Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2007 17:33:53 GMT
I have always liked the looks of the military swords of the 1800's. I have a few of the replica cavalry sabers but, as horses an I don't really get along that great, I am looking more for an effective foot soldiers sword. The simplicity of Windlass's 1840 NCO sword has me intrigued but I am curious just how durable the one-piece brass hilt is. Also wondering about the performance of this blade. Anybody out there have any feedback on this (or similar) weapons?
Thx!
Coffee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2007 19:52:20 GMT
I've never even held one, but I wouldn't be surprised if it proved to be a tough and functional little sword. My $80 Windlass 1860 continues to impress me with its durability. The only concern I'd have would be that since the 1840 NCO is a thrusting sword, first and foremost, it needs to have a stiff blade. Windlass is known for haveing overly flexible blades on certain models, but I can't say whether this is one of them. On the upside, my 1860's blade is just about the ideal combo of flexibility and rigidity, so Windlass apparenty knows their stuff when it comes to miltary swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 0:56:15 GMT
The spine is very thick making the blade very stiff (ideal for thrusting).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 6:16:46 GMT
Thanks, Jason. That's a sword I've been interested in in the past too, but I never knew what the blade was like. I don't know why we never think of asking you guys (vendors) who can actually handle the swords, when we have questions like this. It just seems to slip the mind. ;D Thanks again. Oh, btw, I don't think the whole hilt is one solid piece, rather, I would guess they say "solid" brass because each component is cast of solid brass (pommel, grip, and guard). Can you confirm this, Jason?
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Nov 29, 2007 14:46:07 GMT
The nco hilt should be a single casting, as are originals. There were swords of the period that were built up of sveral components but not the 1840 nco. FWIW, there are a lot of original foot officer and nco swords that sell for less than $300. it's really a matter of what one seriously expects to do with it. Link of the moment www.gundersonmilitaria.comFor those interested in the basics of American military swords (really, swords in general), i can't suggest books enough. A good primer for American military swords is the Harold Peterson title that has been around since the 1950s. The American Sword 1775-1945The paperback costs less than a couple of pizzas and the book is widely available in hardcover as used. It is a great start and would answer a lot of questions for anyone intreested in what the swords were and what they are like. My Armoury has a terrific bibliography and book review section. Another author/compiler of great merit is George C. Neumann but Peterson's title is the best place to start for the basics. Information is really only keystrokes away as well. Be creative with your searches and assemble reference site links. Always check their links lists. I was a little dissapointed with the Peterson title at first because so much of the book is referenced online. It has proven to be invaluble though and I don't know how I ever managed without a copy at arms reach. I can't suggest the A&M room of SFI enough. Many topics and swords have been covered over the years. It isn't even really a matter of having to own original swords. more a matter of learning about these objects of history and doing so through ad copy and reproductions really pales to any serious study about objects and their histories. Cheers Hotspur; I hope that doesn't sound to much like a sermon ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 14:54:05 GMT
The Windlass 1850 foot sword/sabers seem be pretty popular too. The 1840 NCO sword was largely a badge of rank to be worn with a dress uniform. It wasn't a field piece although you could probably use small-sword techniques with it. The 1850s were field swords and the myarmoury guys seem like them, which is high praise for swords retailing under $200.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 18:51:49 GMT
Amen, Pastor Glen! ;D I didn't realize originals were cast as one piece. Thanks for that bit of info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 18:57:49 GMT
I'm suprised that the 1840 NCO Sword is intended as more of a uniform ornament. With the slow rate of fire exhibited by the firearms of the time I would have figured it was meant for a more useful role. I do profess my ignorance on the matter so I freely admit I am probably mistaken - just suprised nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Nov 29, 2007 19:41:10 GMT
This is not a wholly true maxim. The sword was certainly designed and issued as a functional weapon. With contracts from several makers in the tens of thousands during the American Civil War, it was hardly considered mere embellishment. While ACW sword and bayonet casualty numbers are far less than artillery, sickness and small arms fire, the swords were issued as weapons. There is more a case in stating that the musician swords saw little or no use but they too were distributed as weapons, not decoration. It is not like the economy on either side in that war could really afford superfluous expense for mere parade use. Cheers Hotspur; then again, we could all be making up what we say as we go along ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 20:26:05 GMT
Perhaps one could say that the 1840 NCO sword was simultaneously a symbol of rank and a usable battlefield weapon? What can I say, I’m a compromiser! Glen is absolutely correct about the A&M (Antique & Military) section at SFI. It is a great place to learn and ask questions. As I have said before in other threads, I think you would be pleasantly surprised by what you see. Antiques cannot be divided as neatly into pricing categories as can modern made swords, and I don’t think I have ever heard anyone suggest that someone should “save a little bit more” to buy a more expensive antique sword—just “buy the best you can afford”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2007 21:34:57 GMT
Glen is absolutely correct about the A&M (Antique & Military) section at SFI. It is a great place to learn and ask questions. As I have said before in other threads, I think you would be pleasantly surprised by what you see. Indeed. I will be checking in there more frequently myself from now on. I finally went back in and updated some personal info (email changes and whatnot), so I guess it's time to jump back in after my long hiatus. See you there, Hotspur and Jonathan. Btw, I just popped in at the A&M section and managed to find an 1840 NCO hilt pic, and it definitely does look to be a single casting. Thanks again, Glen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2007 12:10:56 GMT
OK, Couldn't wait any longer... Just placed my order with Arms of Valor for the 1840 NCO sword. Although I couldn't find any reviews on this particular sword I assume (and hope!) that it has been as well assembled as the 1860 cavalry sabre reviewed on this site. I am eager to see just how this sword handles with the slimmer, and presumably lighter, blade. I haven't seen any concerns posted anywhere indicating that brass hilts are lacking in durability and I certainly hope this is not the case here. Still looking for input but, regardless, plan to post my findings.
... the wait is going to kill me!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2007 15:00:33 GMT
This sword can apparently do some nice little cuts :
Is anybody know the precise weight of this sword ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 0:06:06 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen a weight given for the Windlass repro, but I doubt it would go much over maybe 1.5 lbs (about .7 kilos). Maybe Jason can weigh one for us? ;D
|
|
|
Post by themaster293 on Dec 31, 2007 5:12:41 GMT
This is a nifty little sword, my only problem is that it is peened, not threaded like it is advertised, and it came terribly loose from just swinging it. But I stuck the little piece of the pommel in a vice and squeezed it as hard as I could and it isn't loose any more. Then I sharpened it up with an Accusharp and now It kills milk jugs very easily. I hope this helps. Oh by the way, that is me in the video.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 7:29:17 GMT
I appreciate the feedback.. That video makes this look like a fine little sword. I am curious about the weight but I guess I'll find out fairly soon (although I don't currently have a scale!!). I hate to hear that the grip was initially loose but wonder how durable the sword is. Not that I'm paying a whole lot but I do feel my swords need to be usable (just because..). Anyone have any more input on this sword? Comfort, handling, ect...
|
|
|
Post by themaster293 on Dec 31, 2007 7:56:51 GMT
Sorry I cant tell you the weight, my scale is a digital one and stuff needs to be over five pounds for it to read. The hilt is actually TWO parts. The grip/pommel is one part, and the guard is one part. If yours gets loose heres what you do: you take the little part were it is peened in to a vice grip and squeeze as hard as you can get it and when it comes off, it should be as tight as it possibly can. Oh another thing, the rings an the scabbard are key-rings.
|
|
|
Post by themaster293 on Dec 31, 2007 7:58:46 GMT
And as far as comfort/handling go, this thing is beautiful in that category. It is perfect between a thruster and a cutter, as it does both wonderfully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 11:08:39 GMT
Thanks Themaster ! I have seen your other video with the windlass sword cane, and it's very pleasant to see that a small thrusting sword can also do some dangerous cuts. +1 for you !
|
|
|
Post by themaster293 on Dec 31, 2007 19:27:31 GMT
Thanks, karma back.
|
|