Cold Steel 1796 light cav: project in the works
Mar 16, 2013 15:37:49 GMT
Post by Kilted Cossack on Mar 16, 2013 15:37:49 GMT
Gents:
Well, I did it. A friend sent me a link to Cold Steel's sword seconds, and when I saw an "A-level" second 1796 for $130, I bit on it. It's here, and this isn't a review, but some initial observations, thoughts, and hopefully a plan to improve the handling.
Initial impressions.
The Cold Steel 1796 light cavalry saber approximates the dimensions of the Hanwei/Tinker single hand sword, yet handles very differently. Roughly a thirty inch blade with another six inches of grippy bits, about two and a half pounds. I'd hate to try I33 with the 1796, though! The point of balance is, naturally, about three inches further forward on the saber vice the straight sword. It feels much more cleaverish than the H/T.
Based on other reports, from people with experience handling the real deal 1796, it seems that this saber, like many reproduction sabers, differs from the originals by having less distal taper spread out over more of the blade. This naturally affects handling by giving a greater blade bias. I do not have my instruments to hand to measure blade width, thickness and taper, or overall weight (but should soon).
Here's a clip from the Royal Armory at Leeds, showing the flex of a real 1796's blade.
I don't think you can get that with this saber.
With that observation out of the way, the saber is well put together. The blade seems to be well made and well finished, and seems to display good temper. The guard is substantial, and solidly fitted, as are the grip and grip plate. Everything is held together with a rounded nut. The steel scabbard is a brute of a thing: as Lynn Thompson says, a weapon in its own right.
I have been blathering on about sabers for quite a while. Most of my attention has been focused on the lighter blades, slashers and slicers, not choppers or cleavers. Shashkas, or conforming to the Circassian saying about shashkas: light as a feather, sharp as a razor, flexible as a vine. This one, sharp as a razor (well arguably), flexible as a really thick vine, and light as a turkey in its feathers. This isn't an indictment; there's more than one kind of saber, and the 1796 is perhaps simply less of a dress, officer's or light saber than I have used in the past.
I like it.
A lot of my saber enthusiasm is aimed at an unusual time period. Many, perhaps most, saber enthusiasts like sabers from later periods, either the Napoleonic wars or the US Civil War. I prefer to turn the wayback dial a little further back, to the 16th and 17th centuries: Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Tatar sabers, with all of that tasty Ottoman influence washing up against them. The 1796 scratches that itch. Sure the langets are different and the guard is a little different and the grip is a little different, but it scratches that itch.
Still and all, it can be made better, and I think I can do it. I've got two secret weapons: a mill file, and a theory. I've been reshaping the blade on a 1050 katana I picked up somewhere, working it down slowly with the file. When I started I wanted to use a Dremel, but I quickly put that away and slowed the heck down. Filing is like whittling, only with metal. Go slowly, take your time, stop frequently to check your work, and have fun while you're doing it. Hey, it works for me. The katana now exhibits a good bit of distal taper, the tip has been reshaped, and I'm even flirting with putting a sharpened stretch on the false edge. If it works on a Chinese katana, it ought to work on an Indian British saber. I'm going to work on that blade to thin it out towards the tip, and see how far back I need to draw it down to get the handling to shift.
The other secret weapon is a theory. It's something I've been blathering on about for almost as long as I have been blathering on about sabers. That theory finally found some independent confirmation in this thread here, from the Vikingsword.com ethno forum:
www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10881 (Check out the thread for a very nice sword, a very nice sword indeed.)
The confirmation came in the 11th post of the thread, where Cornelis Tromp quoted Heribert Seitz's definition of a saber as a sidearm with a long curved blade and a asymmetric grip often bent towards the forward quillon, which has no pommel as a sword but can have a pommel cap instead. (Heribert Seitz Blankwaffen 1 p 183). In the past, I've used the terms 'recurved' or 'canted' grip, and I've never been happy with my description or explanation. In essence, I'm talking about a curved grip which brings the point more in line with the forearm.
Here's a MyArmoury.com thread by Matthew Korenkiewicz on his OllinSword saber. The pictures there show the grip being somewhat bent towards the forward quillon. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15703&highlight=karabela
From the way the 1796 feels in the hand, even a very slight change to the angle of the grip should improve handling significantly. After all, didn't Archimedes say, give me a long enough lever and a place to stand, and I can swing a Buster sword?
Well, I did it. A friend sent me a link to Cold Steel's sword seconds, and when I saw an "A-level" second 1796 for $130, I bit on it. It's here, and this isn't a review, but some initial observations, thoughts, and hopefully a plan to improve the handling.
Initial impressions.
The Cold Steel 1796 light cavalry saber approximates the dimensions of the Hanwei/Tinker single hand sword, yet handles very differently. Roughly a thirty inch blade with another six inches of grippy bits, about two and a half pounds. I'd hate to try I33 with the 1796, though! The point of balance is, naturally, about three inches further forward on the saber vice the straight sword. It feels much more cleaverish than the H/T.
Based on other reports, from people with experience handling the real deal 1796, it seems that this saber, like many reproduction sabers, differs from the originals by having less distal taper spread out over more of the blade. This naturally affects handling by giving a greater blade bias. I do not have my instruments to hand to measure blade width, thickness and taper, or overall weight (but should soon).
Here's a clip from the Royal Armory at Leeds, showing the flex of a real 1796's blade.
I don't think you can get that with this saber.
With that observation out of the way, the saber is well put together. The blade seems to be well made and well finished, and seems to display good temper. The guard is substantial, and solidly fitted, as are the grip and grip plate. Everything is held together with a rounded nut. The steel scabbard is a brute of a thing: as Lynn Thompson says, a weapon in its own right.
I have been blathering on about sabers for quite a while. Most of my attention has been focused on the lighter blades, slashers and slicers, not choppers or cleavers. Shashkas, or conforming to the Circassian saying about shashkas: light as a feather, sharp as a razor, flexible as a vine. This one, sharp as a razor (well arguably), flexible as a really thick vine, and light as a turkey in its feathers. This isn't an indictment; there's more than one kind of saber, and the 1796 is perhaps simply less of a dress, officer's or light saber than I have used in the past.
I like it.
A lot of my saber enthusiasm is aimed at an unusual time period. Many, perhaps most, saber enthusiasts like sabers from later periods, either the Napoleonic wars or the US Civil War. I prefer to turn the wayback dial a little further back, to the 16th and 17th centuries: Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Tatar sabers, with all of that tasty Ottoman influence washing up against them. The 1796 scratches that itch. Sure the langets are different and the guard is a little different and the grip is a little different, but it scratches that itch.
Still and all, it can be made better, and I think I can do it. I've got two secret weapons: a mill file, and a theory. I've been reshaping the blade on a 1050 katana I picked up somewhere, working it down slowly with the file. When I started I wanted to use a Dremel, but I quickly put that away and slowed the heck down. Filing is like whittling, only with metal. Go slowly, take your time, stop frequently to check your work, and have fun while you're doing it. Hey, it works for me. The katana now exhibits a good bit of distal taper, the tip has been reshaped, and I'm even flirting with putting a sharpened stretch on the false edge. If it works on a Chinese katana, it ought to work on an Indian British saber. I'm going to work on that blade to thin it out towards the tip, and see how far back I need to draw it down to get the handling to shift.
The other secret weapon is a theory. It's something I've been blathering on about for almost as long as I have been blathering on about sabers. That theory finally found some independent confirmation in this thread here, from the Vikingsword.com ethno forum:
www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10881 (Check out the thread for a very nice sword, a very nice sword indeed.)
The confirmation came in the 11th post of the thread, where Cornelis Tromp quoted Heribert Seitz's definition of a saber as a sidearm with a long curved blade and a asymmetric grip often bent towards the forward quillon, which has no pommel as a sword but can have a pommel cap instead. (Heribert Seitz Blankwaffen 1 p 183). In the past, I've used the terms 'recurved' or 'canted' grip, and I've never been happy with my description or explanation. In essence, I'm talking about a curved grip which brings the point more in line with the forearm.
Here's a MyArmoury.com thread by Matthew Korenkiewicz on his OllinSword saber. The pictures there show the grip being somewhat bent towards the forward quillon. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15703&highlight=karabela
From the way the 1796 feels in the hand, even a very slight change to the angle of the grip should improve handling significantly. After all, didn't Archimedes say, give me a long enough lever and a place to stand, and I can swing a Buster sword?
