask it, but on the same token, I've seen mirrored mild that I swore was stainless (i.e. Sir Tom's helm, to be crowned king of Northshield this weekend).

Having worked stainless, it does deserve to be called Ferro Diablo. It really is the Devil's iron. Its a major bitch to work and hate doing anything with it. But as far as using it goes, I made my helm out of 14ga stainless and have been impressed with its ability to absorb most blows and reasonable dent resistance. My next helm will still be 12ga mild or spring though. Bottom line, it has too many benefits to rule it out entirely.

Notice the helm v. the spaulders. Same 120 grit polish, but the helm is stainless. Pretty darn close.


- This is the opinion of Wilhelm, not necessarily that of CFA or Frederick.

It does not matter in the SCA, stainless, spring, mild, or cover plastic it is all legal.

It only matters to those in Living History trying to make the best historical impression they can with the materials available to us today. 100% wool and a wool blend normally don't look any different but we still require 100% wool in LH because it is closer and available so why substitute when we are trying to be as accurate as we can.

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:It really only gets that white look when its getting towards the mirror end. I'll take some pics of these in the sun tomorrow. Mild isn't purely "authentic" either if you really want to get down to it. The point I'm really trying to make is that stainless need not be an eye sore.

Sorry. You lost me, totally and absolutely, with the comment about matte finish steel looking like plastic.

It's steel. It looks like Steel.

As to the stainless v mild debate.

Some people have too much time for picking nits

Don't make perfection the enemy of good enough (or better then nothing). Within the context of the SCA the sin of stainless over mild/carbon steel is a much lesser offense then uncovered plastic, hockey gloves and nike running cleats. Following that is the sin of wearing basket hilts or black leather fantasy gear. Following that is wearing of a Bascinet with a Lorica or Bazubands with a churburg-13. Only when all other greater sins are defeated or in sign of decline will I worry about the % nickle or chromium in the steel or the polish it has.

We have documented evidence of armor that has been disassembled for refirbishment, browplates off sallets or lames out of articulated joints, where the area not seen and exposed to the environment remained a near mirror polish. It is logical to assume that at least some armor in period was polished to a high shine. Untill we get into specific type suits for specific periods and social classes I don't think we can narrow down what is or isn't authentic.

Sean

Also another problem with stainless for LH is the lack of having to remove rust; we are trying to recreate aspects of historical life; if they had to worry about rust we want to worry about rust or we are not getting the real experience.

People can make hyperbole statements about size, and modern health care all day, obviously we don't want to experience dysentery (the flux), but we still hold non fatal aspects of their life important. We cook like they did, we camp like they did, we clean like they did, we dress like them, and yes we worry about rust like they did.


For the SCA Stainless is great, we are playing a sport and keeping gear low maintenance is the best way to spend more time on the sport and less time fixing or cleaning gear.

Both hobbies have different goals in mind.

my breastplate is stainless... everything else is mild.

All you are worried about is whether armour is stainless or not?

Bargrills? Plastic? Carpet?

I find this amusing as mild steel only dates till after 1853 (Bessemer Process)---so mild steel is more recent than machine spun and woven cloth and the sewing machine (1851)...

JamesB real wrought iron is available from the Real Wrought Iron Co LTD in England.
It is considerable more expensive and needs to be worked differently but it is available.

Mild steel is a pretty good substitute for Wrought Iron both in looks and properties; but it is something that dates several centuries after the close of the period we are interested.

Personally I'm in the "as long as you don't go telling folks this is what was used back then; I'm OK with it" camp.

(but then I'm slowly working on getting all my cooking gear wrought iron and wrought iron derrived steels....save for whats pottery or soapstone...)

Thomas

Thomas Powers wrote:Mild steel is a pretty good substitute for Wrought Iron both in looks and properties; but it is something that dates several centuries after the close of the period we are interested.

Yes we have talk that over a million times. It would be a minor step closer on the molecular level. But there is a price and reality of who is going to make the armor to think of.

I'm not a huge stainless fan, I don't own any. Since the SCA isn't an every weekend thing for a lot of people, I can understand the appeal of being able to put stainless in storage for an extended period of time and not worry about it. At the same time, I do wish we could move away from the mirrored finish.
At the end of the day I would rather seen a period armor design made out of stainless than a crappy design made out of mild.

Kilkenny wrote:

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:It really only gets that white look when its getting towards the mirror end. I'll take some pics of these in the sun tomorrow. Mild isn't purely "authentic" either if you really want to get down to it. The point I'm really trying to make is that stainless need not be an eye sore.

Sorry. You lost me, totally and absolutely, with the comment about matte finish steel looking like plastic.

It's steel. It looks like Steel.

As to the stainless v mild debate.

Some people have too much time for picking nits

I just seen some stainless pieces that have achieved the quality of not looking very much like metal.

Kilkenny wrote:

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:It really only gets that white look when its getting towards the mirror end. I'll take some pics of these in the sun tomorrow. Mild isn't purely "authentic" either if you really want to get down to it. The point I'm really trying to make is that stainless need not be an eye sore.

Sorry. You lost me, totally and absolutely, with the comment about matte finish steel looking like plastic.

It's steel. It looks like Steel.

As to the stainless v mild debate.

Some people have too much time for picking nits

I've just seen a lot of BAD stainless.

Sean Powell wrote:Don't make perfection the enemy of good enough (or better then nothing). Within the context of the SCA the sin of stainless over mild/carbon steel is a much lesser offense then uncovered plastic, hockey gloves and nike running cleats. Following that is the sin of wearing basket hilts or black leather fantasy gear. Following that is wearing of a Bascinet with a Lorica or Bazubands with a churburg-13. Only when all other greater sins are defeated or in sign of decline will I worry about the % nickle or chromium in the steel or the polish it has.

We have documented evidence of armor that has been disassembled for refirbishment, browplates off sallets or lames out of articulated joints, where the area not seen and exposed to the environment remained a near mirror polish. It is logical to assume that at least some armor in period was polished to a high shine. Untill we get into specific type suits for specific periods and social classes I don't think we can narrow down what is or isn't authentic.

Sean

Well said. On basket hilts I have to cut some slack though. For personas before the mid 14th century period performance is better achieved using a basket hilt. So until some one comes out with hand protection that looks just like a maile glove that is less restrictive than a gauntlet basket hilts anre the way to go. Sorry but when I see guys pre-gauntlet wearing a suit of chain swinging around a stick wearing full gauntlets I can't even see the cross gaurd and pommel over the glaring unperiodness. Not to mention all the 15th century and later hand protection roaming around on people of other periods.

Thomas H wrote:All you are worried about is whether armour is stainless or not?

Bargrills? Plastic? Carpet?

I have non of the three. But I've seen bar-grills as early as the 13th century. Problem with bargrills isn't that they aren't period its that nobody is making period ones. You know, out of flat bars riveted vs welded at the joints.

Ive had people smugly come up and comment on my "stainless armor"

I politely replied that the only stainless bits of armor I own are my helmet, gauntlets and (now not then) sabatons.

Each one is stainless for a damn good reason. Helmet, 14 gauge stainless is harder than 14 gauge mild. My hat has barely legal padding... Ill take the stainless thanks.

Gaunts, same as above.

Sabatons... I wear them every time I fight... Wet grass, dry grass, mud, whatever. There are a lot of lames that would need to be polished and oiled. Maintenance for something that will get that kind of abuse needs to be minimized, hence the material choice.

All said, however... For the SCA, I think stainless is a superior choice when it is well masked with a proper finish. It is more durable and will look better in the long run. Personally, I could never go on the field looking like a rust bucket, so I keep my mild cleaned up and maintained. Many don't, and it looks bad IMO... way worse than satin stainless ever will.

Rust is period? Sure, but so were servants to keep your harness in top shape as well.


Cheers,

Milan H wrote:Ive had people smugly come up and comment on my "stainless armor"

I politely replied that the only stainless bits of armor I own are my helmet, gauntlets and (now not then) sabatons.

Each one is stainless for a damn good reason. Helmet, 14 gauge stainless is harder than 14 gauge mild. My hat has barely legal padding... Ill take the stainless thanks.

Gaunts, same as above.

Sabatons... I wear them every time I fight... Wet grass, dry grass, mud, whatever. There are a lot of lames that would need to be polished and oiled. Maintenance for something that will get that kind of abuse needs to be minimized, hence the material choice.

All said, however... For the SCA, I think stainless is a superior choice when it is well masked with a proper finish. It is more durable and will look better in the long run. Personally, I could never go on the field looking like a rust bucket, so I keep my mild cleaned up and maintained. Many don't, and it looks bad IMO... way worse than satin stainless ever will.

Rust is period? Sure, but so were servants to keep your harness in top shape as well.


Cheers,

Well said! Thats the kind of reply I've been waiting for!

Milan H wrote:Rust is period? Sure, but so were servants to keep your harness in top shape as well.

Another difference in LH and SCA, few people on the LH side play upper class so no armor polishing servants.

Thomas, please! The 'Real Wrought Iron' stuff is screaming CRRRAAAAP! to make armour from; it's so delaminated it's falling apart! YOU are the only one who has real armour grade stuff I know of!

James, since I think you've seen some examples up close, how white are the German armors that were made with manganese alloys?

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:

Thomas H wrote:All you are worried about is whether armour is stainless or not?

Bargrills? Plastic? Carpet?

I have non of the three. But I've seen bar-grills as early as the 13th century. Problem with bargrills isn't that they aren't period its that nobody is making period ones. You know, out of flat bars riveted vs welded at the joints.

I didn't say you did have any of them. I'm well aware that bargrills of a sort are correct for a few centuries. I was simply pointing out that the type of steel is less important than the quaity of the armour.

Frankly just about all the SCA specific armour is crap. Poorly made, badly researched and sometimes completely made up.
Most living history stuff is too but i'm simply pointing out there are bigger probems.

Thomas H wrote:

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:

Thomas H wrote:All you are worried about is whether armour is stainless or not?

Bargrills? Plastic? Carpet?

I have non of the three. But I've seen bar-grills as early as the 13th century. Problem with bargrills isn't that they aren't period its that nobody is making period ones. You know, out of flat bars riveted vs welded at the joints.

I didn't say you did have any of them. I'm well aware that bargrills of a sort are correct for a few centuries. I was simply pointing out that the type of steel is less important than the quaity of the armour.

Frankly just about all the SCA specific armour is crap. Poorly made, badly researched and sometimes completely made up.
Most living history stuff is too but i'm simply pointing out there are bigger probems.

I've actually never seen people wear carpet armour. And yes I think most will agree that plastic must be purged from the battlefield!

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:

Thomas H wrote:

Quansu_Dudes! wrote:

Thomas H wrote:All you are worried about is whether armour is stainless or not?

Bargrills? Plastic? Carpet?

I have non of the three. But I've seen bar-grills as early as the 13th century. Problem with bargrills isn't that they aren't period its that nobody is making period ones. You know, out of flat bars riveted vs welded at the joints.

I didn't say you did have any of them. I'm well aware that bargrills of a sort are correct for a few centuries. I was simply pointing out that the type of steel is less important than the quaity of the armour.

Frankly just about all the SCA specific armour is crap. Poorly made, badly researched and sometimes completely made up.
Most living history stuff is too but i'm simply pointing out there are bigger probems.

I've actually never seen people wear carpet armour. And yes I think most will agree that plastic must be purged from the battlefield!

No, only uncovered, unhidden plastic must be removed from the battlefield.
Take a look at Master Magnus's armor... can you tell me what is plastic and what isn't?

[img]http://www.stcolin.com/pictures/BaronialBDay08/Stonemarche_OLT8694.jpg[/img]

The Real WI CO LTD stuff varies wildly depending on what they have gotten as scrap to re-work.

Now I wish I had taken the entire tower when the prison was demolished. With the drive to run power to the shop and a second and larger powerhammer I may have to run as a battermill and forge down some of the plate for armour use. (I'll have a monthly electric bill to pay as I'm getting 200 amp service to the shop and it's own meter.)

Thomas

Thomas, I hope you have 3-phase power!

When stainless first hit the field people tended to shine it up and you could tell it was stainless. Also because it was harder to work with early on "armourers" didn't always get the proper shape out of it. This colored some peoples impression of stainless steel.
I think the new treatments people are using on stainless do make it look much nice. However you will never get the kind of patina on old pieces that you get with mild steel.




This helm is over 10 years old. If it were stainless it will still look fairly new. Some people like that. Some people like their armour to look more lived in especially if it is. [/img]

what about heating the stainless enough to cause it to oxidize a bit?

I strive for heat-treated high-carbon, but my current SCA legs are stainless just because that's what turned up cheap (a trade) when I was in the market to replace the previous pair. My next bascinet-to-be is stainless but only because it was a pre-owned bargain. I'd never buy a major piece of stainless kit at full price when I could get the same in mild elsewhere. I've commissioned hidden plates in stainless but never anything visible. Like Milan, I often get comments about my all-stainless kit. I point out that my helmet is mild, my arms are 1050 and my spaulders are 4130, and that I have a polishing fetish- I like to earn my shine.

Stainless kit is for me a necessary and convenient evil, like a gas-powered automobile. I'd love to own a hybrid, but I won't stop driving my old car and ride my bike everywhere just on principle. Likewise, while my ultimate goal is to fight in a perfectly period harness, having to make do for the nonce with stainless bits isn't going to keep me off the field. (I have plenty of other excuses for that. )

Klaus

When I first started in Adria and SCA I wanted all steel. I wanted to relive my persona , including taking care of my armour. As time went on I found a couple good deals on armour that just happened to be stainless. The deal was too good to pass up.

I am looking to dull the finish because I absolutely abhor the mirror finish stainless look of armours. Since I am going for a black and white kit, its been less of an urgency because I am painting most of the metal anyway.

The helm I am getting is steel. Mainly because the paint will stick better.

I got to the point that the two games I am playing aren't historical at all. They just kind of look that way. So I loosened up and stopped worrying too much. I will probably find a LH group one day and just go all out and do it correct. One day.

There has been so much careful thought in this thread I think it should be archived.

Okay; there are three factors being considered: Appearance, performance, and research.

Wrought irons and steels had various colors depending upon carbon content and localized alloys/contaminants (frequently manganese). They also were affected by heat treatment and other surface treatments depending upon the goals. Fire bluing, chemical treatments, degree of polish, paint or coatings for preservation in the field; all would have an effect. So, it appears that there is an overlap IF the Stainless steel is not brought up to the highest points of polish. The question is: if you had a range of suits of bright plate, one of stainless steel, one of mild steel, one of carefully formed blister steel, or case hardened steel, or one of wrought iron with a steel laminate on the critical portions, and you showed them to "a jury of our peers" could they pick out which was which? It does sort of depend upon the finish and treatment.

Performance may be looked at from two aspects: fabrication and use. For fabrication stainless steel has many problems. I find it "gummy" to saw or chisel. It forges with some extra power applied at higher temperature, and can be very unpleasant to cold work. (All of the above vary with the specific type of stainless steel, but generally it's not fun.)

In terms of performance of the finished armor, it can be lighter, stronger, and it requires less maintenance.

For research purposes too, we can divide it into the same two categories, neither of which stainless steel is particularly suitable for. The stainless/mild steel/wrought iron dichotomy certainly applies to fabrication; wrought is nice to experiment with, and you can do some very nice work if you know the rules, but for production I really appreciate mild steel for its relative consistancy and reliability as well as availability and expense. Making a spangen helm or two out of wrought is good for research; making 10 or 50 may result in great skill, but may not be the best business plan. Wearing, using and experimenting with mild steel and wrought iron needs careful calibration. Does a projectile pierce both the same way? Is one more prone to major denting and crushing than the other? Is there a noticeable difference in the affect of cutting edges from swords and axes? Badly made and formed wrought iron armor vs. well made mild steel armor would certainly slant the results. How thick or thin various pieces should be in areas of impact would be another factor. The permutations are endless, but it would be an area where stainless steel is pretty much rules out. (Yes, I have heard stories about "natural" stainless tell from nickel-iron meteorites; good for making a kris, but far too rare for armor in any quantity.)

So, it boils down to what you're trying to do. What is your mission, what is your budget, what is your time worth if you make it?

For Scadian combat, where you may have a Viking fighting a 15th century knight, so an anachronism in the materials used seems to me to be no big deal.

For reenactment, it depends on the camp rules, and also on both how well it's appropriately finished for the time period, and that if someone asks the anachronism is explained. (A stainless steel helm or shield boss in a maritime environment is not a bad thing. Not that we have any...).

For research (except research on modern armoring techniques for the Scadian and reenactor communities) the stuff is fairly useless because of a lack of equivalency.

Just my tuppence.