# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  The M1872 US Artillery Saber a detailed discussion.

## T. Graham

The little discussed M1872 saber comes in many variations which can make collecting a challenge.

I am starting off with catalog entries which may be useful for anyone not familiar with the type. 
Pictures 1 & 2 are from the the Weyersburg, Kerschbaum Cie catalog.
3,4 &5 are shown in the Ames 1884 catalog.
6 is shown in an undated Horstmann catalog which is likely from about 1885-95.
The two sabers in picture 7 are in the ca. 1890 Ridabock catalog, but seem to be no. 520 and 524 shown above in the Ames Catalog.
Picture 8 is from the ca.1880 Raymold catalog and is probably from Ames.

Not shown above is the Springfield M1872 Light Artillery Saber. It will be present below even though it is covered in Farrington's Swords and Saber of the United States Army 1867-1918.

What is missing from the above is anything from The M.C. Lilley Co. Is anyone aware of A Lilley made M1872 artillery saber, I do not think I have seen one. I will also present some that are not shown in the Ames catalog.

----------


## T. Graham

Just to start things off and get others involved; these pictures may be amusing. They can be shown in detail if there is interest, but it must be a two way discussion.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> The little discussed M1872 saber comes in many variations which can make collecting a challenge.
> 
> I am starting off with catalog entries which may be useful for anyone not familiar with the type. 
> Pictures 1 & 2 are from the the Weyersburg, Kerschbaum Cie catalog.


I think Farrington has made a fairly convincing case that this sword should be referred to as the M1882 artillery saber, and that it is an entirely different design than the one proposed in 1872 but never put into production.  Whatever the merits of his case, it will be hard to get the collecting community to give up this long-established usage.  I was not aware just how long it had been used until I saw the WKC catalog description in your post above using that designation.  What is the date of the WKC catalog - 1890s?

----------


## George Wheeler

I would like to get back to this discussion if possible.  

I do not have a copy of Farrington.  What is his argument for the M1882 designation nomenclature?

----------


## Glen C.

IIRC, there is an older thread regarding these
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...rtillery-Sword

----------


## George Wheeler

Thanks Glen.  I recall the earlier discussion now.  These two swords have always confused me.

----------


## T. Graham

> I think Farrington has made a fairly convincing case that this sword should be referred to as the M1882 artillery saber, and that it is an entirely different design than the one proposed in 1872 but never put into production.  Whatever the merits of his case, it will be hard to get the collecting community to give up this long-established usage.  I was not aware just how long it had been used until I saw the WKC catalog description in your post above using that designation.  What is the date of the WKC catalog - 1890s?


The Weyersburg, Kirschbaum Cie, reference is the 1997 reprint from England. The publisher dates it 1892 or 93.
This a handy book to have and it is on Amazon for $29.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> I do not have a copy of Farrington.  What is his argument for the M1882 designation nomenclature?


George,

     - Here is the argument:  Farrington shows from Armory and Ordnance Department correspondence that in Feb 1873 two sample swords were submitted for approval by Springfield, one for cavalry and one for artillery officers.  The blades were lightened versions of the current cavalry and artillery saber blades.  The artillery hilt was the same as the cavalry hilt with the exception that the crossed sabers on the pommel of the cavalry hilt were replaced with crossed cannon.  Unlike the cavarly sword, there was no further production of the artillery saber.  The reason appears to have been that it was thought to be simpler to use the same sword for both branches.  In 1880 when the blade of the cavalry sword was further lightened and the sword was redesignated as the Field and Cavalry Officers saber, it was specifically designated for use by mounted artillery officers.  For unknown reasons, two years later in 1882, Springfield was directed to produce sample sabers of a new design for use by mounted artillery officers.  The new design was the austerely plain, reverse-P design with which we are all familiar.  Based on this, the proper designation would be M1882.  

     - Everyone is so used to calling the reverse-P artillery saber the M1872, however, I'm not sure the collecting community will ever adopt the correct designation no matter how wrong the M1872 name may be.

Dick Schenk

----------


## Richard Schenk

> The Weyersburg, Kirschbaum Cie, reference is the 1997 reprint from England. The publisher dates it 1892 or 93.
> This a handy book to have and it is on Amazon for $29.


Thanks.  I.ve ordered a copy.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> George,
> 
>      - Here is the argument:  Farrington shows from Armory and Ordnance Department correspondence that in Feb 1873 two sample swords were submitted for approval by Springfield, one for cavalry and one for artillery officers.  The blades were lightened versions of the current cavalry and artillery saber blades.  The artillery hilt was the same as the cavalry hilt with the exception that the crossed sabers on the pommel of the cavalry hilt were replaced with crossed cannon.  Unlike the cavarly sword, there was no further production of the artillery saber.  The reason appears to have been that it was thought to be simpler to use the same sword for both branches.  In 1880 when the blade of the cavalry sword was further lightened and the sword was redesignated as the Field and Cavalry Officers saber, it was specifically designated for use by mounted artillery officers.  For unknown reasons, two years later in 1882, Springfield was directed to produce sample sabers of a new design for use by mounted artillery officers.  The new design was the austerely plain, reverse-P design with which we are all familiar.  Based on this, the proper designation would be M1882.  
> 
>      - Everyone is so used to calling the reverse-P artillery saber the M1872, however, I'm not sure the collecting community will ever adopt the correct designation no matter how wrong the M1872 name may be. Dick Schenk


Further supporting Farrington's argument is that none of the pre-1882 catalogs cited in Tim's post above include the reverse-P hilt version of the artillery officer sword in their listings. 

All these sales catalogs, however, seem to show the thin-bladed version of the M1840-style D-guard.  Although these are identified as "regulation" swords, they are not.  To be regulation, they would need to have been included in one of the various post-CW version of the Army's Uniform Regulations.  Who then, if anyone, used these reduced weight M1840-style sabers?  I doubt regular officers would have opted to wear non-regulation swords although I suppose it is possible an individual officer from a unit with lax enforcement of the uniform regs might wear such private purchase item.  More likely would be wear by militia elements which were much less by-the-book than the regulars.  Has anyone seen period photos of these light weight D-guard artillery sabers being worn by either regular or militia troops?

----------


## T. Graham

Here are a couple of points for models, years, etc.

The use of "regulation" in the Ames catalog is almost meaningless. Just about all military swords are "regulation" for someone.

Model years were *kind of* "created" by Herold l. Peterson and are used in his book The American Sword 1775-1945.;
This is another must have book even though it is a bit obsolete because there has been so much research since. But, it was the first book on US swords.

Regarding the "1872" designation for artillery or cavalry officers sabers, it could apply to all light weight *OFFICERS* sabers made by anyone after 1872, but not to the plain brass hilt sabers made in Germany for military schools in the 1890-1910s.

Below is a page from Peterson showing an "M1872" artillery officers saber made for Horstmann, with the shield shaped WKC export mark. Compare it with my picture of the the 1882 Springfield saber they seem almost identical. I will post my 1882 Springfield next. Compare it with the WKC catalog illustration above: you could think that WKC made the M1882 for Springfield. Look at the fuller stop grind; they are about the same.

Just to keep thins simple, all light weight officers sabers will be, for discussion purposes only, referred to as "1872s"  However, the Springfield, when being discussed specifically, can be called the M1882.
Does this make sense?

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Just to keep thins simple, all light weight officers sabers will be, for discussion purposes only, referred to as "1872s"  However, the Springfield, when being discussed specifically, can be called the M1882.
> Does this make sense?


I think it would make more sense to keep things simple by referring to all thin blade reverse-P hilted sabers, whether Springfield, Ames, or foreign made for the US market, as either "M1872" per tradition and Peterson or "M1882" per accuracy and Farrington.   All the Springfield, Ames, and other makers swords of this pattern post date 1882, and are all basically the same model sword based on the Springfield design of 1882.  As such,they should all be referred to by the same model designation.  My personal choice would be to call them all M1882 for accuracy, but as I said above, after all these years referring to them as M1872s, I'm not at all sure the collector community will prepared to change.

----------


## T. Graham

I figured that the M1882 ought to be discussed before the commercial versions. Note, that it is devoid of any markings. Clues to confirm that it is a Springfield are the fuller stop and the drain hole in the drag. 

Farrington has other small details and you may refer to his book for them. Despite its limitations, it is a must have book.

----------


## JV Puleo

I didn't know Harold particularly well (I was introduced to him by my colleague, the late E.A. Mowbray), but I think I'm safe in saying that he would have adopted the new terminology. He was, after all, a professional historian and Chief Curator of the National Park Service. "The American Sword" was an admirable attempt to identify and codify artifacts that, until then, no one had given much thought to. That said, I am also certain that he had very little, if any, interest in the late 19th century... his real interest was the Federal period and earlier, especially the colonial era. The late swords were included largely because they were part of the story and it is possible, even probable, that he never even saw a Springfield Armory-made sword or noticed it if he did. He made use of the archival material available to him at the time but this is a tiny fraction of what has been unearthed in the intervening 60 years. There are quite a few errors in his book, all made in good faith and based on logical conclusions drawn from what was known at the time.

----------


## T. Graham

> I didn't know Harold particularly well (I was introduced to him by my colleague, the late E.A. Mowbray), but I think I'm safe in saying that he would have adopted the new terminology. He was, after all, a professional historian and Chief Curator of the National Park Service. "The American Sword" was an admirable attempt to identify and codify artifacts that, until then, no one had given much thought to. That said, I am also certain that he had very little, if any, interest in the late 19th century... his real interest was the Federal period and earlier, especially the colonial era. The late swords were included largely because they were part of the story and it is possible, even probable, that he never even saw a Springfield Armory-made sword or noticed it if he did. He made use of the archival material available to him at the time but this is a tiny fraction of what has been unearthed in the intervening 60 years. There are quite a few errors in his book, all made in good faith and based on logical conclusions drawn from what was known at the time.


I agree with these sentiments.

----------


## T. Graham

This example fits into the M1872 category.  It is an Ames Sword Co. catalog No. 519, "New Regulation Officers Artillery Saber; Gilt  Mountings: Nickle Plated Steel Scabbard; Fish Skin Grip; Etched Nickle Plated Blade,"...but, not on this example, which also has an M1860 drag. (Interesting punctuation.)
Minor variations are par for Ames, note the lack of markings.

----------


## Richard Schenk

> This example fits into the M1872 category.  It is an Ames Sword Co. catalog No. 519, "New Regulation Officers Artillery Saber; Gilt  Mountings: Nickle Plated Steel Scabbard; Fish Skin Grip; Etched Nickle Plated Blade,"...but, not on this example, which also has an M1860 drag. (Interesting punctuation.)
> Minor variations are par for Ames, note the lack of markings.


Again, my question is who used these D-guard sabers.  I doubt it was ever carried by regular army officers - just too far out from the uniform regs to be acceptable.  Militia officers might well be a possibility, and of course military/fraternal associations and/or military schools.  I don't believe I have ever seen a contemporary photo of this style saber being worn.

My guess as to why these D-guards exist: 

     - In 1872 there were well-known plans to overhaul officers' swords, primarily to lighten them, and Springfield was directed to produce samples of light weight cavalry and artillery swords.  They did so, but only the cavalry saber was actually approved and put into production.  The fact that plans for the artillery saber had been shelved apparently was not well known as is shown by the letters received by Springfield armory from various individuals and posts requesting the new sabers.  

     - In the mean time, I am sure Ames and other private arms makers and distributors wanted to gear up to produce their own versions of the new sabers.  The new cavalry saber was essentially a down-sized version of the old model, so they probably made the not unreasonable assumption that the same would apply to the new artillery sabers.  Springfield didn't produce a new mounted artillery sword in the 1870s, but perhaps private firms did, and lacking a Springfield model, they patterned them after the old M1840.

     - Since new light-weight mounted artillery swords were not available from the Armory, some individuals/elements, thinking this was a temporary delay, might have turned to Ames in the interim to satisfy the need.  I still think these would have been primarily militia, but despite my misgivings expressed above, possibly some regular army officers ordered them as well assuming that when released, the official Armory-produced swords would be of that pattern as well.

----------


## George Wheeler

Here is my example of a German made D guard Artillery Officer saber.  Notice the forge markings on the tang.  Any idea as to the maker or a narrowed time period would perhaps be helpful to the discussion.  I presume this example to be later (circa 1890s) due to the "Germany" import marking on the tang?

----------


## George Wheeler

A few more photos.

----------


## Richard Schenk

I just picked up another Springfield M1882 artillery officer sword at this weekend's Baltimore show.  This one is completely unmarked without the "S.W.P." inspector mark on the drag.  It has the leather-wrapped grip, which is an uncommon variant.  It has the common nickel-plated blade.  The scabbard drag has a drain hole and has the iron reinforcing fillet in the blade.  The iron fillet is a diagnostic feature on these unmarked swords because they are only found on Springfield products.



I almost didn't buy this sword because I already have two M1882s, but both of them have the more common sharkskin grips.  Plus, the buyer was motivated.  His asking price was already low, and he asked me to make an offer.  How could I refuse?

----------


## George Wheeler

Dick,

Does your new Springfield Armory sword have an un-etched blade?  Do all the Springfield 1872/1882 Artillery Officer Sabers have plain blades or are some etched?  

Nice variation with the leather grips.  

George

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Dick,
> 
> Does your new Springfield Armory sword have an un-etched blade?  Do all the Springfield 1872/1882 Artillery Officer Sabers have plain blades or are some etched?  
> 
> Nice variation with the leather grips.


George, right, the blade is unetched.  All the Springfield M1882 Artillery Officer Sabers were completely unmarked.  The only variation is that some were unplated - I have no idea why. I don't know how scarce these variants are, but since the total production of Artillery sabers at Springfield was only 700 pieces, there can't be all that many.  Jason Kaplan has one of the examples with an un-plated blade for sale.  His price seems reasonable, but these are not the primary focus of my collecting interest, so I'll pass.  Like I said, I almost didn't buy this one, but at less than $250 I couldn't resist.  I kept looking at it to make sure it really was a Springfield, but it is.  Occasionally you find a good buy.

Dick

----------


## Richard Schenk

In keeping with Tim's intent, I thought I would post some photos a high-quality French-made M1882 artillery officer's sword retailed by the Ridabock Company.

----------


## Dale Martin

Here is my wife's example. She likes these sorts of things, along with various Faschinenmessers...This was presented to Sgt. Daniel Thompson in 1913....

I do not know who actually made this one.

Dale

----------


## Richard Schenk

> Here is my wife's example. She likes these sorts of things, along with various Faschinenmessers...This was presented to Sgt. Daniel Thompson in 1913....
> 
> I do not know who actually made this one.


Dale, 

A nice looking sword.  It looks like the Shannon, Miller, and Crane example above which Tim attributes to Ames, but I don't know enough about these to say - maybe Tim will chime in.  Is the knot original to the sword?  I have a Springfield with an original knot, but it's quite tarnished.



Were you able to research the original owner?  I see you say he was a sergeant, but that info isn't in the inscription.  It's always neat when you can flesh-out a name with details of the person's life.

Dick

----------


## Dale Martin

When elected Sergeant in the Artillery Wing, they got to wear the Sword for a Year, according to the Historian at the A&HACo. In those days they wore a gold knot. Both my wife and I think the Prussian style of attaching the knot is superior to the slot in the guard...

Dale

----------


## Richard Schenk

Okay, "H&HC" stands for "Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company"?  Of Massachusetts?  I missed the connection.

----------


## Dale Martin

Richard: When I got this saber, I contacted the historian at the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Company, he explained the reason it was presented and how they were worn.

Dale

----------

