Cold Steel 1796 Light Cavalry Saber
Sept 20, 2016 1:02:42 GMT
Post by 28shadow on Sept 20, 2016 1:02:42 GMT
Introduction
The 1796 Light Cavalry Saber, the boogeyman of The West. Cold Steel's poster boy western sword. This saber has reached a fascinatingly high level of popularity over the years. Not only was it an important and historically significant sword in the days of Napoleon and onward, but it now sees a sort of fervent favoritism among fans of western swords. This is also the weapon that spurred my interest in swords, some years ago...
Historical overview
DISCLAIMER: I am not a historian (or Dave Kelly) so take everything I say with a grain of salt, and then some. END DISCLAIMER
The 1796 Light cavalry Saber was designed by John Gaspard Le Marchant along with the 1796 Heavy Cavalry sword as one of the first regulation swords for the British Military. It was designed as a sword for Light Cavalry units to use when in the melee or charging down fleeing infantry. The saber found another calling as a heavy saber for infantry officers who did not like the regulation spadroon, finding it was too fragile for heavy combat. The saber enjoyed regulation service for a number of years until being replaces in the early 1800s, but the blade can be found remounted on various custom officer's swords and on 19th century Indian Tulwars.
Full Disclosure
This sword was purchased at normal price and was not given to me as a free review sample (but I wouldn't mind it ) and I have received no outside compensation to give this sword a favorable review.
Initial Impressions
When I first drew the sword from it's scabbard I was grinning ear to ear. It was the saber I had always wanted, watched, and read about, but now it was in my hands. Wonderful! I was immediately overwhelmed with just how blade heavy this sword was. I took it out and played with it in the "hammer" grip for a while but the grip was incredibly uncomfortable. More on this later.
The sword arrived with a nicely sharpened true edge and a sharpened false edge. This could actually lead to a problem in less careful hands. More on this later as well.
Statistics
*Stats pulled from Kult of Athena*
Blade Length:
31 1/2"
Handle Length:
3 7/8"
Overall Length:
37 1/2"
Guard Width:
5"
POB (Point of Balance):
KOA: 7 3/4"
My model: 8 1/2"
COP (Center of Percussion):
25" from guard (right where fuller ends)
Weight:
2lb 3.6oz
Components
The Blade
The saber has a sharply curved blade with a "hatchet" style tip that is unfavorable for thrusting but makes cutting extremely favorable. The blade had a nice finish too it, almost mirror. However, the sword has little to no distal taper to speak of. Now, this sword was purchased from amazon and not from KOA or elsewhere, and I've heard that Cold Steel has updated their design for the 1796 in the past several years. Perhaps I received an old model?
The blade features a large central fuller that terminates at the center of percussion. According to my research into historical examples, the fuller is supposed to naturally terminate smoorthly into the cutting portion of the blade. That is not the case here. The fuller terminates very abruptly and does not flow into the foible. The sword theoretically has a taper from 7mm to 2.9mm at the foible. They achieve this through only thinning the blade at the COP where the fuller ends. By my measurements the blade is actually 5mm thick right where the fuller ends, and then immediately drops to 2.5mm very drastically.
I've read that there was once a user on the forum who sent his saber to Arms and Armor and had it given a correct taper. I may consider that at some point down the road.
The Handle
The grip is leather, and I believe there is wood under it. Unlike some other modern replica sabers there is no wire twisted into the grip. The grip actually reminds me of an accordion. The spacer between the backstrap and the guard is loose on my model. The backstrap is also uneven and out of alignment, which severely effects my edge alignment if I was to use the hammer grip.
The Guard
The guard is the "stirrup" style single bar design and is rather utilitarian. I have a feeling it would stop another sword blow just fine.
The Pommel
The backstrap extends to where a pommel normally would be, but the cold steel model does have a nut where the tang's peen normally would be.
The Scabbard
I opted for the all steel scabbard. Historically some steel scabbards were notorious for dulling their blades, and this is one of them. Even if you were to buy the leather scabbard, you would still face this problem as the scabbard throat is very small, with barely enough room to carefully draw the sword out without ripping the edge along the sides. I can barely manage to draw the sword from a standing position without dragging the true edge, although I've had to sacrifice the false edge to preserve the true edge. I have a few replicas of the us 1840/1860 sabers and they're scabbards feature open throats that do not rip the edge. However, I believe this is historically accurate for the 1796 scabbard. I would seriously doubt my ability to draw this saber at any speed, and doubly so on horseback. The sword would need constant resharpening if this were the case.
Handling Characteristics
Because of the very nose heavy balance, this sword cannot be wielded in the open style grip with any form of control. Similarly, the sword cannot be wielded in a "traditional" hammer grip, at least in my hands. In order to hold this sword I have to take a sort of half way grip, putting my thumb on the ear where the rivets are and seating my hand farther back into the handle not too unlike the open grip.
Using this half way grip the saber is rather nice to handle if I let it go where it wants. In my hands it's too slow and awkward for any kind of fighting on foot. On horseback it could be a capable weapon with the right horseman. But, the sword does do as advertised. It will cut with ferocious efficiency.
Test Cutting
Don't judge the cutting too harshly, even after owning the sword for many months this is the best cutting session I've had with it. Even then, I was only cutting #1 and #2, since those are the easiest to perform even half decently.
Conclusions
Here we have a nose heavy, curved, sharp brick of a saber that will cleave a head in half. It's a sword I love, but I doubt others would. In fear of being lynched for saying it, I would prefer an unhistorical scabbard to this one if it would circumvent the problem of dulling the sword. But I know that will never happen. The grip is rather comfy, doubly more so in gloves, although the back strap does cause some issues. Overall, a nice sword.
Pros
- nice leather grip
- Sharp
- powerful design
- good cutting ability
- looks wonderful
Cons
- backstap has issues
- Scabbard will dull the blade
- very nose heavy
- weighs a bit more than it should
The Bottom Line
Would I recommend this sword to a new collector? Only if they understood it's shortfalls and they had a general love for military sabers (as I do). To someone looking for a saber for test cutting, perhaps not. Although it cuts with aplomb, it handles like a brick and is not suitable for Historical Saber Fencers looking for a saber to cut with. Perhaps if the newer models are better? Or perhaps if I ever get around to throwing money into the sword to have it's shortcomings fixed. In it's present state, for the model I have, I would not recommend to most people.
But it's still a good sword (if that makes any sense at all)
The 1796 Light Cavalry Saber, the boogeyman of The West. Cold Steel's poster boy western sword. This saber has reached a fascinatingly high level of popularity over the years. Not only was it an important and historically significant sword in the days of Napoleon and onward, but it now sees a sort of fervent favoritism among fans of western swords. This is also the weapon that spurred my interest in swords, some years ago...
Historical overview
DISCLAIMER: I am not a historian (or Dave Kelly) so take everything I say with a grain of salt, and then some. END DISCLAIMER
The 1796 Light cavalry Saber was designed by John Gaspard Le Marchant along with the 1796 Heavy Cavalry sword as one of the first regulation swords for the British Military. It was designed as a sword for Light Cavalry units to use when in the melee or charging down fleeing infantry. The saber found another calling as a heavy saber for infantry officers who did not like the regulation spadroon, finding it was too fragile for heavy combat. The saber enjoyed regulation service for a number of years until being replaces in the early 1800s, but the blade can be found remounted on various custom officer's swords and on 19th century Indian Tulwars.
Full Disclosure
This sword was purchased at normal price and was not given to me as a free review sample (but I wouldn't mind it ) and I have received no outside compensation to give this sword a favorable review.
Initial Impressions
When I first drew the sword from it's scabbard I was grinning ear to ear. It was the saber I had always wanted, watched, and read about, but now it was in my hands. Wonderful! I was immediately overwhelmed with just how blade heavy this sword was. I took it out and played with it in the "hammer" grip for a while but the grip was incredibly uncomfortable. More on this later.
The sword arrived with a nicely sharpened true edge and a sharpened false edge. This could actually lead to a problem in less careful hands. More on this later as well.
Statistics
*Stats pulled from Kult of Athena*
Blade Length:
31 1/2"
Handle Length:
3 7/8"
Overall Length:
37 1/2"
Guard Width:
5"
POB (Point of Balance):
KOA: 7 3/4"
My model: 8 1/2"
COP (Center of Percussion):
25" from guard (right where fuller ends)
Weight:
2lb 3.6oz
Components
The Blade
The saber has a sharply curved blade with a "hatchet" style tip that is unfavorable for thrusting but makes cutting extremely favorable. The blade had a nice finish too it, almost mirror. However, the sword has little to no distal taper to speak of. Now, this sword was purchased from amazon and not from KOA or elsewhere, and I've heard that Cold Steel has updated their design for the 1796 in the past several years. Perhaps I received an old model?
The blade features a large central fuller that terminates at the center of percussion. According to my research into historical examples, the fuller is supposed to naturally terminate smoorthly into the cutting portion of the blade. That is not the case here. The fuller terminates very abruptly and does not flow into the foible. The sword theoretically has a taper from 7mm to 2.9mm at the foible. They achieve this through only thinning the blade at the COP where the fuller ends. By my measurements the blade is actually 5mm thick right where the fuller ends, and then immediately drops to 2.5mm very drastically.
I've read that there was once a user on the forum who sent his saber to Arms and Armor and had it given a correct taper. I may consider that at some point down the road.
The Handle
The grip is leather, and I believe there is wood under it. Unlike some other modern replica sabers there is no wire twisted into the grip. The grip actually reminds me of an accordion. The spacer between the backstrap and the guard is loose on my model. The backstrap is also uneven and out of alignment, which severely effects my edge alignment if I was to use the hammer grip.
The Guard
The guard is the "stirrup" style single bar design and is rather utilitarian. I have a feeling it would stop another sword blow just fine.
The Pommel
The backstrap extends to where a pommel normally would be, but the cold steel model does have a nut where the tang's peen normally would be.
The Scabbard
I opted for the all steel scabbard. Historically some steel scabbards were notorious for dulling their blades, and this is one of them. Even if you were to buy the leather scabbard, you would still face this problem as the scabbard throat is very small, with barely enough room to carefully draw the sword out without ripping the edge along the sides. I can barely manage to draw the sword from a standing position without dragging the true edge, although I've had to sacrifice the false edge to preserve the true edge. I have a few replicas of the us 1840/1860 sabers and they're scabbards feature open throats that do not rip the edge. However, I believe this is historically accurate for the 1796 scabbard. I would seriously doubt my ability to draw this saber at any speed, and doubly so on horseback. The sword would need constant resharpening if this were the case.
Handling Characteristics
Because of the very nose heavy balance, this sword cannot be wielded in the open style grip with any form of control. Similarly, the sword cannot be wielded in a "traditional" hammer grip, at least in my hands. In order to hold this sword I have to take a sort of half way grip, putting my thumb on the ear where the rivets are and seating my hand farther back into the handle not too unlike the open grip.
Using this half way grip the saber is rather nice to handle if I let it go where it wants. In my hands it's too slow and awkward for any kind of fighting on foot. On horseback it could be a capable weapon with the right horseman. But, the sword does do as advertised. It will cut with ferocious efficiency.
Test Cutting
Don't judge the cutting too harshly, even after owning the sword for many months this is the best cutting session I've had with it. Even then, I was only cutting #1 and #2, since those are the easiest to perform even half decently.
Conclusions
Here we have a nose heavy, curved, sharp brick of a saber that will cleave a head in half. It's a sword I love, but I doubt others would. In fear of being lynched for saying it, I would prefer an unhistorical scabbard to this one if it would circumvent the problem of dulling the sword. But I know that will never happen. The grip is rather comfy, doubly more so in gloves, although the back strap does cause some issues. Overall, a nice sword.
Pros
- nice leather grip
- Sharp
- powerful design
- good cutting ability
- looks wonderful
Cons
- backstap has issues
- Scabbard will dull the blade
- very nose heavy
- weighs a bit more than it should
The Bottom Line
Would I recommend this sword to a new collector? Only if they understood it's shortfalls and they had a general love for military sabers (as I do). To someone looking for a saber for test cutting, perhaps not. Although it cuts with aplomb, it handles like a brick and is not suitable for Historical Saber Fencers looking for a saber to cut with. Perhaps if the newer models are better? Or perhaps if I ever get around to throwing money into the sword to have it's shortcomings fixed. In it's present state, for the model I have, I would not recommend to most people.
But it's still a good sword (if that makes any sense at all)