|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Nov 19, 2015 12:02:24 GMT
Well, I'm disappointed. Can't say I'm surprised, but I can say I'm disappointed. In Cold Steel, of course, not our worthy reviewer! And it's a pretty saber, to my eyes. So close. They somehow can come so close, and then they drop the ball. Drat and darn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Nov 19, 2015 21:59:27 GMT
Honestly, I'm not surprised. I mean, look at all the to-and-fro'ing during the 19th century to design a good, effective military sword, and this at a time when the military could still see some possible use for a sword. Today, folks can still make pretty good *replicas* of real swords. After all, they have had all the original design work done in the past. But to design a NEW , effective sword when there is no pressing NEED for a sword ? I'm not surprised at the flaws in this new Cold Steel offering. It may LOOK good..but performance is what really counts in a weapon. And.as much as it may hurt to say it, none of today's swords are really *weapons*..they are objects of Art, sporting items to 'play' with, or decorations to hang on walls. No one *really* expects them to be actually USED to kill another human ( or at least, if they DO - I don't want to be around them if they have one in their hand)
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 20, 2015 1:22:16 GMT
Its a shame. As you say, the Thompson promises the best of both worlds - an updated hilt on a classic blade.
I also suspect that CS should hire you as a photographer - your pictures capture the look and essence of it better.
From the KoA stats, it seems like their 1796 actually has better taper and a more manageable PoB - what do you think? If this is true, then so much for progress.
Also, I appreciate you taking one for all of us and investing in this sword. With little in the way of reviews and no KoA stats, it was a big gamble.
|
|
|
|
Post by svante on Nov 20, 2015 3:09:13 GMT
First and foremost thank you for the review Mr.Kelly.
I only give praise where praise is due and your reviews and contribution to this forum in terms of Military Sabre's of the 18th to 20th century are outstanding, always a pleasure to read a piece you write.
That 1796 next to the Thombson is it a coldsteel as well? Would you happen to have a graph similar to the Thombson one seen above for a coldsteel 1796 LC Sabre?
From what i have gathered and seen seems like the 1976 LC CS is a better choice than this Thombson, would you agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Nov 20, 2015 3:48:55 GMT
First and foremost thank you for the review Mr.Kelly. I only give praise where praise is due and your reviews and contribution to this forum in terms of Military Sabre's of the 18th to 20th century are outstanding, always a pleasure to read a piece you write. That 1796 next to the Thombson is it a coldsteel as well? Would you happen to have a graph similar to the Thombson one seen above for a coldsteel 1796 LC Sabre? From what i have gathered and seen seems like the 1976 LC CS is a better choice than this Thombson, would you agree? The 1796 is a Cold Steel. However it is the famous "liljap" 1796LC ;) The moniker belongs to a one time board member, high schooler form Canada. In a moment of sheer inspiration he bought a CS1796 then called Craig Johnson at Arms and Armor and asked if they could properly profile the saber as a British Gill. Johnson fished about and replied that he could in fact do it, but he would have to charge 400.00 for the CNC time. Liljap anteed the money and he got back a 2.1 lb screamer of a 1796. Day came when he wanted a new electric guitar more than the 1796 and posted it here. I offered him 450.00 for it, willing to pay for the privilege. I may not have a proper antique but am well pleased with this one. There are some charts here somewhere. I'll see if I can find one. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Nov 20, 2015 5:17:17 GMT
 Did find an old compare between an original CS1796LC and my Militia grade Birmingham for US sales. The Cold Steel comes in at 2lbs 7ozs. ( The A&A was shaved down to 2 lbs even.)
So, it would be fair to say that the CS1796LC does handle about the same as the Thompson. |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Nov 20, 2015 20:10:10 GMT
Thanks for the review and beautiful photos. When you say the grip is plastic are you speaking of the core or it in its entirety? The descriptions state it to be ray skin. Also is it possible for the seam to be under the back strap?
I don’t know what the issue was but the following under reviews on Amazon’s page for this saber:
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
***WARNING -- THIS HAS NO MANUFACTURER WARRANTY***
By P. H. on June 5, 2015
I CALLED COLD STEEL DIRECTLY IN VENTURA, CA, AND SPOKE WITH DYLAN IN THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT. HE SAID THAT COLD STEEL CATEGORICALLY ***DOES NOT COVER*** THIS UNDER WARRANTY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WAY TO VERIFY WHERE IT CAME FROM AND THAT ANY BUYER MUST ASSUME IT IS DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE. SAME GOES FOR EVERY OTHER COLD STEEL ITEM YOU FIND HERE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Nov 21, 2015 0:35:46 GMT
Thanks for the review and beautiful photos. When you say the grip is plastic are you speaking of the core or it in its entirety? The descriptions state it to be ray skin. Also is it possible for the seam to be under the back strap? I don’t know what the issue was but the following under reviews on Amazon’s page for this saber: Since I have no intention disassembling this sword to examine entrails, my statement was rudely speculative. I think the grip is pressed plastic. Just part of my exasperation at the lightness of the hilt and overall heavy feeling of the sword. Glad you like the photos. The lodging and multi electronic transfers and resizing of this medium muddies the photos up some. I have found that Facebook transfers appear much clearer. www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002530409129 |
|
|
|
Post by svante on Nov 22, 2015 7:39:42 GMT
First and foremost thank you for the review Mr.Kelly. I only give praise where praise is due and your reviews and contribution to this forum in terms of Military Sabre's of the 18th to 20th century are outstanding, always a pleasure to read a piece you write. That 1796 next to the Thombson is it a coldsteel as well? Would you happen to have a graph similar to the Thombson one seen above for a coldsteel 1796 LC Sabre? From what i have gathered and seen seems like the 1976 LC CS is a better choice than this Thombson, would you agree? The 1796 is a Cold Steel. However it is the famous "liljap" 1796LC  The moniker belongs to a one time board member, high schooler form Canada. In a moment of sheer inspiration he bought a CS1796 then called Craig Johnson at Arms and Armor and asked if they could properly profile the saber as a British Gill. Johnson fished about and replied that he could in fact do it, but he would have to charge 400.00 for the CNC time. Liljap anteed the money and he got back a 2.1 lb screamer of a 1796. Day came when he wanted a new electric guitar more than the 1796 and posted it here. I offered him 450.00 for it, willing to pay for the privilege. I may not have a proper antique but am well pleased with this one. There are some charts here somewhere. I'll see if I can find one. Fantastic purchase and thank you for the little stats grid, good to know they handle the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 23, 2015 23:50:35 GMT
Did find an old compare between an original CS1796LC and my Militia grade Birmingham for US sales. The Cold Steel comes in at 2lbs 7ozs. ( The A&A was shaved down to 2 lbs even.)
So, it would be fair to say that the CS1796LC does handle about the same as the Thompson. How about the other parents - how does the Thompson compare to the CS 1904? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Nov 24, 2015 0:02:35 GMT
I'm gonna have to beg off on this one Afoo. Sudden burst of energy I have got a bunch of projects to catch up on. The CS1904 stuff should be in the review history file. I wasn't at all positive on the Austrian 1904 original, and the CS repeats the sins of the father. I sold the CS long time ago, so empirical review isn't possible anymore.
I'd say the backsword blade on the Thompson probably trumps the pipeback a bit. The saber will penetrate and draw getting better penetration. Pipeback is a much strighter blade an winds up depending on percussion moreso.
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Nov 24, 2015 0:22:36 GMT
Fair enough. I looked at the stats from your review (thanks for your service to the community for writing those BTW), but I know numbers do not always tell the whole truth.
Either way, I think the overall feel of the Thomson is expressed quite unambiguously here. It does look nice though....
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 17, 2015 19:12:55 GMT
Okay, so Afoo and I had the opportunity to take this puppy off Dave Kelly 's hands, so I thought I'd add my two cents and share some potential ideas for DIY improvement  On first impression, the blade itself isn't terrible. Yes, it balances waayyy out at 8 inches, but the whole kit is just a bit over two pounds, so it shouldn't handle tooooo badly. It's smaller than the CS 1796LC, and seems much more lively. My key gripe is with the grips. They're closer in shape and size to what you'd find in a modern fencing saber or foil; ideal for finger and point-work, but they're way too narrow to exert positive control over a cavalry saber. When I get home, I'll post some pictures comparing this grip to a 1796LC to show the difference. The blade itself doesn't seem terrible, and I suspect that if CS decides to chuck this smaller blade onto their 1796LC grip/hilts, they might actually have something workable (on a related note- if anyone has a spare CS 1796LC they'd be willing to part with in the name of science, I'd be very interested in prototyping that hybrid). Correcting the grips is a bit out of my league. However, I noticed that the foible of the blade (from the end of the fuller to the tip) is ovoid in profile whereas on a real 1796 it is completely flat. I'm thinking that it would be relatively easy to flatten this section down using a palm sander, going some way to improve blade balance. Ovoid foibles seems to be a common issue with repros (it afflicts my Windlass 1906 saber as well), so if it yields a significant improvement here, I might prescribe it as a common fix. Also, I'm thinking of knocking a hole in the guard and installing a leather martingale made from an old watch-strap to help with control.  Thompson saber: round, blobby tip (noticeable in the reflection) Dave Kelly Review
Antique 1896MB (1796LC descendant): thin, sheetmetal-like tipOn the upside, I like the look of the thing. Definitely like it enough to put effort into trying to correct it as mentioned above. On an unrelated note: I noticed that most of my grip strength comes from my last three fingers. I'm not sure if that's "correct" for military swordplay, but it's what I picked up from practicing fencing. Correct or not, I find it particularly troublesome with this sword since in additional to being small, the grip tapers down towards the back... |
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 17, 2015 20:21:38 GMT
[...]However, I noticed that the foible of the blade (from the end of the fuller to the tip) is ovoid in profile whereas on a real 1796 it is completely flat. I'm thinking that it would be relatively easy to flatten this section down using a palm sander, going some way to improve blade balance. Ovoid foibles seems to be a common issue with repros (it afflicts my Windlass 1906 saber as well), so if it yields a significant improvement here, I might prescribe it as a common fix. [...] It looks like they profiled the blade so that the same blanks could be used to produce a spear point and a more hatchet-like point, hence the central ridge you see at the termination of the fullers. I am guessing that ridge extends to the tip and goes it that ovoid appearance. I'll take some pics of my Princess of Wales and see how that compares. I suspect that the Princess of Wales from Universal Swords may be similar to the Tommy sabre in terms of blade shape and profile. Can verify it when I get home though. In that case, the PoW might be a good simulator of the Tommy-1796 hybrid you propose |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 18, 2015 0:55:48 GMT
I think the Thompson Saber blade is a scaled-down version of the 1796LC, so something similar to a Prussian artillery sword. Consequently, I don't think it'll be comparable to the PoW.
Thought I'd take the opportunity to confirm that this is indeed a screw pommel. Gave it a twist. Got a hollow cavity in the pommel, so I might stuff some lead shot in there to move the PoB a bit further back.
I'm going to give a try at flattening the tip and adding a martingale. Let's see if it's possible to polish a turd
|
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Dec 18, 2015 1:29:48 GMT
I'm wondering..what with all the sabres out there, if we are missing a vital point. After all..the large majority of the sabres were meant to be Cavalry weapons. Today..it'd be a very rare reviewer who can actually evaluate them as a CAVALRY weapon. Cavalry were primarily designed to combat fellow cavalrymen, and their weapons were designed with this primary function in mind. Is it really fair to judge a cavalry weapon from the point of view of someone working on the ground ? Mind you..I'm not in any way trying to disparage the work of our talented reviewers, just putting a consideration out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 18, 2015 1:52:14 GMT
That's a pretty good point you brought up, and if I may add... We all have the image of cavalrymen riding by, taking golf-swings at people's heads with their whacking big swords. I'm not an actual expert on the topic (and if anyone is, by all means correct me), but I understand that most cavalry swords were intended for melee actions like this:  Time for a group hug!!!Here, I'd imagine the fighting to be quite stationary and relatively similar to using a sword on foot. And if I were in that situation, I'd really want something lighter and more nimble. I'll take a lance for shock action instead, thank you. There were some swords designed for mounted shock action (Swedish 1893, US 1913 "Patton", for example). And as you hinted earlier, these do tend to be less than ideal for dismounted use. However, I suspect a need for battlefield versatility (ex. in case of unexpected dismounted or melee action) would prevent designers from compromising dismounted performance too much. The second point is that it is possible to make powerful, percussive weapons that don't feel dead in the hand. I have a few "slashy" cavalry swords (Swiss 1867 and Brit 1885). While these are indeed noticeably slower and heavier than their infantry counterparts, they are still very much usable on foot, and a good deal more nimble than most reproductions I've seen. Nonetheless, it doesn't take away from your point that the "originals" weren't designed to be waved around casually in a suburban house by eccentrics such as us, and should be a factor when reviewing  . That's something I often loose sight of myself.
In either case, this Thompson Saber is mine now, and imma gonna make it work well on foot, original design intentions be darned!  |
|
Aikidoka
Member
Monstrous monk in training...
Posts: 1,452
|
Post by Aikidoka on Dec 18, 2015 2:13:26 GMT
Can you post some pictures?
I'm considering this sword for tatami cutting practice. Once you had the pommel nut off, was the grip still fairly tight? It's pinned though the grip and tang, right? Do you have a better idea of the grip material (plastic vs rayskin)?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Dec 18, 2015 3:22:32 GMT
I'm wondering..what with all the sabres out there, if we are missing a vital point. After all..the large majority of the sabres were meant to be Cavalry weapons. Today..it'd be a very rare reviewer who can actually evaluate them as a CAVALRY weapon. Cavalry were primarily designed to combat fellow cavalrymen, and their weapons were designed with this primary function in mind. Is it really fair to judge a cavalry weapon from the point of view of someone working on the ground ? Mind you..I'm not in any way trying to disparage the work of our talented reviewers, just putting a consideration out there. I'm not trying to be a smart ass. The answer to your question is you gots to sheath the sword and pick up some history books and catalogs and learn the types of swords, theory of period warfare and military history. This crosses over to Afoos post. Cavalry tactics are mobile. A stationary horseman is a dead horseman. Combat differs from fencing in that you want your soldier to kill the enemy in the most economical way possible. Create gang situations where your people can isolate individuals at 3-1 odds and take them out with back stabs they can't defend themselves from. The classic saber was a cutting sword. In charges eastern armies used lances. The straight thrust in the charge hopefully creates holes and destabilizes the opponent so the follow on ranks can used swords and maces to enlarge the losses of the opponent. Western European Cavalry abandoned the lance in favor of basket hilted longswords; essentially hand lances. These emphasized the thrust. Mounted sword fighting doesn't necessarily require Conan like strokes. You have horses providing kinetic energy. Lot of situations it's enough to hold your sword out and and just hogtie the opponent. Sorry; I'm doing this improptu and not prepared to make an essay. Please don't get tied to the notion that you can only talk about cavalry sabers if you served in a pre 1870 cavalry regiment. There are three good cavalry history books in British literature you can find on amazon.com; Ltc Denison and Cpt Nolan (of Charge of the Light Brigade fame). |
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 18, 2015 4:43:25 GMT
I'm wondering..what with all the sabres out there, if we are missing a vital point. After all..the large majority of the sabres were meant to be Cavalry weapons. Today..it'd be a very rare reviewer who can actually evaluate them as a CAVALRY weapon. Cavalry were primarily designed to combat fellow cavalrymen, and their weapons were designed with this primary function in mind. Is it really fair to judge a cavalry weapon from the point of view of someone working on the ground ? Mind you..I'm not in any way trying to disparage the work of our talented reviewers, just putting a consideration out there This crosses over to Afoos post. You mean bfoos's post? Our plan is working! They are confused now *sneaks around and pokes back* There is a point there in that we will always be lacking the horse element from our testing. I do believe that Dave's and Bfoo's opinion is that we know enough about tactics and biomechanics and general sword handling that we can extrapolate and plug most of the gaps with reasonable accuracy accuracy. I would concur. Yes, its impossible to get 100% verification without a horse, but we can be pretty confident. Its like the science I do at work. We cannot *actually* look at atoms directly, but what we get through extrapolation is basically the same. One control we can do, is to compare the Tommy sabre against other similar sabres. Yes, we are lacking said horse, but the differences in handling should still be consistent between the two sabres in question irregardless of whether I am mounted, on foot, or riding a tiger made of lightning. If you notice in the reviews, the main complaint against most modern repros is not that they are slow, but rather that they are slow in comparison to original swords of similar design. Likewise, the Windlass 1860 and 1840 get decent reviews not because they are quick, but because they are *as* quick as the original designs. Here, the criticism (or lack thereof) is derived from comparisons with the originals, not through their handling on foot. On horse, this sabre may be decent, but the fact remains that it will still be slower than the originals. Personally, I agree with bfoo in that percussive force is not a priority for sabres. If I take a swing at you from horseback at full charge, it really does not matter if I swing at you with a 1840 sabre, or with a two by four - you are likely going to hurt. Where individual differences in sword design show up are in the melee. Of course, your sword needs to be able to take impacts at full charge without breaking etc, but once you get past these basic requirements for structural integrity, any more bulk is likely going to be un-neccessary. |
|
. 
