|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 6, 2015 9:27:37 GMT
The hilt says sword 21 of the 62 British Infantry (line) (Wiltshire's) Lowland Scotish Regiment raised in the time of troubles. Search and you can read their service history in Wikipedia. Old noncom's sword from the looks of it. Not sure of the dating. 1790-1820ish. Don't think it's revolutionary war, but will look this pm.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 6, 2015 16:13:41 GMT
I know it's not European, but does anyone have any experience with the Japanese type 32 cavalry saber? They seem ambidextrous, and relatively inexpensive, and not terrible uncommon. I looked at the stats of mine. The blade is 6mm at the base, and tapers to 4mm 1' from the tip. The blade is 32.5 inches, with a PoB of 8 inches. Despite being a "cavalry" sword, it is extremely small - here it is next to my 1867 Swiss. Despite the size difference, the Swiss is much easier to handle. I did not take measurements of my particular example, but Dave Kelly's numbers shows that it tapers form 7.8mm to 2.5mm, with a PoB of 5.25 inches despite the longer blade. On the plus side, the grip is small, but cozy. The checkered pattern gives good traction, and the back strap does not fall away until the every end, giving good support. It does cutting very well, but at the expense of fine handling. I do not have a scale. However, I would say that the Type 32 is around 2lb - similarto the Swiss. The blade is a thing of beauty - precisely machined and flawless View of the grip, showing the checkered pattern and the heel support.
|
|
|
Post by Sugiyama on Oct 6, 2015 20:30:13 GMT
I absolutely love all the attention this thread has received. Thanks so much everyone, especially Afoo for all of the help! I'll take the time waiting for my Showato to be fully customized to make a decision, or at very least narrow it down.
Last question (until my next one, I'm sure :D), does anyone have any opinions on Spanish sabers? I know Dave Kelly mentioned one in a post that's stickied here.
Thanks a bunch, folks!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 6, 2015 22:03:00 GMT
I have owned most base Spanish enlisted models post 1817. There are only two that are worth spit. Spanish manufactured their own version of the British officer 1821. It's a little shorter in blade and hilt, but a friendly piece. They made them for the Portuguese army right up to WWII. The other is the M1860 dragoon which is german designed and an undervalued sabre.
Officers are a different subject. There were standard models, but Spanish culture appears to have frowned on an autocratic officer showing interest in plebian regulation swords.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 7, 2015 0:47:54 GMT
Pretty sure it is a "bandsman's sword" 1820-1850
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 7, 2015 1:08:25 GMT
Another thought I just had: If you're interested in a drill sabre, a briquet (Spanish, Italian, French, or Belgian, doesn't really matter) would be perfect if you are working in confined quarters. They frequently appear on eBay at reasonable price points.
|
|
|
Post by Sugiyama on Oct 7, 2015 1:27:34 GMT
I have definitely considered briquets, as the bulk of them are ambidextrous. Thanks for the suggestion, aronk! I love your profile picture, by the way. Scotland Forever!
|
|
|
Post by Sugiyama on Oct 7, 2015 15:46:22 GMT
In the interest of preservung antique blades, what are the best handling saber repros on the market? The most frequent one I see mentioned here is the CS Prussian, which lucky for me comes in a left hand variant. Unfortunately, I haven't heard good things about pipebacks in a historical context, citing Matt Easton's video about how they quickly phased out of the British military, due to flexibility at a detrimental level, and the pipeback being a hinderance in a cut. I haven't heard anything definitive on the MRL 1860 regarding handling, only that it is not as good as its American or French counterparts. Note that I'm not really interested in Universal Swords, as the quality of their steel, at least according to that Skallagrim review, is around 40-45 hrc, minimum for a cutting blade of that size. I could be wrong, though. Anyone with experience in cutting with Universal swords is welcome to add input.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 7, 2015 16:56:13 GMT
How does one test hrc? I can take a look at the Princess of Wales I have.
The Prussian CS is nice handling, though I can't say much about its cutting ability. The CS 1860 looks very close to historical specs, though the historical sword wasn't terribly good either. The CS 1830 sword is a bit heavy - definitely not historical, but it is usable. I would put it a bit above the 1860 actually.
|
|
|
Post by Sugiyama on Oct 7, 2015 17:29:21 GMT
In the review Skall had some scratch testers he used on the blade. I'm not sure where he got them. I love the look of the Princess of Wales sword, but an edge that's quick to dull is a massive turn-off for me.
In what ways would you say the CS 1830 is better than the MRL 1860? I wouldn't think it'd handle better, but I have no experience with either. Durability isn't as much as a concern as good handling in this case, especially since both are perfectly hard-wearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 18:44:06 GMT
Hardness testing files are available as a set for about $100 usd or so. I have managed without them using various blades for fifty years. Honestly, 40-50 on the Rockwell scale is fine as long as you are not chopping a lot of wood. Sure, edge retention will be less. Keep in mind a lot of the India shops are selling these swords for reenactment and display. What one uses them for after that is up to the individual. I could recant my adventure again. I began by selecting a reproduction purely on overall measurements and amount of curve (little curve). I then proceeded to sit down with a file and stones to grind and sharpen a typical India made product. I doubt the hardness is much less or more than a lot of the Windlass stuff, as it files readily while taking a keen edge. It was not a great many years before I found a sound, simple mounted artillery sword. That one was not my first antique and it differs a good bit from that first reproduction I bought. I would highly suggest buying a reproduction for a start and buy what appeals to your nature. If you are determined to buy a cutter first most, the various Cold Steel offerings are not a bad way to go. As far as 1796 light cavalry types, you can pick up Prussian sabres of the late imperial periods at decent prices that have solid hilts and great blade steel. Here is my motley crew from a few years ago. That reproduction is at one end and my dedicated cutter the simple brass hilt dove head next to a couple of shorter eagles. One of of the eagles is raaaazzzzor sharp and yes, I have cut stuff with it. Both of that pair the same blade type as the British 1803 infantry sabres. The big hussar hilt is 1750ish Swedish. Note the US m1902 near the reproduction looks kind of puny but Cold Steel does make various US models as sharps. The Marines nco about the size of my reproduction confederate foot officer sword. IMHO, the Cold Steel sharps are kind of hard to beat for a beginner. Any of them.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 8, 2015 5:39:22 GMT
Hello I'm new here (although I've wasted many lunch breaks on this forum as a guest, so in a way I'm not) I'm just wondering if hardness is really a critical factor for light cutting in general? It might be, if you're going to be running your sword through steel cuirasses (and possibly the occasional encapsulated cuirasser) on a regular basis. However, I suspect your average carbon-steel "battle-ready" sword will make quick work of tatami mats and soda bottles regardless of hrc rating. In terms of alternatives, I know KoA has a couple of Napoleonic swords including this mean-looking one. Also, Empire Costume has several Napoleonic repros. I don't have any experience with these, so perhaps someone might be able to comment. Universal also does a repro P1885. I havn't handled it (I have my own, but from Solingen, not Jodhpur ). I've handled both the CS 1830 and the Princess of Wales (they're Afoo 's... I happen to be his brother) and I'm sure you won't be sad with either. Just out of curiosity, do you have nay previous sword handling experience? I myself fence foil... and going from a 300gr foil to a 1200gr military sabre was quite an experience!
|
|
|
Post by Sugiyama on Oct 8, 2015 11:42:23 GMT
I've been using katana for the past two years, and have owned a CS 1815 officer sword for most of that time. It's thick and heavy, and it's completely dead in the hand. The reason I was considering antiques in the first place was because most all production sabers (to my knowledge) handle so poorly. The only production swords I've heard have nice handling are the CS Prussian and the CS Shamshir. I'll admit, I probably don't need to worry about edge retention with the targets I'll probably cut. I'm just not as open to the idea of a sword with an edge that's quicker to dull, even though in all reality it's probably only marginally.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Oct 8, 2015 15:54:03 GMT
I have no experience with Empire as far as cutting goes, but the infantry officer's sabre that I have is quite nice. I have a review of it here somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 8, 2015 20:06:37 GMT
Another thought I had... I've seen quite a few British P1885/P1890 cavalry swords which have been arsenal-converted into training weapons. Very often you'll find one in mediocre aesthetic condition for a fair price. These things are built like tanks. The handle consists of two slabs of leather riveted to a full-width tang (more like a messer than a traditional sword), and the grip/guard/pommel assembly is for all intents and purposes a single piece of metal. They look like industrial killing machines and should last. There's no fancy etching/engraving so any surface rust will be easily removed. The only caveat is that the training versions have rounded points, but the blade looks like it could be re-sharpened. There's a few at this link for around $350 Canadian, or the equivalent of ten bucks US (I have no affiliations/experience with this seller-- I merely use this site for daydreaming). Alternatively Afoo might be willing to sell you our old beater P1885 Or how about a cutlass?
|
|
|
Post by Sugiyama on Oct 9, 2015 5:02:39 GMT
I have considered briquets and cutlasses, but I'd prefer to do a full sized saber if possible. Though considering the sheer number of briquets on the market it may mot be a bad way to go. I PM'd your brother regarding the P1885, in the meantime.
I also identified one of the Swiss sabers Afoo mentioned back on the first page off this thread as the 1896 or 98 cavalry sword. Anybody here have any experience with these? The one account I've ever read was on SFI, and they claimed the sword was very heavy in the hand, much different to the 1867.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 7:48:25 GMT
By nature, someone wanting to spend time training and drilling for swordsmanship afoot is going to want swords meant for work afoot. Someone doing hours of working guards and moulinet is going to benefit from swords with the mass distribution inboard. Someone primarily looking to cut stuff won't/shouldn't be as particular except forward cross section. That's not to say cavalry swords cannot work afoot but keep context in mind.
Full circle in this discussion, I believe someone was looking at Brit ish 1821 cavalry swords and I agree they are probably one of the best of both worlds. Whether or not this inquiry is a continuation of a thread at myArmoury, a suggestion I pointed out was the Windlass US 1833 Dragoon. The specs don't look horrible on paper but it is a pipeback and it is a right hand biased sword.
The single ring scabbard Portuguese cavalry swords surface, the Prussian late model sabers surface, take your pick and wait for the opportunities......or get your feet wet with a sword you fancy. Nothing wrong with being particular but the more you handle, the better. I was in love with fighting spadroons before jumping at a reproduction but only after long thought. It was a bit later I bought a dedicated cutting period sabre but I already had a lovely, well cutting period spadroon.
Context means a great deal My favorite spadroon is the first sword I pick out of a rack when I have the urge to flourish. It is not the sword I would pull out for a day of tatami. Reproductions can be reground, I have taken a few ounces off that reproduction of mine but it will never be as good as a well thought out period sword (hence hunting for my period cutter).
Some briquet look nice, fullered and with distal. Others were much more truly mass produced and the only benefit in handling is that they were short swords. Try to spend wisely either way and keep context in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Oct 9, 2015 15:44:43 GMT
I'm just wondering if hardness is really a critical factor for light cutting in general? It might be, if you're going to be running your sword through steel cuirasses (and possibly the occasional encapsulated cuirasser) on a regular basis. However, I suspect your average carbon-steel "battle-ready" sword will make quick work of tatami mats and soda bottles regardless of hrc rating. In short, you're right. Many people (especially in the knife community) fuss over the best steel and heat treatment combination. With knives, I can sort of understand it, not too much to talk about with the short little buggers otherwise ;) In all seriousness, several things matter WAY more when it comes to swords. I'll take a soft yet properly designed, balanced and mounted blade over a high-tech, vacuum-heat treated (blabla), yet poorly designed crowbar any day. If we look at originals, most were a good deal softer than what we today consider the minimum for a usable blade (45Rc). Not to mention the dubious steel quality. Yet these swords are incredibly sophisticated and deadly weapons. I'm not saying heat treatment and steel choice don't matter, they certainly do. But for most all usages, it doesn't matter much if the blade is 45 or 65HRC. The softer blade cuts bottles, tatami (and human flesh for that matter) just fine. It might nick easier and require more frequent sharpening but it will get the job done no problem. Btw, my original M1822 cavalry saber is a good deal softer than my own blades (I shoot for 58Rc), I'd estimate between 40 and 45RC. Yet I don't at all see that saber as an inferior weapon... I've cut a good deal with it and it performs excellently.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 9, 2015 16:45:56 GMT
Hear, hear! ,,We" can turn out tons of steel with the exact same composition. Turn out a thousand blades at HRC55, no problem. The guys in the 19th C. and before not so much. The sabres were tested though, in the bench. If a random one in a batch failed to pass, the lot went into the melting pot again. At least, that is how I understand the process. Somewhere on Youtube there is a video of the Wilkinson ( I think) bench test. Pure torture! No, antiques were designed to do one thing, to do maximum damage with the least energy input and they were very good at that. There are a few clunkers in the handling department, though I am quite sure that training our weak modern bodies with them would change that impression, but like chenessfan says, I rather have a ,,soft'' antique, than a HRC60 replica blade that handles like a brick. Is vacuum- heat treat the new better wow thing now? If I remember corectly, it was cryonic blah blah not to long ago? Or whatever one spells that.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 10, 2015 1:12:47 GMT
Is vacuum- heat treat the new better wow thing now? If I remember corectly, it was cryonic blah blah not to long ago? Or whatever one spells that. If eBay seller descriptions are to believed, some Chinese forges have developed super-strong Damascus-steel katana blades that can cut entire trees down
|
|