Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2010 11:57:27 GMT
The US Navy changed the 1860 pattern to the 1917 pattern. Why? What's the difference? They both look pretty similar. Was the Navy right to make the change? If I was actually going to go to sea and have to kill a Pirate, which one would I want to take with me? Looks like the M1860 has better hand protection, but the Cold Steel 1917 is blued to resist rust which strikes me as a really good idea, especially in a Naval sword. www.coldsteel.com/1917cutlass2.htmlwww.museumreplicas.com/p-1283-naval-cutlass.aspx |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2010 16:15:59 GMT
Rick; I have owned the Cold Steel m1917 naval cutlass and can vouch for its high quality. A real vicious weapon. The 1917 has good hand protection with cutouts in the blued "basket" to lighten the weight. The basket is of stamped steel as opposed to the brass of the 1860 model. Of course the 1917 blade steel is going to have better metallurgy than the 1860 and they added a clip point to the new model. The 1917 cutlass was a weapon that was intended for repelling boarders and as a "sidearm" weapon for shore patrol and escort duty as well. I believe it was phased out in 1941.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2010 17:59:38 GMT
The 1917 has a more utilitarian look to it, while the 1860 is prettier, more elegant. I have to assume, though, that the redesigned sword had benefits over the older model, but I can't help thinking that the main benefit may have likely been that it was cheaper to produce--that's a guess, though.
Brass doesn't rust so it's a good material for swords. The leather grip on 1860 likely required more maintenance than the easily replaceable wood scales of the 1917.
Plan to add both to my collection some day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2010 0:41:50 GMT
I really like my CS 1917. For the price, it's awesome. The scabbard has this ugly, cheap-looking light brown finish to it though, not impressed. Anyone know how to get it off and re-color it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Sept 20, 2010 14:05:45 GMT
It seems to me that the 1917 redesign was mostly to reduce the cost-to-manufacture, with a bit of a change to the point. I much prefer the M1860 as it just strikes me as more of a "back when sword", as opposed to the M1917 which looks more like a "modern mass-produced looking military tool."
But I still would really like to have a real M1917 antique. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2010 14:59:32 GMT
It seems to me that the 1917 redesign was mostly to reduce the cost-to-manufacture, with a bit of a change to the point. I much prefer the M1860 as it just strikes me as more of a "back when sword", as opposed to the M1917 which looks more like a "modern mass-produced looking military tool." Yup. The 1917 looks like the kind of sword you'd use to open a can of beans. As others have said, the brass furniture on the 1860 makes a lot of sense at sea. Blued steel will rust in salt air, brass might tarnish but will hold up considerably better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2010 21:02:37 GMT
The MRL version of 1860 cutlass looks more like the model carried by the platoon leader when we marched close order drill in US Navy boot camp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2010 23:07:51 GMT
This is the VOC (Dutch East India Company) cutlass I have now. KOA sharpened the blade for me and it's a dandy very well balanced and easy to wield.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2010 11:32:05 GMT
<<Yup. The 1917 looks like the kind of sword you'd use to open a can of beans.>>
Of course it's not necessarily a bad thing for a sword to be able to open a can of beans as well as a Pirate. I always love the old Bill Mauldin joke where one soldier looks at a Bayonet in surprise and comments "Hey, did you know that this can opener fits on the end of a rifle?"
Thanks for all your comments by the way
-Rick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 8:58:41 GMT
Jim Johnson, Does that sword have a distal taper? I've been looking at that thing for months now wondering whether to put it on the "must have" list. It's a really handsome piece. Also, my heart has been warming up to cutlass' lately. Something about those shorter blades just speaks to me. That, or, I haven't been taking my meds regularly. It's kind of a toss up.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2010 20:14:27 GMT
Jim Johnson, Does that sword have a distal taper? I've been looking at that thing for months now wondering whether to put it on the "must have" list. It's a really handsome piece. Also, my heart has been warming up to cutlass' lately. Something about those shorter blades just speaks to me. That, or, I haven't been taking my meds regularly. It's kind of a toss up. Mike; yes, it has just under 50% distal taper. Handles very well. It comes unsharpened from the manufacturer. I got mine from KOA and they sharpened it for me on request. The blade is lightly antiqued which gives it a nice slightly worn look. the grip is leather over wood and is very comfortable. I like the look of the brass handguard. Very ornate but functional both as hand protection and as a nice set of brass knuckles. the scabbard is leather over wood with brass chape and locket. there is a stud mounted on the locket near the scabbard mouth so you can slide it into your belt without a suspension system. a very nice collector's piece and a great cutter too. I would recommend it to anyone interested in cutlasses or hangers. |
|
