[Maurizio D'Angelo]

hello,
In a more "historic" which of two methods of assembly is correct?
If this is the correct type B, how many mm. the blade to be enclosed inside the guard?
thanks in advance.

[img][/img]

[Chad Arnow]

Well, "B" looks closer though you could probably find both in historical swords. I think "B" has the blade shoulders seated too far into the guard, though. "A" looks the blade sholders sit on the guard.

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for how much into the guard the shoulders should seat.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well type B seems to me to be neater and with type A it is possible to see a gap or for an opponents sword edge to get into this gap and that seems to me to be bad design at least aesthetically.

As Chard said the B type may be a little too deep but the corners of the blade shoulders should be under the surface of the guard by a small amount: Maybe just a few millimetres would be enough.

Historically ? I'm not sure but both ways may have been done depending on time and place or quality of manufacture.

[Leo Todeschini]

You see both methods and often you will see a radius of the blade to tang transition so you get the edges of the blade nearly meeting the guard and then a small radius curving in and then the guard. Not a design feature, just that the smith didn't seat the blade into the guard with a punch as method B would suggest.

Either is fine historically, though aesthetically B always looks nicer; can't see it would alter the performance in either way.

Tod

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

The type B probably increases the performance, this is only valid if the groove is tight on the tank that is on the blade.
I believe that the current use of the manufacturers is the type B, but the groove is only on the tight tank.
This is perhaps to prevent resonance if the tightening is not as tight on the blade.
Regards