|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 9, 2016 11:23:08 GMT
Did you try the knot through the knot slots?
Do you know what the scabbard is from? At 1.8lb, it's either the P1890 or P1899 scabbard (both 1lb, 14.5oz by the specs); the P1890 is 35.5" and the P1899 is 34.5". (The P1885 scabbard, the first of this style, was 1lb 8oz by the specs.)
The P1864 is a good representative of the 1864-1890 range, about mid-way between the P1885 and P1890 in weight.
You might like the P1899. From the photos of the P1864 in hand, it looks like you want a longer grip, and that will give it to you. (Alas, at the cost of quite a lot of extra weight.)
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 9, 2016 19:19:04 GMT
,,Age an medications are wearing me away. Too many mistakes this year. Time to stop writing.:(''
Jesus. I thought I was depressed. Oh come on Dave. Its just the usual Fall depression. We still have some years to go. Not that I want to of course.... First we'll have to pay the bills for all the good times we had... Damn, where's me Tralala pills. 8-)
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Oct 10, 2016 0:38:02 GMT
Please continue when you've rested. No use getting sad about writing. A quick nap will do more than any medication!
That said these are my favorite line of swords, so anything written about them is a treat.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 10, 2016 13:58:59 GMT
You on a bad day are still miles ahead of most of us here in the slobbering masses On topic though - the Solingen production French and US swords seem to have a reputation for heaviness - does the same extend to the British swords? bfoo2 and I had 1885's from Mole and S&K respectively and noticed a difference, but a sample size of one a study does not make. The 1821 seems to have a much-maligned reputation as being light and under-built. Your stats seem to go a good way to dispelling that misconception. Looks just as beefy as the rest of the gang How was it dealing with Collectorsource? I had two interactions - one went smoothly. In the other I tried to get aditional pictures of their 1908 and they refused, which seemed unusual. Then again one interaction is not necessarily reflective of them
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Oct 10, 2016 23:55:35 GMT
Matt talks about how the opinions on the 1821 (aside from field complaints on scabbard durability) were not written by people who wielded the swords themselves. In comparison to the 1853, his 1821 was actually a stiffer and seemed to be a more durable blade.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 11, 2016 0:44:13 GMT
Interesting. Was this a known issue back in the day? Seems curious they would not do something about that when issuing the contracts abroad.
Now I really want to get muself an 1821 as well as an 1853. Grrrr. Such bad influences
Yeah, I figured. Their reply was along the lines of "we don't have time, but trust us, its perfectly fine and the price is very reasonable so no negotiating". Part of me was really hoping you had a good experience so that I could take them off the no-buy list, since that 1908 is still there and awfully tempting.
And yeah its pretty bad, but I feel like most Canadian vendors will try to hose you when they get the chance, since we are on the receiving end of the exchange rate more often than not. Hope the tax man didn't contribute too much to that $100
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 28, 2016 18:24:30 GMT
British Enlisted Cavalry Saber P1864BACKGROUND
Since discovering the British 1853 in reproduction form and becoming quite taken with the blade, I searched out an original. Then I just had to have the source 1821 enlisted saber. This has lead to a search for the harder to find 1864 full guarded version.
DISCLAIMER
All sabers discussed here are my own personal acquired pieces, unless otherwise stated. This article replaces the original which I removed in a Michaelangelic tantrum following the most recent nervous breakdown of the forum system. I don't have a system save of the entire text. This is the best I can do.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1760-1820 there are a number of fashion derived types of cavalry. More fundamentally, these are divided by class as either heavy or light. Generally speaking the heavies preferred large, longer and straighter blades that provided reach and point attack capability. The lights had embraced Austrian Hussar dress and manners, along with a light, curved blade, most decidedly intended for cutting.
The French abandoned their light cavalry sabres, in 1804, with the intro of the ANXI. It had a very thin 36x1.25 inch blade with a fairly shallow taper. The Imperial Guard heavies introduced a long blade, Montmorency, that was 37.5x1.12 with even less sabre blade rake.
The French would continue to differentiate heavy and light cavalry armes. The British embraced a new blade in 1821 that effectively gave both cavalry classes the same weapon. The revolutionary 1821 blade was accepted into service with an attribution to George IV himself. The 35x1.25 blade had length, taper and a full bladed spear point foible. In 1853 the saber was given a full tang through the grip and a reinforced 3 bar guard. The heavies had long past adopted a full faced guard. It was their one real grievance with the '53. So in 1864 the guard was officially modified with a full face plate for both classes of cavalry.
CHARACTERISTICS
Anybody who has ever tried to find a scabbard for one of their unsheathed swords becomes frustratingly familiar with the variability of production from maker to maker and even within batches made any given week. With the amount of hand finishing required for each sword inspectors allowed a fairly generous margin of difference before accepting a sword into service. The chart provides a snap shot of a type sword; not necessarily the statistical mean for a population of swords.
All three weapons share a fullered, tapered blade of 36-35.5x1.25 inches of aprox 2.3 lbs (plus .1 lb for the knot). The 1821 employs a thin grip wood core over the tang wrapped in leather. A backstrap and pommel closes the top of the grip. The guard consists of a small forward plate about the blade. There is an upper quillon which troops often had bent forward, to use as a thumb rest while cutting. Two bars and a knuckle bow come off the guard plate in a shallow arc, protecting the back hand and wrist, then gather under the pommel cap.
The 1853 varies from the 1821 with the use of a full tang running to the butt plate. Two pieces of leather patterned with a crosshatch are pinned to the tang. The guard on the '53 is the widest of the three exhibit, providing increased back hand protection.
The 1864 has a full plate guard. It is only 4.5 inches wide but sufficient for both point and edge attacks.
Sword Knots: The sword knot used here is Napoleonic. The new series weapons have mount point holes to loop the knot thru. New period knots had a loop and button down on the lanyard so the line could be opened and slipped through the port. Decoration for heavies, lights, and the house guards were different.
HANDLING
This not the 1796 any more. Not as fast. Very good cut and thrust. The 1821 had a better grip with the pommel cap. It was more nosey because the hilt is light; near fragile.
The '53 is stronger and well balanced. Feels good in hand. Best PoB of the three. The lack of a pommel means the saber is not as well seated with the heal of the hand. Open handed point work isn't as secure as you might like. Still this is an excellent saber. British regiments who whined about them didn't have an armorer who could sharped a blade.
The 64 modernizes the saber. Plate provides better protection from point attacks. Does protect your body, but 65% of cavalry hits are from hand to shoulder of your sword arm. The mole has some strange numbers and turns up being slightly more nosey than the '53. The steel plate isn't as heavy as the iron guard. The plate is tight and concave. Sense that you've given up a bit of hand room. Perspective rather than fact.
CONCLUSION
There are two dominant blade styles that define 19th Century Dragoon sabres; the French '22 with neutral handling, hatchet style blade and the British '21 with its slight nose weighted feel and fine taper providing equally excellent response.
The quibble I have with the with the Brit 21-64s is the grip length. It's adequate, but not as fulsome as the French, with the useable pommel cap providing a sure rest for the heal of the hand.
Both of these systems, British and French, are wonderful. These pics were taken before I sanded and polished the worst areas on the hilt. It looks happier. Me too.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Oct 29, 2016 8:42:00 GMT
:( I WANT THOSE THREE SWORDS
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 29, 2016 11:23:51 GMT
Oh goody! The Kelly is back again! Waiting for your opinion on your new Chasseur.....
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 29, 2016 15:21:12 GMT
Thanks for bringing some of your content back. We really appreciate the work you do on these!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Aug 31, 2018 22:19:56 GMT
I recently got an 1885p. I figured I would post the stats here for reference. Part of my decision to buy was based on the history of the 1885p, particularly its place in the overall evolution of British sword design spanning over 100 years. I actually went back tp this excellent article to get a better grasp of what the 1885 might be like, and how it differs from its preceding models. As such, I figured this would be a logical place to drop it. British 1885p next to a Swiss 1867Weight: 2.36 lb PoB: 5.5 in Blade Thickness - Base: 9 mm - PoB: 8 mm - 1/3: 7.5 mm - 1/2: 7 mm - 2/3: 5 mm - Tip: 3 mm The numbers and figures seem to match with the 1864. However, thickness measurements are only one element of blade geometry. The overall weight is the same as the 1864, but the blade is shorter. Also note that the guard is actually kinda small (3.5 inches across), so its not like that's contributing an increased amount of weight either. Suggests that a bit of extra metal was distributed around the blade to make it a bit more resilient. My particular example is an Enfield production. Not sure where it ranks in the gamut of manufactures. I do like the feel of the thing - its stout and confident. Would love to see how it compares to the 1853 in person. Blade of the 1885. Fuller is deeper than the national debt
Look at that beefy tang! Transition to the foible (~24 inches out)
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 4, 2018 12:31:07 GMT
is it just me or do people also find the grips on the full tang + leather slaps (1853 onwards) to be sub optimal
just received an 1853 and its fat, round and prone to slip/move when drilling
a far cry as compared to the 1822 for example with ovoid grips, easy to index and grip
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Sept 4, 2018 16:17:55 GMT
I have the same feeling with the 1885/90, less so with the 1899 so perhaps the small size of the 1853-85 grip might have also something to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 4, 2018 16:25:57 GMT
is it just me or do people also find the grips on the full tang + leather slaps (1853 onwards) to be sub optimal just received an 1853 and its fat, round and prone to slip/move when drilling a far cry as compared to the 1822 for example with ovoid grips, easy to index and grip Well hey, on the bright side there's a British sword starved American who's willing to subject themselves to the horrors of the '53
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 4, 2018 22:11:56 GMT
I have the same feeling with the 1885/90, less so with the 1899 so perhaps the small size of the 1853-85 grip might have also something to do with it? The handles (on my 1882 (probably a converted 1864), 1885, 1890) are oval enough so that they're OK when handling with dry hands. Might be problematic when sweaty/wet, and could be a problem if actually hitting things. The grips are oval (1882: about 32x28mm, 1885: about 30x25mm), but are pretty thick compared to their width (for comparison, an antique dha I have is 34x32mm, only a little rounder). The forward cant of the grip means that the contact point on the blade when you hit is forward of a line through the grip, and striking something can result in a lot of torque acting to twist the blade (unlike the above dha where the contact point is behind and the torque will act to maintain blade alignment). A good disciplined draw cut should be OK, but chopping can easily result in twisting in the grip.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 5, 2018 0:15:26 GMT
I admit that the grips on the 1885 series are less sculpted than the 1822 (or a brick, for that matter). I had a Brazilian 1890p with basically mint grips (which I regret selling). This had a similar design as the 1885, albeit a bit thinner (see link below). The checkering on the grip was very aggressive, and gave a more solid surface to grasp than you would expect. The grips on the 1885's do wear down and become smooth over time, which makes things worse. I suspect that, when new the issue of twisting would not be that severe* That said, it is a compromise design which places a greater emphasis on durability and ease of production over handling relative to some other designs. I quite like that but its not everyone's taste. www.faganarms.com/products/brazilian-cavalry-trooper-s-sword-1880s*Note that the checkering is really, REALLY aggressive. The checkering on mine looks okay, but its already a far cry from what it was when it came from the factory
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 7, 2018 6:02:42 GMT
is it just me or do people also find the grips on the full tang + leather slaps (1853 onwards) to be sub optimal just received an 1853 and its fat, round and prone to slip/move when drilling a far cry as compared to the 1822 for example with ovoid grips, easy to index and grip I used to own my own 1885 (which I since sold to Croccifixio); it always handled a bit funny but I couldn't quite put my finger on why it felt a bit off. I recently purchased an Argentine artillery short sword with a solid metal hilt. All that mass from the metal hilt in your palm is literally dead weight. This weight neither adds force to the cut, not counterbalances the blade. It's just useless and makes the Argentine sword handle like a potato. In retrospect I think that the 1853/85 pattern suffers somewhat from the same phenomenon. The massive tang adds some dead-weight right at the hand where it doesn't contribute anything useful. Argentine artillery sword (eBay) I was discussing this with Afoo a few weeks ago. To me, the 1853-1899 patterns represent the first glimpse of truly industrialized warfare. Here, one could argue that corners were cut in the name of production efficiency and serviceability in the field. I agree that the grips are sub-optimal (although as discussed above, this issue is not as pronounced when the chequered pattern is intact), and the massive tang in the hand gives it a bit of a weird handling dynamic. However, I presume that the leather slab grips were much easier to produce than ones made of carved wood with bonded leather and wire wrap. In addition, these things were built like tanks and I suspect that field repairs would have been much simpler than on traditional construction. If the grips disintegrate on you, you could probably improvise a replacement grip by wrapping the full-width tang in scraps of leather and fabric. A somewhat less-legal improvised replacement grip on a full-width tang...
In a way, it feels that these swords were ahead of their time. It seemed as if the British were going with an all-out industrial-scale warfare mentality while the rest of the world was caught somewhere between the careful no-compromise craftsmanship of old and the industrial reality of the late 19th century. In my mind, it wasn't until the 1889 Prussian came around that the world saw another family of swords fully committed to the industrial war machine way of thinking. In very simplistic terms, my understanding is that the British beat Napoleon on the Continent through financial and logistical means. Perhaps they were the first to appreciate that the number of weapons you can put to the field (and give to your allies) is as important as their quality. In other words, the weapon itself may be flawed (which I completely agree with), but when considered as a whole, the weapon system makes a certain amount of sense.
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 8, 2018 18:00:10 GMT
To me, the 1853-1899 patterns represent the first glimpse of truly industrialized warfare. Here, one could argue that corners were cut in the name of production efficiency and serviceability in the field. I agree that the grips are sub-optimal (although as discussed above, this issue is not as pronounced when the chequered pattern is intact), and the massive tang in the hand gives it a bit of a weird handling dynamic. However, I presume that the leather slab grips were much easier to produce than ones made of carved wood with bonded leather and wire wrap. In addition, these things were built like tanks and I suspect that field repairs would have been much simpler than on traditional construction. A purely industrial weapon indeed, focused on cost and maintainence. You can really see how unergonomic the thic grips are. I cant think of anyway to use it other than a hammer grip and simple hack and slash movements. Checks intact but that slab of leather is still slippery as hell Almost every other western contemporary sword feels better. Even the typical overengineered and manufacturing efficiency of Prussian/Germanic swords seem outdone this time, at a severe cost in other factors
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 9, 2018 22:36:33 GMT
I cant think of anyway to use it other than a hammer grip and simple hack and slash movements. You say that as if there is something wrong with that. Seems like a fine idea for a trooper's cavalry sword. Almost every other western contemporary sword feels better. Even the typical overengineered and manufacturing efficiency of Prussian/Germanic swords seem outdone this time, at a severe cost in other factors I don't mind them. The P1890 is heavier than I prefer, but handles well for the weight, with nice balance for a sabre. Much nicer in hand, and IMO a much better weapon, than the "coupe-chou", the various infantry gladius swords which are so overweight that the Deepeeka replica is lighter.
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 10, 2018 13:52:08 GMT
You say that as if there is something wrong with that. Seems like a fine idea for a trooper's cavalry sword. Imo, hack and slash only is fine if the sword was optimised for it ala 1796LC Problem with this is that the blade from the 1821s onw were cut and thrust compromise profiles. Yet the handle on this is so thick and fat that anything short of a tight hammer grip wont stop the blade from turning in any kind of impact. Doing so robs you of one of (or the most effective) grip to thrust: thumb on the spine, trigger finger style. Essentially a design that was compromised to thrust, yet handicapped to perform it even remotely effectively. After handling it, i could totally see why there were so many complains about the mdle
|
|