|
Post by yuner on Feb 9, 2013 21:12:38 GMT
Good afternoon fellas (and ladies) on the verge of buying another sword and although it is going to be a windlass, I am torn between the dragoon saber, the confederate cavalry officer, or the union staff and field officer. Which would be the best choice in the expert opinion of so many here?
Almost forgot, what about the windlass naval cutlass? I have the 1917 from Cold Steel and like it a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Feb 9, 2013 22:00:59 GMT
I have no experience with any Windlass, but just looking over the stats on KoA, they all seem to have pros and cons.
Assuming the quality is equal, I think I would personally go with the Union Staff & Field out of these three. The Confederate Cavalry Officer has almost no distal taper, and the Dragoon has a very high POB plus I generally don't like the model. (Or pipe-backs in general.)
The only point of worry for the Staff & Field that I can see is that the grip might be kinda short if you have big hands. 3 3/4'' would be a pretty exact fit for me, though.
|
|
|
Post by Elheru Aran on Feb 10, 2013 3:02:54 GMT
I have the 1860 Union light cavalry. It's okay, but whippy as all get out. Don't be surprised if most of the other Windlasses have some flexibility going on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 5:36:33 GMT
Would it be possible to demonstrate that flexing in a picture? I find the "whippy" a bit overdone in explanation (especially in regard to Windlass) without some comparison of a similar sword or demonstration.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Feb 10, 2013 10:36:48 GMT
Used to own the stock Windlass 1860. Used it in my Civil War comparison.
Most WIndlass blades tend to aproximate the general weight and handling characteristics of the sword type they are replicating. But in many cases they achieve this with blades of less stock and less taper then the original designs. Personally I didn't think the whippiness was in extremis, but if you handled more expensive replicas, or worse, the original pattern swords, the difference becomes glaring.
That doesn't mean thet the sword isn't functional, just that it is not representational of the historic weapon.
In Yuner's case if you are purchasing the officer swords the quality of the blade is less important than your preference for the furniture. Which appeals to you most is all that counts.
The term "dragoon" has several connotations here; do you refer to the M1833, M1840 or M1860? The Windlass base model M1860 is the least expensive and contentious of the three. The M1833 commissioned for the pre1855 US Dragoons is based on the British M1822 Cav Officers sabre and was widely villified as "fragile". ( The Windlass copy has problems with a cheap guard and a poorly balanced blade). The Windlass 1840 is the same sabre sold by Cold Steel.
My biggest concern with Windlass CW swords is the quality of the wood cores used to make the grips. Many are of too light and unseasoned wood which rapidly shrink and loosen, requiring expedient buffering.
All in all the Windlass are good deals for appearance and basic function. They will cut. They look great for display. They sell for 1/5th of the originals. If these meet your needs. Or you can shop ebay for a real period sabre. :mrgreen:
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Feb 10, 2013 13:26:59 GMT
Actually, AFAIK, all Windlass blades have no distal taper, period. They're all ground from the same 5mm flat stock and remain a uniform thickness throughout their entire length except where the edge bevels meet the point. Which, incidentally, is the main reason many of their longer blades are so notoriously "whippy".
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Feb 10, 2013 14:47:37 GMT
As I posted Windlass does cut corners in production. Their blades do tend to be understocked and untapered. However, they ARE tapered. And they DO NOT use a single stock metal. I have enough Windlass products and reports on them to make that clear. These charts reinforce my point as to thicknesses and definate, if inadequate, tapering. I also recently posted a review of the new M1906 saber and it has near historical stock and taper ( but Windlass again cheated a bit). WeaponEdge/Universal Swords are another kettle of fish entirely... :mrgreen:
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Feb 10, 2013 16:59:03 GMT
I stand corrected, then!
I wonder if this is a difference between Windlass reproductions of pre-industrial weapons and modern military swords, the latter obviously having exact specifications far more easily available... I know for a fact that the Windlass swords I currently own - German Bastard Sword, New Model Coustille, Higgins Museum Sword and Classic Hoplite - all have blades ~4.8mm thick all the way from the end of the tang right down to where the edge bevels meet to form the tip.
(Also, the fullers on the Higgins and Coustille are obviously ground in after the main diamond cross-section is formed, which leaves the fullered section ever so slightly thinner than the rest of the blade; on the Coustille this is actually a good thing, IMO, but the Higgins would seriously benefit from moving some of its mass closer to the hilt.)
Now, don't anybody take this the wrong way: these are all still perfectly functional blades in their own right and well worth the price, they're just lacking some important features of the historical originals they're supposed to replicate.
|
|
|
Post by yuner on Feb 10, 2013 19:28:25 GMT
So I take it any of the choices would be acceptable, with the Windlass US Dragoon saber being the weakest of the lot. Speaking of the wood handles Mr Kelly, the historical 1860 cavalry swords were also prone to placing stress on the handles were they not? Thanx for the input guys
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Feb 10, 2013 22:50:49 GMT
Basically correct. Thinking of a sword as a lever, any swords grip can fail under extreme load. Several manufacturers use soft and or unaged woods for their grips. In time they dry out and shrink causing the grip to turn around the tang. I was in the process of selling my Windlass 1840 when I realized it had developed this problem. Gave them my Cold Steel instead. :roll: All depends on what you want the sword for. Dry handling and display go for the cheese . If you want to cut I'd stick with an unetched blade as any cutting will mark the blade somewhat. For all of it's weaknesses, the cheapo M1860 from Windlass is a nice little light cutter when sharpened. The two pounds are managable even if it is blade biased. The M1840 is 2.7 lbs and nose heavy. It is an onery sabre you have to use with deliberation rather than any finesse. Jogging my memory the M1860 takes some effort to get proper edge alignment due to a slightly off balanced guard. Moreso than the M1840.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Feb 17, 2014 0:29:14 GMT
I have had success with Del Tin Grips by putting a fair amount of oil into the grip. Has worked pretty well in expanding the wood. My backup to that is a good treatment of crazy glue or similar which has never failed to put an end to a loose grip. I cannot say the glue is a permanent fix if you cut but works in handling the sword.
|
|