British 1861 Hospital Corps Sword
Dec 20, 2018 5:33:04 GMT
Post by Afoo on Dec 20, 2018 5:33:04 GMT
The sword patterns and makers of the British Empire are generally well documented, with a wide range of material available from 1788 pattern all the way to the present. Despite this wealth of literature, a few swords slip under the radar. Today, I present one of the rarest - the British 1861 Hospital Corps Sword.
I initially picked this up because it seemed like it would make a good friend with bfoo2 's 1896 Mountain Battery sword; both swords share the same cast iron grip and brass hilt, so likely shared at least some genealogy. The price was good, so I bought first and asked questions later.
Turns out that not much is known about the 1861 pattern, at least not on the internet. Brian Robson's book discusses it, but I am frankly not willing to shell out $65 for a book on British swords at the moment, again given that most of the information in that book is likely available from the interwebs. I also believe bfoo2 has a copy in Canada, so I'll just take a peak at that next time I am up. I do have a quote describing it as "one of the rarest of all regulation patterns" of British Army sword issued in the previous 215 years.", which seems compelling
The small number of 1861's produced is further fragmented by the fact that there appear to be several variants. One source (Australian War Memorial) depicts a unfullered, slightly curved blade, while a retailer shows a model with a fuller. A survey from oldswords again reveals both models, along with a third one with a straight unfullered blade. The one I have has the first combination (curved, unfullered).
Stats:
Blade length: 27 inches
PoB: 3.75 inches
Taper: 8mm --> 5mm --> 3.5mm --> 2.5mm
Width: 34mm - 28 mm
Grip: 104 mm
Weight: 2.26 lb
1861 Hospital Sword (top). 1885p shown on bottom for size comparison
This sword looks.....clumsy, with that blobular, spoooooooOoooooon-tastic blade and stubby dimensions it should handle like a sea cucumber. However, its actually surprisingly good. I won't go as far to say that its as good as the 1896 - its nowhere close, but the foundations are there, particularly when we look at the blade but more on that later
SpoooOoooon
While the bloated blade dominates the first impression, clues about the 1861's function are hidden in the grip and hilt. The cast iron grip is rugged and durable, but it has also been well sculpted. It fits the hand almost perfectly and gives good support in all areas, while offering enough room to adopt an open grip. It may not be the best grip for all people, but its shape demonstrates intent - whomever made this intended the sword to be used, and spent time and effort designing it so that it would succeed in that function.
Well contoured grips of the 1861 fit the hand and facilitate movement - something which the 1885p has been alleged to lack
The guard of the 1861 suits its purpose as well. Its small and slim, as befitting someone whose main job is not to get into fights. Again though, the guard is thick and robust, like its 1896 counterpart, and the side branch is well contoured and made of robust material. Again, this shows intent in design - someone clearly thought this through from a fighting perspective
Guard of the 1861
The blade is where the 1861 shines. Again, it looks super awkward, but it actually has good taper. The 1896 has better taper, but gives up on stiffness. The spear point of the 1861 rectifies this superbly - its impressively stuff even considering its short length. There is less flex in this than most cavalry swords, and it achieves this while still being reasonably light.
Blade of the 1861 - stubby, but suitable
Close up of the tip/foible
The handling is good.....ish. The blade is light and it moves around very well. I would put the blade about 75% as good as the 1896, but with the benefit of the additional stiffness. What gets it down is the weight. There is a LOT of weight in that hilt, being a solid lump of iron. The close PoB seems to support this. Interestingly, bfoo2 's 1896 weighs in at 0.2lb lighter than the 1861. I suspect that this may be due to the guard. I know what you are thinking - that extra sidebar adds a *bit* of weight for sure, but thats surely not enough brass to make up 0.2lb....and you are right. However, its not brass.
My example has discolouration on the hilt, which I assumed was surface staining. Upon closer inspection however, it looks like the darker brown/grey is actually the guard material, and the brass stuff is plated ontop. The coating is definitely metallic (as opposed to paint), but it is also definitely ontop of something else. The substrate has a similar luster to iron or some other heavier base metal, which I suspect contributes to the weight.
All in all, its a cute little sword. I was originally drawn to it because of its rarity, but have come to appreciate it as a fighting weapon. If eels like what the 1873 Prussian should be - its solid in the hand and gives you confidence, but its also light and nimble enough to dance in the hand when you need it. The grips fit the hand nicely (unlike the 1873 - at least for me), and the dimensions are perfect for its intended role as a sidearm.
I initially picked this up because it seemed like it would make a good friend with bfoo2 's 1896 Mountain Battery sword; both swords share the same cast iron grip and brass hilt, so likely shared at least some genealogy. The price was good, so I bought first and asked questions later.
Turns out that not much is known about the 1861 pattern, at least not on the internet. Brian Robson's book discusses it, but I am frankly not willing to shell out $65 for a book on British swords at the moment, again given that most of the information in that book is likely available from the interwebs. I also believe bfoo2 has a copy in Canada, so I'll just take a peak at that next time I am up. I do have a quote describing it as "one of the rarest of all regulation patterns" of British Army sword issued in the previous 215 years.", which seems compelling
The small number of 1861's produced is further fragmented by the fact that there appear to be several variants. One source (Australian War Memorial) depicts a unfullered, slightly curved blade, while a retailer shows a model with a fuller. A survey from oldswords again reveals both models, along with a third one with a straight unfullered blade. The one I have has the first combination (curved, unfullered).
Stats:
Blade length: 27 inches
PoB: 3.75 inches
Taper: 8mm --> 5mm --> 3.5mm --> 2.5mm
Width: 34mm - 28 mm
Grip: 104 mm
Weight: 2.26 lb
1861 Hospital Sword (top). 1885p shown on bottom for size comparison
This sword looks.....clumsy, with that blobular, spoooooooOoooooon-tastic blade and stubby dimensions it should handle like a sea cucumber. However, its actually surprisingly good. I won't go as far to say that its as good as the 1896 - its nowhere close, but the foundations are there, particularly when we look at the blade but more on that later
SpoooOoooon
While the bloated blade dominates the first impression, clues about the 1861's function are hidden in the grip and hilt. The cast iron grip is rugged and durable, but it has also been well sculpted. It fits the hand almost perfectly and gives good support in all areas, while offering enough room to adopt an open grip. It may not be the best grip for all people, but its shape demonstrates intent - whomever made this intended the sword to be used, and spent time and effort designing it so that it would succeed in that function.
Well contoured grips of the 1861 fit the hand and facilitate movement - something which the 1885p has been alleged to lack
The guard of the 1861 suits its purpose as well. Its small and slim, as befitting someone whose main job is not to get into fights. Again though, the guard is thick and robust, like its 1896 counterpart, and the side branch is well contoured and made of robust material. Again, this shows intent in design - someone clearly thought this through from a fighting perspective
Guard of the 1861
The blade is where the 1861 shines. Again, it looks super awkward, but it actually has good taper. The 1896 has better taper, but gives up on stiffness. The spear point of the 1861 rectifies this superbly - its impressively stuff even considering its short length. There is less flex in this than most cavalry swords, and it achieves this while still being reasonably light.
Blade of the 1861 - stubby, but suitable
Close up of the tip/foible
The handling is good.....ish. The blade is light and it moves around very well. I would put the blade about 75% as good as the 1896, but with the benefit of the additional stiffness. What gets it down is the weight. There is a LOT of weight in that hilt, being a solid lump of iron. The close PoB seems to support this. Interestingly, bfoo2 's 1896 weighs in at 0.2lb lighter than the 1861. I suspect that this may be due to the guard. I know what you are thinking - that extra sidebar adds a *bit* of weight for sure, but thats surely not enough brass to make up 0.2lb....and you are right. However, its not brass.
My example has discolouration on the hilt, which I assumed was surface staining. Upon closer inspection however, it looks like the darker brown/grey is actually the guard material, and the brass stuff is plated ontop. The coating is definitely metallic (as opposed to paint), but it is also definitely ontop of something else. The substrate has a similar luster to iron or some other heavier base metal, which I suspect contributes to the weight.
All in all, its a cute little sword. I was originally drawn to it because of its rarity, but have come to appreciate it as a fighting weapon. If eels like what the 1873 Prussian should be - its solid in the hand and gives you confidence, but its also light and nimble enough to dance in the hand when you need it. The grips fit the hand nicely (unlike the 1873 - at least for me), and the dimensions are perfect for its intended role as a sidearm.