Military Heritage 1796 British LC Sabre vs some originals
Apr 4, 2015 2:32:37 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2015 2:32:37 GMT
I present here a comparative review between a reproduction and the original models it was based on. For more understanding of the patterns, please click here.
Also take note on Timo's stats for his own 1796 and his thoughts about the repro he has (from Weapon edge).
Disclaimer
Nobody forced me to buy this and review it, I wanted to see how good this one is since Military Heritage's swords are supposed to be of better quality than most common repros found elsewhere.
Initial impression
The box was pretty slim and I feared having received a smallsword but once I opened it and unpacked the item I was sort of relieved. As soon as I held it I it was to be another Indian made repro, bummer.
The sabre itself
Let's get one thing clear: this isn't the Prussian 1811 sabre it is supposed to be, this is instead the 1796 sabre. Strangely enough they sell the 1796 in the British swords section but it is more expensive yet is the exact same thing, go figure why...
Stats for MH 1796, original 1796s, 1811 & 1848
Weight with scabbard:
1. MH 1796: 4.02lbs - 1885gr
2. 1796: 3.05lbs - 1504gr
4. Prussian 1811: 4.09lbs - 2072gr
5. German artillery sword: 3.14lbs - 1770gr
Weight out of scabbard:
1. MH 1796: 2.04lbs - 1027gr
2. 1796: 1.10lbs - 764gr
3. Export 1796: 2lbs - 937gr
4. Prussian 1811: 2.045lbs - 1028gr
5. German artillery sword: 2.047lbs - 1041gr
Weight of scabbard:
1. MH 1796: 1.14lbs - 856gr
2. 1796: 1.09lbs - 735gr
3. Prussian 1811: 2.04lbs - 1043gr
4. German artillery sword: 1.09lbs - 729gr
Thickness of fittings (cross-guard and knuckle bow):
1. MH 1796: 2/16'' / 4mm
2. 1796: 2/16'' / 4mm
3. Export 1796: 2/16'' / 4mm
4. Prussian 1811: 4/16'' / 7mm
5. German artillery sword: approx. 4/16'' / 6mm
Thickness of blade (1st third, 2nd third & 3rd third + end of tip)
1. MH 1796: 4/16'' 6mm at the 2 thirds; 2/16'' 4mm to 1/16'' (1.8mm) at end of tip
2. 1796: 6/16'' (10mm); 3/16'' (6mm); 2/16'' (3mm) to 1/16'' (1mm) at end of tip
3. Export 1796: 5/16'' (8mm); 3/16'' (4mm); 2/16'' (3mm) and 1/16'' (1.5mm) at end of tip
4. Prussian 1811: 6/16'' (10mm); 4/16'' (6mm); 3/16'' (5mm) to 1/16 (1mm) at end of tip
5. German artillery sword: 5/16 (8mm); 4/16 (6mm); 3/16 (4mm) to 1/16 (1.5mm) at end of tip
Overall length
Blade length
POB
Blade
Blade taper (from top to bottom: MH, 1811, 1796 export and 1796)
Hilt details
Overall review
Blade, hilt & scabbard quality
The thing looks like a real 1796, the parts are well crafted and faithful to the authentic models. The shape of the hilt, the dovehead pommel and angle of the crossguard are outstanding and can easily pass as a real sword where it not for the mirror polish look.
Smaller details such as the leather-covered ribbed grip and the presence of screws to the ear rivets are also noticeable and are often missing in other low-end models & the Cold Steel 1796, whose overall form lacks much in comparison.
The blade shape and width is very close to a 1796 as seeing in the stats and pics; the hatchet point is ok but looks a bit more acute than it should be.
The scabbard is also done correctly and follows the traditional drag shape of a regular 1796.
Scabbard for the 1811, 1796 and 1796 repro
Because of the different curvature of its blade, the 1811 sabre can't match the scabbard, as opposed to the other models.
Flaws
One flaw I noticed is seen at the junction point of the backstrap and ferrule: there is a spacing between them. Construction flaw or due to metal fatigue I can't know for sure but it betrays a possible fragile spot with this model.
Another flaw is that even though the blade fits, you can see in the pics that the scabbard doesn't go all the way and leaves part of the blade out. This might be the curvature of the scabbard, I tried it with the other models and it has the same problem.
Handling performance of the 1796-1811 models vs the MH reproduction
Because of their similar morphology and dynamics the sabres have almost the same handling. There are some differences though in terms of weight and blade flexibility.
The British 1796 sword with the cutout ear rivets is easily the one with most agility: despite its wide and broad blade, it is light, well balanced and handles extremely well, almost like a light stick. The blade is wide, flexible and with proper distal taper that gives it great superior slashing power.
The real and the repro
Despite having a wider blade at the ricasso, the real 1796 trashes the repro in terms of handling
The export British 1796's POB is farther than the others, has less taper & its half sized fuller give it more weight towards the point. In terms of handling it is very similar to the Prussian 1811 but doesn't have the same sturdiness.
The 1811 is the most heavily built of all and its weight is thus more than the usual 1796 but it is also a good example of solid sword engineering: the fittings are sturdier and its grip is also bigger, the blade is slightly more curved and wider than the rest, giving it a seemingly smaller size, it also has more distal taper than the rest and its POB is the same as the lighter 1796.
As a result it is harder to control than the lightest 1796 but the same as the other 1796 so it is quite a monstrous good cutter than has more impact than the others because of its blade power; you can have little doubt that if you get hit by its blade your skull will be easily cleaved in two.
The German artillery sword is the shortest, the one whose POB is closest to the guard but whose blade is much less flexible while having little distal taper and the hilt is heavier too.
It is in short a sort of mix between the 1796 and the 1811 and perhaps what should have been LeMarchand's expected end result: a balanced heavy cutter and thruster with sharp handling performance.
The Military Heritage looks true in form but is it like the real thing? Sadly, no.
The main reason is because of the blade: the POB, rigid and heavier blade kill the whole purpose of the sword as an aggressive cutter.
Having the sword standing at hand pointing upward, holding it point forward or slashing for several minutes you'll quickly notice the blade just feels like a heavy piece of iron.
Out of all the swords it has been compared to it is of poorest performance. It is harder to control, very unstable and nose heavy.
Conclusion
I was very satisfied with Military Heritage's overall service and would gadly buy more from them if they could improve their products.
That said a true 1796 is known to be swift, agile and fast despite its brutish looks yet nothing here feels as such. It's another hit and miss sabre made in India. You can see it is a slightly better in terms of historical accuracy for its appearance and quality of fittings but it stops there and fails to be suitable combat weapon.
Is it recommended? Mixed feelings here: if you want a 1796 that resembles an original but want it mainly for show or drill it's OK but if you are looking for a sabre that grasps the nature and feeling of an original and true combat sabre think again and go look elsewhere.
Having already handled the Cold Steel equivalent in the past, I'd say they wield almost the same; the MH sabre looks much real and is less expensive but is not sharpened.
In terms of price if you are in Canada it is of good price range & accessible than at Kult of Athena but US buyers might rather be better served with KOA. For 225$CAD I think it is too much for a sabre that is limited in its potential despite being advertised differently since you basically pay for yet another sword made in India, a nicely made one but that's about it.
As a wiser forum member than me likes to say, Balls!
Also take note on Timo's stats for his own 1796 and his thoughts about the repro he has (from Weapon edge).
Disclaimer
Nobody forced me to buy this and review it, I wanted to see how good this one is since Military Heritage's swords are supposed to be of better quality than most common repros found elsewhere.
Initial impression
The box was pretty slim and I feared having received a smallsword but once I opened it and unpacked the item I was sort of relieved. As soon as I held it I it was to be another Indian made repro, bummer.
The sabre itself
Let's get one thing clear: this isn't the Prussian 1811 sabre it is supposed to be, this is instead the 1796 sabre. Strangely enough they sell the 1796 in the British swords section but it is more expensive yet is the exact same thing, go figure why...
Stats for MH 1796, original 1796s, 1811 & 1848
Weight with scabbard:
1. MH 1796: 4.02lbs - 1885gr
2. 1796: 3.05lbs - 1504gr
4. Prussian 1811: 4.09lbs - 2072gr
5. German artillery sword: 3.14lbs - 1770gr
Weight out of scabbard:
1. MH 1796: 2.04lbs - 1027gr
2. 1796: 1.10lbs - 764gr
3. Export 1796: 2lbs - 937gr
4. Prussian 1811: 2.045lbs - 1028gr
5. German artillery sword: 2.047lbs - 1041gr
Weight of scabbard:
1. MH 1796: 1.14lbs - 856gr
2. 1796: 1.09lbs - 735gr
3. Prussian 1811: 2.04lbs - 1043gr
4. German artillery sword: 1.09lbs - 729gr
Thickness of fittings (cross-guard and knuckle bow):
1. MH 1796: 2/16'' / 4mm
2. 1796: 2/16'' / 4mm
3. Export 1796: 2/16'' / 4mm
4. Prussian 1811: 4/16'' / 7mm
5. German artillery sword: approx. 4/16'' / 6mm
Thickness of blade (1st third, 2nd third & 3rd third + end of tip)
1. MH 1796: 4/16'' 6mm at the 2 thirds; 2/16'' 4mm to 1/16'' (1.8mm) at end of tip
2. 1796: 6/16'' (10mm); 3/16'' (6mm); 2/16'' (3mm) to 1/16'' (1mm) at end of tip
3. Export 1796: 5/16'' (8mm); 3/16'' (4mm); 2/16'' (3mm) and 1/16'' (1.5mm) at end of tip
4. Prussian 1811: 6/16'' (10mm); 4/16'' (6mm); 3/16'' (5mm) to 1/16 (1mm) at end of tip
5. German artillery sword: 5/16 (8mm); 4/16 (6mm); 3/16 (4mm) to 1/16 (1.5mm) at end of tip
Overall length
Blade length
POB
Blade
Blade taper (from top to bottom: MH, 1811, 1796 export and 1796)
Hilt details
Overall review
Blade, hilt & scabbard quality
The thing looks like a real 1796, the parts are well crafted and faithful to the authentic models. The shape of the hilt, the dovehead pommel and angle of the crossguard are outstanding and can easily pass as a real sword where it not for the mirror polish look.
Smaller details such as the leather-covered ribbed grip and the presence of screws to the ear rivets are also noticeable and are often missing in other low-end models & the Cold Steel 1796, whose overall form lacks much in comparison.
The blade shape and width is very close to a 1796 as seeing in the stats and pics; the hatchet point is ok but looks a bit more acute than it should be.
The scabbard is also done correctly and follows the traditional drag shape of a regular 1796.
Scabbard for the 1811, 1796 and 1796 repro
Because of the different curvature of its blade, the 1811 sabre can't match the scabbard, as opposed to the other models.
Flaws
One flaw I noticed is seen at the junction point of the backstrap and ferrule: there is a spacing between them. Construction flaw or due to metal fatigue I can't know for sure but it betrays a possible fragile spot with this model.
Another flaw is that even though the blade fits, you can see in the pics that the scabbard doesn't go all the way and leaves part of the blade out. This might be the curvature of the scabbard, I tried it with the other models and it has the same problem.
Handling performance of the 1796-1811 models vs the MH reproduction
Because of their similar morphology and dynamics the sabres have almost the same handling. There are some differences though in terms of weight and blade flexibility.
The British 1796 sword with the cutout ear rivets is easily the one with most agility: despite its wide and broad blade, it is light, well balanced and handles extremely well, almost like a light stick. The blade is wide, flexible and with proper distal taper that gives it great superior slashing power.
The real and the repro
Despite having a wider blade at the ricasso, the real 1796 trashes the repro in terms of handling
The export British 1796's POB is farther than the others, has less taper & its half sized fuller give it more weight towards the point. In terms of handling it is very similar to the Prussian 1811 but doesn't have the same sturdiness.
The 1811 is the most heavily built of all and its weight is thus more than the usual 1796 but it is also a good example of solid sword engineering: the fittings are sturdier and its grip is also bigger, the blade is slightly more curved and wider than the rest, giving it a seemingly smaller size, it also has more distal taper than the rest and its POB is the same as the lighter 1796.
As a result it is harder to control than the lightest 1796 but the same as the other 1796 so it is quite a monstrous good cutter than has more impact than the others because of its blade power; you can have little doubt that if you get hit by its blade your skull will be easily cleaved in two.
The German artillery sword is the shortest, the one whose POB is closest to the guard but whose blade is much less flexible while having little distal taper and the hilt is heavier too.
It is in short a sort of mix between the 1796 and the 1811 and perhaps what should have been LeMarchand's expected end result: a balanced heavy cutter and thruster with sharp handling performance.
The Military Heritage looks true in form but is it like the real thing? Sadly, no.
The main reason is because of the blade: the POB, rigid and heavier blade kill the whole purpose of the sword as an aggressive cutter.
Having the sword standing at hand pointing upward, holding it point forward or slashing for several minutes you'll quickly notice the blade just feels like a heavy piece of iron.
Out of all the swords it has been compared to it is of poorest performance. It is harder to control, very unstable and nose heavy.
Conclusion
I was very satisfied with Military Heritage's overall service and would gadly buy more from them if they could improve their products.
That said a true 1796 is known to be swift, agile and fast despite its brutish looks yet nothing here feels as such. It's another hit and miss sabre made in India. You can see it is a slightly better in terms of historical accuracy for its appearance and quality of fittings but it stops there and fails to be suitable combat weapon.
Is it recommended? Mixed feelings here: if you want a 1796 that resembles an original but want it mainly for show or drill it's OK but if you are looking for a sabre that grasps the nature and feeling of an original and true combat sabre think again and go look elsewhere.
Having already handled the Cold Steel equivalent in the past, I'd say they wield almost the same; the MH sabre looks much real and is less expensive but is not sharpened.
In terms of price if you are in Canada it is of good price range & accessible than at Kult of Athena but US buyers might rather be better served with KOA. For 225$CAD I think it is too much for a sabre that is limited in its potential despite being advertised differently since you basically pay for yet another sword made in India, a nicely made one but that's about it.
As a wiser forum member than me likes to say, Balls!