Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2008 12:09:35 GMT
Hey guys,
just wondering what anyones opinion is on the cold steel sabres? Specifically either the heavy or light cavalry sabres? How good are they for cutting? Sabre forms? Balance, things like that?
Any help appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Apr 9, 2008 15:47:22 GMT
Here is a great review by ShooterMike of the CS 1796
/v45index.cgi?board=swordreviews&action=display&thread=1906
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2008 16:09:40 GMT
the 1796 seems to be an ink blot test for cold steel sabers, many love it, some are lividly against it and say it's too tip heavy...but then again, it IS a cavalry saber.
i wish someone would do another review of it on this forum, i feel like the SFI ones might be jaundiced. and i wonder if ShooterMike got a freakishly awesome sword, or if they're all like that! if they are, that's going on my list in either 1st or second place for next sword purchase, though i want to get a confederate saber first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 4:36:35 GMT
i bought a 1796 LCS. im just wating for it to come in the mail now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2008 8:05:19 GMT
excellent! share some impressions please, do some heavy cutting!
congrats on you new sword!
|
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on May 14, 2008 12:34:51 GMT
the 1796 seems to be an ink blot test for cold steel sabers, many love it, some are lividly against it and say it's too tip heavy...but then again, it IS a cavalry saber. i wish someone would do another review of it on this forum, i feel like the SFI ones might be jaundiced. and i wonder if ShooterMike got a freakishly awesome sword, or if they're all like that! if they are, that's going on my list in either 1st or second place for next sword purchase, though i want to get a confederate saber first. In the end, it's all a bit relative. The way a sword handles for one person is always a bit subjective, so the basic statistics are going to relate a bottom line. I believe just about all the current Cold Steel curved jobs have been reviewed or written about on this site except what they label (incorrectly) an 1830 Napoleonic. That sword has actually gotten favorable nods as well over the years. If the primary focus is going to be cutting, any with a good edge are going to do just fine with practice. That is true of most swords anyway. They will perform more or less within the parameters limited by mass distribution and blade geometry. If the primary focus is going to be applying the sword to historical context and "forms", it might do well to keep things in context. Any reproduction is often going to pale in comparison to historical examples. Although there is also variation in those historical examples, the modern reproductions still seem to be a compromise in production considerations. This does make for swords that simply do not handle like the historical counterparts. A tip heavy cavalry sword is going to be just fine for cutting but is it going to be a great choice for applications of period sabre and other sword manuals? Is it even going to be fun to fool around with in ad hoc forms? Without a historical counterpart to compare to, one may never know or notice a difference. That kind of leads back full circle to buying what appeals to you and can relate well to your budget. I do know that what I bought for cutting and drilling does suffer from ill mass distribution and although I do enjoy cutting with it, I am just as (usually more) likely to now grab a period piece from the wall for flourishes and drilling. I do still work with the reproduction aside from cutting but the period stuff is just a lot more fun. I think I would have been even more dissapointed had I bought a cavalry sword for duality of purpose. Again, it's all what you expect to be doing more of but I would still make the choice of not buying a cavalry sword for appllication of any period foot work. Just my oft repeated two cents. The post renaissance reproductions really suffer a lot more from being ahistorical in the blade department. If that helps explain a jaundiced view, I don't know. I do know folk buying medieval reproductions seem to make a much bigger deal of it once they realize what they are missing in the less expensive offerings. Good luck with your choice. I know I waited a long time to finally plunge for a sabre reproduction and I can only relate why I felt that choice was the most appropriate for me. I wanted a not to curvy and not too wide blade about 33" long. My choice might not suit other's wants and needs. My 37" bladed 1500ish sidesword is nearly as quick but needs more room to play with. My 30"-31" spadroons are blazingly fast but even the reproductions of such (1840 NCO) are not going to be superiorly durable cutters. Context, first and foremost. Cheers Hotspur; flip a coin |
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on May 14, 2008 18:05:14 GMT
My experiences are a "smaller version" of HotSpur's. I liked the Cold Steel 1796 LCS when I first got it and did the review. But then I bought two Germanic-origin original sabers, one an artillery saber and the other a cavalry saber. The handling of each is so markedly different than the Cold Steel offering that it drove me to take the Cold Steel offering to the grinder in an effort to positively affect the handling.
The blade length is still the same, but the PoB has moved almost an inch to the rear and it still doesn't come close to handling as well as the originals. For lack of a better way to describe it, the CS repro is "hard to drive" in that it doesn't change direction well and is hard to slow down, speed up and turn.
Part of this is the shape of the hilt, specifically the grip, which feels overly bulky. But most of it is the glaring lack of distal taper of the cold Steel offering as compared to period originals.
I haven't gone to the trouble to completely finish the rework of the Cold Steel 1796 LCS, but when and if I do, I will post about it in the "Sword Customization" area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 17:36:13 GMT
i got my 1796 today. i paid 195 for it from manventureoutpost. there are some rust spots on the hilt, so i assume it must have been sitting for a long time before i bought it. it came with a nice leather/steel scabbard. its definatly alot heavier than my sansibar and definatly isnt as fast but it cuts very well and ill be testing it on water bottles soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on May 15, 2008 20:25:27 GMT
The leather over wood scabbard sounds like one of the older ones, before the hilt changes. if you can, it would be great to see a picture of the hilt.
Yes Mike, the bulk of the grips is another real standout. As well as any might capture the basic profile, a great many of the reproductions have quite fat grips that don't capture yet another nuance of period pieces. What manufacturers have started to get right on their medieval reproductions is still sadly lacking in every sabre reproduction I see.
I just had my College Hill reproduction out again last night for a bit of play and was immediately distressed by the feel. That because I had been handling a couple of other period pieces quite a bit over the past few weeks.
In downsizing a rather large packing box today for the recycle pickup, I should have grabbed the reproduction again to become reaquainted. Bad me, I took the 1800ish sharp off the wall and cut it up. i have had as much fun with the reproduction previously and can't really explain why I don't play with it more. Yes, it is clunky comparatively but still fun.
The Cold Steel "1860 Heavy", as related by Freebooter here is probably a fun sword too. I believe his biggest complaint with it was a plastic scabbard insert that would come adrift. that these ship sharp by default is probably a plus as well.
Cheers
Hotspur; was expecting books for fun today but they seem delayed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2008 1:27:09 GMT
'spur,
MilitaryHeritage offers the Prussian "Blucher" sabre which appears to be a dead ringer for the Cold Steel sword. (The hilt is slightly different in ways identified in other threads.) Are both of these swords made by the same manufacturer?
|
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 20, 2008 2:43:51 GMT
Hi Larry,
MH seems to sell the sword as the 1796 LC and the 1811. It had been said by some that they were the same as the Cold Steel sword, minus sharpening but one obvious difference lately would seem to be that the Cold Stell swords have a tang nut and the MH pictures don't show one.
Not haviing handled either, I cannot say they are the same, or not but MH has not updated the pictures for those in many years. If one wants a sharp, I would think the Cold Steel is probably the way to go unless they were going to do a direct comparison and then they should just buy one of each and send back the one they like the least.
Cheers
Hotspur; MH would be easier to buy from if they had a cart system online
|
|
|
|
Post by chakobsa on Jul 20, 2008 21:05:18 GMT
Hi Larry, MH seems to sell the sword as the 1796 LC and the 1811. It had been said by some that they were the same as the Cold Steel sword, minus sharpening but one obvious difference lately would seem to be that the Cold Stell swords have a tang nut and the MH pictures don't show one. Not haviing handled either, I cannot say they are the same, or not but MH has not updated the pictures for those in many years. If one wants a sharp, I would think the Cold Steel is probably the way to go unless they were going to do a direct comparison and then they should just buy one of each and send back the one they like the least. Cheers Hotspur; MH would be easier to buy from if they had a cart system online can someone point me in the direction of a nice functional replica of the 1796 HEAVY cavalry sabre? |
|
|
|
Post by swordboy bringer of chaos on Jul 20, 2008 21:19:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chakobsa on Jul 20, 2008 21:46:23 GMT
No luck there. Interesting site though.Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 20, 2008 23:08:51 GMT
Hi Larry, MH seems to sell the sword as the 1796 LC and the 1811. It had been said by some that they were the same as the Cold Steel sword, minus sharpening but one obvious difference lately would seem to be that the Cold Stell swords have a tang nut and the MH pictures don't show one. Not haviing handled either, I cannot say they are the same, or not but MH has not updated the pictures for those in many years. If one wants a sharp, I would think the Cold Steel is probably the way to go unless they were going to do a direct comparison and then they should just buy one of each and send back the one they like the least. Cheers Hotspur; MH would be easier to buy from if they had a cart system online can someone point me in the direction of a nice functional replica of the 1796 HEAVY cavalry sabre? Aside from the Military Heritage listing, www.militaryheritage.com/swords2.htmthere are some retailers in th UK that may or may not be using the same source as MH for their swords www.weaponedge.comTwo UK retailers that come up pretty quick are www.sutlers.co.uk/acatalog/swordsbaykn.htmland Jeremy TenniswoodThe first lists the sword as sharpenable. neither are a couple of other UK retailers and auction sellers I have seen out there but have not bookmarked. I'd have to backtrack through some threads. Ah, here is another one. www.worldwidearms.com/popup.cfm?p_n=459804&p_i=459804Listed at 175gbp, it is likely a reproduction and not an antique. Cheers Hotspur; originals of those can get pricy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 16:37:40 GMT
Hi Larry, MH seems to sell the sword as the 1796 LC and the 1811. It had been said by some that they were the same as the Cold Steel sword, minus sharpening but one obvious difference lately would seem to be that the Cold Stell swords have a tang nut and the MH pictures don't show one. Not haviing handled either, I cannot say they are the same, or not but MH has not updated the pictures for those in many years. If one wants a sharp, I would think the Cold Steel is probably the way to go unless they were going to do a direct comparison and then they should just buy one of each and send back the one they like the least. Cheers Hotspur; MH would be easier to buy from if they had a cart system onlineCS also shows no tang nut on the Blucher, but Mike's and Kriegschwert's both had the tang nut. So, I imagine all recent productions do from this maker (Weapons' Edge?). Does MH offer a sharpening option? If not, what does one do--buy a big set of crock sticks? I'd hate to have at it with a knife shapener and spoil the edge geometry, if that is a concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 19:27:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Jul 21, 2008 20:21:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2008 20:31:01 GMT
I can only say that if one wants a reasonably priced, factory sharpened 1796 LCS for backyard cutting, then the Cold Steel offering should be perfectly fine. Mike's has proven to be tough and effective, if not all that well balaced. My reason for returning mine was purely aesthetic. I find the 1796 LCS one of the most attractive swords of all time, and the tang button was just too jarring to my senses. If CS were the only game in town, I'd have lived with it, but knowing there are more faithful offerings available, I decided to send it back. As of about 6-8 months ago, MH claimed (via email) that their 1796s are as pictured on their site. Whether this remains true today, I do not know. I will be checking with them again soon, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by chakobsa on Jul 21, 2008 22:32:13 GMT
Thanks for those links, Glen. I'd seen the Sutlers one before but the others are new to me. |
|
