Universal's M1902 Sabre
Nov 17, 2019 20:49:09 GMT
Post by pgandy on Nov 17, 2019 20:49:09 GMT
I have no connection with either the vendor or manufacturer other than being a full paying customer.
I recently received Universal’s reproduction of their US Army Model 1902 Infantry Officer’s Saber, more accurately known as Model 1902 Army Officer’s Saber. The original was to replace the M1850 Foot Officer’s and M1872 Cavalry Swords with combat in mind. It has been modified over the years to its present status of a ceremonial sword for officers as well as a gift item. It has also been reduced from a combat sword to a SLO with its unsharpened stainless steel blade, which is OK for the roll that it now plays. It’s been several decades since I’ve had the real McCoy in my hand and it was of the newer SLO breed. Other than knowing what the grip was and its purpose as well as the scabbard I knew nothing of swords but even so that was enough to tell that thing didn’t feel right. I remember thinking that my cadet sword was better. I am glad to say that Universal’s rendition actually feels like a sword. I like the two Universal swords that I had for the most part but can’t go with the EN9 steel again and was waiting for one of theirs in 1055 or 1065 steel, which they are beginning to produce, that met my fancy and this was the one. I wish they would remake their P1796 Sergeant’s Sword with the better steel. It’s the only sword that I’d be willing to get a duplicate, but with better steel.
For once my measurements and KoA’s are close.
KoA Mine
OAL/in 37½ 373/8
Blade length/in 32 317/8
PoB/in 6 5½ (Hurray for me)
Blade Thickness/mm 6-3.9 6.4-3.9
Blade width/mm 20. 20.4
Weight/lb oz 1 12 1 11½
Grip/in 4 4
Blade
:
The blade is of 1065 steel and has a ‘T’ cross section with the spine wider than the blade, similar to a pipe back design but with squared corners. It’s reasonably stiff. Just past the fuller where the foible begins and the spine stops the blade develops into a lintricule cross section. I ordered unsharpened and sharpened the true edge beginning where the etching stops and the false edge where the foible begins with a convex edge. It is marginally shaving sharp. Due to the narrow double edged foible and farther up the blade with its wide fuller leaving a narrow edge giving a rather large grind angle I think that is the max that I’ll get out of it. I did thin the foible by about 2 mm from the above factory thickness. And will do more on the next sharpening.
The etching is the only true complaint that I have with the sword as I find it poorly done. While I like the style better than either Windlass or CS, Universal’s application is, at least in this case, sloppy. I don’t know if I got a bad one or if that’s typical. There is one spot immediately adjacent to the ‘U’ in U.S. that looks like acid dripped on it. The etching on the spine is off centre and there’s another area that I don’t know how to describe but is obviously flawed. This is not noticeable except under close scrutiny but I was expecting better and am disappointed.
Hilt:
The guard is brass, nickel plated. I suspect the top strap and ferrule are also as they fail the magnate test. It is threaded; the screw is of steel but I was unable to unscrew it in order to free the blade for sharpening. I suspect it is epoxied. If so, the entire grip could very well be epoxied. I am sceptical about using heat to free things up as the grip is “faux-ebony” aka plastic. I prefer calling it what it is, plastic. The grip is 4” long but with the ferrule separating in from the guard gives a generous 4½” of space. The top strap is smooth and unchequered making that part somewhat on the slick side. However the finger grooves in the grip allows for good control and a glove cures the issue completely. I found the same issue with the smooth top strap on my cutlass. It’s more of something to just be aware of than anything else. If I could find an engraver I’d have the top strap chequered then renickeled. But since I am not able to disassemble it perhaps it’s best left alone.
Scabbard
:
The scabbard is of steel and also nickel plated. With so much nickel used I have high hopes of less rust problems. I have an idea the plating is thin as I can on close examination see tool marks in the scabbard. But this is only on close examination, perhaps under a foot, in good light. While I welcome the use of nickel it’s still a steel scabbard that will subject the blade to dulling in the long run. I’ve learned to use masking tape on a blade when returning the sword to prevent this. The scabbard holds the sword securely with no rattles and can be inverted and still retain the sword, for those who use that method to judge the fit. There is no problem in drawing or returning the sword. The throat is also of steel, but necessary to conform to the originals, like the smooth top strap. As I tape the blade that is of minor importance.
Handling
:
The sword is a delight to handle being fast and nimble. Though the original was designed as a combat sword, this is more of a duelling sword than one for the battle field. Its narrow light blade will cut the standard soft back yard targets but not as easily as wider bladed heavier sword, and is more critical to the user doing their part correctly. To put it another way, is less forgiving. I have not tried heavy walled plastic gallon size bottles yet, but have my doubts as to it cleaving one in half. When testing on heavy walled cloro jugs I gave tip cuts that resulted in nasty cuts. The sword does have a nasty tendency to torque, probably due to its narrow curved blade when hitting with the sweet spot which leaves a lot of blade trailing. As all of that has past by the time the tip makes contact no such problem and it will lay the jug open which would make a nasty cut in a duel. As for cutting it should easily make a vicious cut in exposed skin areas, just don’t expect amputations. As for giving point, it passes my 4 rug w/a free standing one gallon heavy wall plastic jug by exiting. I think it will make a dandy duelling sabre. It’s a fun sword that is fast, agile, controllable, and not at all fatiguing. I like it, just wish the etching was better done.
Here are some photos to show the M1902 as compared to three other sabres to give a clearer picture. OK the top sword is not a sabre but as the US Army decided to call it a sabre I’ll do the same. From top to bottom, M1913 and it’s a beast, M1860, M1902, and USMC NCO Sword.
To show the relative difference in the blades:
The M1902 with its spear point and more pronounced curve compared to the USMC NCO. The M1902 is the only one in the group that torques. I cannot remember test cutting with the USMC NCO Sword, if I did it was very little so I can’t compare.
It does seem like it past the penetration test better than the M1902, but I could be dreaming. I find no record of it.
The M1902 compared with the M1860. Both have about the same curvature. The M1902 with its spear point and more slender blade has a slight advantage in the thrust. The M1860 is the more powerful cutter but the M1902 is faster, more agile making it the better fencer.
These show the etching. The Star of Damascus is somewhat washed out but not complaining there. It’s that frosty area and is not in keeping with the rest of the etching. The second photo shows what appears to be the result of a drop of misplaced acid.
A photo of the M1902 and scabbard. I do believe the quillon has a more forward bend than should be but there were many variations in the sword, some superficial and others more evident.
I recently received Universal’s reproduction of their US Army Model 1902 Infantry Officer’s Saber, more accurately known as Model 1902 Army Officer’s Saber. The original was to replace the M1850 Foot Officer’s and M1872 Cavalry Swords with combat in mind. It has been modified over the years to its present status of a ceremonial sword for officers as well as a gift item. It has also been reduced from a combat sword to a SLO with its unsharpened stainless steel blade, which is OK for the roll that it now plays. It’s been several decades since I’ve had the real McCoy in my hand and it was of the newer SLO breed. Other than knowing what the grip was and its purpose as well as the scabbard I knew nothing of swords but even so that was enough to tell that thing didn’t feel right. I remember thinking that my cadet sword was better. I am glad to say that Universal’s rendition actually feels like a sword. I like the two Universal swords that I had for the most part but can’t go with the EN9 steel again and was waiting for one of theirs in 1055 or 1065 steel, which they are beginning to produce, that met my fancy and this was the one. I wish they would remake their P1796 Sergeant’s Sword with the better steel. It’s the only sword that I’d be willing to get a duplicate, but with better steel.
For once my measurements and KoA’s are close.
KoA Mine
OAL/in 37½ 373/8
Blade length/in 32 317/8
PoB/in 6 5½ (Hurray for me)
Blade Thickness/mm 6-3.9 6.4-3.9
Blade width/mm 20. 20.4
Weight/lb oz 1 12 1 11½
Grip/in 4 4
Blade
:
The blade is of 1065 steel and has a ‘T’ cross section with the spine wider than the blade, similar to a pipe back design but with squared corners. It’s reasonably stiff. Just past the fuller where the foible begins and the spine stops the blade develops into a lintricule cross section. I ordered unsharpened and sharpened the true edge beginning where the etching stops and the false edge where the foible begins with a convex edge. It is marginally shaving sharp. Due to the narrow double edged foible and farther up the blade with its wide fuller leaving a narrow edge giving a rather large grind angle I think that is the max that I’ll get out of it. I did thin the foible by about 2 mm from the above factory thickness. And will do more on the next sharpening.
The etching is the only true complaint that I have with the sword as I find it poorly done. While I like the style better than either Windlass or CS, Universal’s application is, at least in this case, sloppy. I don’t know if I got a bad one or if that’s typical. There is one spot immediately adjacent to the ‘U’ in U.S. that looks like acid dripped on it. The etching on the spine is off centre and there’s another area that I don’t know how to describe but is obviously flawed. This is not noticeable except under close scrutiny but I was expecting better and am disappointed.
Hilt:
The guard is brass, nickel plated. I suspect the top strap and ferrule are also as they fail the magnate test. It is threaded; the screw is of steel but I was unable to unscrew it in order to free the blade for sharpening. I suspect it is epoxied. If so, the entire grip could very well be epoxied. I am sceptical about using heat to free things up as the grip is “faux-ebony” aka plastic. I prefer calling it what it is, plastic. The grip is 4” long but with the ferrule separating in from the guard gives a generous 4½” of space. The top strap is smooth and unchequered making that part somewhat on the slick side. However the finger grooves in the grip allows for good control and a glove cures the issue completely. I found the same issue with the smooth top strap on my cutlass. It’s more of something to just be aware of than anything else. If I could find an engraver I’d have the top strap chequered then renickeled. But since I am not able to disassemble it perhaps it’s best left alone.
Scabbard
:
The scabbard is of steel and also nickel plated. With so much nickel used I have high hopes of less rust problems. I have an idea the plating is thin as I can on close examination see tool marks in the scabbard. But this is only on close examination, perhaps under a foot, in good light. While I welcome the use of nickel it’s still a steel scabbard that will subject the blade to dulling in the long run. I’ve learned to use masking tape on a blade when returning the sword to prevent this. The scabbard holds the sword securely with no rattles and can be inverted and still retain the sword, for those who use that method to judge the fit. There is no problem in drawing or returning the sword. The throat is also of steel, but necessary to conform to the originals, like the smooth top strap. As I tape the blade that is of minor importance.
Handling
:
The sword is a delight to handle being fast and nimble. Though the original was designed as a combat sword, this is more of a duelling sword than one for the battle field. Its narrow light blade will cut the standard soft back yard targets but not as easily as wider bladed heavier sword, and is more critical to the user doing their part correctly. To put it another way, is less forgiving. I have not tried heavy walled plastic gallon size bottles yet, but have my doubts as to it cleaving one in half. When testing on heavy walled cloro jugs I gave tip cuts that resulted in nasty cuts. The sword does have a nasty tendency to torque, probably due to its narrow curved blade when hitting with the sweet spot which leaves a lot of blade trailing. As all of that has past by the time the tip makes contact no such problem and it will lay the jug open which would make a nasty cut in a duel. As for cutting it should easily make a vicious cut in exposed skin areas, just don’t expect amputations. As for giving point, it passes my 4 rug w/a free standing one gallon heavy wall plastic jug by exiting. I think it will make a dandy duelling sabre. It’s a fun sword that is fast, agile, controllable, and not at all fatiguing. I like it, just wish the etching was better done.
Here are some photos to show the M1902 as compared to three other sabres to give a clearer picture. OK the top sword is not a sabre but as the US Army decided to call it a sabre I’ll do the same. From top to bottom, M1913 and it’s a beast, M1860, M1902, and USMC NCO Sword.
To show the relative difference in the blades:
The M1902 with its spear point and more pronounced curve compared to the USMC NCO. The M1902 is the only one in the group that torques. I cannot remember test cutting with the USMC NCO Sword, if I did it was very little so I can’t compare.
It does seem like it past the penetration test better than the M1902, but I could be dreaming. I find no record of it.
The M1902 compared with the M1860. Both have about the same curvature. The M1902 with its spear point and more slender blade has a slight advantage in the thrust. The M1860 is the more powerful cutter but the M1902 is faster, more agile making it the better fencer.
These show the etching. The Star of Damascus is somewhat washed out but not complaining there. It’s that frosty area and is not in keeping with the rest of the etching. The second photo shows what appears to be the result of a drop of misplaced acid.
A photo of the M1902 and scabbard. I do believe the quillon has a more forward bend than should be but there were many variations in the sword, some superficial and others more evident.