|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 18, 2015 5:15:25 GMT
LET THE CONFUSION REIGN!!!! *shoots out the lights* *pokes in back with sword* Perhaps I should start test-cutting off the back of a motorcycle?  I'd have a hard time explaining THAT one to the police..... |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 18, 2015 5:17:49 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! I have no cutting experience; however, I'll take the opportunity describe some of the construction. Grip is plastics, as stated in the original post. Very rough (which is a good thing, so long as you wear gloves). You can also find plenty of pictures in the original post (not that I'm adverse to posting my own... it's just that my apartment is not as photogenic as Dave's  ) The grip remains intact after removing the screw-pommel, but I suspect that's because they pumped the thing full of epoxy (fairly common with repros). I don't think it's pinned through the tang. I think those little "ears" you see at the middle of the grip are purely cosmetic. To be honest, I find the grip too small for adequate edge alignment. There are probably better repros out there for that. Again, don't take my word for it, as I have absolutely no practical cutting experience- if you like what you see, go for it. It does look good, covered head-to-toe in "tactical" black (although I'll probably have a stab at removing it from at least the blade) |
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Dec 21, 2015 19:14:49 GMT
LET THE CONFUSION REIGN!!!! *shoots out the lights* *pokes in back with sword* Perhaps I should start test-cutting off the back of a motorcycle? I'd have a hard time explaining THAT one to the police..... Courtesy of Mike Harris (aka ShooterMike), circa mid-2009: I have nothing else to share, but I've been reading along and the quoted comment made me remember Mike's video, and I thought it seemed appropriate to share. |
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Dec 30, 2015 3:27:42 GMT
I believe there is a video of Skallagrim cutting on a bicycle. In any case, I believe it was Major-General John Gaspard Le Marchant who claimed that the weapon used in the charge was of little importance, as nearly anything, including a pointy stick (lance), or a spike with a hilt [cough]P1908[cough] will do the job there. The merits of a cavalry sabre are in its performance in horse to horse melee, and in that instance, the more maneuverable weapon often wins out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 30, 2015 3:43:26 GMT
I believe there is a video of Skallagrim cutting on a bicycle. In any case, I believe it was Major-General John Gaspard Le Marchant who claimed that the weapon used in the charge was of little importance, as nearly anything, including a pointy stick (lance), or a spike with a hilt [cough]P1908[cough] will do the job there. The merits of a cavalry sabre are in its performance in horse to horse melee, and in that instance, the more maneuverable weapon often wins out. I completely agree. On horseback, you have such an overwhelming edge over the poor bloke on foot, you don't *need* a dedicated thrusting weapon, so you might as well take something with a bit of versatility *cold stare towards P1908* Some exceptions exist. I have a descendant of the 1796LC, and the point is pretty flobbery and floppy. Not sure I'd be completely confident about using a 1796LC to give point (lest burrow into some Russian greatcoat and snap in half). But hey, that's why they had heavy cavalry |
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Dec 30, 2015 6:05:18 GMT
I believe there is a video of Skallagrim cutting on a bicycle. In any case, I believe it was Major-General John Gaspard Le Marchant who claimed that the weapon used in the charge was of little importance, as nearly anything, including a pointy stick (lance), or a spike with a hilt [cough]P1908[cough] will do the job there. The merits of a cavalry sabre are in its performance in horse to horse melee, and in that instance, the more maneuverable weapon often wins out. I completely agree. On horseback, you have such an overwhelming edge over the poor bloke on foot, you don't *need* a dedicated thrusting weapon, so you might as well take something with a bit of versatility *cold stare towards P1908* Some exceptions exist. I have a descendant of the 1796LC, and the point is pretty flobbery and floppy. Not sure I'd be completely confident about using a 1796LC to give point (lest burrow into some Russian greatcoat and snap in half). But hey, that's why they had heavy cavalry The P1908 was actually well-suited to its time, given that by WWI, cavalry actions were very much 'poke and run' affairs, due to the emergence of things like barbed wire, machine guns, and most importantly, reliable bolt-action rifles. This all meant that cavalry vs. cavalry melees were not to be found on European battlefields (though they were in the East, which is why many Sepoy regiments were still using rehilted 1796LC blades and later models of cut-and-thrust sword). However, were you to throw the P1908 even fifty years in the past to Crimea, it would have been perfectly useless, as lances were still around for use as a thrusting weapon in the charge, and far more effective patterns existed for use in melee, including our dear friend, the French M1822LC. Which descendant, out of curiosity? Personally, if I had to ride a horse into battle at any time from 1600-1918, I would want to be carrying the M1822LC. It has a nearly perfect balance of cut and thrust, handles beautifully (I can use one dismounted as I would an infantry sabre, granted, I am 6'2"), and has fairly good hand protection. The Montmorency blade is truly a work of genius. |
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 30, 2015 6:47:37 GMT
I completely agree. On horseback, you have such an overwhelming edge over the poor bloke on foot, you don't *need* a dedicated thrusting weapon, so you might as well take something with a bit of versatility *cold stare towards P1908* Some exceptions exist. I have a descendant of the 1796LC, and the point is pretty flobbery and floppy. Not sure I'd be completely confident about using a 1796LC to give point (lest burrow into some Russian greatcoat and snap in half). But hey, that's why they had heavy cavalry The P1908 was actually well-suited to its time, given that by WWI, cavalry actions were very much 'poke and run' affairs, due to the emergence of things like barbed wire, machine guns, and most importantly, reliable bolt-action rifles. This all meant that cavalry vs. cavalry melees were not to be found on European battlefields (though they were in the East, which is why many Sepoy regiments were still using rehilted 1796LC blades and later models of cut-and-thrust sword). However, were you to throw the P1908 even fifty years in the past to Crimea, it would have been perfectly useless, as lances were still around for use as a thrusting weapon in the charge, and far more effective patterns existed for use in melee, including our dear friend, the French M1822LC. Which descendant, out of curiosity? Personally, if I had to ride a horse into battle at any time from 1600-1918, I would want to be carrying the M1822LC. It has a nearly perfect balance of cut and thrust, handles beautifully (I can use one dismounted as I would an infantry sabre, granted, I am 6'2"), and has fairly good hand protection. The Montmorency blade is truly a work of genius. He has the 1896 MB and/or customs sword shown here (https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/46537/last-1796s-prussian-artillery-swords). Quite a neat sword, and similar to the re-hilted 1796's you mention. I would disagree with the 1906 being well-suited to its time. A more conventional design would be reasonably effective as an impart weapon on horseback, but would also give you more flexibility to fight *if* caught by opposing cavalry. It would also be more useful if you were forced to fight dismounted either on solid ground, or in the trenches and through opposing defensive positions. In warfare, versatility is always an advantage. Doubtless the 1908 was a good sword, and it was optimized for one set of parameters extremely well, but not convinced it was an optimal weapon for the times. In an era of changing warfare, there is something to be said for having a weapon that can change and adapt with you, rather than fix you in a defined role. |
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Dec 30, 2015 18:11:21 GMT
It is important to recall that by this time, cavalry were being used primarily as mounted infantry, if they were even permitted their horses at all. Most cavalry regiments fought the bulk of WWI in the trenches as infantry. As such, the goal, right or wrong, was to design a sword that was little more than a wearable, disposable lance. It is helpful to recall that the Patton "sabre" (it's a bloody sword!) was issued with a saddle scabbard, and was never intended for use in foot. Now, I am not saying that a more versatile weapon like the M1822 or the pre-1900 British swords would not have done the job, and any of them would have been more effective in a melee, but the reality is that horse to horse melee simply did not happen in WWI. The European cavalry engagements of WWI were almost exclusively 'poke and run' harassment attacks. One notable exception was the charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba, in which bayonet-armed mounted infantry charged over a mile of largely open desert at Ottoman trenches defended by machine guns and artillery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Dec 30, 2015 23:18:09 GMT
Maybe we should just say that, in the grand scheme of things, the difference in effectiveness between the 1908 and a more conventional sabre on the battlefield of WWI is relatively marginal compared to all the other factors involved in combat. Both would be effective, and certainly better than no sword at all
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 31, 2015 17:05:59 GMT
Heck, you could probably run someone down quite well with a hockey-stick from horseback |
|
|
|
Post by XxFULLPOWERxX on Jan 7, 2016 22:37:40 GMT
Great Review!
I do have a few questions for anyone with the knowledge:
Is the back-cut on the Thompson sharpened? It doesn't appear so on the pictures.
How would the Thompson stack up to actual use (on foot)? Most notably in terms of balance?
I am considering the (factory balanced) 1796 Cold Steel LC against this Thompson. I have read from one of Dave's posts that they balance the same, but bfoo 2 (or was it Afoo?) says the Thompson's smaller size makes it more maneuverable.
I understand the point of balance might be different due to size, but does anyone think the 1796 would be worthwhile over the Thompson?
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 7, 2016 23:59:29 GMT
I believe the 1796 may be better since the grips are wider and more suited for cutting. The shape of the Tommy/1904 saber grips are more balanced towards point work, being thinner and narrower. Thats fine if you have a thrusting oriented blade, but feels kinda mismatched with the Tommy saber blade.
We have not had any experience with the CS 1796. However, I do have the Universal Swords Princess of Wales saber, and bfoo and I agree that it is much better than the Tommy. The grips are much better matched to the style of blade, and the ballance is pretty sweet. At $250 from KoA, price isn't too far off either.
|
|
|
|
Post by XxFULLPOWERxX on Jan 8, 2016 19:46:24 GMT
Thanks a lot for the quick response.
I have noted the Princess of Wales saber that you mentioned... The POB is listed on Kult of Athena as 5 and 7/8". That is a pretty hard one to beat in terms of mass produced entities. Is the handle comfortable/durable with the wooden scales?
As an aside:
I don't suppose the back edge of the Thompson is factory sharp like the it is on the 1796 LC, is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 8, 2016 22:37:01 GMT
bfoo2 will have to answer that, as he has it. The Princess of Wales is very comfortable in the hand IMO. My hands are on the small side I believe. However, I find that they give good support, while the bare wood and rivets give it good durability - no worry about the leather getting scuffed or wire coming loose. Traction is not an issue, and I prefer it to the grips on the Windlass 1906, CS 1830 and CS 1852 saber, which are basically all the other repros I have owned in that category.
|
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Jan 9, 2016 2:26:00 GMT
bfoo2 will have to answer that, as he has it. The Princess of Wales is very comfortable in the hand IMO. My hands are on the small side I believe. However, I find that they give good support, while the bare wood and rivets give it good durability - no worry about the leather getting scuffed or wire coming loose. Traction is not an issue, and I prefer it to the grips on the Windlass 1906, CS 1830 and CS 1852 saber, which are basically all the other repros I have owned in that category. I've never been a fan of that particular grip type, though my EC French Infantry officer's sword does feel quite secure in the hand, even if it isn't incredibly comfortable. |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 9, 2016 23:59:29 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! I have no cutting experience; however, I'll take the opportunity describe some of the construction. Grip is plastics, as stated in the original post. Very rough (which is a good thing, so long as you wear gloves). You can also find plenty of pictures in the original post (not that I'm adverse to posting my own... it's just that my apartment is not as photogenic as Dave's ) The grip remains intact after removing the screw-pommel, but I suspect that's because they pumped the thing full of epoxy (fairly common with repros). I don't think it's pinned through the tang. I think those little "ears" you see at the middle of the grip are purely cosmetic. I recant my previous comment. The grip appears to be pinned through the ears. I scratched off the paint from the "ears" and there appears to be a ground-down rivet underneath. Furthermore, removing the pommel and prodigious hammering produces a little movement (meaning whatever epoxy was on is no longer holding), but no dis-assembly. |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 10, 2016 0:06:54 GMT
Thanks a lot for the quick response. I have noted the Princess of Wales saber that you mentioned... The POB is listed on Kult of Athena as 5 and 7/8". That is a pretty hard one to beat in terms of mass produced entities. Is the handle comfortable/durable with the wooden scales? As an aside: I don't suppose the back edge of the Thompson is factory sharp like the it is on the 1796 LC, is it? Unmodified, the Thompson Sabre would not be my first choice as a cutter. The blade itself is okay, but the grip is too small. The narrowness impedes edge alignment, and it makes what would have been a reasonable blade very hard to control. The Princess of Wales is far better in that respect. Never had the CS 1796LC, so I can't compare. There is no back edge. It's not a bad sword- 8in PoB on a 2-pound weapon is still quite reasonable, and it looks quite good. I liked it enough to go through the hassle of reprofiling the blade using a belt sander. Only did one side, but got the PoB down to 7.5 inches and it's noticeably better. Stuffing the pommel with lead shot and adding a martingale to aid edge alignment might give you something that handles quite nice. ...or you could save yourself the trouble and get the Princess of Wales  |
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 10, 2016 10:44:01 GMT
Thanks a lot for the quick response. I have noted the Princess of Wales saber that you mentioned... The POB is listed on Kult of Athena as 5 and 7/8". That is a pretty hard one to beat in terms of mass produced entities. Is the handle comfortable/durable with the wooden scales? As an aside: I don't suppose the back edge of the Thompson is factory sharp like the it is on the 1796 LC, is it? Like all wood grips of the sort the Princess has, with the diamond pattern, it may feel harsh on the naked hand a little in the beginning. In use the ,, raw " little edges soften up over time. The diamond pattern was there for a reason: to give better grip. Also do not forget that ALL sabres and swords are to be handled with gloves for better grip. That was the standard not only in the Army, but gloves were a standard item nobody in civilian life could do without too. And not just for the cold. You have no idea how dirty (germs) everything was. We, anti septic as we are, would not last a week in that environment. The grips on the Princess are well made and double peened to the tang. They should last you a lifetime. Oil them every now and then a little to feed the wood when you oil/clean the sabre. The Princess is without a doubt the best bang for your buck. It is very well made, solid and is the only sabre on the block, as far as I know, that comes even close to originals in terms of handling too, apart from some of the Empire Costume offerings that is . It has finesse, a quality that is lacking in most if not all of the CS offerings. Tempering is good. I have some antiques that are quite a bit softer. Scabbard maintenance is easy to do with Ren Wax. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jan 10, 2016 14:44:57 GMT
Thanks a lot for the quick response. I have noted the Princess of Wales saber that you mentioned... The POB is listed on Kult of Athena as 5 and 7/8". That is a pretty hard one to beat in terms of mass produced entities. Is the handle comfortable/durable with the wooden scales? As an aside: I don't suppose the back edge of the Thompson is factory sharp like the it is on the 1796 LC, is it? Like all wood grips of the sort the Princess has, with the diamond pattern, it may feel harsh on the naked hand a little in the beginning. In use the ,, raw " little edges soften up over time. The diamond pattern was there for a reason: to give better grip. Also do not forget that ALL sabres and swords are to be handled with gloves for better grip. That was the standard not only in the Army, but gloves were a standard item nobody in civilian life could do without too. And not just for the cold. You have no idea how dirty (germs) everything was. We, anti septic as we are, would not last a week in that environment. The grips on the Princess are well made and double peened to the tang. They should last you a lifetime. Oil them every now and then a little to feed the wood when you oil/clean the sabre. The Princess is without a doubt the best bang for your buck. It is very well made, solid and is the only sabre on the block, as far as I know, that comes even close to originals in terms of handling too, apart from some of the Empire Costume offerings that is . It has finesse, a quality that is lacking in most if not all of the CS offerings. Tempering is good. I have some antiques that are quite a bit softer. Scabbard maintenance is easy to do with Ren Wax. Cheers. Trying to not further derail this review but will second all comments regarding the 1791LC presentation saber. The saber first appeared in Regiments assignated to the Prince of Wales (future George IV) as a gift to his regimental officers. The style was copied buy several other Hussar units. The saber thus is not an Official "P" directed Army saber. The pommel cap is most often characterized as a "Coffin Handle" hilt. It's origin can be traced back to Poland and had a more general acceptance in central Europe earlier in the 18th Century. My review is in the archive. Universal told me about the sword soon as it shipped and put a preorder in with KoA. Also my unequivocable favorite Universal Sword. |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Feb 14, 2016 4:17:27 GMT
Hello I've recently acquired an antique Austrian 1904 officer's sword, and I've had the chance to compare it to this Thompson sabre which I got from Dave Kelly (and which I wrote about earlier)  Father and heavily curved sonFirst thing I noticed is that the CS Thompson suffers from micro-grip. The grip and hilt are noticeably smaller than the antique 1904. And this is the officer's version with a measely 31inch blade!   Microgrip. He has it baaad
For some reason, the grips on the CS Thompson feel smaller and narrower. I feel like I don't have the leverage to control the blade alignment. At first, I thought that maybe the Thompson had narrower grips than the antique. It surely looks that way from the pictures. However, my tape measure tells me that both grips are 1.5 in across. Upon closer examination, it is clear that the culprit is not the grip width, but the length. The 1904 grip tapers and narrows towards the pommel. On the antique, this narrowing occurs well past where you'd normally grip the sword. However, or the Thompson, this is not the case. Here, I've measured the length of the "flat" area of the grip. On the antique, this is almost 5 inches. On the CS, it's 4 inches.   Grip dimensions.
Overall, this seems to be classic Cold Steel. They can't seem to make grips that match the antiques. Which is a shame, because I mean, come on. How hard is it to injection-mould a piece of hard black plastic into the right shape? Note that the Thompson sabre comes from the factory with a black tactical coating on the blade. I have since given the blade a date with a belt sander to improve the distal taper. Obviously, this removes the tac-black coating (which I actually quite liked). On the plus side, the sword has improved from 2lb to 1.85lb and balances at 7in vs 8in on the original.  Actual taper at the foible!! |
|
I'd have a hard time explaining THAT one to the police.....
)
