Universal Swords* "19th Cent Artillery Officer Sword"
Mar 24, 2018 21:49:24 GMT
Post by bfoo2 on Mar 24, 2018 21:49:24 GMT
Preamble
I purchased this sword from HistoricalTwist (Canada). The seller does not provide the manufacturer of this weapon. I presume* that this is the Universal Swords version by comparing the images to those from KultofAthena but while I am 99% certain I cannot guarantee it.
Introduction
This sword is clearly based off Royal Artillery Staff Sargent sword. Early versions of this sword have rounded grips and backstraps and a curved blade reminiscent of the 1821 cavalry officer pattern. Later versions have a more squared grip, chequered backstrap and straight blade more similar to the 1897 Infantry pattern. I am not sure when the transition occurred (or whether these are considered to be different models altogether).
Both permutations of the sword feature robust blades. The early curved variant certainly appears similar to the 1821 Cavalry weapon. The later straight-bladed version is similar to the 1897 Infantry Officer blade but the fuller is located against the spine rather than down the middle. In this regard it more closely resembles the rare 1889 Staff Seargent sword. These comparisons I must note are derived from studying available images on the internet and must be considered as purely speculative.
Artillery Officer Sword- Early version (Image from Matt Easton/SFI)
Artillery Officer Sword- Late version (same source as above)
The Universal Swords pattern appears to be a hybrid of the two extremes: It features a curved blade similar to the early “1821-like” patterns, but with the squared chequered backstrap of the “1897-like” patterns. The blade is a respectable 24.5mm wide and 35in long which compares quite well with the 1897 pattern I have lying around.
Objectives
Everybody purchases repros for different reasons: backyard cutting, posing/re-enactment, etc. I think it useful to state clearly the expectations and objectives: what I am looking for, what properties I value/flaws I ignore, what are my references for comparison, etc.
In this case, I am planning to use the grip/guard/backstrap for a project sword. Therefore, I am interested in the overall look/feel and proportions of this sword. I note the performance from a handling perspective for our collective information although since I’m discarding the blade anyway this is of little importance to me. In both departments I will be comparing to an antique 1897 Infantry Officer’s Sword (I have two: an EIIR from Coghlin&Upton-Canada and a GV from Wilkinson- UK).
Overall Appearance, Fit and Finish
In general, most Indian made British repros suffer from “microgrip”. For some reason, the tangs are too short; in order to make everything “fit”, they squish and stuff everything onto the poor tang and screw it down with a nut pommel. This leads to three consequences: a) grip is too short, b) grip has a “bulged” lumpen appearance due to the squeezing and c) things just don’t line up properly. This is most apparent on the Universal Swords 1821LC sword. I have owned reproduction 1796HC and 1821LC/HC swords from Indian makers and both also suffer noticeably from this flaw.
I am happy to report though that this sword has a nice grip. It is the proper length and fairly well done too. There is a bit of bulging near the end of the grip, and it doesn’t quite line up with the blade, but overall it’s not bad. You can see the comparison with my 1897 and the grip dimensions are spot-on
The chequered backstrap is well done and the texture is spot-on with my 1897.
The blade etching (or “etching”) is obviously not done using a traditional “acid etch” technique. Rather it appears to have been stamped on using a dye, and a dark stain/wash has been applied to enhance contrast (which can be rubbed off with WD40…) When I purchased the sword I was fully expecting to be disappointed by the etching. When I got it, I was pleasantly surprised: sure, it won’t fool anyone but I think it looks quite nice for what it is. It certainly doesn’t fill me with rage.
The blade itself is quite decent. The fullers are not well defined as antiques but the etching masks that quite well. The central ridge is well defined at the foible.
The scabbard is some plastic resin with a leather frog. The plastic actually feels quite like the treated leather used on these British field scabbards. It’s not quite the same, but for a repro I’m happy to trade off some authenticity for ease of maintenance and durability (no dried cracked leather or burst seams here!)
Handling
For the sake of this review, I am comparing this repro to my 1897 Infantry Officer’s sword. My feeling is that there are some misconceptions about how the 1897 handles. A lot of people see the elaborate pierced steel guard, exquisite grip and backstrap, and narrow thrusting blade and assume it to be a dainty delicate thrusting weapon. I find this is not the case. It lacks aggressive curve and the taper is mediocre (9.5mm to 4.5mm on my example) so it doesn’t feel lively. However, the grips are very nice- they give a good secure grip, plenty of room to work with, and the chequered backstrap gives loads of traction and is one of the most underrated inventions ever. Due to ergonomics, I rate this sword as giving a “sturdy” or “solid” workmanlike feel. Barely nimble enough to thrust if needed, but plenty capable of slugging it out with various hostile natives. Despite it’s parade ground looks, this sword was designed to fight it out at the far reaches of the Empire and take on all sorts of spears, talwars, war-clubs and bayonets.
Interestingly the repro captures the same feel. It isn’t nimble or lively, but it conveys the same sense of toughness and hearkens back to the sturdy Artilleryman’s sidearms of old. Not a daintily little plaything, but something you can use to club, chop and throw around with abandon. Taper on mine is 8mm to 4mm so if anything it’s actually slightly better than my 1897!
Conclusion
Well, that depends on what you want, doesn’t it? Due to the clunky (in a good way) handling, I cannot really recommend this sword for backyard cutters. In terms of overall look and feel, it is almost spot-on. It captures the overall look and feel of the late-19th century British Infantry swords very well and does not present with the typical (and very annoying) dimensional issues that plague many British sword replicas in this price range.
The nearest competitors for this repro are the Universal Swords 1897 reproduction (which is no longer available through Kult but some dealers in the UK still carry) and antiques. Given that both of these options are rather expensive in North America, this repro is a decent bargain.
Artillery sword (with new blade and scabbard) next to a EIIR (center) and GV (left) 1897. Also note the differences between the 1897s from different eras
Disassembly
This sword has a nut pommel that can be undone with a good wrench. Unlike Windlass weapons, Universal Swords do not fill their grips with epoxy. Rather I suspect they make the tang channel slightly undersize and press-fit the weapons in to insure a secure mount. This makes disassembly very straightforward.
Links
Item Listing (HistoricalTwist)
Item Listing (KoA)
I purchased this sword from HistoricalTwist (Canada). The seller does not provide the manufacturer of this weapon. I presume* that this is the Universal Swords version by comparing the images to those from KultofAthena but while I am 99% certain I cannot guarantee it.
Introduction
This sword is clearly based off Royal Artillery Staff Sargent sword. Early versions of this sword have rounded grips and backstraps and a curved blade reminiscent of the 1821 cavalry officer pattern. Later versions have a more squared grip, chequered backstrap and straight blade more similar to the 1897 Infantry pattern. I am not sure when the transition occurred (or whether these are considered to be different models altogether).
Both permutations of the sword feature robust blades. The early curved variant certainly appears similar to the 1821 Cavalry weapon. The later straight-bladed version is similar to the 1897 Infantry Officer blade but the fuller is located against the spine rather than down the middle. In this regard it more closely resembles the rare 1889 Staff Seargent sword. These comparisons I must note are derived from studying available images on the internet and must be considered as purely speculative.
Artillery Officer Sword- Early version (Image from Matt Easton/SFI)
Artillery Officer Sword- Late version (same source as above)
The Universal Swords pattern appears to be a hybrid of the two extremes: It features a curved blade similar to the early “1821-like” patterns, but with the squared chequered backstrap of the “1897-like” patterns. The blade is a respectable 24.5mm wide and 35in long which compares quite well with the 1897 pattern I have lying around.
Objectives
Everybody purchases repros for different reasons: backyard cutting, posing/re-enactment, etc. I think it useful to state clearly the expectations and objectives: what I am looking for, what properties I value/flaws I ignore, what are my references for comparison, etc.
In this case, I am planning to use the grip/guard/backstrap for a project sword. Therefore, I am interested in the overall look/feel and proportions of this sword. I note the performance from a handling perspective for our collective information although since I’m discarding the blade anyway this is of little importance to me. In both departments I will be comparing to an antique 1897 Infantry Officer’s Sword (I have two: an EIIR from Coghlin&Upton-Canada and a GV from Wilkinson- UK).
Overall Appearance, Fit and Finish
In general, most Indian made British repros suffer from “microgrip”. For some reason, the tangs are too short; in order to make everything “fit”, they squish and stuff everything onto the poor tang and screw it down with a nut pommel. This leads to three consequences: a) grip is too short, b) grip has a “bulged” lumpen appearance due to the squeezing and c) things just don’t line up properly. This is most apparent on the Universal Swords 1821LC sword. I have owned reproduction 1796HC and 1821LC/HC swords from Indian makers and both also suffer noticeably from this flaw.
I am happy to report though that this sword has a nice grip. It is the proper length and fairly well done too. There is a bit of bulging near the end of the grip, and it doesn’t quite line up with the blade, but overall it’s not bad. You can see the comparison with my 1897 and the grip dimensions are spot-on
The chequered backstrap is well done and the texture is spot-on with my 1897.
The blade etching (or “etching”) is obviously not done using a traditional “acid etch” technique. Rather it appears to have been stamped on using a dye, and a dark stain/wash has been applied to enhance contrast (which can be rubbed off with WD40…) When I purchased the sword I was fully expecting to be disappointed by the etching. When I got it, I was pleasantly surprised: sure, it won’t fool anyone but I think it looks quite nice for what it is. It certainly doesn’t fill me with rage.
The blade itself is quite decent. The fullers are not well defined as antiques but the etching masks that quite well. The central ridge is well defined at the foible.
The scabbard is some plastic resin with a leather frog. The plastic actually feels quite like the treated leather used on these British field scabbards. It’s not quite the same, but for a repro I’m happy to trade off some authenticity for ease of maintenance and durability (no dried cracked leather or burst seams here!)
Handling
For the sake of this review, I am comparing this repro to my 1897 Infantry Officer’s sword. My feeling is that there are some misconceptions about how the 1897 handles. A lot of people see the elaborate pierced steel guard, exquisite grip and backstrap, and narrow thrusting blade and assume it to be a dainty delicate thrusting weapon. I find this is not the case. It lacks aggressive curve and the taper is mediocre (9.5mm to 4.5mm on my example) so it doesn’t feel lively. However, the grips are very nice- they give a good secure grip, plenty of room to work with, and the chequered backstrap gives loads of traction and is one of the most underrated inventions ever. Due to ergonomics, I rate this sword as giving a “sturdy” or “solid” workmanlike feel. Barely nimble enough to thrust if needed, but plenty capable of slugging it out with various hostile natives. Despite it’s parade ground looks, this sword was designed to fight it out at the far reaches of the Empire and take on all sorts of spears, talwars, war-clubs and bayonets.
Interestingly the repro captures the same feel. It isn’t nimble or lively, but it conveys the same sense of toughness and hearkens back to the sturdy Artilleryman’s sidearms of old. Not a daintily little plaything, but something you can use to club, chop and throw around with abandon. Taper on mine is 8mm to 4mm so if anything it’s actually slightly better than my 1897!
Conclusion
Well, that depends on what you want, doesn’t it? Due to the clunky (in a good way) handling, I cannot really recommend this sword for backyard cutters. In terms of overall look and feel, it is almost spot-on. It captures the overall look and feel of the late-19th century British Infantry swords very well and does not present with the typical (and very annoying) dimensional issues that plague many British sword replicas in this price range.
The nearest competitors for this repro are the Universal Swords 1897 reproduction (which is no longer available through Kult but some dealers in the UK still carry) and antiques. Given that both of these options are rather expensive in North America, this repro is a decent bargain.
Artillery sword (with new blade and scabbard) next to a EIIR (center) and GV (left) 1897. Also note the differences between the 1897s from different eras
Disassembly
This sword has a nut pommel that can be undone with a good wrench. Unlike Windlass weapons, Universal Swords do not fill their grips with epoxy. Rather I suspect they make the tang channel slightly undersize and press-fit the weapons in to insure a secure mount. This makes disassembly very straightforward.
Links
Item Listing (HistoricalTwist)
Item Listing (KoA)