Can really a sword cut through a rifle? - The Last Samurai (2003) Discussion

[–] Kings_Rule 10 years ago

I don't see why you think it is so unbelievable. I would have thought that any soldier who is skilled with a sword could easily cut through a rifle. 

KR

reply

[–] Max-178 10 years ago

If the swing is slow, the sword will break or bend instead of cutting through hard steel. A bullet can penetrate sheet metal if fired from a gun, but if you try to hammer it through it won't.

reply

[–] Ghosthunter123424 9 years ago

If the rifle is made if paper then of course you can cut through it with a sword.

reply

[–] the_bamboo_spear 10 years ago

Under ideal conditions, yes. In combat like the film, most likely not.

reply

[–] englisher101 10 years ago

One of the important things to understand about samurai swords is that they are not really existing on the same dimension as a normal sword.

They are actually so well-crafted that they can split atoms in half and bend space time and transform matter. A rifle is obviously no challenge in this equation.

Now don't get fooled by all these cheap replicas out there. A genuine samurai sword can cut through a tank. I once saw a samurai dispatch at least 100 tanks. In one case he made a mockery of the tank by cutting off its cannon, at which point the driver was like, "Uhhh....." And then the samurai almost smiled, but he didn't because he was too macho, and then he cut the tank in half.

reply

[–] gasivodo 10 years ago

This ;-D In fact, it is the ONLY way to make a sawn off shotgun!

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 10 years ago



I was about to  you because I thought you were serious until the second paragraph.

Well done that man.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] mstaggs85 9 years ago

I hear theyre also responsible for dark matter, gravitational waves, and sliced bread.

reply

[–] zerowing-1 8 years ago

Real Ultimate Power!!

reply

[–] avortac4 (3743) 3 years ago

"One of the important things to understand about samurai swords is that they are not really existing on the same dimension as a normal sword."

There might be some credence to this, but it's not an automatic and common thing.

A highly cultivated spiritual master with opened up lower or higher abilities could of course elevate themselves to etheric plane, together with their sword, or just elevate the sword to induce a more effective cutting. If the sword didn't exist in the same dimension, you wouldn't be able to see, feel or use it in this one, however, unless you synchronize with the dimensional shift of the sword, which most people couldn't historically do.

"They are actually so well-crafted that they can split atoms in half and bend space time and transform matter. A rifle is obviously no challenge in this equation."

This doesn't sound realistic. It seems you are confusing things - atoms can't really be 'split', although that's the terminology used when something affects an atom in such a way that its structure loses coherence and it spews its particles away. So you're basically talking about fission - which can also occur naturally and organically.

Inducing fission by the usage of a sword that exist in a higher dimension (etheric or astral plane, I presume) seems highly dubious, though, as other methods would most likely be more effective.

There's no such thing as 'space-time', even though this planet's so-called 'scientists' erroneously use such terminology (or do they still?). But even if there were, how exactly would or could a sword initiate such an effect, and why would it? That kind of sword would be so unstable, it would be incredibly dangerous.

How does a sword 'transform matter' exactly, and what do you mean by this? Transform it into what? Also, would a sword (again) be an effective method for something like that? If you mean altering its basic frequency so it can also be elevated to higher dimensions, even if it was possible, why do it with a -sword- of all things?

reply

[–] avortac4 (3743) 3 years ago

The same spiritual master that can use a sword inter-dimensionally, would be able to elevate the rifle the same way as the sword. So no 'matter transformation' (still not sure what you mean by this, because in the end, matter is also energy, or even just 'probability fields' if you believe some quantum physicists) necessary. No 'bending' of 'space-time' necessary. Again, if it was, there would be better methods the spiritual master could use more effectively and easily.

Also, such abilities would be akin to cheating - this debate is about whether a properly-made katana wielded by someone that knows what they're doing the same way Bruce Lee knew what he was doing in a fight or any martial arts situation, can cut through a rifle (without even specifying how well the rifle has been constructed), so let's keep the topic pure and not introduce things that are not necessary for it.

"Now don't get fooled by all these cheap replicas out there."

I don't think anyone is talking about any cheap replicas, just historical events about rifle-cutting - did it really happen or not. Replicas or their price are neither here nor there, and do not belong to this discussion.

" A genuine samurai sword can cut through a tank."

I think you are talking about katanas - calling something a 'samurai sword' seems a bit childish and inaccurate, and might be open to too many (mis)interpretations. Let's talk about katanas.

Also, what kind of tank are you talking about, a water tank? A boiler? Surely not a modern military equipment that's heavily enforced with high-quality metals, I presume. There are limits to what katanas can do, BUT with the right wielder, especially in more ancient times, well... it's hard to say from our more modern viewpoint what has been possible (but not anymore, because the Earth is more 'materialistic' than it was a long time ago, making things more heavy and things like 'giants' impossible these days).

Someone that CAN elevate their strike through the etheric plane and rearrange molecules a little by doing that, could easily cut through almost anything, but as I mentioned, this is basically 'cheat mode' - but who's to say someone didn't USE such 'cheat mode' back in history?

reply

[–] avortac4 (3743) 3 years ago

"I once saw a samurai dispatch at least 100 tanks."

This sounds highly implausible. In what situation were you, that you were able to even see or be in the presence of a hundred tanks (though I am still not sure what kind of tanks we're talking about, or what you mean by 'dispatch' - also, this statement is impossible, because samurai hasn't existed for hundreds of years, and you can't create new ones, as the definition only allows historical ones)?

Also, why would anyone "dispatch" 'at least a hundred tanks'? Did you stop counting at that point, or why the uncertainty about the amount? How long did it take, and was the dispatching done by a walkie-talkie or what?

Your language is very weird and vague, as if you're lying, embellishing the truth greatly, or coming up with fictional things that have nothing to do with reality.

Why use terminology like 'dispatch' and 'tank', when both words can mean so many things and are thus open to interpretation.
Dispatch: "To relegate to a specific destination or send on specific business."

" In one case he made a mockery of the tank by cutting off its cannon,"

"Made a mockery"? This doesn't sound factual, but some kind of opinionated fiction. I am starting to think you're just making up all of this.

What kind of tank was it that had a cannon that not only a katana (I presume this is what you meant by 'samurai sword') can cut it 'off', but also 'make a mockery of it' by doing so?

Cannon definitions:

"The loop at the top of a bell by which it is hung."
"A round bit for a horse."

So, a water tank with a loop of a top of its bell, or a .. round bit?

"..at which point the driver was like, "Uhhh....." "

Cannons have drivers, now?

Your dialogue is pretty terrible, it doesn't add any useful information to your fiction to add a grunt like that to it.

Also, saying 'someone was like' is not good form, it's juvenile and colloquialistic, and should be avoided when telling a story in written form - no matter how fictional.

reply

[–] avortac4 (3743) 3 years ago

"And then the samurai almost smiled, but he didn't because he was too macho, and then he cut the tank in half."

You don't start a sentence with "and".

How do you know that someone 'almost smiled'? You must've been far enough to see the hundred (or so) tanks, or were you stalking the so-called 'samurai'? Was he 'too macho to smile' (what? It's not like any machoism ever prevents anyone from smiling! Is this some kind of misinterpretation of Bushidō, stoism or japanese culture?), but not too macho to TELL YOU he almost smiled - and wouldn't that be a much more 'wimpy' thing to do than just smiling? Why would someone macho be afraid to smile, wouldn't that make him actually less macho and more wimpy?

How do you know about his motivations anyway?

Your story is pretty redundant anyway - you already told you 'saw a samurai' (which is of course a lie) 'dispatch at least 100 tanks'. How is 'cutting a tank in half' important to the story at the end, if you've already established all this other stuff?

You're not making any sense, I reckon' you're just coming up with a really bad fictional story as you write, and none of this is actually researched, experienced or true. Shame on you. You shouldn't lie to people.

reply

[–] kfckid-365-296572 10 years ago

I think not...possibly a shotgun barrel, but not a rifle barrel.

'When you hang a man, you better look at him.'

reply

[–] mikeyg24 10 years ago

This was disproved on Mythbusters. The myth was that during WWII the barrels of US machine guns would get so hot Japanese officers could chop the barrels. But as I said it was disproved.

I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking!

reply

[–] bushd0 9 years ago

This movie wasn't during WW2. Can you give us more pointless facts?

reply

[–] mikeyg24 9 years ago

Yes you're a congenital degenerate cúnt!

I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking!

reply

[–] cockroachcharlie 8 years ago

How about that the rifles used during the time period depicted would certainly not get as hot as the ones in WWII and therefore if they couldn't cut those ones they definitely couldn't cut these?

reply

[–] IndyCelt 10 years ago

I don't remember the scene exactly, but maybe it broke the gun where wooden stock met metal barrel? Samurai swords were finely crafted, so if any sword could do the job...

reply

[–] rotty2288 10 years ago

Watching now. Went through the stock

reply

[–] simonchinnock 9 years ago

It would have split the wooden stock/rifle body in which the barrel is inserted. The blade collapsed the wooden rifle body, effectively snapping it into two pieces; stock on one side and barrel/remnants of the rifle body on the other.

Completely believable

reply

[–] michaelskaggs-09062 9 years ago

Just recorded and watched it in slow motion. It looks like that's the answer.

reply

[–] nastylev 9 years ago

As far back as the 15th century, Damascus steel (or other wootz steel) swords were commonly tested by cutting into a rifle (well.. smooth bore musket but you get my point) with them. The highest quality blades could cut clean through without even chipping. So yes, swords could/can cut through barrels.
Samurai swords were only tested by decapitating a corpse. If the beheading was successful in a single swing the sword was considered good. So while some swords can do it, I'm not sure samurai blades can cut a rifle in two.

"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid."

reply

[–] Spoffdarko 9 years ago

As far back as the 15th century, Damascus steel (or other wootz steel) swords were commonly tested by cutting into a rifle (well.. smooth bore musket but you get my point) with them. The highest quality blades could cut clean through without even chipping. So yes, swords could/can cut through barrels.
Samurai swords were only tested by decapitating a corpse. If the beheading was successful in a single swing the sword was considered good. So while some swords can do it, I'm not sure samurai blades can cut a rifle in two.

I am inclined to agree, Samurai swords were designed to "slice" through a person, not to "hack". The blade edge needs some forward/ backward momentum (depending on the cut being performed) to make the slicing action.

"I'm leaving, i've assessed the situation, and i'm going".

reply

[–] avortac4 (3743) 3 years ago

Mythbusters is an entertainment TV show. It's not meant to be an accurate source of anything, least historical accuracy or information about things.

They are biased, they often botch their experiments, they don't have common sense of how to do the experiments correctly (I am not even talking about the awfully done albedo stuff that was botched in so many ways, and the reason was: "It's just entertainment" (straight from the horse's mouth)).

Anyone that has seen the 'Kill Bill coffin test' should know it was also botched pretty much in any way possible, and yet a 'definitive declaration' was made (as usual, of course).

Are the hired actors in a TV show really going to be able to forge a proper katana the same way they did historically (a lot of information has been lost, considering modern people don't even know how to 'rust' the armor the way they used to do, to make it tougher), and are they going to be able to wield and use it with Zen the same way the original, actual samurai did in a combat situation or battle? Do they have the intuitive technique with a proper sword with spirit?

Or do they just get any old modern katana and use any old dude and think it's just as good?

You may believe what you want, of course, but I think it's possible to cut a rifle with a katana, IF done properly, by the correct wielder, with a proper, correctly created, historical katana with spirit.

A modern douchebag hacking away with some store-bought crap sword is of course never going to be able to do it, so I'd take these 'mythbuster' things with a grain of salt instead of a gospel truth.

Inter-dimensional cutting is indeed possible - you can also make a katana out of pure energy and use that as a cutter (as they did in ancient Egypt, which is how they were able to cut the stones for and build the Initiation Chambers - otherwise, called 'Pyramids' in the modern times), which would extend the cutting capabilities beyond 'regular physical plane' stuff. Might be 'cheating'..

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

As far back as the 15th century, Damascus steel (or other wootz steel) swords were commonly tested by cutting into a rifle (well.. smooth bore musket but you get my point) with them. The highest quality blades could cut clean through without even chipping. So yes, swords could/can cut through barrels.

No, this is a myth. Consider the fact that for a blade to be able to cut, it must be harder than the material it tries to cut. Also consider that the edge is not the only thing that must pass through the material, but the spine of the blade as well. This means that the edge cuts, and the body of the blade pushed the material aside. This is the reason you won't get very far trying to cut down big trees: the weight of the tree presses on the body of the blade and traps it. You can ruin chainsaws this way, too.

With a metal barrel, you can only cut through if 1) the edge is harder than the barrel, 2) you are strong enough to push the steel of the barrel down and in on itself, and 3) the blade is strong enough to withstand the stress of this process. 1) is easy enough, but 2) and 3) are impossible with any sort of rifle/musket barrel.

reply

[–] the_bamboo_spear 8 years ago

Yeah, no one would test a sword on a rifle barrel unless it were a "torture test", in which case you're pretty much planning on destroying it.

reply

[–] Darren (1342) 4 years ago

I really hope you don't believe that. NO sword will cut a rifle in two. Firearms-grade steel is too hard. It has to be to manage the pressure involved in firing a a bullet with a powerful powder charge to drive that bullet. This sounds a lot like that myth (busted on Mythbusters) that Japanese officers could cut machine gun barrels through with their katana. That's a military version of the "urban legend" and you never can trace such stories back to a reliable witness who saw it with his own eyes.

If what you say were true, there would be no point to metal armor. But we know that not only was metal armor effective, the weapons used to defeat it were other weapons than swords -- usually impact weapons like maces and warhammers, or polearms. Nothing else would do the job (until firearms).

reply