|
Post by James Gall on Oct 25, 2010 2:10:13 GMT
It is always a treat to read one of your reviews, Mr. Kelly.
I have read them all, and they are nothing short of amazing...
Thanks for taking the time to post them!
|
|
|
Post by f.m. on Oct 25, 2010 4:01:53 GMT
I wish i had pics of it, but my mom and i bought my dad an 1840 cavalry saber; he just retired after 30 years in the 116th. it is a period piece, and looks exactly like the unmarked german one in the review above; it is also unmarked. what initially blew me away about my dad's saber is the worksmanship that went into it. the metal scabbard fits so precisely there is no blade play even when tapped on something, and almost feels like it's suctioned in place. the temper on the blade is up to modern "sbg" cutting standards, and is a little over 1/4 inch at the spine...the fittings and peened pommel (albeit aged) are literally as tight as the day it left the factory 160+ years ago, and when i pick up the sword and dry handle it a little, it feels much more like a weapon than another antique..its balance point is actually about 8-9 inches up and the sword weighs around 3 lbs i think, and the "harmonics" of the blade are great..anyway it has blade presence to say the least, and when i swing it(carefully ) it feels like it could SLICE right through anything in front of it. i think the "wrist breaker" thing may have come from it's use on horseback, i could see how its blade presence and weight would transfer some pretty serious momentum back to your hand if you caught a soldier galloping by.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2010 12:59:47 GMT
Wow, fantastic article Dave. That should be published in a magazine or something. I've always had a soft spot for these sabers and I learned a bit from reading this!
|
|
|
Post by MEversbergII on Oct 26, 2010 0:56:33 GMT
As usual, a fantastic review. I have considered getting myself the 1860LC and 1840NCO, but I might look into the 1840LC as well.
M.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Jordan on Oct 26, 2010 3:48:28 GMT
I'm confused. Which sword developed the "tick"? The CS 1840? Is it the sword moving within the wood grip/core? Or a structural failing in the steel?
I, too, might look again at the Windlass 1840. When I was studying the 1840 sabers at KoA a few months back, I could not help but notice the similarities with the CS offering, but with peened pommel instead of screwed. Does the CS pommell allow one to [re]tighten the handle?
It must be very different to fence with such a heavy saber. Quite unwieldy compared to a Sutton-like saber or a modern sport saber. No wonder the handles become loose. Can it be repeened? Is that something you could do?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 26, 2010 9:34:05 GMT
Larry:
Confusion arises because I surmise that both the Windlass 1840 and the Cold Steel 1840 are manuf'd by Windlass Steelcrafts. I wound up buying both types. It is the Windlass 1840 that developed the loose grip.
I don't have the skill or tools to play with peens. Getting it done professionally would cost more than the value of the saber. Have seen several expediants recommended on the board for trying to tighten up this condition. The "tick" isn't quite bad enough to start playing with it. Can't remember the Cold Steel config. If it wasn't peened it should be able to be tightened.
Definitely wind up being more deliberate and economical with a heavier saber: also more aggressive, as having the initiative and making your shots count is critical. Mounted combat is more frenetic because speed and spatial dimensions get complicated by the horse. Cavalry on cavalry fights always seemed to generate relatively fewer losses than stand to infantry battles.
|
|
|
Post by Freebooter on Dec 14, 2010 23:35:58 GMT
Hello all, Some time back I did a review on Cold Steel's misnamed 1860 Hvy Cav sabre. I also did a comparison review between an original 1860 lt. Cav Sabre used by a friend's gr gr granddad in the Confederate cavarly and a repro from MRL. While the original was an official U.S. 1860 lt. Cav Sabre pattern, it was not made by Ames but by a German company, one of many contract arms imported during that war. It has "H. Boker, Solingen, Germany" on the blade. The windless/MRL is nice but did not compare to the original in heft and balance. FB
|
|
|
Post by Freebooter on Apr 4, 2013 1:29:20 GMT
Hello Mr. Kelly and all, First let me add that I, again, so enjoyed your article, the pics, etc. And I wonder how many French 1822 ones have been sold as American CW sabers? LOL!
Anyway, as to the question of the origins of Cold Steels and Ames, etc sabres: (1) Cold Steel: I had Cold Steel's so called "1860 Heavy Cav Sabre", which is actually closer to the 1840 model. When I got it and opened my package I found a "Made in India" tag inside the plastic wrapping. I called CS and asked about that (up to then I thought they were actually an America sword making comany that made their own swords here in the U.S.). The guy told me yes, they were made in India but to their specs. (2) Ames: Some years ago I ordered an 1860 Lt Cav sabre from Ames Sword Co and the same thing happened. I called them and that guy told me the blades are made in India and the handles and guards made here in U.S. at Ames by them beins as they had the original molds for the guards, etc., and then it is all assembled at Ames. The fact that the blades or the whole thing might be made in India does not bother me. I have had like five of MRL's 1860s and that Heavy one by Cold Steel, and a couple of bangers when I was in reenacting, and all were ok swords although a couple bought at reenactment sutlers were horribly blade heavy and cheap and bent. But the Cold Steel, Ames, and MRL repros were well made and the blades can be bent and they spring back.
I have used and practiced with my remaining MRL 1860 a good bit over the last few years, made a couple of alterations to make it more like an original a friend has, etc, and I still love it. While some of the blacking of the leather grip is worn almost through from use, etc, it is still just as solid and great as when I bought it. Naturally we all know the blade thickness is not like the originals. I have yet to see a repro 1860 with proper blade thickness and distal taper as the originals. Although Cold Steel's Hevy one appeared to be. I just ordered an 1840 from Therion Arms and am excited about it and yes, when I get it I will do a review of it. I have done some reviews of a couple of things here, including a review and comparison of and between that original one a friend has and MRL's that I have. Later, Freebooter
|
|
|
Post by Elrikk on Apr 4, 2013 5:03:28 GMT
Awesome post Dave, as usual!
|
|
|
Post by Freebooter on Apr 4, 2013 14:44:26 GMT
Dave Kelly, I would love to visit you sometime and see your collection of sabres! Freebooter
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Mar 29, 2014 16:25:14 GMT
Bumping this back up. Excellent review and comparison.
|
|
|
Post by justin520 on Mar 29, 2014 17:52:54 GMT
It seems like the ability to fence is at a loss on reproduction sabers.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Mar 29, 2014 18:09:31 GMT
It might be safer to say that it is very rare to find replicas with satisfactory historical taper and dynamics.
Truth is there are a lot of cavalry weapons that aren't intrinsically "fencible". A lot of heavy sabers were meant to be percussive: like in cut or bash instead of cut and thrust. But there is a limit to how unweildy and slow you are willing to make a sword and still have it be flexible enough to recover and reprise.
|
|