"Battle ready" "cutting rapier"?

As stated this doesn't work. The problem comes up that the repro weapon seeks to approximate the feel of the original without investing in the metal of the original. The repro blade is too thin and not tapered historically, so the guard may be a counterweight to a doctored blade. You start messing with proportions and you will probably take the whole weapon out of balance again. Neither the point of balance or point of leverage is literal in construction; it is a manifestation of proportions worked out in shaping the whole sword. Plug one leak and spring three others.

Considering the armor of mounted cavalry opposed to the type weapons carried, I personally think that most mounted swords of that period were primarily intended to thrust. This is in consideration of available striking places. ( NOT saying these are not cut/and thrust weapons. They are. Just that efficiency and lethality favors stabbing.)

Over on MyArmoury are two posts about the Munich, with one the comparisson of the Munich with the A&A. I think I mentioned those in my reviews, but if not I should have. The OP stated that thinning out the hilt branches and bringing the pommel down a bit so the knuckle bow ,, touches '' the pommel midway was what he did to the Munich. If I remember correctly there was discussion whether the lowering of the pommel was ,, historic ''. There are quite a few original Townguard swords around that have the high pommel, just like the repro. It may feel at first that it handles better with a lower pommel because of the tighter grip space, but of course the balance will be greatly impacted and move forward on the blade quite a bit I think.
That pommel is huge and heavy and the further out it is better in this repro case I believe.
In the end it was all about cosmetics. Thinning the hilt and rounding the blade shoulders will only take off a few grams, which in the case of the Windlass will not amount to much real difference in behaviour. Percieved difference is a totally other matter. That's all in the mind of the beholder. But if one were to do the same on an original I think the effect would be quite large. Lately I have come to see originals as something of an organic system, or for the music lovers amongst us, as a highly sofisticated melody. The originals were tuned to bits, much like a competition rifle in our days. Not only were they tuned to do a certain job very well, but I believe that for at least the more up marked ones, that those were tuned to the quirks of the owner too. If we talk weapon system, we think about higly complicated affairs on decks of highly tuned warships or something. The oldies could be seen as weapon systems in their own right too. The repros can be nice, but handle like an oldy on Qanax.
As long as the producers refuse to up the ante and use thick stock, we will never taste the delight of a product that comes close to an original. At 4.5 mm we do not get to stick the file in. There is no meat.

If you trained with, what in the beginning feels like, an overweight sword, what by the way the swordsmen of old did if the stories I read are true, I am quite sure that after a couple of weeks you would not feel it anymore and everything that bothers you now will be gone. Training is the key. Eat a lot of meat and hang an extra 5kg on the Munich for a month at 30 minutes a day. That thing will feel like a smallsword after a while.