|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jun 24, 2013 21:36:51 GMT
Don't think this applies to the "traditional" sabre. While deep curved sabers can be used to stab they were designed to cut. A slash to hands and forearms to cripple or a slash to the head to maim or kill were the rpimary targets of mounted warfare.
The offset grip is a lever, aiding in snapping the sabre in a slash and recover style of fighting, rather than a close fisted chopping blow for maximum damage and effect.
Intersting to note that the early OSBORN 1796 for the Brits were actually 2.5 lbs heavy. Cold Steel got the taper wrong; but the weight is right.
Nuances and variations from country to country.
If you're confused, don't worry: the more I study the less I know about this stuff ( or more to the point, too much I still don't know. Pity I waited so long to get started. :mrgreen: )
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Jun 24, 2013 21:54:53 GMT
But but but! Sputter! Point! Deflect! OK, you got me---I was mostly thinking about being able to work the point as well as the edge, but I think I'm a fan of the offset grip anyhow (тем не менее!). If it's time to chop . . . well, that's why we have axes, innit? Slash and recover sounds better, too. And I'm pretty sure that the offset grip, on later sabres, such as the Chatellerault Chilean (1871?) is point friendly, like earlier koncerz. I'll bet the early Osborn heavy light cavalry (umm, the Osborn 1796s) felt different than the CS version. I hope you realize that these Napoleonic sabres have me rewatching Master and Commander, and The Duellists, and nothing good can come of that!
|
|
Paul
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,771
|
Post by Paul on Nov 28, 2015 22:00:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Nov 28, 2015 22:18:09 GMT
The weight is down and the PoB is closer to where it should be. Its not a bad looking sword to my eyes. Perhaps your review made them tighten up a few things? Hmmmm... Sword really does have the right design. Was disappointed that the handling was so badly out of line. Interesting that they have rethought the design. Personally, it's not enough for me to go out and spend another 360.00 to see if it's more acceptable this time.
|
|
Paul
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,771
|
Post by Paul on Nov 28, 2015 22:47:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 29, 2015 1:25:59 GMT
Entirely possible. I have bought a few repros based off of Dave's reviews. A quick comparison with his wonderful stats charts and the product I received shows some variation - up to ~0.5mm in the cace of blade thickness at the tip. The DF/CS discrepancy is not out of line with this.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Nov 29, 2015 21:40:57 GMT
On a slightly related note: both myself and Afoo have duplicates of some antique sword models in our collection. Although we don't have the stats to back it up (mostly due to my laziness, as Afoo includes thorough quantification in his sword reviews), it seems there was a great deal of variation in sword lots back then. For example, both of us have Brit p1885s (One from Mole 1890, and another from WKC 1886). Both of us agree that the WKC one feels much heavier; noticeably slower but beefier. I would even think they were two different swords were I blindfolded and handed each in turn. Another comparison (between 1889 argentinians) was discussed hereLong story short: lot-to-lot variations from Windlass, CS, &tc (which we should remember are civilian consumer goods not bound to any particular specification) might not be too out of line with the variation seen in military swords at the turn of the century. Just an interesting thought...
|
|