Bushcrafting with a katana

[Xeroen]

IIRC, powered hamers are allowed in the production process for a Katana, as Hanwei/Casiberia use them in theirs - the blades are still classed as hand made. 'Tradiitional methods' refers more to the proper heat treatment and folding of the steel during construction.

I think the change in status had more to do with getting the cheap nasty wall hangers that were just cut out of a bar of metal off the market and away from those who would misuse them.

 

[wanderingblade]

.........I would love a genuine Japanese daisho, maybe one day.

Worth keeping an eye on one of my favourite shops in the Lanes, Brighton - proper little gold mine!
http://www.thelanesarmoury.co.uk/shop/shop.php

 

[Martyn]

Exactly - it's the old problem of how many tools / machinery can be used before an item is no longer classed as 'hand made'?

That gets debated with a lot of latitude in the context of modern handmade knives, mainly because machinery is so cheap and ubiquitous, almost everybody uses something. But with regard to Japanese swords, it's much easier to clarify. There is probably some machinery used on almost all of em with the exception of pukka Japanese swords, but you have to draw the line somewhere and for me anyway, it's clearly drawn at the use of heavy machinery.

 

[Martyn]

IIRC, powered hamers are allowed in the production process for a Katana, as Hanwei/Casiberia use them in theirs - the blades are still classed as hand made. 'Tradiitional methods' refers more to the proper heat treatment and folding of the steel during construction.

Says who? The people that sell em?

"yeah, yeah, it's legal mate - defo, it was made in China with traditional power hammers"

Like I said, it'll take a court case to decide it.

 

[Xeroen]

Says who? The people that sell em?

"yeah, yeah, it's legal mate - defo, it was made in China with traditional power hammers"

Like I said, it'll take a court case to decide it.

While I don't disagree a court case could change things, for now at least, power hammers seem to be acceptable. I don't think the government has explicitly said "power hammers can/can't be involved," it may even be a conclusion I came to myself going by what's said here about the use of power hammers and the swords being sold here and on other websites.

 

[Laurentius]

A samurai would NEVER use his beloved Kitana or Wakizashi as a tool for cutting wood.
In the UK the only reason you could have for carrying Japanese swords would be if your going to/from your martial arts class or home from the shop you bought it from or if you're a re-enactor.
also to buy one you need to prove your a registered member of a martial arts club
the Tanto however is a good tool, some people don't like the shape of the knife tho.

Well all I can say is Heihachi, in Kurasawa's seven samurai uses an axe to split wood, and a katana to split skulls.

As for Kikochiyu I woudn't put anything past him

 

[Siberianfury]

I have a katana and also a daishō (matching katana and wakizashi pair) and I can tell you with certainty, they would be rubbish. You could hack through stuff, because it's a bit of sharp steel, but the design is totally wrong and you would damage the sword very quickly. The task is much better suited to any number of much cheaper/better tools.

so your saying a katana can handle cutting through bone and armour plates but cant take cutting through wood?

 

[Martyn]

While I don't disagree a court case could change things, for now at least, power hammers seem to be acceptable. I don't think the government has explicitly said "power hammers can/can't be involved," it may even be a conclusion I came to myself going by what's said here about the use of power hammers and the swords being sold here and on other websites.

Like I said, they are selling em. There is a lot of money in cheap Chinese swords and those who stand to profit (usually the same ones that used to sell the £30 wall-hangers) will push the envelope as far as they think they can get away with. That doesnt mean they are right. As a customer, it's my liberty and me that risks the court case/criminal record/fine, so I'll come to my own decision. The law says "traditional methods of making swords by hand". To me that's pretty incongruous with heavy machinery, but if you're happy with it then crack on.

However, the government have dropped the ball a bit with the legislation. They made it in haste and then made the amendment in haste. It's badly worded and will be a real mess should a case go to court. At the very least, they would actually have to try and work out how a particular sword was actually made, which is a lot easier said than done, particularly when the sword comes from China. It would rely heavily on expert testimony which is never a good thing, because you can usually find an expert who will argue whichever way you want. Personally, I'm going to err on the side of caution until it's clear one way or the other (...and it doesnt affect the kind of swords I'm interested in anyway), but it's a stupid piece of legislation that was wholly unnecessary and has done nothing except muddy the waters. Until a test case has gone through the courts, I doubt anybody's opinion on the subject is worth much to be honest.

 

[wanderingblade]

......To me that's pretty clear and I'm struggling to twist it round to include heavy machinery, but if you're happy with it then crack on.

Of course this leads us on to the question of documentation - if you buy / impot a sword, what kind of documentation is acceptable to prove your sword has indeed been made using traditional techniques? I'm sure a certificate from some chinese manufacturer stating 'honest gov - this is proper hand made this, straight up!' won't cut it - but what will?

So we are faced with 2 questions - what constitutes 'made by hand using traditional techniques' and then how do you prove your item is such? What kind of paperwork do you need to provide to show your item is legal?

Like you say, it will take a court case to settle either point - because our old friend Mr Batt at the Home Office will not clarify either point.

 

[trixx]

so your saying a katana can handle cutting through bone and armour plates but cant take cutting through wood?

Did you know that the Forestry Commission are looking at replacing chainsaws with katanas? More effective, more carbon-efficient and tests have shown that an average forester can fell 20% more trees per day.

Of course, there is the problem of the Lethal Weapons Act (2004, as amended) but I gather that the government are looking at a couple of solutions: an Arboreal Exemption Clause, or invocation of the same Home Office regulations that remove the need for licences if weapons are used for government-approved purposes.

 

[wanderingblade]

Of course, there is the problem of the Lethal Weapons Act (2004, as amended)

The what?
Never heard of the Lethal Weapons Act 2004 - got a link?

 

[Martyn]

Of course this leads us on to the question of documentation - if you buy / impot a sword, what kind of documentation is acceptable to prove your sword has indeed been made using traditional techniques? I'm sure a certificate from some chinese manufacturer stating 'honest gov - this is proper hand made this, straight up!' won't cut it - but what will?

So we are faced with 2 questions - what constitutes 'made by hand using traditional techniques' and then how do you prove your item is such? What kind of paperwork do you need to provide to show your item is legal?

Like you say, it will take a court case to settle either point - because our old friend Mr Batt at the Home Office will not clarify either point.

Sorry, was editing my post above to say sort of the same. It's a mess.

 

[Xeroen]

Like I said, they are selling em. There is a lot of money in cheap Chinese swords and those who stand to profit (usually the same ones that used to sell the £30 wall-hangers) will push the envelope as far as they think they can get away with. That doesnt mean they are right. As a customer, it's my liberty and me that risks the court case/criminal record/fine, so I'll come to my own decision. The law says "traditional methods of making swords by hand". To me that's pretty clear and I'm struggling to twist it round to include heavy machinery, but if you're happy with it then crack on.

However, the government have dropped the ball a bit with the legislation. They made it in haste and then made the amendment in haste. It's badly worded and will be a real mess should a case go to court. At the very least, they would actually have to try and work out how a particular sword was actually made, which is a lot easier said than done, particularly when the sword comes from China. Personally, I'm going to err on the side of caution until it's clear one way or the other, but it's a stupid piece of legislation that was wholly unnecessary and has done nothing except muddy the waters. Until a test case has gone through the courts, I doubt anybody's opinion on the subject is worth much to be honest.

I got my Katanas back when I had more money than sense, which was also before the change in laws came in, and what I have is enough for now. Unless I get offered a good deal on a genuine Japanese blade with full documentation, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I completely agree with the bit about the legislation being a mess too. A lot of sword enthusiasts felt that the government rushed it through due to media coverage on knife and sword crime and to make it look like they were doing something about it.

 

[Martyn]

The what?
Never heard of the Lethal Weapons Act 2004 - got a link?

Yep here it is...

Lethal Weapons Act 2004.

 

[Matt.S]

The what?
Never heard of the Lethal Weapons Act 2004 - got a link?

I suspect this and the rest of the post were made with tongue firmly in cheek. Note the earlier references to same supposed Act.

so your saying a katana can handle cutting through bone and armour plates but cant take cutting through wood?

I know very little about the subject, but I understand that katana used in combat often bear scars form hitting armour or bone. Bit like an axe hitting a nail or a rock.

 

[Martyn]

I got my Katanas back when I had more money than sense, which was also before the change in laws came in, and what I have is enough for now. Unless I get offered a good deal on a genuine Japanese blade with full documentation, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I completely agree with the bit about the legislation being a mess too. A lot of sword enthusiasts felt that the government rushed it through due to media coverage on knife and sword crime and to make it look like they were doing something about it.

Well I think I know what they were trying to do with it, but the legislation is so badly written, particularly the rushed amendment, that I would think it's virtually unenforceable - which is probably why so many retailers of cheap Chinese swords are pretty much ignoring it. Between genuine Japanese katana and cheap £30 wall hangers, there is a massive lump of no-mans-land that is almost impossible to define. So what did they do? Try to define it.

 

[Martyn]

I know very little about the subject, but I understand that katana used in combat often bear scars form hitting armour or bone. Bit like an axe hitting a nail or a rock.

That's a reasonable analogy but falls a bit short if anything. A Japanese sword blade has it's edge polished in, the process can take weeks and cost thousands for a high grade polish. The last thing you would do is use it on anything but it's intended target. They are phenomenally sharp and quite thin on the edge, intended for slicing cuts not chopping. But like any blade that is so sharp, it's also susceptible to damage, much more so than the fairly crude edge of an axe by comparison. Of course it can cut wood, but it's a stupid use of the wrong tool for the job, that will only result in the blade getting damaged and rendered useless as a sword. A chip for example, would require the sword to be returned to a professional sword polishers for several weeks for repair. Field sharpening, was little more than a "buff" with some clove oil and talcum powder.

 

[Siberianfury]

I know very little about the subject, but I understand that katana used in combat often bear scars form hitting armour or bone. Bit like an axe hitting a nail or a rock.

yeah ive heard similar, but i would think it as more down to swords striking each other, if the samurais swords where chipping from cutting bone then i would have thought they would redesign them, but interestingly the design has stayed similar for hundreds of years, they got shorter in the edo period but that was mainly due to the swords being faster to draw.

 

[Martyn]

yeah ive heard similar, but i would think it as more down to swords striking each other...

Extremely unlikely. You dont "fence" with a Japanese sword and there are very few parrying moves and if ever they are done, they are done with the flat of the blade, not edge to edge (unless it's a Hollywood movie). The killing cuts are either done on the draw or draw and cut and that is supposed to be the argument over.

Damaged blades are almost certainly the result of poor technique. Technique can be the difference between something getting cleanly sliced through, or the sword getting badly chipped or broken - which is another reason only an idiot would risk the ruination of a good sword by chopping firewood. But hey, dont take my word for it, why dont you pony up £500 for a decent sword and go make some feather sticks?

 

[Martyn]

Look at this tameshigiri video...

[video=youtube;RS2YcBbubs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS2YcBbubs8[/video]

One, two or three cuts at most and it's game over. No BS Hollywood fencing. It's worth noting that very many modern blades of good quality get damaged from tameshigiri - almost always from poor technique. This guy is extremely good, but even so, you can see that some of his cuts are "sweeter" than others. Everybody gets it wrong now and then and the blade suffers.