Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 14, 2016 17:54:25 GMT
 While answering a question about the removal of gun blue from swords, ( sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/46818/removed-black-finish-steel-messer), it occurred to me that I have never posted anything about this CS, though I have the thing for quite some time now. I had to take some pictures anyway, so why not use them in a review. I went through the Sword Review Index and could not find anything about this sword and somehow I seem to have lost the old review index, so I cannot check. No, I have no relations with CS of any kind, nor with any entities that sell their products. So here goes. The Cold Steel Scottish Broadsword.  The basket. There are a lot of people it seems, that are blabbering on about the historical accuracy of this sword. That it is supposed to be an unhistorical version of a 19th C. Regimental issue. I do not know. When I go look at pictures from antiques, I see no reason to classify this sword, or rather this basket, as unhistorical. Why? It seems to be close enough to me. It sounds more like a ,,cheap replicas are sooo far beyond us'' campaign.  Another thing the nitpickers fall all over themselves about is that the basket is supposed to be too large. Which is nonsense. Go in there with the gauntlets on and you will find it is a close fit, even with the liner removed.  Somehow the old Scots had dainty little ladies hands? Is that the reason they are supposed to be waring skirts? Which is, by the way, a 19th C. British fabrication, a last humiliation so to say, just like that awful tassel under the pommel and that ridiculous and flabby basket liner one sees on the Hanwei Scottish Backsword, ,, that served as a hand warmer ''. Really? I think the old Scots would be more afraid of their swords freezing solid with their scabbards. And pumped full of adrenaline when doing battle, nobody is complaining about or even noticing cold hands. Well, maybe apart from the tweed clad, pipe smoking, would be academically inclined and artistically bearded fraternety, who, by the way, shun battle of any kind as the plague lest their Trotsky glasses get fogged up for once in their lives, writing this kind of guff.  As I said above, the basket is non too big. Persons with very large hands may find it cramped and so must remove the liner. Luckily, there are no metal parts poking into the basket, nothing is irritating or hurting the hand and that is a plus. There are quite some swords around of this type with hilts that look good but handle like a torture apparatus. Further more, this basket is quite solid, much better than the Eglinton, with a thickness of 2 mm. Baskets like these are build like an egg, so quite strong of themselves and with a material thickness of 2 mm they will hold up really well while stomping those tweedy boys in the gob.  There are no tool marks and every cutout is done quite precise, with bevelled edges, much better than Windlass will do. That is what you pay for, as CS is mostly Windlass, but one step up in quality. I like the pommel. It is not that massive and is well made. The edge, where it meets the basket is quite sharp, but is not in the way, so I see no problem here. It is shoved on the tang and is screwed down with the nut on top. That works really well, as the nut covers about 7 mm of the 6.5 mm thick tang. More on this in the construction part. I removed the liner and covered it in black felt with a thick cord sewed to that to soften the edges of the basket a bit. After the removal of the black paint on the real ray skin on the grip, I screwed it shut and thus far I cannot find any signs of strain. As I said, the oval grip is covered in real ray skin. Whether with gauntlets or bare hands, it fills the hand in a good and solid way and does not slip. The wire will not hold in the long run. See it as an extra and or replace it with a more sturdy 0.8 mm twisted, which should hold much better. The blade. The blade is 80.8 cm long and is 40 mm wide, with a thickness of 4.5 mm going to 3.5 mm one inch from the tip and it has a diamond section. There is one large fuller in the middle, with a thinner fuller on either side. That looks quite nice, specially since the middle fuller is highly polished, which makes a nice contrast with the rest of the blade. The fullers are lined up well and are not wavy. The CS sharpening is quite good, not razor sharp, but it will cut right out of the box. The secondary bevel is quite small and should be easy to polish out. The temper is excellent. Nice stiff blade with just enough flex. Well done. Construction. Obviously it is a compression fit, but done in the right way. The grip is supported by two bushings, one on either side. The top one is of very solid build as it has to support the retaining nut.  As long as that nut sits tight on the 6.5 mm thick tang, the grip and basket will not go anywhere. Long before it gets really lose you will feel the grip or the basket slide somewhat. I would like to give the advise to glue it in place, but just now, when handling the sword I have to conclude that the grip has shrunk somewhat after about two years in a dry environment. It has some play. So, I do not know whether gluing the nut is the thing to do. A washer like this may do the trick.  Anyway, the tang goes through the pommel and a second , long nut screws the pommel into place over 7 mm of the tang. With the thick tang, the double nut construction and the solid enough grip, I see no problems. One could argue that the grip needs some bedding compound to fix the slight play after drying out, but that is about all. To me this is a rock solid sword. Handling. With a POB of 9.3 cm or 3.7 ", this is could have been a fast handling sword. It is not. It feels kind of boxed in, like it wants to do better, but something is holding it back. It is likely the lack of distal taper that screws things up a bit, but with a thickness of the blade of only 4.5 mm that is no wonder. All in all it does not handle bad at all. It sure is capable of devastating blows and surviving them too, but in swordplay it is not the fasted. It handles like all the better replicas in this segment of the market. A little vague, but it comes very close to very good. Shame really. Weight is 1296 grams or 2.8572 lbs. Not too bad for a sword with such a solid basket. Conclusion. Solid build and very good finish on this one, though not the fasted on the block. Though Cold Steel is at times over the top with the price, this one is worthy of the $$ they ask. Even the standard leather scabbard is well made with good fittings. Get rid of that immense CS logo on the belt hook and it looks a lot better. If you have the chance to score this sword second hand I would go for it for sure, but even at KOA retail this is a good buy. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Jan 14, 2016 21:27:24 GMT
Very nice review. I've always liked the look of a Scottish broadsword, and, from your review, I might consider this Cold Steel offering one of these days. I'm not normally a fan of the CS line of swords, but this seems to be an exception to their normal stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 22:28:11 GMT
So the tang is a 1/4x20 thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 15, 2016 1:46:11 GMT
Nice review and very nice sword
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 15, 2016 2:37:32 GMT
Nice review! I was looking at one of these for a project (wanted to replace the blade), and this information is most helpful. There's a video showing a full disassembly here, for those who might be interested. |
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jan 15, 2016 2:56:21 GMT
Thanks for the good review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 15, 2016 4:20:03 GMT
there is one for sale in the classifieds IIRC.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 15, 2016 7:11:23 GMT
Thanks for the complements. Looking at that video I remembered that there are two versions of this sword on the market. The old version as seen in said video has a ricasso on the blade. The construction seems to be the same. The newer version as reviewed here is a few years old already. I suggest to remove the very thin washer under the retaining nut and replace it with the type of washer I showed above. The only week point, if one can call it as such, is if there would be a space between the retaining nut and the pommel nut. I think the two should meet, which would make the construction more solid, since the retaining nut is then held in place by the pommel nut. When the highly annoying tassel is removed, the pommel and the pommel nut sit lower, but it seems to me there is still some space between the two nuts. Some fiddling with washers could help here and/or replacing the tassel with a leather washer. Here the nut construction is historical for once. The purpose was to have one basket and two blades. A battle blade and a Dress blade. Edelweiss: The threaded part of the tang is 6.5 mm thick. How this translates to Imperial I do not know. Edit: The perfect solution would be to have a thick walled metal tube between the retaining nut and the pommel nut, with the washer from above to keep the construction under pressure. That washer would deal with a shrinking grip too. And I found an old 2007 review of the first version with the ricasso here: sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/2009?page=1#34282 |
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Jan 15, 2016 8:14:14 GMT
Good review - thanks for posting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 15:39:11 GMT
If it is India made, I would assume 6.5mm equates to 1/4" by 20 threads to the inch. 1/4x20 NC (National coarse) An old Windlass of mine had 5/16x18 www.unionmillwright.com/2879.pdf |
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883 
|
Post by Razor on Jan 16, 2016 5:52:21 GMT
Ulhan, What is the width inside the basket without the liner?
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 16, 2016 12:12:38 GMT
Hello Razor.
I get 12.6 cm or 4.96" at the widest point. That is the widest at the open side.
Behind the grip I get about 5 cm or 1.97", maybe a little less because it is hard to meassure in that spot.
With gauntlets on I have no problems getting my fingers around the grip, even with the liner in place and I have medium hands.
When you look at the picture where I hold the sword, you see there is some room between the back of your hand and the edge of the basket, so it does not ,,bite''.
I think you know this already, but for the enlightenment of others, here is a Matt Easton video explaining the way to grip:
I think the key in what he says is ,,snug fit''. It would not surprise me if a lot of baskets were made to fit the hand of the person ordering it.
Why a ,, snug fit '' is preferred I do not know. If what Matt says is true and I see no reason to doubt him, that after dispatching a load of Indian mutineers, the dispatcher could not get his swollen hand out of the basket, I think ,, snug'' is taken too far in this case.
As you can see he has quite a lot of videos about basket hilt swords.
I hope this helps a little.
Cheers.
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Jan 17, 2016 1:34:56 GMT
So is the 4.96" the open/mouth of the basket or the widest part inside the basket?
If that measurement the widest part inside the basket, then how wide is the mouth/opening part of the basket?
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 17, 2016 4:17:15 GMT
Why a ,, snug fit '' is preferred I do not know. Snug means better protection for the same amount of steel (and therefore weight), or the same protection for less weight. Snug means the basket is smaller, and you can make the gaps smaller, or the steel thicker, or both, and keep the same weight. Also, bigger means it's harder to wear the sword comfortably, it's more likely to get caught on your clothing (which could be unfortunate when trying to draw in an emergency), and is easier for the opponent to grab (and gives them more leverage if they do grab it). |
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 17, 2016 9:43:16 GMT
So is the 4.96" the open/mouth of the basket or the widest part inside the basket? If that measurement the widest part inside the basket, then how wide is the mouth/opening part of the basket? Thank you If you look at the picture with the basket laying on its side, with the grip showing, the 4.96" is the widest distance inside, meassured vertically over the grip. You see the entrance to the grip getting narrower towards the blade. Theo: Thanks for clearing that one up. This showes there are many factors involved when designing a good basket, more criteria to think about than one would think of at first. This only underscores the case for CS. They reached a good, if not excellent compromise qua material thickness, strength, weight and useabillity for a large segment of their market. It is obvious that where a one size fits all approach is needed, they did a very good job of it. If the stories about Windlass being a major source for CS are true and if one looks at the baskets of the old Windlass Military Sword Rapier, the Eglinton and the Windlass Schiavona nr 2 and the CS Horsemans Broadsword, which is the same but for the pommel, which are so flimsy as to be useless in any situation except bottle cutting, I think it is fair to say that this CS product stands way above the crowd and is the best of the bunch by a long score. It is a weapon. The Hanwei Mortuary and Cromwell are right in the middle and could be on the same level as this CS, were it not for the blades that are way too light for real fighting. The Hanwei baskets are not 100%, but better build than the above Windlasses. I think this Cold Steel is exceptional value for the money indeed and is in fact a real sleeper, standing head and shoulders above of what is offered in this segment of the market. |
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Jan 17, 2016 17:25:54 GMT
So is the 4.96" the open/mouth of the basket or the widest part inside the basket? If that measurement the widest part inside the basket, then how wide is the mouth/opening part of the basket? Thank you If you look at the picture with the basket laying on its side, with the grip showing, the 4.96" is the widest distance inside, meassured vertically over the grip. You see the entrance to the grip getting narrower towards the blade. Theo: Thanks for clearing that one up. This showes there are many factors involved when designing a good basket, more criteria to think about than one would think of at first. This only underscores the case for CS. They reached a good, if not excellent compromise qua material thickness, strength, weight and useabillity for a large segment of their market. It is obvious that where a one size fits all approach is needed, they did a very good job of it. If the stories about Windlass being a major source for CS are true and if one looks at the baskets of the old Windlass Military Sword Rapier, the Eglinton and the Windlass Schiavona nr 2 and the CS Horsemans Broadsword, which is the same but for the pommel, which are so flimsy as to be useless in any situation except bottle cutting, I think it is fair to say that this CS product stands way above the crowd and is the best of the bunch by a long score. It is a weapon. The Hanwei Mortuary and Cromwell are right in the middle and could be on the same level as this CS, were it not for the blades that are way too light for real fighting. The Hanwei baskets are not 100%, but better build than the above Windlasses. I think this Cold Steel is exceptional value for the money indeed and is in fact a real sleeper, standing head and shoulders above of what is offered in this segment of the market. Than you for clearing that up. I wanted to see how large the basket was and it's still a little large but not as bad if 4.96 was the opening. I also want to add a little from what Theo said. With a smaller basket doesn't restrict wrist movement like a larger basket does, Now you are so wrong putting the Hanwei Mort on the same level as the CS basket. With the CS distale tapper being 4.5mm to 3.5mm is horrible and having the POB 3.7" means the basket has to be heavy to bring down the POB to make it manageable but it is going to make the sword heavier than it should be. I have handled and owned a lot of basket hilted swords, I even got to handle, weigh, measure, and that pictures of six antique basket hilted swords. I have handled the older CS basket hit sword and with look at these numbers I wouldn't even waste my time with the new CS basket sword. The Hanwei Mortuary and Backsword are the best basket hilts in the sub $300 market. And the Hanwei Backsword is one of only two baskets swords that handle close to the originals, the other being the AC mort, but that blade was to flexible. The Hanwei BS distale tapper is real close to the originals that I got to handle but the basket is way to large. Only if Hanwei shrunk down the basket. |
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 17, 2016 19:42:03 GMT
I have put the Hanwei at the second level, between the Windlasses and the CS. Most Hanweis are build much too light. Because of that they handle very well for us modern people, who, most of us anyway, are not used to handling antiques. I compaire the Hanwei baskets and blades with the CS from an engineering point of view and as such I can clearly see they are better than the Windlasses, but still not adequate. The blades are too light too. That is what the public of today wants. You are right when you say that the distal taper on the CS is not optimal. That is a fact when one compaires it to an original and I agree with that. I said it made for a vague feeling, but this is personal. There may be legions of folk that have no problems with the blade at all.
Though this is personal too, the Hanweis, any Hanwei for that matter, gives me the feeling it could drop to pieces at any moment.
I compaired the handling of the Hanwei Sidesword to the handling of a smallsword just for that reason. Some period smallswords and spadroons I own are of a heavier, sturdier, as in thicker blades and thicker hilt material, build for pete's sake. Go read my review of the Sidesword. The Hanweis may be better put together than some Windlass basket hilts and the baskets themselves are made of a somewhat thicker material and do sure look the part, which is Hanwei's strength, but in my opinion they come second to this CS.
The CS is build like a tank and gives me the feeling I could take it to battle, whereas the Hanweis give me the feeling I would not make it to the busstop on the way there, in one piece. As to handling period basket hilts, I have no experience there, but when I look at the pictures, also the pictures from the real Cromwell, I see much thicker material, sometimes far thicker than the basket of the CS. The Hanwei Mortuary and Cromwell are supposed to be Cavalry swords and as a representation of those they clearly are way off the mark. No authority, not enough mass and therefore handling like spadroons or smallswords, which and I say this again, is perfect for most in todays market, but totally inadequate as a replica of the originals. This can be said of the Hanwei Scottish Backsword too.
As to the basket being too large, which I flatly denie, you should not forget that CS has to cater to a market made up of a variety of people, so they have to shoot for a ,,one size fits all'' solution, as I already said in my review. I think they did an excellent job of it. Compairing an original basket to this CS basket is, with that in mind, not fair, Logic dictates that the antique baskets were made to order, fitting only this person and not most others, if the size of the baskets was so critical in the days of old, as you and Theo say it is. And I see no reason to doubt you there.
Another thing is that allmost all of the antique blades I have and I got a lot of those, are much thicker at the forte than anything in the market of today. Thickness varies from 4.5 mm to 12 mm with the standard being around 7 to 9 mm. These are battle swords. Cavalry and Infantry. Why should antique baskets hilts have thinner blades?
Anyway, I think there is not much use in letting this discussion slip in a Hanwei versus CS contest. The only thing I can do is to inform the general public as to the pro's and contra's of some models, as I see them, from a personal and from an engineering, factual, point of view and do the best I can and be honest about what I see. As such I stand by my judgement. Windlass 3, Hanwei 2 and this CS model 1. Other CS offerings are so far off the mark I don't even want to discuss them.
What people want to do with that info is up to them. It is still, more or less, a free world. Kinda.
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Jan 17, 2016 22:02:06 GMT
There is a lot of assuming in you last post...a lot. I don't feel like breaking it all down because it would be a waste of time. So I'm going to make it short and to the point. Have you have any experience with the Hanwei baskets, besides looking at sites? Because if you think they are to light, then you will be very disappointed with the antique ones that I got to handle. The thinnest one started at 3.97mm at the base and the thickest one started at 5.76mm at the base. Your CS basket starts at 4.5mm and the Cromwell starts at 4.7mm and the Hanwei backsword starts at 6.4mm. Both Hanwei's blades starts out thicker than your CS, so I don't know how they are less adequate for battle than the CS one? Just because they have a way better distal tapper doesn't make them to light, the antique blades I saw had even more distal tapper and are lighter than the Hanwei's. You also can't say the side sword blade is to light so there for logic will dictate that the basket hilts are to light too....they are not the same blade and are very different from each other.
Both the CS and Hanwei's baskets are over sized. Some of the antiques and my E.B. Erickson basket could fit in yours. Saying that 'logic dictates that antique baskets were made to order, fitting only to this person and not most others" is flat out wrong. Just a little bit of research can debunk that. Swords that were made in the basket hilt age(and that went on for hundreds of years) were more mass produced than the were in the 1oth century or something like that, and even blades were made from other countries and hilted else were.
I have always like basket hilted swords and since 2007 I have been training, researching, owning/handling/cutting modern ones, and handling antiques. From my knowledge based more from fact then opinion, I would take pick either of the two hanwei basket hilted swords way before I would even think of picking the CS up.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 18, 2016 6:46:01 GMT
I own all Hanwei basket hilts and the Side sword and so can compair them to the antique swords I have and to the CS.
They are all balanced for fencing, feel light in the hand and lack the mass to back up the cut. They all give me the feeling they will come apart in extended use, though their build is not bad. They are build that way to appeal to the modern market and as such lack anything that could compare them to antiques in a favourable way.The Hanwei Bastard sword is the best of the lot I own, in my view.
They are fun swords. Fun to cut bottles with without any effort. Pretty too. Typical Hanwei. The Bastard being the most serious of the lot.
It is not the amount of mm thickness what matters here. It is what you do with that. If I compare the Hanweis to my antiques, they are close in handling to the spadroons or the smallswords. The CS handles more like an antique sabre of substance and that may be for all the wrong reasons, because the taper is off etc, etc, but that does not change that fact. An able cutter, a real sword, there is mass to back up the cut. It may be a question of balance, whatever. The fact remains that the CS feels like a sword to me, while the Hanweis, with the exception of the Bastard, feel like fencers, fun for recreation but a long way off feeling like a sword. There is almost no substance. We can go on discussing this over and over, but that does not change things.
A sword is more than just some figures on paper.
If Mr. Erickson's basket will fit in the CS I am sorry to say that my hand will not fit into that one. And I have medium hands.
And with those the fit in the CS is quite close with gauntlets on already. Could not take it any smaller. This only underscores my argument that antique baskets were made to order, a lot of them anyway. Persons with giant paws want a basket hilt too. Sword length was adjusted to the length of the person ordering it. It would be useles otherwise. I know a great number of Solingen blades were imported into Scotland, many French blades too. These blades were fitted to all kinds of swords, as requested by the future owner for the most part.
Also there were a great many in the shops to choose from if one could not affort a made to order one, so everyone could choose something that came close to what was optimal for that person and what his budget allowed. That means that there was a great variety in baskets to choose from too. That is not an assumption, that is only logical.
If you are happy with your Hanweis, kudos to you. You do not like the CS? Fine with me. But that does not change how I experience them in any way, nor the facts based on comairing them with antiques. The CS may be off balance, just like the Hanweis for that matter, but it is more like a real sword, compaired to real, antique swords, than the Hanweis will ever be. That is why I stand by my judgement: The CS is a sleeper. For the price you get a good, well build sword. Not the fasted on the block, but very, very capable. That judgement is not based on opinion, but on fact.
Cheers.
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Jan 18, 2016 8:03:50 GMT
That's awesome that you have antique sabre, smallswords, and spadroons but they ae not basket hilt broadswords or backsword, and comparing them isn't the same as comparing antique basket hilted sword. I have compared antique basket hilted swords with modern reproduction swords, and over built tanks like the CS basket hilt doesn't measure up to the antique basket hilt swords that I have handled at all. MM does matter And the distal tapper is very important and most if not everyone on SBG knows this. The Your CS blade only as a 1mm distal tapper to it, that is a 100% wrong with any antique broad sword blade. Show me a antique basket hilt broadswords with only a 1mm distal tapper? I agree that swords are more than numbers on paper but if you know what to look for you can get a very good idea, and any sword that has a 4.5mm to 3.5mm and a POB 3.7" has to have a heavy hilt to get that POB and it's not going to feel like a real sword that it is modeled after(not another sword like a sabre or katana).
Military Swords were mass produced and the hilts weren't made in different sizes that right there debunks your clam and basket back then were not has big as people today think they were. And that's why someone good get his hand stuck when is hand filled with rushing blood form a battle. That was his sword and his hand got stuck in it. That right there says it wasn't fitted to his hand.
Are you saying E.B. doesn't know what he is doing when making basket hilts? My basket wasn't made to my size it was made after antique baskets and it's around the size of the antique basket.
Your judgement is not based on antique basket hilt swords, but antique smallswords, spadroons, and sabre. That's like basing your judgement on a longsword with a messure or katana.
That is great that you like and are happy with your sword. But you can't say it feels like a real basket hilt sword, because it doen't. Numbers don't lie or have a opinion and the CS sword numbers don't had up to any antique basket hilt sword. The numbers say it is a overbuilt sword, and in my opinion that makes it a beater.
|
|
