|
Post by wlewisiii on Sept 13, 2018 15:36:41 GMT
I've been bitten fairly hard by the saber bug and now have a couple of them. I found an old POS that I got for $50 in high school hiding at the farm. It's nasty but I keep it as a reminder of the worst of things. Then when i first got interested in Swords again last year I picked up a Windlass 1860 recognizing Mr. Kelly's comment that it's a decent enough saber so long as you understand that it's not a historical saber. I also since then picked up a Windlass American Revolution Saber with a beautiful coffin handle hilt and surprisingly nice handling that was a pleasure to use to work through the 1873 O'Rourke Saber Manual. Then I noted that Jordan Williams was offering the Windlass 1906 for sale and mindful of it's reputation as the most accurate American saber reproduction out there I was glad to come to a mutually acceptable arrangement and was expecting it to arrive tomorrow. Actually it arrived this morning (yea USPS!) and it really is amazing. I've never considered my Windlass 1860 to be all that terrible a saber, just knew it wasn't historical. Now I really see how ahistorical it really is. The 1906 really handles that much differently. The whistle as it slices the air alone makes me kind of giggle. Good thing no one else is here right now! I got a CS 1917 saber during the MRL annual sale. Only 5 oz heavier and the POB is within an inch on each but holy catfish batman, the CS is a lead pipe that I returned because it was such crap but this is much nicer. I would bet this is that original French 1822 linage showing through and giving a lively feel to the properly thinned blade. Very nice indeed! My American Revolution Saber is a good dragoon saber - a bit heavier handling but, unlike the CS, still capable of being fenced with. The 1906 appears to be simply a nice example of a proper lighter cavalry saber. The scabbard is a tight fit and doesn't rattle. Is it gentler on the edge, I wonder, than the rattle trap that came with my 1860? I also note that this saber fits the wood and leather scabbard that came with my American Revolution Saber so I may just use it for which ever I wish to take someplace or wear to go outside for cutting or to the local ren fest I'm looking forward to working out with it later today.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Sept 13, 2018 19:32:20 GMT
Pictures or it didn't happen
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Sept 13, 2018 22:12:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Sept 14, 2018 6:12:52 GMT
The 1906 is a nice sword - an accurate replica, and an affordable one while it was in production. Its a *bit* heavier than my original 1906, but not outside the margin of error for manufacturing tolerances. Nice buy!
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Sept 18, 2018 20:33:35 GMT
Had an unexpected day off today (schedule change and I didn't read it. Better to be there and not on than the reverse though!) so I decided to do a bit more cutting. No pics or video set up because I don't do this very good.
Filled a gallon jug with water. These I usually end up batting - I've never been sure what I'm doing wrong but what the heck. SWISH - two even halves and water all over! Holy Catfish Batman, that's what other people's videos look like!
Pool noodle went just as well. Stand facing it, Cut 1 from the guard and the top half of the noodle goes flying.
So, uhm, yeah, the 1906 is by far the best cutter I own.
My guess is that there are a couple of things involved - one the blade is balanced so much better than the others. I can cut with the Revolution Saber but not as well or as easily but the 1860 is much harder to use. The grip is also much better on the 1906 and I had no trouble with keeping the edge aligned where I wanted it. Last is the relative lightness of the saber making the tip speed easy to keep up - as I mentioned before this puppy just whistles through the air.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 19, 2018 6:04:43 GMT
Glad you're happy with your buy! The Windlass 1906 is one of the best repros (formerly) on the market. A pity that it's no longer available. Not sure why they pulled it from production to be honest- I think it was a missed opportunity. It's interesting that you prefer the 1906 over the Rev. War sword. The numbers (weight, PoB, blade length) suggest that the Rev. War should be the lighter-feeling of the two weapons. Weighs about 0.5lb less, with a smaller blade. One aspect of the Windlass 1906 that doesn't receive a lot of attention (but should) are the grips and hilt. The recent Universal Swords 1840/1860 offerings are beginning to approach antique blade profiles (taper 8mm to <3mm in the new " 1840*" model). However, the grips are way off. For starters, they lack the subtle yet effective contours to better support the hand, and secondly the blade comes out of the grip dead-straight and lacks the forward angle seen with most antiques. On the other hand, the grips on the Windlass 1906 are dead on. Not convinced? Check out Dave's review for pics. I suspect that having the blade at a forward angle helps the handling of the 1906. It pushes the center-of-mass out infront of your hand and carries the rest of the sword forward in the cut. In contrast, the rev. war saber, while the better handler on paper, lacks this forward blade angle. In conjunction with the curved blade, this places the center-of-mass behind the hand, which I find drags behind and makes the sword difficult to maneuver. ~ In general, I find that with antiques, the design and ergonomics of the grip/hilt is at-least as important as the blade. An extreme example is Afoo's 1909 Italian ( link). Decent blade almost ruined by a mostly unusable grip. A less-extreme example of a decent blade compromised by ergonomics is (arguably) the British 1853/82/85/90 pattern ( link). *They call it an "1840HC" but it's actually representative of an 1860LC.
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Sept 19, 2018 13:45:03 GMT
Your comment on grips is interesting and yes, that's a key. The other key seems to be the blade profile aka a real distal taper. There is a good grip on the American Revolution Saber but not as good a taper. Better than the taper on the 1860 and far better than others I've handled. Matt Easton did a video this week on the weight of swords and I commented:
"It's always interesting to see how the weight is distributed. I bought a Cold Steel saber that handled like a lead pipe - even a heavy cutlass handled better. More recently I just got a Windlass 1906 commemorative US saber that is only 140 grams lighter but handles like a feather compared to that Cold Steel monstrosity and cuts better as well. Why would this be? My guess - as a fairly newby to swords in general and sabers in particular - is that the Windlass has a proper distal taper and the Cold Steel blade had almost none. as a result the Cold Steel POB was at 19 cm on a 76 cm blade length while the Windlass is at 16 cm on a 89 cm long blade. Those tidbits seem a whole lot more important than the simple gross weight of a sword."
The Cold Steel was their 1917 saber with the pasta strainer guard. It wasn't until I had a chance to work with first the ARS and then the 1906 Commemorative that I really could see why I hated it so much.
Combine a correct grip with a proper taper and it's a close to a good antique as my wallet can handle at this time.
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Sept 20, 2018 5:50:22 GMT
Yes, but by the numbers, the rev. sword should theoretically feel lighter than the 1906. The PoB is the same, but the sword itself is 0.5lb lighter (according to KoA) and with a shorter blade. The fact that you feel the opposite can likely be attributed to ergonomics of the grip. Forward-canted blades tend to feel more lively, while backward-canted blades tend to hold edge alignment better. How the weight is transferredto the hand via the grips is also important.
The CS cutlass really shouldn't be compared to a sword. The original antique (USN 1917) was designed as a simple, mass-produced brutish tool and was never intended to go toe-to-toe with a proper sword. Blade seemed to be little more than a sharpened piece of sheet steel with minimal taper and fullering. It's like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. The Ferrari will smoke the Civic in a drag-race obviously, but that's not really what the Civic design was optimized for.
The Windlass 1906 handles almost spot-on compared to the antique version. However, the antique 1906 itself is a rather run-of-the-mill weapon. Competent (although not exceptional) at both the cut and the thrust. Average weight that is suited for both mounted or dismounted use, but optimized for neither. Kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master of none approach.
Pure cutters are rare. Mostly the Brit. 1796LC and it's descendants. The CS repro is on the borderline acceptable range. CS Thompson Saber has a good blade (downsized version of their 1796LC is much more manageable) but the Austrian 1904 grips are ill-suited to this kind of use.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Sept 20, 2018 17:18:08 GMT
Oh...that one, nice sword, I'd wondered about that one...and neat comparisons BFoo2. Good to know *why* 2 swords would preform so differently.
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Sept 20, 2018 18:28:25 GMT
Kind of a jack-of-all-trades, master of none approach. That's the US Army in a nutshell Quantity also has a quality all it's own They considered going even more for that with the XM1906 experimental saber that would have replaced both the cavalry saber and the officer's dress sword...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Sept 20, 2018 18:35:19 GMT
I just laded my first antique saber...a 1898 Argentine...wow, the difference between it and any repo i've held is phenomenal
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Sept 20, 2018 18:46:01 GMT
The Windlass 1906 is a nice one. Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 20, 2018 18:48:01 GMT
I just laded my first antique saber...a 1898 Argentine...wow, the difference between it and any repo i've held is phenomenal Yuuuup. Real swords really do feel awesome. My British Militia saber felt like a reed in the hand
|
|