|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 10, 2016 22:34:46 GMT
How well do these pair up to original models? I really like the 1840 Cavalry, bit want something a bit shorter and more geared towards being used on foot.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 10, 2016 23:35:01 GMT
How well do these pair up to original models? I really like the 1840 Cavalry, bit want something a bit shorter and more geared towards being used on foot. Blades a bit light, but it is a great buy for a display and cold handling. Dress swords aren't really made to fight with. You spend all that money for bling and one swipe will mess it all up forever. :) I had one of these for several years. Traded it for cash to buy antiques; and recently have debated buying another one for display.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 10, 2016 23:38:19 GMT
I love the Spanish 1896, and that's apparently infamous for a light blade on a fighting sword Sounds like I might want to pick one up as well in a little bit then
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 11, 2016 4:40:21 GMT
May be better off with the Universal 1845 cav saber. Despite its name, its an infantry weapon (32 inch blade), likely similar to one that would have been issued to artillery troops. I find the embellishments on the Windlass officer stuff a bit much
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 11, 2016 4:54:42 GMT
May be better off with the Universal 1845 cav saber. Despite its name, its an infantry weapon (32 inch blade), likely similar to one that would have been issued to artillery troops. I find the embellishments on the Windlass officer stuff a bit much Is the Universal of good steel though? The thing that's put me off of their stuff is a review I saw where the blade had a Rockwell of between 40 and 45.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Oct 11, 2016 5:12:35 GMT
That is the same as all Windlass products.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 11, 2016 5:19:08 GMT
That is the same as all Windlass products. Cheers. And here I'd thought they were in the ball park of 50's, good to know.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 11, 2016 18:05:04 GMT
With all this said though, I've always liked the 1906 from Windlass, what's the general thought on these?
(I might also have a certain french infantry sword if someone has a 1906 they would want to swap)
|
|
harrybeck
Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 999
|
Post by harrybeck on Oct 11, 2016 18:09:06 GMT
You might consider the XXX Princess of Wales saber, I recently bought one and love it. Be advised that the blade isn't a bulky or heavy model either.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 11, 2016 18:12:06 GMT
You might consider the XXX Princess of Wales saber, I recently bought one and love it. Be advised that the blade isn't a bulky or heavy model either. My fencing experience has made me dislike most single bar cut and thrust sabres sadly, I do like the look of it though.
|
|
harrybeck
Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 999
|
Post by harrybeck on Oct 11, 2016 19:32:41 GMT
It isn't a straight blade, but I've both competed and studied Renaissance fencing. Yself and do prefer straighter blades, and more the rapier than the curved cutter.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 11, 2016 23:53:50 GMT
With all this said though, I've always liked the 1906 from Windlass, what's the general thought on these? (I might also have a certain french infantry sword if someone has a 1906 they would want to swap) I have an 1906 - which french inf sword would you be interested in parting with? I will be honest, the 1906 I have is okay, but not my favorite. The Princess of Wales saber beats it by a long shot. The Universal F1 saber has a small-ish grip, but the blade is light and well balanced. If you have smaller hands it could work. The 1906 is mediocre. Kelly is of the opinion that it is a very good replica of the originals, and most of the mediocrity is from the original design rather than any fault of Windlass My particular 1906 is a bit heavier than Kelly's. Its within spec so its not a huge amount mind you. bfoo2 and I have a Mole production 1885p and one from Solingen, and the difference between those two Brit swords is similar. I am also spoiled because I have an original 1906 which is on the lighter end of the specifications, so the difference really shows. I have a review comparing it to the Princess of Wales somewhere buried in the forums. It looks nice and I like the fact its as close to spec as you can get without getting an antique, but its not something I would want to use on foot. The Princess of Wales is much better suited to that EDIT: I just saw your listing on the classified - I presume the inf. sword in question is an 1882? In that case, see below :P
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 11, 2016 23:59:48 GMT
What's are the French doing in England? Edit - yeah that's the one lol
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 12, 2016 3:17:12 GMT
What's are the French doing in England? :D Mind your own business! Really, I would consider the Universal 1845 for use on foot vs the 1906. Its accurate perhaps, but mediocre in that application. You can also find original 1821 artillery swords on e-bay for a reasonable enough price as well
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 12, 2016 3:36:58 GMT
What's are the French doing in England? Mind your own business! Really, I would consider the Universal 1845 for use on foot vs the 1906. Its accurate perhaps, but mediocre in that application. You can also find original 1821 artillery swords on e-bay for a reasonable enough price as well I'll think about it, an 1860 from a fellow forumite just arrived, and while I like it, it does look pretty thin. That said, the 1906 would look splendid next to my Grandfather's uniform I do like the 1845 though.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 12, 2016 3:56:58 GMT
The 1906 is much less thin - mine is 8.5 mm at the base, tapering to 4 mm 1' from the tip (Should be a bit thinner at the tip, hence mine being a bit of a bum example)
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 12, 2016 4:06:26 GMT
Afoo you mean this one? kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=USS146I don't recall seeing a review of this sword (that being said, there's always opportunity to contribute to our collective knowledge!) By my eye, it seems to line up quite well with 1821(?)-pattern royal artillery swords. In fact, Universal's "1845 Cavalry sword" is eerily similar to their " 19th century Royal Artillery Officer's sword" (except cheaper, with steel scabbard and no etching on the blade) In any case, the stats seem encouraging: a bit less than 2lb, and something resembling taper (7.5mm to 3.3mm by KoA)
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Oct 12, 2016 4:10:20 GMT
The 1906 is much less thin - mine is 8.5 mm at the base, tapering to 4 mm 1' from the tip (Should be a bit thinner at the tip, hence mine being a bit of a bum example) I think the 1860 I have now is about 1/2 a cm at the base with very little taper, but still a little fun to wack at things. The grip feels markedly nicer than their 1840 Cav though. The 8.5 base does give me some confidence though, I figure a file can always be taken to something with a little work
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 12, 2016 4:14:10 GMT
If you want to go French, there's this Model 1961 dress sword here. Never had one/heard anything about them, but the stats look good for foot-work Also, I have a French F1 dress sword for sale in the classifieds. It's heavier than your typical infantry dress sword/dueling sabres, but is definitely usable on foot with a bit of practise.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Oct 12, 2016 4:16:42 GMT
I think the 1860 I have now is about 1/2 a cm at the base with very little taper, but still a little fun to wack at things. The grip feels markedly nicer than their 1840 Cav though. The 8.5 base does give me some confidence though, I figure a file can always be taken to something with a little work Try a belt sander. Filing will take years (and puts you at risk for finger amputation).
|
|