Windlass US 1840 Artillery Sword
Feb 11, 2017 3:13:34 GMT
Post by Afoo on Feb 11, 2017 3:13:34 GMT
Preamble:
Recently, I got myself a French 1829 Artillery sword. Initially I was not a huge fan, but its grown on me since then. Problem is that its expensive, so waving it around is not something one does lightly. However, maybe there is another way…
Windlass made a replica of the US 1840 Artillery sword, which itself is a copy of the French 1829 I am so fond of. Unfortunately, its been OOP for a while. Due to its geographical isolation from the rest of the world, Australia is known as the land of living fossils, playing hosts to biological oddities such as marsupials – evolutionary branches which died out a long time ago elsewhere. Turns out the same can be said for swords, and I was able to source an 1840 Artillery from the folks at Lawrence Ordinance. They have some other vestigial OOP stuff well if you are interesting. Shipping was $68 Cad, or around $42 USD, which is actually less than what KoA charges me for shipping from the States. Must be due to us having the same Queen and all that.
I am under no impression that this will accurately match my antique 1829. However, lets see how close it can get.
History:
The famed French 1822 LC sword was great for the troopers. However, the large 3-bar hilt and 36 inch blade was not so good for the artillery boys, who were issued a variant of the 1822 LC themselves. As such, a lighter, shorter curved blade in 1829. The Americans copied the 1822 LC for their 1840 Cav sabre, and I presume picked up the 1829 as a 2-for-1 bonus, adopting it as their 1840 pattern artillery sabre.
I do not know the fidelity with which the Americans copied the 1829 – was it a reasonable facsimile of the 1829, or is it a “copy” in the same way the 1840 wristbreaker was a copy of the 1822 LC? Perhaps someone can answer this question but until then I will assume that my 1829 officers is a reasonable model for the US 1840 artillery troopers sword
I should also point out that my 1829 French sabre is the officer variant. As such it may not be 100% reflective of the 1829 troopers, let alone an American 1840 troopers. Thus, the comparison I present here should be taken with a grain of salt.
Windlass US 1840 Artillery (top) and original French 1829 Artillery (bottom)
The Handle:
The Windlass 1840 handle is a plain wire-wrapped affair. Nothing too special. Wire wrap does not quite extend as far as it does on the originals, but it does a reasonable job. The grip has a slight forward cant - it does not look or feel as aggressive as the officers 1829, but it does appear to be correct for the original troopers 1840, so points for that. The grip is comfortable in the hand, and the angle brings the point *almost* in line with the hand.
The guard is a plain affair – cannot comment much on accuracy given that my officers sabre has a different guard. The top quillon does look a bit under-sized. The rest of the dimensions look about right, and seem to match up with pictures I have found online for the antique 1840.
Grips from the Windlass 1840 (A), French 1829 Officer (B) and antique US 1840 (C - from online). Red lines delineate the curvature of the Windlass 1840 grips, and has been superimposed on the other two swords for comparison.
The Blade:
As you would expect from Windlass, the taper is minimal. The blade does capture the shape and aesthetic of the original, with its graceful curves and vicious serpent’s fang point. The fullers are a bit shorter than on my 1829, but that’s only noticeable when you put the two side by side. The fuller is not as deep, but it does capture the width. I also like the fact that the fullers on the Windlass extend all the way to the spine, again helping it capture the look and appearance of the original.
Blade thickness at the base (left) and at the tip (right). In both images, the one on the left is the Windlass. The first picture also shows the size difference in the quillon.
Blade profile at the base (left) and at the tip (right). The sword on the top in both images is the Windlass. The fullers are almost as broad as the original, but lack the same depth. Also note that that the fuller for the Windlass ends about an inch earlier than on the 1829.
As a trade-off for the shorter fuller, you get a longer foible (6.8 vs 8.1 inches) which helps compensate a bit for the lack of taper.
There are markings on the ricasso but, to put it kindly, the markings serve a valuable role in making it harder to pass off the Windlass for an original.
Anachronistically precise markings
The Scabbard:
Not much to see here. Plain and functional. Of course, the rings and drag are over-built, but not that noticeable unless you put it next to an original. Its also possible that the troopers scabbards would be more rugged than my officers 1829, so the difference may not be as great as it appears here.
Top: Windlass. Bottom: 1829
Handling Impressions:
As you would expect, the sword does not handle like the original. Its slower and feels heavier in the hand, though the margin is smaller than you would think. If I picked up one of these cold, I would say it was maybe 80% as good as the 1829. Handling them side by side this figure drops to 70%. Its still a reasonable facsimile. The original handles beautifully – practically moves without having to think about it, so if you can capture even 70% of that you are doing good.
This is not due to any engineering magic by Windlass mind you. The taper is awful and the fullers too shallow. However, it’s a small, light sword, so the margin for error is higher. Its easier to make a 2 lb sword handle well than a 2.5 lb sword. Its telling that the Windlass weighs 10% less than the 1829, but in the hand it feels 10-15% heavier.
A while ago I had an OOP Windlass Rheinfelden. I really liked the look of the thing, but had to give it up due to a severe case of “whippy blade syndrome” to the point where it started to interfere with my enjoyment. Since then I have been a bit leery about Windlasses and their 4 mm stock. However, the short length of the 1840 keeps this in line. Of course, its not as stiff as the original 1829, and the added flexibility does contribute a bit to the handling issues. In particular I found the flex most apparent in terms of point control, making the point feel a bit vague, though not to the point where it would significantly hinder my enjoyment of the sword. It may be an issue for those who wish to cut with it.
It is also interesting to note that the blade flexes in a strange manner when pushed from one side, with the main point of deformation occurring much lower down the blade, and in a much more acute fashion. Not sure what the implications are for cutting, but I would imagine it would affect its performance to some degree.
Strange (to me) flexing of the blade. Seems like the central bend point is somewhere near the bottom 1/3 of the blade (red arrow). All the other swords in my collection (repro and antique alike) bend at around 2/3 up the blade. Black line is a trace of the blade curvature, and is included for the sake of clarity
Lawrence Ordinance.
So, when I got this sword it had a few defects. The blade was a bit off-centered, and the grip had a small bit of loose leather. The peen had also been busted up – like someone at the Windlass plant re-peened the sword once it has been completed. The packaging was intact, so I am confident that the folks at Lawrence did not refurbish the sword themselves
The issue of the blade was minor and, like KoA says, most places accept this as normal for low-end replicas. The other two are cosmetic and I was happy to overlook them and/or capable of fixing it myself.
Defects in the peen (left) and leather grip (right)
I did contact Lawrence about these issues, and they offered a refund. I said I was happy to keep it, but requested a 10% partial refund which they obliged. It was pleasant dealing with them and I would recommend them to anyone with the caveat that you may want to request that they inspect the sword before having it sent out.
Overall, I would recommend this sword for anyone interested in this pattern. It’s a reasonable approximation of the original at a very reasonable price. The prices listed on Lawrence Ordinance includes a 10% sales tax, which the deduct automatically for international buyers. Final all in price for me was $205 US after shipping and tax, but before my partial discount.
Full resolution images here
Recently, I got myself a French 1829 Artillery sword. Initially I was not a huge fan, but its grown on me since then. Problem is that its expensive, so waving it around is not something one does lightly. However, maybe there is another way…
Windlass made a replica of the US 1840 Artillery sword, which itself is a copy of the French 1829 I am so fond of. Unfortunately, its been OOP for a while. Due to its geographical isolation from the rest of the world, Australia is known as the land of living fossils, playing hosts to biological oddities such as marsupials – evolutionary branches which died out a long time ago elsewhere. Turns out the same can be said for swords, and I was able to source an 1840 Artillery from the folks at Lawrence Ordinance. They have some other vestigial OOP stuff well if you are interesting. Shipping was $68 Cad, or around $42 USD, which is actually less than what KoA charges me for shipping from the States. Must be due to us having the same Queen and all that.
I am under no impression that this will accurately match my antique 1829. However, lets see how close it can get.
History:
The famed French 1822 LC sword was great for the troopers. However, the large 3-bar hilt and 36 inch blade was not so good for the artillery boys, who were issued a variant of the 1822 LC themselves. As such, a lighter, shorter curved blade in 1829. The Americans copied the 1822 LC for their 1840 Cav sabre, and I presume picked up the 1829 as a 2-for-1 bonus, adopting it as their 1840 pattern artillery sabre.
I do not know the fidelity with which the Americans copied the 1829 – was it a reasonable facsimile of the 1829, or is it a “copy” in the same way the 1840 wristbreaker was a copy of the 1822 LC? Perhaps someone can answer this question but until then I will assume that my 1829 officers is a reasonable model for the US 1840 artillery troopers sword
I should also point out that my 1829 French sabre is the officer variant. As such it may not be 100% reflective of the 1829 troopers, let alone an American 1840 troopers. Thus, the comparison I present here should be taken with a grain of salt.
Windlass US 1840 Artillery (top) and original French 1829 Artillery (bottom)
The Handle:
The Windlass 1840 handle is a plain wire-wrapped affair. Nothing too special. Wire wrap does not quite extend as far as it does on the originals, but it does a reasonable job. The grip has a slight forward cant - it does not look or feel as aggressive as the officers 1829, but it does appear to be correct for the original troopers 1840, so points for that. The grip is comfortable in the hand, and the angle brings the point *almost* in line with the hand.
The guard is a plain affair – cannot comment much on accuracy given that my officers sabre has a different guard. The top quillon does look a bit under-sized. The rest of the dimensions look about right, and seem to match up with pictures I have found online for the antique 1840.
Grips from the Windlass 1840 (A), French 1829 Officer (B) and antique US 1840 (C - from online). Red lines delineate the curvature of the Windlass 1840 grips, and has been superimposed on the other two swords for comparison.
The Blade:
As you would expect from Windlass, the taper is minimal. The blade does capture the shape and aesthetic of the original, with its graceful curves and vicious serpent’s fang point. The fullers are a bit shorter than on my 1829, but that’s only noticeable when you put the two side by side. The fuller is not as deep, but it does capture the width. I also like the fact that the fullers on the Windlass extend all the way to the spine, again helping it capture the look and appearance of the original.
Blade thickness at the base (left) and at the tip (right). In both images, the one on the left is the Windlass. The first picture also shows the size difference in the quillon.
Blade profile at the base (left) and at the tip (right). The sword on the top in both images is the Windlass. The fullers are almost as broad as the original, but lack the same depth. Also note that that the fuller for the Windlass ends about an inch earlier than on the 1829.
As a trade-off for the shorter fuller, you get a longer foible (6.8 vs 8.1 inches) which helps compensate a bit for the lack of taper.
There are markings on the ricasso but, to put it kindly, the markings serve a valuable role in making it harder to pass off the Windlass for an original.
Anachronistically precise markings
The Scabbard:
Not much to see here. Plain and functional. Of course, the rings and drag are over-built, but not that noticeable unless you put it next to an original. Its also possible that the troopers scabbards would be more rugged than my officers 1829, so the difference may not be as great as it appears here.
Top: Windlass. Bottom: 1829
Handling Impressions:
As you would expect, the sword does not handle like the original. Its slower and feels heavier in the hand, though the margin is smaller than you would think. If I picked up one of these cold, I would say it was maybe 80% as good as the 1829. Handling them side by side this figure drops to 70%. Its still a reasonable facsimile. The original handles beautifully – practically moves without having to think about it, so if you can capture even 70% of that you are doing good.
This is not due to any engineering magic by Windlass mind you. The taper is awful and the fullers too shallow. However, it’s a small, light sword, so the margin for error is higher. Its easier to make a 2 lb sword handle well than a 2.5 lb sword. Its telling that the Windlass weighs 10% less than the 1829, but in the hand it feels 10-15% heavier.
A while ago I had an OOP Windlass Rheinfelden. I really liked the look of the thing, but had to give it up due to a severe case of “whippy blade syndrome” to the point where it started to interfere with my enjoyment. Since then I have been a bit leery about Windlasses and their 4 mm stock. However, the short length of the 1840 keeps this in line. Of course, its not as stiff as the original 1829, and the added flexibility does contribute a bit to the handling issues. In particular I found the flex most apparent in terms of point control, making the point feel a bit vague, though not to the point where it would significantly hinder my enjoyment of the sword. It may be an issue for those who wish to cut with it.
It is also interesting to note that the blade flexes in a strange manner when pushed from one side, with the main point of deformation occurring much lower down the blade, and in a much more acute fashion. Not sure what the implications are for cutting, but I would imagine it would affect its performance to some degree.
Strange (to me) flexing of the blade. Seems like the central bend point is somewhere near the bottom 1/3 of the blade (red arrow). All the other swords in my collection (repro and antique alike) bend at around 2/3 up the blade. Black line is a trace of the blade curvature, and is included for the sake of clarity
Lawrence Ordinance.
So, when I got this sword it had a few defects. The blade was a bit off-centered, and the grip had a small bit of loose leather. The peen had also been busted up – like someone at the Windlass plant re-peened the sword once it has been completed. The packaging was intact, so I am confident that the folks at Lawrence did not refurbish the sword themselves
The issue of the blade was minor and, like KoA says, most places accept this as normal for low-end replicas. The other two are cosmetic and I was happy to overlook them and/or capable of fixing it myself.
Defects in the peen (left) and leather grip (right)
I did contact Lawrence about these issues, and they offered a refund. I said I was happy to keep it, but requested a 10% partial refund which they obliged. It was pleasant dealing with them and I would recommend them to anyone with the caveat that you may want to request that they inspect the sword before having it sent out.
Overall, I would recommend this sword for anyone interested in this pattern. It’s a reasonable approximation of the original at a very reasonable price. The prices listed on Lawrence Ordinance includes a 10% sales tax, which the deduct automatically for international buyers. Final all in price for me was $205 US after shipping and tax, but before my partial discount.
Full resolution images here