Universal Swords* "1845 Wilkinson Light Cavalry Sabre"
Mar 24, 2018 22:27:59 GMT
Post by bfoo2 on Mar 24, 2018 22:27:59 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
The “1845 Wilkinson Light Cavalry” sword does not appear to represent any one particular pattern. Certainly I am not familiar with an "1845" model British sword. The grip and guard resemble the 1821 Light Cavalry weapon, but lacks the pipe-back blade. The “Wilkinson” style blade is a closer match for the 1821 Heavy Cavalry weapon, which has a bowl guard. There appears to have been a switch from the "pipeback" to the "Wilkinson" style blade for the Light Cav sometime after it's introduction but I am not familiar with the details (feel free to add in discussion). In either case, the repro has neither the riveted backstrap of the trooper's, or the rayskin grip and blade etching of the Officer's versions
1821 Light Cav sword with Wilkinson blade (National Army Museum, London)
One thing becomes obvious when examining this reproduction: this is NOT a cavalry weapon! The blade is 24.5mm wide at the base, and is only 32in long. In comparison, the British 1853 is 33mm wide and 35in long. In fact, this blade is SMALLER than the British 1897 Infantry Officer’s Sword
"1845" sword (bottom) compared to a reproduction Artillery Officer's Sword. Note difference in size!
In light of this, I believe this reproduction is better thought to represent either a) an officer’s weapon or b) one of the myriad of staff seargent/specialist pattern swords used by the British during this time period.
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.
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.
The shameful microgrip! (Universal Swords 1821LC)
Unfortunately, the 1845 suffers significantly from this flaw. You can see that the grip is misshapen and all sorts of funny. Unfortunately, most online vendors will take pictures in a way to obscure this, but if you look carefully you can see it.
The guard is also hilariously undersized. I have images in comparison to the Universal Swords Artillery Officer sword and the difference is very apparent. The backstrap is too round, the grip is too fat, and the overall length is just too short.
Comparison of size
"1845" sword grip: note lumpen, round shape
Universal Swords Artillery Officer sword: grips properly done!
The blade is well done for a repro. The fullers could be a bit better defined (the same can be said of any repro) but the central ridge at the foible is quite crisp.
Foibles ("1845" on right)
(NB I disassembled the sword a while ago for a project and I’ve only reassembled it for this review. I bent the tang quite a bit and thus the blade is noticeably forward cant compared to images from the supplier. Also, the grip-wire has been loosened. This is not reflective of the state in which I got it).
I disassembled this sword (nut pommel, take it off with a wrench) and I had a difficult time prising the parts separate even though there was no trace of epoxy. I found that the tang was bent funny in order to fit into the grip and pass through the backstrap, and everything was jammed together and held under extreme compression. This “hammer it in until it fits” underlies the microgrip problem- these parts just weren’t designed to go together.
Guard comparison: "1845" vs. British Artillery Officer
Handling
Well, how do you want me to compare this? As I discussed above, this blade really isn’t a cavalry weapon and it is closer to the British Staff Seargent patterns.
Therefore I compared this one to my British Artillery Officer sword repro (from the same supplier)
This blade is almost an exact copy of that found in the Universal Swords “British 19th Century Artillery Officer’s Sword” minus a few inches at the tip. However, it lacks the ergonomic features of the artillery weapon (large grip, textured backstrap) that give its sense of solidity and beefiness. Indeed, the blobby, round and smooth backstrap of the “1845” has the opposite effect- making the 1845 feel vague and poorly controlled. Thus, even though the blade is shorter than the Artillery Officer’s repro, the 1845 handles much worse. The lack of ergonomic refinements are the difference between “sturdy and workmanlike” and “dead and lumpen”. This sword doesn't handle BADLY- but it's really meh. Boring, uninspired, etc
Even though the grips are lumpen and smooth, they are broad and give plenty of help in edge alignment. This would have been perfectly acceptable on a fast cutting sword like the British 1796LC. There is nothing wrong with the grips per se- they just don’t belong on THIS sword with THIS blade.
Interestingly, I re-mounted this blade onto a different set of grips (from an 1822LC officer’s sword repro) and it works quite well. The blade is similar to other infantry officer’s fighting blades from the mid-late 19th century. It just needs the right grips!
MUCH BETTER!
Conclusion
The overall package however is quite disappointing. The bulged rounded grips are reminiscent of some cavalry weapons (1796LC for example) but the weird angles of the backstrap are painfully evident. The blade is nowhere near cavalry sized. Handling is okay but uninspiring.
On balance, this sword is ridiculously cheap ($150 CAD from HistoricalTwist) and from a distance it looks like a sword. The handling is mediocre, bland, boring but it is serviceable; surely it doesn't inspire me to go looking for a fight, but it doesn't fill me with rage (unlike the Universal Swords Napoleonic Heavy Cav slabs). This would be an ideal sword for reenactment.
Also, the blade itself isn't bad, and the grips are really suitable for a cutting type blade. This combined with the low price point makes this an attractive buy for parts/DIY projects.
Links
Supplier link
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
The “1845 Wilkinson Light Cavalry” sword does not appear to represent any one particular pattern. Certainly I am not familiar with an "1845" model British sword. The grip and guard resemble the 1821 Light Cavalry weapon, but lacks the pipe-back blade. The “Wilkinson” style blade is a closer match for the 1821 Heavy Cavalry weapon, which has a bowl guard. There appears to have been a switch from the "pipeback" to the "Wilkinson" style blade for the Light Cav sometime after it's introduction but I am not familiar with the details (feel free to add in discussion). In either case, the repro has neither the riveted backstrap of the trooper's, or the rayskin grip and blade etching of the Officer's versions
1821 Light Cav sword with Wilkinson blade (National Army Museum, London)
One thing becomes obvious when examining this reproduction: this is NOT a cavalry weapon! The blade is 24.5mm wide at the base, and is only 32in long. In comparison, the British 1853 is 33mm wide and 35in long. In fact, this blade is SMALLER than the British 1897 Infantry Officer’s Sword
"1845" sword (bottom) compared to a reproduction Artillery Officer's Sword. Note difference in size!
In light of this, I believe this reproduction is better thought to represent either a) an officer’s weapon or b) one of the myriad of staff seargent/specialist pattern swords used by the British during this time period.
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.
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.
The shameful microgrip! (Universal Swords 1821LC)
Unfortunately, the 1845 suffers significantly from this flaw. You can see that the grip is misshapen and all sorts of funny. Unfortunately, most online vendors will take pictures in a way to obscure this, but if you look carefully you can see it.
The guard is also hilariously undersized. I have images in comparison to the Universal Swords Artillery Officer sword and the difference is very apparent. The backstrap is too round, the grip is too fat, and the overall length is just too short.
Comparison of size
"1845" sword grip: note lumpen, round shape
Universal Swords Artillery Officer sword: grips properly done!
The blade is well done for a repro. The fullers could be a bit better defined (the same can be said of any repro) but the central ridge at the foible is quite crisp.
Foibles ("1845" on right)
(NB I disassembled the sword a while ago for a project and I’ve only reassembled it for this review. I bent the tang quite a bit and thus the blade is noticeably forward cant compared to images from the supplier. Also, the grip-wire has been loosened. This is not reflective of the state in which I got it).
I disassembled this sword (nut pommel, take it off with a wrench) and I had a difficult time prising the parts separate even though there was no trace of epoxy. I found that the tang was bent funny in order to fit into the grip and pass through the backstrap, and everything was jammed together and held under extreme compression. This “hammer it in until it fits” underlies the microgrip problem- these parts just weren’t designed to go together.
Guard comparison: "1845" vs. British Artillery Officer
Handling
Well, how do you want me to compare this? As I discussed above, this blade really isn’t a cavalry weapon and it is closer to the British Staff Seargent patterns.
Therefore I compared this one to my British Artillery Officer sword repro (from the same supplier)
This blade is almost an exact copy of that found in the Universal Swords “British 19th Century Artillery Officer’s Sword” minus a few inches at the tip. However, it lacks the ergonomic features of the artillery weapon (large grip, textured backstrap) that give its sense of solidity and beefiness. Indeed, the blobby, round and smooth backstrap of the “1845” has the opposite effect- making the 1845 feel vague and poorly controlled. Thus, even though the blade is shorter than the Artillery Officer’s repro, the 1845 handles much worse. The lack of ergonomic refinements are the difference between “sturdy and workmanlike” and “dead and lumpen”. This sword doesn't handle BADLY- but it's really meh. Boring, uninspired, etc
Even though the grips are lumpen and smooth, they are broad and give plenty of help in edge alignment. This would have been perfectly acceptable on a fast cutting sword like the British 1796LC. There is nothing wrong with the grips per se- they just don’t belong on THIS sword with THIS blade.
Interestingly, I re-mounted this blade onto a different set of grips (from an 1822LC officer’s sword repro) and it works quite well. The blade is similar to other infantry officer’s fighting blades from the mid-late 19th century. It just needs the right grips!
MUCH BETTER!
Conclusion
The overall package however is quite disappointing. The bulged rounded grips are reminiscent of some cavalry weapons (1796LC for example) but the weird angles of the backstrap are painfully evident. The blade is nowhere near cavalry sized. Handling is okay but uninspiring.
On balance, this sword is ridiculously cheap ($150 CAD from HistoricalTwist) and from a distance it looks like a sword. The handling is mediocre, bland, boring but it is serviceable; surely it doesn't inspire me to go looking for a fight, but it doesn't fill me with rage (unlike the Universal Swords Napoleonic Heavy Cav slabs). This would be an ideal sword for reenactment.
Also, the blade itself isn't bad, and the grips are really suitable for a cutting type blade. This combined with the low price point makes this an attractive buy for parts/DIY projects.
Links
Supplier link