I'm part of a 14c Archery group. this summer we plann on doing several demos and as part of the show and tell we would like to have a target made of period armor to shoot at to show what the effects are. (we're currious ourselves) so I'm looking for some help in making a layered target sized (8x8) section of armor gion from the tunic out.
What I need as a source for the proper metal used in the armor of that time. any ideas on finding or making this.
Torvald
Looking for...
-
Frederich Von Teufel
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Atlantia, Barony of Marinus (Norfolk, VA)
I don't wish to be disagreeable, but I feel compelled to in this case. I believe "18 gauge 1050 steel hardned to about 60 rockwell" is completely inappropriate.
I'd like to avoid an indepth discussion of medieval metallurgy (which is what is really required), so will merely hit some high points, and figure that I and others can fill in details if they are really required.
To generalize, most armour in period was made with wrought iron, some of which was case-hardened. There are a few extent peices that seem to be made of homogenous steel, but it was not common practice. In any case, this period metal is not like our modern mild steel. It _is_ possible to replicate the medieval wrought iron, but I wonder if you are striving for that level of historical accuracy. Modern 1050 steel can not accurately be said to be an acceptable substitute for medieval iron/steel.
Of the extent peices of armour that exist in museums and collections, very little of it has been tested for hardness on the Rockwell C scale or any other. The few peices that I _have_ seen documented for hardness (in an Archaeologia some years ago, I believe) were in the mid 40s to low 50s (I will admit that I don't have the relevant issue in front of me, so am going merely by my aging memory), and showed a variance of hardness over a small area. A quite high hardness of 60 Rockwell C is an unfairly biased choice for showing the effectiveness of period armours.
Also, armour rarely had a even thickness throughout its body. Helms have shown this the most, with some jousting helms showing a huge difference between the thickness at their front as compared to their rear. An arbitrarily even thickness for a peice of armour does an injustice to accurately recreating the effectiveness of the original peice of armour.
Even if Torvald is going to invest in having one of our fine armours make an resonable recreation of hardened and shaped steel armour, along with the appropriate accoutrements of gambeson and such, the results of the demonstration would be swayed one way or the other if they are not using accurate bows of accurate draw weight, firing accurate arrows at an historically reasonable distance.
In other words, he can make the spectators happy by shooting most any arrow at some mild steel armour-shaped object, but without some appliance to scientific method the results would have little meaning.
All that said, and now that I've stopped pontificating, Torvald, how accurate would you like this thing to be? If you can give us a bit more info, I think that we (and I) can give you a bit more help. Tell us how much time and effort you and your group are willing and able to put into this and I think we can definitely come up with answers for you. Are you looking for low budget/low effort, or high budget/high effort?
Frederich
I'd like to avoid an indepth discussion of medieval metallurgy (which is what is really required), so will merely hit some high points, and figure that I and others can fill in details if they are really required.
To generalize, most armour in period was made with wrought iron, some of which was case-hardened. There are a few extent peices that seem to be made of homogenous steel, but it was not common practice. In any case, this period metal is not like our modern mild steel. It _is_ possible to replicate the medieval wrought iron, but I wonder if you are striving for that level of historical accuracy. Modern 1050 steel can not accurately be said to be an acceptable substitute for medieval iron/steel.
Of the extent peices of armour that exist in museums and collections, very little of it has been tested for hardness on the Rockwell C scale or any other. The few peices that I _have_ seen documented for hardness (in an Archaeologia some years ago, I believe) were in the mid 40s to low 50s (I will admit that I don't have the relevant issue in front of me, so am going merely by my aging memory), and showed a variance of hardness over a small area. A quite high hardness of 60 Rockwell C is an unfairly biased choice for showing the effectiveness of period armours.
Also, armour rarely had a even thickness throughout its body. Helms have shown this the most, with some jousting helms showing a huge difference between the thickness at their front as compared to their rear. An arbitrarily even thickness for a peice of armour does an injustice to accurately recreating the effectiveness of the original peice of armour.
Even if Torvald is going to invest in having one of our fine armours make an resonable recreation of hardened and shaped steel armour, along with the appropriate accoutrements of gambeson and such, the results of the demonstration would be swayed one way or the other if they are not using accurate bows of accurate draw weight, firing accurate arrows at an historically reasonable distance.
In other words, he can make the spectators happy by shooting most any arrow at some mild steel armour-shaped object, but without some appliance to scientific method the results would have little meaning.
All that said, and now that I've stopped pontificating, Torvald, how accurate would you like this thing to be? If you can give us a bit more info, I think that we (and I) can give you a bit more help. Tell us how much time and effort you and your group are willing and able to put into this and I think we can definitely come up with answers for you. Are you looking for low budget/low effort, or high budget/high effort?
Frederich
Well answered by Frederich.
I too have pondered this question in the past for 15thC demonstrations and came up with the same issues. Plus the issue of also having period arrow points made out of wrought iron as well which perform differently in an impact when compared to modern "period" arrow points.
(BTW, you can purchase true points from Hector Cole in the UK but they are quite an investment.)
I too have pondered this question in the past for 15thC demonstrations and came up with the same issues. Plus the issue of also having period arrow points made out of wrought iron as well which perform differently in an impact when compared to modern "period" arrow points.
(BTW, you can purchase true points from Hector Cole in the UK but they are quite an investment.)
-
robertcorbett1
- New Member
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Waukesha, WI USA
- Contact:
I may be a bit simple, but who are you demonstrating for and what do they care about the metalurgical accuracy of the demonstration? Seems they are going to be impressed with the arrow piercing steel, no? Focus on what the show is about and "keep it simple..."
At any rate, 18 ga. 60 Rockwell "C" would probably shatter. Cutting tools are in the 60 Rc scale and above. Anything this hard and thin would probably not be accurate anyway. Steel quality (alloy) and heat treat was not that sophisticated in the 15th century, I don't think.
At any rate, 18 ga. 60 Rockwell "C" would probably shatter. Cutting tools are in the 60 Rc scale and above. Anything this hard and thin would probably not be accurate anyway. Steel quality (alloy) and heat treat was not that sophisticated in the 15th century, I don't think.