Is Wootz steel more difficult to work with and perforate then Regular steel?

Sakalord364 · 21st September 2025, 06:27 PM

Here is an Afghan private purchase sword from the early 1900s that was posted here before, the Handguard/Hilt is made entirely of Wootz, and the perforated openwork design on the guard resembles the the steel gothic hilted swords of the British.

I was curious because the openwork designs/perforations (such as the triangles etc.) on the Afghan hilt are rather rough and asymmetrical when compared to the British examples.

Was this because the British hilts were mass produced according to a set pattern, and perforated with specialized tools, thus the decorative perforations on the hilt would be neater and more uniform, as opposed to the Afghan example which was a unique one off piece made by hand?

Or perhaps was this because Wootz steel is harder to work with and perforate and thus cracked and was much harder to pierce when compared to the sheet steel I’m assuming the British makers used for their hilts?

fennec · Today, 01:29 AM

You right when you say that wootz is harder to work, but in my mind only at the forging steps.. Once finished, you can work it.
See those wide koftgari parts, and other kind of inlay. those was first carved with other tools, obviously harder than the sword (that has a heat treat for softening it, not too hard, or too brittle). Wootz is quite "soft" once correctly forged. Only cementites inclusions gives it its hardenss, but possibly dont make the engraving harder (only supposing, never carved wootz haha).
So I dont think that its the reason of such work, even I'm not sure the gard is also made with wootz

21st September 2025, 06:27 PM	#1
Sakalord364 Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 71	Is Wootz steel more difficult to work with and perforate then Regular steel? Here is an Afghan private purchase sword from the early 1900s that was posted here before, the Handguard/Hilt is made entirely of Wootz, and the perforated openwork design on the guard resembles the the steel gothic hilted swords of the British. I was curious because the openwork designs/perforations (such as the triangles etc.) on the Afghan hilt are rather rough and asymmetrical when compared to the British examples. Was this because the British hilts were mass produced according to a set pattern, and perforated with specialized tools, thus the decorative perforations on the hilt would be neater and more uniform, as opposed to the Afghan example which was a unique one off piece made by hand? Or perhaps was this because Wootz steel is harder to work with and perforate and thus cracked and was much harder to pierce when compared to the sheet steel I’m assuming the British makers used for their hilts? Attached Images

Today, 01:29 AM	#2
fennec Member Join Date: Feb 2023 Location: France Posts: 40	You right when you say that wootz is harder to work, but in my mind only at the forging steps.. Once finished, you can work it. See those wide koftgari parts, and other kind of inlay. those was first carved with other tools, obviously harder than the sword (that has a heat treat for softening it, not too hard, or too brittle). Wootz is quite "soft" once correctly forged. Only cementites inclusions gives it its hardenss, but possibly dont make the engraving harder (only supposing, never carved wootz haha). So I dont think that its the reason of such work, even I'm not sure the gard is also made with wootz