Cold Steel M1852 Prussian Sabre - Updated
Feb 1, 2015 5:11:08 GMT
Post by Afoo on Feb 1, 2015 5:11:08 GMT
Hello again - second review in as many hours!
Recently, I found myself craving a Napoleonic ANXI sabre, which I have just written about in a previous review. In order to "save" money, I decided to combine shipping with the M1852 Prussian Sword. My brother seemed to want one, and I had heard good things about it in Dave Kelly's review. I also purchased an original M1852 from Dave Kelly earlier this year, and was curious to compare the two.
Disclaimer
I purchased both this and the ANXI from KoA paying significantly more than full price due to the fact I live in Canada and our dollar is dropping faster than an overlaiden swallow, but that’s beside the point. I have no affiliation with KoA, though it would be nice if I did.
As with the AN XI, I did the sword blunted by the folks at KoA (an extra $7) for customs and personal safety reasons. I don’t cut with them, so having them sharp is just another way to accidentally hurt yourself.
Sword Data
* I have included stats from Dave Kelly ’s review, just to give an idea as to the level of consistency in the manufacture of this sword. I have also included stats from my original M1852. Actually, I copied most of the stats from Dave, since I was too lazy to go measure the sword myself. We all trust his numbers though right? >.>.
* Note: Two values are provided for the blade thickness with regards to the pipe-back swords. The first value corresponds to the thickness of the pipe-back itself, whereas the second value corresponds to the thickness of the blade immediately below the raised spine.
The back end:
The very brutal and industrial looking guard means business!
The guard of this sword reflects its Germanic origins. It’s simple and basic and 100% business, providing good coverage for your hands with no frills or flourishes. However, this simplicity and straight forwards design has a charm all its own. It gives the sword a very serious and menacing look.
While Dave Kelly does not seem to agree with the grips, I think they are actually very nice. Then again, I do have smaller hands, so perhaps thats where we differ. The grip is adequately sized for my hands, with ample room for open and closed-handed grips. While the martingale encourages the proper open-handed grip, I do wish it had a tab or inset on the backstrap for the thumb. As it is, the backstrap is rather plain. I know this is historically accurate, but it makes the sword a bit harder to grip
Open grip is very comfortable, with good support
The plain backstrap doesn't give much grip. Also a reminder about how lovely that guard looks. The nut pommel looks suspiciously round and impossible to manipulate
Historical examples of the M1852 had a set of rivets going through the grip. Given the nut pommel construction used on the CS replica, I am not surprised that these rivets are absent. Some people may find the rivets intrusive, and thus will welcome their absence. Others may find that they detract from the historical accuracy of the piece.
Martingale and grip side, showing the absent rivets
The historical accuracy takes another blow when we examine the back of the guard. Here, we see that there is no attachment point for the sword knot. Oh dear. We also see the nut for the pommel. I say nut, but it looks to me like someone has already gone through the trouble of stripping the thread off for me. I have no clue how I will be able to take it off. The grip is also a bit smushed in shape, but that is only apparent when you compare it side by side with the original.
There is also no hole for the sword knot to go through, along with other subtle differences in the shape of the scroll and the cut-outs. It looks obvious against the original, but its not noticeable in person unless you really know what to look for
Guard is slightly shorter than that of the original, and comes in at a much steeper angle
The business end:
As many of you are aware, Indian sword makers are unable to make round pipe-backed swords. As such, the CS 1852 comes with a square pipe-back. This may seem odd, but once you get used to it, it’s not too bad. It’s relatively non-intrusive, and the etching on the blade does a good job masking it, much like disruptive camouflage on a WWII ship. The etching itself is well done, though some people may object to the “Cold Steel” stamp near the bottom. Sure it ruins the historical accuracy a bit, but when you have a square pipeback, I feel like that’s the least of your concerns.
View down the blade with the square pipe-back and etching
More pictures of the etching
The pipeback has very good definition all the way down the blade. The thin part of the blade itself below the pipe-back does have some minor inconsistencies (circled in red). However, those *may* also be a result of the blunting service I received from KoA, so I would reserve judgement on them. In either case, the camera makes them look more significant than they really are. The end of the blade also has good definition, with a fine point and a nice, crisp false edge. It sure beats the little blip you get at the end of the Universal Swords 1822 pipe back
Close up of the fairly convincing false edge.
Handling:
This is where the sword really comes into its own – it’s extremely light and easy to maneuver. The grip gives good traction for most manoeuvres, aided by the martingale. I would say that this handles very similarlyy to the original M1852 in my collection. However, the CS is also a lighter sword with a thinner blade (1.12 inches across vs 1.25), so that may not be a fair comparison.
The two swords side by side. Note that the original M1852 has a thicker blade
Despite the blade being blunt, I gave a few test strikes to a piece of Styrofoam I had lying around. In the cut, the blade feels surprisingly solid despite the light weight. However, the weight as well as the thick pipe back really prevents this from being used as a heavy duty cutter. In the thrust, the blade was surprisingly stiff, and performed reasonably well. However, I feel that this is not the point of the sword – it doesn’t really feel like a sword for hitting things, but rather something that dances around. It really feels alive in your hands.
Scabbard:
This is the main weak point of the CS M1852. The scabbard itself is rather thick and overbuilt for such a small sword. As mentioned before, the scabbard of the ANXI is suspiciously similar to that of the M1852 even though the two swords are entirely different in size and design, leading me to suspect that they both come from the same blank material. When I compare the CS scabbard with the original, you can see the scale of the error – and keep in mind that the original is the one with the thicker blade! Furthering this suspicious is the fact that the scabbard does not really suit the blade of the 1852 – there is quite a bit of rattling near the bottom end, and the blade does not feel very secure or well supported when sheathing or drawing. You will also notice that the CS M1852 scabbard has the same throat piece as the ANXI. However, this piece is distinctly absent from the original Hmmm. As with the ANXI, the drag is comically large, especially when compared to the original
Side-by-side with the ANXI scabbard
Side-by-side with the original M1852 scabbard
Comically over-built drag
Despite the problems with the scabbard, I would whole-heartedly recommend this sword to anyone who is in the market for European cavalry sabres. Its fairly realistic, well made, handles beautifully, and comes in at a nice price point. Asides from the square pipe-back, it only has minor accuracy issues, but they really show up only upon direct comparison with the original.
Pros:
- Excellent handling
- Good build quality
- Price
Cons:
- Abrasive grip material (see second edit)
- Square pipe-back
- Minor historical inaccuracy in shape of guard/hilt
- Silly scabbard
Bottom line: if you are getting a repro sword, this would be the one I would recommend. Its a bit pricier than the Windlasses, but it offers very good handling coupled with decently sized grips and a unique aesthetic design.
EDIT: As I mentioned before, this sword was destined for my brother's collection. He owns an original Argentinian M1898 Officer Sword, which is arguably one of the nicest handling cavalry sabres around - its certainly the nicest of the collection we have. He tells me that the Argentinian handles nicer than the CS M1852....but not by much.
EDIT EDIT: When I first wrote this, I was wearing leather gloves (as you can see in the pictures). After having had the chance to handle it with fabric fencing gloves and/or bare handed, I have discovered one major flaw: the grip is extremely abusive. The false sharkskin they use is hard and unyielding, and the wire wrapping is way too coarse. As such, you can feel the bumps and roughness through the fencing gloves. When held bare-handed, its almost unusable its so uncomfortable. Its rougher than original sharkskin, but has a hard plastic-y feel rather than being supple and yielding in the hand.
I still stand by my point that this is a good replica for the price, but this is one major point which should be brought up prior to any purchasing decision - if you plan to use this, then plan to buy gloves to go with it
Recently, I found myself craving a Napoleonic ANXI sabre, which I have just written about in a previous review. In order to "save" money, I decided to combine shipping with the M1852 Prussian Sword. My brother seemed to want one, and I had heard good things about it in Dave Kelly's review. I also purchased an original M1852 from Dave Kelly earlier this year, and was curious to compare the two.
Disclaimer
I purchased both this and the ANXI from KoA paying significantly more than full price due to the fact I live in Canada and our dollar is dropping faster than an overlaiden swallow, but that’s beside the point. I have no affiliation with KoA, though it would be nice if I did.
As with the AN XI, I did the sword blunted by the folks at KoA (an extra $7) for customs and personal safety reasons. I don’t cut with them, so having them sharp is just another way to accidentally hurt yourself.
Sword Data
* I have included stats from Dave Kelly ’s review, just to give an idea as to the level of consistency in the manufacture of this sword. I have also included stats from my original M1852. Actually, I copied most of the stats from Dave, since I was too lazy to go measure the sword myself. We all trust his numbers though right? >.>.
* Note: Two values are provided for the blade thickness with regards to the pipe-back swords. The first value corresponds to the thickness of the pipe-back itself, whereas the second value corresponds to the thickness of the blade immediately below the raised spine.
The back end:
The very brutal and industrial looking guard means business!
The guard of this sword reflects its Germanic origins. It’s simple and basic and 100% business, providing good coverage for your hands with no frills or flourishes. However, this simplicity and straight forwards design has a charm all its own. It gives the sword a very serious and menacing look.
While Dave Kelly does not seem to agree with the grips, I think they are actually very nice. Then again, I do have smaller hands, so perhaps thats where we differ. The grip is adequately sized for my hands, with ample room for open and closed-handed grips. While the martingale encourages the proper open-handed grip, I do wish it had a tab or inset on the backstrap for the thumb. As it is, the backstrap is rather plain. I know this is historically accurate, but it makes the sword a bit harder to grip
Open grip is very comfortable, with good support
The plain backstrap doesn't give much grip. Also a reminder about how lovely that guard looks. The nut pommel looks suspiciously round and impossible to manipulate
Historical examples of the M1852 had a set of rivets going through the grip. Given the nut pommel construction used on the CS replica, I am not surprised that these rivets are absent. Some people may find the rivets intrusive, and thus will welcome their absence. Others may find that they detract from the historical accuracy of the piece.
Martingale and grip side, showing the absent rivets
The historical accuracy takes another blow when we examine the back of the guard. Here, we see that there is no attachment point for the sword knot. Oh dear. We also see the nut for the pommel. I say nut, but it looks to me like someone has already gone through the trouble of stripping the thread off for me. I have no clue how I will be able to take it off. The grip is also a bit smushed in shape, but that is only apparent when you compare it side by side with the original.
There is also no hole for the sword knot to go through, along with other subtle differences in the shape of the scroll and the cut-outs. It looks obvious against the original, but its not noticeable in person unless you really know what to look for
Guard is slightly shorter than that of the original, and comes in at a much steeper angle
The business end:
As many of you are aware, Indian sword makers are unable to make round pipe-backed swords. As such, the CS 1852 comes with a square pipe-back. This may seem odd, but once you get used to it, it’s not too bad. It’s relatively non-intrusive, and the etching on the blade does a good job masking it, much like disruptive camouflage on a WWII ship. The etching itself is well done, though some people may object to the “Cold Steel” stamp near the bottom. Sure it ruins the historical accuracy a bit, but when you have a square pipeback, I feel like that’s the least of your concerns.
View down the blade with the square pipe-back and etching
More pictures of the etching
The pipeback has very good definition all the way down the blade. The thin part of the blade itself below the pipe-back does have some minor inconsistencies (circled in red). However, those *may* also be a result of the blunting service I received from KoA, so I would reserve judgement on them. In either case, the camera makes them look more significant than they really are. The end of the blade also has good definition, with a fine point and a nice, crisp false edge. It sure beats the little blip you get at the end of the Universal Swords 1822 pipe back
Close up of the fairly convincing false edge.
Handling:
This is where the sword really comes into its own – it’s extremely light and easy to maneuver. The grip gives good traction for most manoeuvres, aided by the martingale. I would say that this handles very similarlyy to the original M1852 in my collection. However, the CS is also a lighter sword with a thinner blade (1.12 inches across vs 1.25), so that may not be a fair comparison.
The two swords side by side. Note that the original M1852 has a thicker blade
Despite the blade being blunt, I gave a few test strikes to a piece of Styrofoam I had lying around. In the cut, the blade feels surprisingly solid despite the light weight. However, the weight as well as the thick pipe back really prevents this from being used as a heavy duty cutter. In the thrust, the blade was surprisingly stiff, and performed reasonably well. However, I feel that this is not the point of the sword – it doesn’t really feel like a sword for hitting things, but rather something that dances around. It really feels alive in your hands.
Scabbard:
This is the main weak point of the CS M1852. The scabbard itself is rather thick and overbuilt for such a small sword. As mentioned before, the scabbard of the ANXI is suspiciously similar to that of the M1852 even though the two swords are entirely different in size and design, leading me to suspect that they both come from the same blank material. When I compare the CS scabbard with the original, you can see the scale of the error – and keep in mind that the original is the one with the thicker blade! Furthering this suspicious is the fact that the scabbard does not really suit the blade of the 1852 – there is quite a bit of rattling near the bottom end, and the blade does not feel very secure or well supported when sheathing or drawing. You will also notice that the CS M1852 scabbard has the same throat piece as the ANXI. However, this piece is distinctly absent from the original Hmmm. As with the ANXI, the drag is comically large, especially when compared to the original
Side-by-side with the ANXI scabbard
Side-by-side with the original M1852 scabbard
Comically over-built drag
Despite the problems with the scabbard, I would whole-heartedly recommend this sword to anyone who is in the market for European cavalry sabres. Its fairly realistic, well made, handles beautifully, and comes in at a nice price point. Asides from the square pipe-back, it only has minor accuracy issues, but they really show up only upon direct comparison with the original.
Pros:
- Excellent handling
- Good build quality
- Price
Cons:
- Abrasive grip material (see second edit)
- Square pipe-back
- Minor historical inaccuracy in shape of guard/hilt
- Silly scabbard
Bottom line: if you are getting a repro sword, this would be the one I would recommend. Its a bit pricier than the Windlasses, but it offers very good handling coupled with decently sized grips and a unique aesthetic design.
EDIT: As I mentioned before, this sword was destined for my brother's collection. He owns an original Argentinian M1898 Officer Sword, which is arguably one of the nicest handling cavalry sabres around - its certainly the nicest of the collection we have. He tells me that the Argentinian handles nicer than the CS M1852....but not by much.
EDIT EDIT: When I first wrote this, I was wearing leather gloves (as you can see in the pictures). After having had the chance to handle it with fabric fencing gloves and/or bare handed, I have discovered one major flaw: the grip is extremely abusive. The false sharkskin they use is hard and unyielding, and the wire wrapping is way too coarse. As such, you can feel the bumps and roughness through the fencing gloves. When held bare-handed, its almost unusable its so uncomfortable. Its rougher than original sharkskin, but has a hard plastic-y feel rather than being supple and yielding in the hand.
I still stand by my point that this is a good replica for the price, but this is one major point which should be brought up prior to any purchasing decision - if you plan to use this, then plan to buy gloves to go with it