Loyalist Arms Early/mid18th century Cutlass
Dec 10, 2008 5:44:11 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2008 5:44:11 GMT
Loyalist Arms Early/mid 18th century American/British Cutlass
Review by Sébastien ''sebastian'' Bilodeau, Montréal
Before starting this review, I would like to confirm the existence of swordaholism. In French, we say that an image is worth a thousand words ....
(The blade is unsharpened on this picture, for those worrying about my hand holding the edge.
With this important fact out of the way, lets properly start this review ...
Recently, I have become a fan of naval cutlass (is it cutlasses ?) from the 17th century and later. These were close quarter weapons, usually made to be effective cutters, choppers and thrusters, with a metal hand-guard to protect the hand. I quickly developed a taste for these smaller-sized swords (compared to infantry and cavalry swords of their times) and started shopping for one. I decided to slash my sword budget before the holidays, so I looked for a low-priced battle-ready cutlass. I quickly decided to buy this replica from Loyalist Arms, payed 108,15 CAN$ for it, shipping and taxes included.
The sword arrived about 5 days later, 24 hours later then expected, nothing to cry about.
First impressions
Like my other sword from Loyalist Arms, this replica came in a large brown box, full of blue-white debris of some kind of foam. Good cushion against impacts and a great thing to turn your room in a mess ... They placed a plastic bag full of shredded papers in front of the tip of the blade, probably to keep the blade from getting close and personal with the box.
The replica's blade was covered with oil. A much smaller quantity of oil was on the hand-guard, too.
The weapon had a ''neutral'' feel, it seemed easy to swing and control, but it didn't felt quite lively or light, more on that later. The blade has a good presence, it looked solid, but I spotted a number of flaws after examining it. The hilt and hand-guard looked solid, but felt a bit too large, theres a lot of space inside the hand-guard (I didn't handle any historical weapons, but I always thought hand-guards were close-fitting). The handle had a slight rattle. I will give more details on all these thing later.
Some numbers, for those interested ;
Overall length : 32 ''
Blade : 26 3/4'' long, 1 1/4'' across, 3/16'' thick
Handle/hilt : 5'' long
Point of balance : 6'' from the hilt
Weight : unknown, nothing to measure it ...
Handle, hilt, hand-guard
The hand-guard seems to be made from a single sheet of metal, covered with black paint. It is made into two circles, that both give plenty of protection to the hand. It didn't hamper my swings and movements during dry handling and test cutting.
They were some small dents in the hand-guard and other spots where the paint wasn't there, but these spots are small and theres not many of them.
The handle is a single piece of wood, painted black, cylinder-shaped. It has a slight rattle, very small. It didn't hinder me when handling this replica, but it is a bit annoying, giving the weapon a cheap feeling.
Blade
The blade is almost 27'' long, it is 3/16'' thick and 1 1/4'' wide. Not much distal taper here, the blade start tapering about 1/4'' before the edge and the 3/16'' back of the blade tapers into a false edge for the last 3'' of the blade. The ricasso is about 1 1/2'' long. The tip is quite round and thick, it will require some grinding to deliver an efficient thrust.
The fuller is about 20 1/2'' long, it is very narrow and not deep at all, almost like a long grind mark on the blade. It also looks strange when closely examined. The two following pictures are from the two opposite sides of the blade.
If you take a good look, you will see that the fuller from one side is poorly-made; like the smith started grinding the fuller, went off-course, then made a new fuller over the old one, while leaving the old one there. I don't have pictures of the end of this side of the sword, but you can see two separate ends to this fuller.
Also, the edge (which was about 2 mm thick before I sharpened the blade) didn't seem equal, some parts were thinner than other. It took a long time to sharpen the edge with my accusharp, because of the extra thick blade.
In my opinion, these elements indicates the level of quality of this blade, which isn't very high. I also think that this weapon was made to be ''reenactment friendly'', which explains the thick edge and the rounded tip.
On the brighter side, the blade seems quite solid and capable of taking hard impacts. It didn't rattle after a few full arm swings done against water bottles, and didn't chip at all.
Speaking of cutting ...
Handling & Test cutting
This cutlass feels good in hand. It isn't what I'd call lively, but it is easy to wield, even with its 6'' POB. Theres a slight inertia to the weapon but it is easy to overcome. The blade feels strong during swings and cuts, it isn't hard to do thrust strikes, the tip is sufficiently easy to control (although it won't replace a rapier for thrusting efficiency and speed). Due to the POB being a bit far from the hilt, it is a bit hard to change direction during swings, or to stop the blade completely.
Overall, its handling didn't blow me away, but it felt functional and battle-ready, and good enough for the weapon's low price.
The thing that disappointed me the most with this weapon, was its results when doing test cutting. I took test swings against 4-5 small water bottles, then put down the cutlass out of frustration and disappointment. Half of the bottles were battered away, without being cut. One exploded because of the impact, but there was no trace of a real cut on it. A single bottle got cut, but it was a near perfect downward swing that hit the top part of the bottle, near the cap. Even then, it was more like a tear then a clean cut.
My conclusions to these tests are ... First, I was frustrated, I did my cuts after sharpening the blade for at least 30 minutes, stroking it hard to shear a lot of metal (there was enough flecks of steel to make a dagger ...). Secondly, the blade wasn't exactly paper-sharp, it could tear paper on & off, but maybe it needed a bit more sharpening before I took it out. Third thing, this is a straight blade and I train and cut with mostly curved blades, which might partly explain my poor results ... Fourth, and last thing, it is possible that the geometry of the blade isn't very ''cutting-friendly''.
Anyway, in all, I will do more test cutting with this cutlass later, hoping and working for better results.
Conclusion
Overall, I was very happy with this cutlass until I did backyard cutting with it. I still think it offers decent handling for its price and that it is solid and functional, but for now it seems like a mediocre backyard cutting weapon. This downside maybe due to my form, so I will have to test it again.
I don't regret buying it and will probably buy again from Loyalist Arms and I think it is a decent buy, considering there are few sellers who offer this type of cutlass and that the price is very low (especially if you're paying with US$ ...).
Pros
-Very low price.
-Robust blade and hilt.
-Good handling, the blade feels good in hand.
-One of the very few replica of this type of sword, on the market.
Cons
-Cuts poorly ; the blade seems too thick for decent backyard cutting.
-A few quality control errors on the blade (uneven fuller, small rattle in the grip).
-The blade would require major grinding to be usable for backyard cutting.
Overall, a decent product, it won't blow you out of your seat, but is worth your money if you like this type of weapon (and don't intend to do much cutting ...). Besides, most naval cutlass weren't high quality weapons in their days ...
Review by Sébastien ''sebastian'' Bilodeau, Montréal
Before starting this review, I would like to confirm the existence of swordaholism. In French, we say that an image is worth a thousand words ....
(The blade is unsharpened on this picture, for those worrying about my hand holding the edge.
With this important fact out of the way, lets properly start this review ...
Recently, I have become a fan of naval cutlass (is it cutlasses ?) from the 17th century and later. These were close quarter weapons, usually made to be effective cutters, choppers and thrusters, with a metal hand-guard to protect the hand. I quickly developed a taste for these smaller-sized swords (compared to infantry and cavalry swords of their times) and started shopping for one. I decided to slash my sword budget before the holidays, so I looked for a low-priced battle-ready cutlass. I quickly decided to buy this replica from Loyalist Arms, payed 108,15 CAN$ for it, shipping and taxes included.
The sword arrived about 5 days later, 24 hours later then expected, nothing to cry about.
First impressions
Like my other sword from Loyalist Arms, this replica came in a large brown box, full of blue-white debris of some kind of foam. Good cushion against impacts and a great thing to turn your room in a mess ... They placed a plastic bag full of shredded papers in front of the tip of the blade, probably to keep the blade from getting close and personal with the box.
The replica's blade was covered with oil. A much smaller quantity of oil was on the hand-guard, too.
The weapon had a ''neutral'' feel, it seemed easy to swing and control, but it didn't felt quite lively or light, more on that later. The blade has a good presence, it looked solid, but I spotted a number of flaws after examining it. The hilt and hand-guard looked solid, but felt a bit too large, theres a lot of space inside the hand-guard (I didn't handle any historical weapons, but I always thought hand-guards were close-fitting). The handle had a slight rattle. I will give more details on all these thing later.
Some numbers, for those interested ;
Overall length : 32 ''
Blade : 26 3/4'' long, 1 1/4'' across, 3/16'' thick
Handle/hilt : 5'' long
Point of balance : 6'' from the hilt
Weight : unknown, nothing to measure it ...
Handle, hilt, hand-guard
The hand-guard seems to be made from a single sheet of metal, covered with black paint. It is made into two circles, that both give plenty of protection to the hand. It didn't hamper my swings and movements during dry handling and test cutting.
They were some small dents in the hand-guard and other spots where the paint wasn't there, but these spots are small and theres not many of them.
The handle is a single piece of wood, painted black, cylinder-shaped. It has a slight rattle, very small. It didn't hinder me when handling this replica, but it is a bit annoying, giving the weapon a cheap feeling.
Blade
The blade is almost 27'' long, it is 3/16'' thick and 1 1/4'' wide. Not much distal taper here, the blade start tapering about 1/4'' before the edge and the 3/16'' back of the blade tapers into a false edge for the last 3'' of the blade. The ricasso is about 1 1/2'' long. The tip is quite round and thick, it will require some grinding to deliver an efficient thrust.
The fuller is about 20 1/2'' long, it is very narrow and not deep at all, almost like a long grind mark on the blade. It also looks strange when closely examined. The two following pictures are from the two opposite sides of the blade.
If you take a good look, you will see that the fuller from one side is poorly-made; like the smith started grinding the fuller, went off-course, then made a new fuller over the old one, while leaving the old one there. I don't have pictures of the end of this side of the sword, but you can see two separate ends to this fuller.
Also, the edge (which was about 2 mm thick before I sharpened the blade) didn't seem equal, some parts were thinner than other. It took a long time to sharpen the edge with my accusharp, because of the extra thick blade.
In my opinion, these elements indicates the level of quality of this blade, which isn't very high. I also think that this weapon was made to be ''reenactment friendly'', which explains the thick edge and the rounded tip.
On the brighter side, the blade seems quite solid and capable of taking hard impacts. It didn't rattle after a few full arm swings done against water bottles, and didn't chip at all.
Speaking of cutting ...
Handling & Test cutting
This cutlass feels good in hand. It isn't what I'd call lively, but it is easy to wield, even with its 6'' POB. Theres a slight inertia to the weapon but it is easy to overcome. The blade feels strong during swings and cuts, it isn't hard to do thrust strikes, the tip is sufficiently easy to control (although it won't replace a rapier for thrusting efficiency and speed). Due to the POB being a bit far from the hilt, it is a bit hard to change direction during swings, or to stop the blade completely.
Overall, its handling didn't blow me away, but it felt functional and battle-ready, and good enough for the weapon's low price.
The thing that disappointed me the most with this weapon, was its results when doing test cutting. I took test swings against 4-5 small water bottles, then put down the cutlass out of frustration and disappointment. Half of the bottles were battered away, without being cut. One exploded because of the impact, but there was no trace of a real cut on it. A single bottle got cut, but it was a near perfect downward swing that hit the top part of the bottle, near the cap. Even then, it was more like a tear then a clean cut.
My conclusions to these tests are ... First, I was frustrated, I did my cuts after sharpening the blade for at least 30 minutes, stroking it hard to shear a lot of metal (there was enough flecks of steel to make a dagger ...). Secondly, the blade wasn't exactly paper-sharp, it could tear paper on & off, but maybe it needed a bit more sharpening before I took it out. Third thing, this is a straight blade and I train and cut with mostly curved blades, which might partly explain my poor results ... Fourth, and last thing, it is possible that the geometry of the blade isn't very ''cutting-friendly''.
Anyway, in all, I will do more test cutting with this cutlass later, hoping and working for better results.
Conclusion
Overall, I was very happy with this cutlass until I did backyard cutting with it. I still think it offers decent handling for its price and that it is solid and functional, but for now it seems like a mediocre backyard cutting weapon. This downside maybe due to my form, so I will have to test it again.
I don't regret buying it and will probably buy again from Loyalist Arms and I think it is a decent buy, considering there are few sellers who offer this type of cutlass and that the price is very low (especially if you're paying with US$ ...).
Pros
-Very low price.
-Robust blade and hilt.
-Good handling, the blade feels good in hand.
-One of the very few replica of this type of sword, on the market.
Cons
-Cuts poorly ; the blade seems too thick for decent backyard cutting.
-A few quality control errors on the blade (uneven fuller, small rattle in the grip).
-The blade would require major grinding to be usable for backyard cutting.
Overall, a decent product, it won't blow you out of your seat, but is worth your money if you like this type of weapon (and don't intend to do much cutting ...). Besides, most naval cutlass weren't high quality weapons in their days ...