UPDATED British 1796 Heavy Cavalry sword- NOT FROM UNIVERSAL
Aug 22, 2017 4:48:51 GMT
Post by bfoo2 on Aug 22, 2017 4:48:51 GMT
1) BACKGROUND
The 1796 sword family (heavy and light) was designed by John LeMarchant. The 1796LC was obviously influenced by Eastern sword patterns (scimitars, shamshirs, &tc) and much has already been written about them here on this forum and in previous reviews by myself and Afoo . The Heavy Cavalry weapon (Lifeguards, Royal Horse Guards, Dragoon Guards and Dragoons) was modeled off the straight-bladed Austrian Pallasch.
Both weapons have a brutal, industrial air about them. Heavy steel, straight lines and simple curves. A triumph of brutality over artistry. Compared to the light cavalry weapon (which I will not describe in detail here... please see other excellent reviews such as this one), the Heavy Cav weapon exchanged the "P" stirrup hand-guard for a unique pierced-steel circular one, and the broad curved blade for a straight one.
Notes on the handling of an original 1796HC
Despite the vastly different blade shape, the blade geometry remained fairly similar between the two swords. Both are broad blades which taper down to a paper-thin foible and terminate in a hatchet-point. The only difference seems to be the greater length of the HC (34-35in vs. 31-32in) and the lack of curvature. I recently had the opportunity to observe an original 1796HC at the Royal Ontario Museum (Canada) and this seemed to validate that observation
A lot of people think that the 1796HC was designed for use in the thrust due to it's straight blade but I think that is wrong. As I mentioned earlier, the 1796HC blade is little more than a straightened light-cav blade. I suspect that this design would retain much of the slashing character of the light cav weapon, while adding in some limited shock-action capability in the form of the thrust.
Left to right: 1788 cav, 1796LC, 1796HC
I do not own an original 1796HC. However, I do have a Swedish 1831 mounted artillery sword (1831Swe) which has a (mostly) straight blade more similar to that of the HC. As I suspect with the HC, the 1831Swe is a formidable cutter with very limited thrust capabilities. The statistics are listed in the table below
| 1811 Prussian (Afoo ) | 1831 Swe (bfoo2 ) | 1796 HC (repro) |
Length of blade (in) | 31 | 35.5 | 34 |
Length of grip (in) | 4 | 4 | 3.5* |
Width of blade (mm) | 38 | 36 | 38 |
Blade taper (mm) | 7 - 2 | 8-1.7 | 7.5-3 |
Weight | 2.3lb | 2.2lb | 2.7lb |
PoB (in) | 9 | 7 | 9.5 |
Handling character | Axe disguised as a sword | Powerful, long reaching cutter | Don't even ask... |
Top: 1796HC repro, Bottom: 1831Swe
2) REVIEW OF THE REPRO 1796HC
I acquired this sword from a Canadian dealer (Historical Twist, aka Twist Miniature Design). The website does not specify the manufacturer. It most definitely comes from
What I prioritize in a repro is whether it captures the overall look and feel of the original. If the original looks chunky and bulky like a British 1796 or 1885, then the repro should capture that. If the original is sleek and vicious like a scimitar, then the repro should look sleek and fast.
The handling I'm not too big a stickler on. To be honest if your number 1 priority in a repro is handling, then you will always be disappointed so what's the point? All I ask is that the sword not be a complete disappointment. If I'm going to get a meal at McDonalds, I don't expect caviar, but I would prefer that at the very least I don't get cholera or dysentery
2.1 Aestetic
Here I am looking for a few things. A nice big hatchet-point, industrial brutal grips and guard, and a broad blade with wide fullers. The repro checks off all these boxes just fine.
Left: chop chop!
Right: brutal no-nonsense grips and guards
So the sword gets a lot of the fine details okay. However, the sword as a whole package just looks a bit off. The proportions don't seem right...
Left: Repro
Right: Original (Royal Armoury)
I've worked it out that the grips are just a biiitttt too short. The measured length is around 3.5in. My 1831Swe has 4.15in grips, as does Afoo 's 1811 Prussian.
Because of the missing half-inch, the grip looks a bit smaller and this makes the guard seem disproportionately large. Also, I suspect that the shorter tang resulted in the handle components being "squished" in order to fit onto the shorter tang properly. This results in a "bulged" appearance to the grip
Left: shorter grip compared to the Swedish
Right: bulged appearance of grips
2.2 Handling
It sucks. But why is anyone suprised?
The main issue is the ridiculous PoB (9 inches) and the shortened grip means that the grip just falls away once it reaches your palm so there's really nothing to support all that massive weight. Now as I've mentioned earlier I'm fairly lax when it comes to judging the handling of repros but even for me this is kinda awful. If you are looking for a cutter, get anything else. Princess of Wales, CS 1796LC, ANYTHING
What I do not understand is WHY the PoB is so far forward. The taper is actually quite good (7mm to 2-ish) and the foible while not as thin as an original is not too shoddy. The fullers are not as deep as the original but are wide enough and I do not think this can account for all the extra mass...
Top: 1796 repro foible
Bottom: 1831Swe foible
2.3 Conclusions
In all honesty I the handling doesn't bother me at all. Going with the fast food analogies, that would be like walking into a McDonalds and being pissed off that they didn't put any kale or arugula in your Big Mac. No, the reason I got this thing is because it LOOKS like a 1796HC. They could have at least got that part right...
A bit of a disappointment? I guess? Although before making the purchase I carefully scrutinized images of the repro on both the vendor's website, previous reviews (Credit to Dave Kelly ) and KoA and I suspected that the grip was too small even then.
Is it a complete waste of money? I've had this sword for a few hours now and already the aestetic inaccuracies have declined from "rage-inducing" to "mild annoyance at the back of your mind" so I think I can live with it. I find myself focusing more on the big beefy blade and the massive guard rather than the issues with proportions. And you have to remember that many of the visual cues here are unique and no other sword captures this character. Also being almost 10 times cheaper than an antique ($250 CDN vs $2500 CDN) doesn't hurt. Finally, there might be some low-budget ways to fix the aesthetic issues...
Long story short: From a handling perspective this sword is hopeless. From an aestetic standpoint it has issues but as I shall describe below it is still workable. In any case, this is the only game in town if you want a 1796HC replica so if you want to add one to your collection you'll have to deal with the drawbacks.
*UPDATE* The maker of the sword
There was some debate in the previous posts concerning whether this sword is from Universal Swords or WeaponEdge. I can now say for certain that this is NOT the Universal Swords version (at least not the one that is sold through Kult of Athena). There are some key differences between mine and a Universal 1796HC reviewed here:
a) on my example, there is a "step" between the top of the grip and the top of the blade. This makes the bulge in the grip more evident and to my eye makes the sword look off. The Universal Swords example does not have this.
b) Langets on mine are longer
c) The blade width on the Universal is listed at 33.6mm. Mine is a whopping 38mm(!!!)
Top: HistoricalTwist 1796 Bottom: Universal Swords 1796 (from Kult, review posted 2013)
So what do these differences mean? The Universal has a narrower blade (33.5mm vs. 38) and 1in closer PoB (8 1/4 vs 9.5in) and should handle better. Aestetically it's a mixed bag. I don't like the "step" between the grip and the blade on my example- it makes the grip look undersized and exaggerates the bulge. On the other hand, the full 38mm wide blade is truly impressive. Also the foible on my example seems to be much better done (3mm vs 4.5mm) and better captures the overall aestetic of the blade.
On balance I prefer mine. The aestetic problems can be solved by covering the grip or tossing a sword-know to hide the flaws. The handling sucks but that's not the point here...
It should be noted that many vendors (several of them obscure/regional outfits) carry a "1796HC" repro without listing the manufacturer. These clues should be informative to prospective buyers.
-----------------------
Notes about the supplier (Historical Twist)
I acquired this sword from a Canadian dealer (Historical Twist, aka Twist Miniature Design). I have ordered several items from the dealer and both times there was some corrosion and rust. These are minor and to be honest the prices on the site are very low so I see it as a tradeoff. However if you are ordering a display piece that you want to be completely spotless, then you should probably call ahead...
On the plus side, my transactions have been very pleasant, trouble free and as I mentioned above the prices are quite reasonable. So if you want to save money and don't mind the potential for a bit of rust then I would recommend (they also sell uniforms, sword knots, belts and muskets)