US M1913 Cav Sword
May 30, 2010 20:21:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 20:21:15 GMT
THE US M1913 Cavalry Sword ( Patton Saber) - Windlass versus Springfield Arsenal
Introduction: There are a number of reviews of the Patton currently available in sword forums. This includes a very handsome, knowledgeable piece by Paul Ward written here back in Oct 09:
/index.cgi?action=display&board=swordreviews&thread=13001&page=1
My excuse for revisiting this sword is that I can add my graphics and methodology to what already exists. ( And Jonathan Hopkins asked for it. )
Historical Overview
Up to the issue of the M1913 Cavalry Sword the service had continued to depend on the Civil War related M1860 for enlisted use, while officers were literally “stuck” with the M1902 which was little more than a ceremonial piece.
In 1906 the War Department Contracted Ames Sword to produce 20,000 more M1860’s to fill up arsenal reserves. These swords differ from their predecessors in that their hilts are iron instead of brass. Before the contract run ended the war department modified it asking Ames to fill the balance with varied styles of an experimental model which was sent to the field for testing. About 1893 of the 20,000 produced by Ames were of this 1906 experimental type. There are also some Springfield prototypes about.
The cavalry community of western nations had had a long running debate on the preferred character of the cavalry sword. Principal argument being whether the thrust or cut was superior and what was the best sword for cavalry use. With the sword almost obsolete the verdict swung strongly to the thrust. France had always supported this method with its use of heavy straight swords. Britain joined in when it introduced the M1908. Germany retained a cut and thrust swords, but declared that the lance was the primary weapon of its cavalry.
The US had long borrowed finished swords from major European manufacturers. The M1913 could not help but be influenced by the other swords in production, but the development and production effort would be essentially American. While the assignation of “Patton Saber” has stuck to the sword, Patton’s impact on it’s design is circumspect at best. Patton participated in the 1912 Olympics coming in 5th overall in the Pentathalon. Following that he spent time in Europe leading to schooling in fencing at the French Military fencing school at Saumur. His credentials earned him the title of Master of the Sword at Fort Riley KS. During the period he offered some advice to the Cavalry Board on the new sword, after which he returned to Saumur to complete his sword study. Giving Patton full credit for a slowly developed committee sword is theatric but incorrect.
The War Department training pamphlet for the new sword WAS prepared by Patton after his return to active duty.
www.scribd.com/doc/7788830/Saber-Exercise
The sword would be produced from 1913 to 1934. Bulk of the production ended in 1919. While Springfield Arsenal ( SA ) was prime for manufacture, WWI demand required a subcontract to be issued to Lafrary, Flanders and Clark (LF&C), a major home wares manufacturer in Connecticutt. Some collectors scoff at these swords, but their products are indistinguishable from the Springfield Arsenal ones.
Initial Impressions: Approaching the sword for the first time you may find it clumsy. There is a lot of weight in hand. The grip is very large and long. The 35 inch blade doesn’t favor a smaller statured person on foot. There are a lot of cavalry swords like this in the western European military.
A collation of basic statistics on the Windlass and Springfield versions indicates a fairly good match up of comparative data. As both weapons weigh the same, but there is perhaps a 4 oz blade bias to the Windlass blade, it appears that the hilt has been somewhat reduced in guard and tang.
Components:
The Blade: A rarity for the period was the decision to go with a full, double edged blade. It is centrally fullered out to 5 inches from the point. The originals are also well tempered for flexibility. Although the doctrine calls for these to be employed as thrusters, they retain good slashing ability. I doubt their weight of blade to be called “cutters”. Mr Ward covered the tempering issue regard Windlass/Sarco. It is the major shortcoming of the replica, and reserves it for light bottle cutting at best.
The Handle: A blackened grip strapped with thumb rest, Iron backstrapped with Bakelite handle plates. The grip area is even bigger than the Brit 1908’s.
The Guard: a large steel bell guard painted black. My SA’s differ in fit; one narrower than the other. I don’t know if this is factory sizing or field mods.
The Pommel: As stated the sword uses a backstrap arrangement. The hilt is screw mounted with two screws run through the handle and a lock nut arrangement on the back.
The Scabbard: Wood cored with a canvas cover. There is a substantial metal throat piece on which are two vertical lift points for hanger mounting. There is a small metal chape plate. The Windlass scabbard is of proper size and fit for these swords bit is substantially more economical in construction.
Sword Knots: You will note that I have employed two different knots here. The Windlass has the correct 1913 knot attached. The original sport a US 1904 field knot intended for use with the M1860. Frankly I don’t like the 1913 knot. It looks like some sort of krill. Correct or not, my 1913s wear the earlier knot because it looks sharper on the sword.
One philosophical point about the sword knot. The idea of the sword lanyard is sound. But it has a risk downside. Made to help you retain your sword, it was not unheard of to have cavalryman yanked off their rides because they couldn’t free their blades impaled in their opponents. You may note that many knots have button or bolt clasps in their lines. This might strike you as inefficient as it creates a weak spot in the line. That’s exactly why it’s there. In the event of extremis pressure that might drag you away, break your wrist, or try to pull your arm off at the shoulder, the idea is that the button will give way first.
Handling Characteristics: I’ve soap boxed often enough about single handed sabers that weigh 3 lbs that you don’t really want to hear it again. With its tight PoB you can learn to fence this sword pretty well. And since it has a pretty nifty blade you’re not limited to treating this like an epee; it does cut.
Conclusions:
Pros:
High style. The Windlass is almost indistinguishable except for the guard above the blade.
Fit and finish is excellent.
$139 for the Windlass at KoA. Originals with scabbards $595-750.
Cons:
Blade temper of the Windlass is suspect.
Windlass a light cutter at best.
The Bottom Line:
I’ve come full circle on the M1913s. There actually pretty nice general purpose cav swords. The Spanish 1907 and long bladed Austrian 1904’s beat them to heck as light cav weapons because the Brit and American swords are over designed.
If you’re a heavy cutter or dedicated collector you wouldn’t/shouldn’t bother with the Windlass. But for the light cutter journeyman collector the Windlass is really a pretty neat deal.
Introduction: There are a number of reviews of the Patton currently available in sword forums. This includes a very handsome, knowledgeable piece by Paul Ward written here back in Oct 09:
/index.cgi?action=display&board=swordreviews&thread=13001&page=1
My excuse for revisiting this sword is that I can add my graphics and methodology to what already exists. ( And Jonathan Hopkins asked for it. )
Historical Overview
Up to the issue of the M1913 Cavalry Sword the service had continued to depend on the Civil War related M1860 for enlisted use, while officers were literally “stuck” with the M1902 which was little more than a ceremonial piece.
In 1906 the War Department Contracted Ames Sword to produce 20,000 more M1860’s to fill up arsenal reserves. These swords differ from their predecessors in that their hilts are iron instead of brass. Before the contract run ended the war department modified it asking Ames to fill the balance with varied styles of an experimental model which was sent to the field for testing. About 1893 of the 20,000 produced by Ames were of this 1906 experimental type. There are also some Springfield prototypes about.
The cavalry community of western nations had had a long running debate on the preferred character of the cavalry sword. Principal argument being whether the thrust or cut was superior and what was the best sword for cavalry use. With the sword almost obsolete the verdict swung strongly to the thrust. France had always supported this method with its use of heavy straight swords. Britain joined in when it introduced the M1908. Germany retained a cut and thrust swords, but declared that the lance was the primary weapon of its cavalry.
The US had long borrowed finished swords from major European manufacturers. The M1913 could not help but be influenced by the other swords in production, but the development and production effort would be essentially American. While the assignation of “Patton Saber” has stuck to the sword, Patton’s impact on it’s design is circumspect at best. Patton participated in the 1912 Olympics coming in 5th overall in the Pentathalon. Following that he spent time in Europe leading to schooling in fencing at the French Military fencing school at Saumur. His credentials earned him the title of Master of the Sword at Fort Riley KS. During the period he offered some advice to the Cavalry Board on the new sword, after which he returned to Saumur to complete his sword study. Giving Patton full credit for a slowly developed committee sword is theatric but incorrect.
The War Department training pamphlet for the new sword WAS prepared by Patton after his return to active duty.
www.scribd.com/doc/7788830/Saber-Exercise
The sword would be produced from 1913 to 1934. Bulk of the production ended in 1919. While Springfield Arsenal ( SA ) was prime for manufacture, WWI demand required a subcontract to be issued to Lafrary, Flanders and Clark (LF&C), a major home wares manufacturer in Connecticutt. Some collectors scoff at these swords, but their products are indistinguishable from the Springfield Arsenal ones.
Initial Impressions: Approaching the sword for the first time you may find it clumsy. There is a lot of weight in hand. The grip is very large and long. The 35 inch blade doesn’t favor a smaller statured person on foot. There are a lot of cavalry swords like this in the western European military.
A collation of basic statistics on the Windlass and Springfield versions indicates a fairly good match up of comparative data. As both weapons weigh the same, but there is perhaps a 4 oz blade bias to the Windlass blade, it appears that the hilt has been somewhat reduced in guard and tang.
Components:
The Blade: A rarity for the period was the decision to go with a full, double edged blade. It is centrally fullered out to 5 inches from the point. The originals are also well tempered for flexibility. Although the doctrine calls for these to be employed as thrusters, they retain good slashing ability. I doubt their weight of blade to be called “cutters”. Mr Ward covered the tempering issue regard Windlass/Sarco. It is the major shortcoming of the replica, and reserves it for light bottle cutting at best.
The Handle: A blackened grip strapped with thumb rest, Iron backstrapped with Bakelite handle plates. The grip area is even bigger than the Brit 1908’s.
The Guard: a large steel bell guard painted black. My SA’s differ in fit; one narrower than the other. I don’t know if this is factory sizing or field mods.
The Pommel: As stated the sword uses a backstrap arrangement. The hilt is screw mounted with two screws run through the handle and a lock nut arrangement on the back.
The Scabbard: Wood cored with a canvas cover. There is a substantial metal throat piece on which are two vertical lift points for hanger mounting. There is a small metal chape plate. The Windlass scabbard is of proper size and fit for these swords bit is substantially more economical in construction.
Sword Knots: You will note that I have employed two different knots here. The Windlass has the correct 1913 knot attached. The original sport a US 1904 field knot intended for use with the M1860. Frankly I don’t like the 1913 knot. It looks like some sort of krill. Correct or not, my 1913s wear the earlier knot because it looks sharper on the sword.
One philosophical point about the sword knot. The idea of the sword lanyard is sound. But it has a risk downside. Made to help you retain your sword, it was not unheard of to have cavalryman yanked off their rides because they couldn’t free their blades impaled in their opponents. You may note that many knots have button or bolt clasps in their lines. This might strike you as inefficient as it creates a weak spot in the line. That’s exactly why it’s there. In the event of extremis pressure that might drag you away, break your wrist, or try to pull your arm off at the shoulder, the idea is that the button will give way first.
Handling Characteristics: I’ve soap boxed often enough about single handed sabers that weigh 3 lbs that you don’t really want to hear it again. With its tight PoB you can learn to fence this sword pretty well. And since it has a pretty nifty blade you’re not limited to treating this like an epee; it does cut.
Conclusions:
Pros:
High style. The Windlass is almost indistinguishable except for the guard above the blade.
Fit and finish is excellent.
$139 for the Windlass at KoA. Originals with scabbards $595-750.
Cons:
Blade temper of the Windlass is suspect.
Windlass a light cutter at best.
The Bottom Line:
I’ve come full circle on the M1913s. There actually pretty nice general purpose cav swords. The Spanish 1907 and long bladed Austrian 1904’s beat them to heck as light cav weapons because the Brit and American swords are over designed.
If you’re a heavy cutter or dedicated collector you wouldn’t/shouldn’t bother with the Windlass. But for the light cutter journeyman collector the Windlass is really a pretty neat deal.
