Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 14:30:08 GMT
Greetings! I am intrigued by the 1833 US Dragoon saber. I searched the forum and read a few interesting things posted by Dave Kelly. It seems a short-lived sword for good reason: half of the swords made by Ames were crap and the 1840 became a far better option. Still, I find it an intriguing sword. Does anyone have any experience handling an original? I understand that Ames botched the quality control on half of their orders, but that does not say very much about the physical characteristics of the weapon. Does it have any merits in terms of its engineering?
Currently, there are two replicas on the market, one by Windlass and the other by Universal Swords. The Windlass version has a straight blade, the Universal Swords replica has a slight curve. The Windlass has a longer grip and is peened, but the fit and finish looks slightly inferior to the Universal Swords replica, which has a shorter grip and has a nut assembly (YUCK). Although, I could always remove the nut and peen the darn thing if it bothers me that much.
Any thoughts on these?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 14:57:07 GMT
I suppose some may be drawn to it.
The original Ames are a threaded fitment, as were some other U'S swords over history but it is a collet type nut, not a capstan type.
As a pipe back, spear point blade, figure on is buying for historical costuming or interest instead of performance for cutting mats.
There are occasional premium buys under a couple of grand and even display quality originals at less than a lot of production swords. I am not sure where you get the botched Ames information. I'll look in Hamilton's Ames history book and the Hickox contract sword guide but it doesn't stand out as a factoid in retained memory. Dave Kelly has written about the Windlass and iirc an original. A nice one is on my long list. My one reproduction sabre is a "College Hill" that I sharpened for cutting. Soon enough replaced in use by an original mounted artillery militia type.
As mentioned, I suppose if I was decorating or costuming, the Universal would be the better choice.
The originals are possibly a prettier sword than an 1822/1840, especially original wire but don't expect that on a reproduction.
Cheers GC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 15:00:51 GMT
Thanks, edelweiss. Perhaps Dave was referring to the complaints our soldiers had on the sword being too light weight to make an effective thrust and the steel scabbard being too flimsy. I am unsure how effective these are as a weapon of war, but they certainly are attractive looking!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 15:32:11 GMT
Having just had the two books open, let me pull what I can out of it for you. The 1833 was made for a dragoon unit to be used afoot. The later 1840 was obtained for better mounted use but in the course of that regarded as a wristbreaker. The first contracts for the 1833 were fulfilled with an older Starr pattern, swords already in stock. The 1833 was a far better design than the Starr, in terms of thrusting. A heavy cavalry pallasch, it was not, again designed for foot fencing.
The scabbard issues were a manufacturing problem that worked out in time. Sheet steel needing to be annealed or de-carbed and then re-hardened. The Ames swords were tempered to bend rather than break and threaded for ease of replacement. Ames had some choice words for the ordnance board and their expectations (wouldn't have the guy evaluate a pocket knife).
I can't read Dave's mind on the matter but I'm reading speculative, rather than empirical information.
None of the above makes one whit of difference if looking at reproductions.
Cheers GC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 15:37:22 GMT
That certainly is informative and helpful. Overall, I think the Universal model appears more accurate and has better fit and finish. In terms of its physical characteristics, who the hell knows what to expect. I like the look of these swords and I find them interesting. It seems pipe back blades are relatively effective cutters, although the cuts are met with resistance due to the spine of the blade, but you can deliver some nasty hacks with them. They do appear to be effective at the thrust as well, but only if the blade is broad or really meaty. The Universal replica is about 5mm near the tip: that is pretty thick. I'm intrigued by this model.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:08:39 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:10:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:21:33 GMT
Please......no......I beg of you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:24:46 GMT
Don't make me post this one also, edelweiss:
He makes several interesting points on these types of blades. They look cool, they were engineered with purpose (even if they failed to do that purpose), and they emulated other styles. They're interesting. I also enjoy that the 1833 was the first attempt to mass produce a cavalry saber in this country, although this was probably more effective on foot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:30:24 GMT
Please.....no.......I beg of you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:31:49 GMT
Mute the sound if it bothers you. He does show off some rather nice antique example of pipe back swords, specifically one's made by Prosser's. I wonder why we emulated the English versions rather than the French.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:32:42 GMT
"I also enjoy that the 1833 was the first attempt to mass produce a cavalry saber in this country"
Sorry, this is a categorically false statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:37:15 GMT
"I also enjoy that the 1833 was the first attempt to mass produce a cavalry saber in this country" Sorry, this is a categorically false statement. Interesting, then it is false marketing. Admittedly, I know very little about modern swords. Could we call it an early attempt for an American maker like Ames to mass produce?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:39:53 GMT
Mute the sound if it bothers you. He does show off some rather nice antique example of pipe back swords, specifically one's made by Prosser's. I wonder why we emulated the English versions rather than the French. Mute the sound? I doubt I'll even open them. If the video format suits you, that's fine. Mute your entire train of thought? That would be a disservice to the realities of the matter. I think that if you want to parse US sword influences and evolution, you might be better served by starting many decades earlier in history. I'm not going to lecture much on it but will simply mention the US began with many influences. Cheers GC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:47:43 GMT
"I also enjoy that the 1833 was the first attempt to mass produce a cavalry saber in this country" Sorry, this is a categorically false statement. Interesting, then it is false marketing. Admittedly, I know very little about modern swords. Could we call it an early attempt for an American maker like Ames to mass produce? Whose false advertising and no it was not really an early US attempt at mass production. Again, I'm not setting up to lecture you on early US contracts and mass production. Starr was already mentioned and fulfilled the first US contract of 1798. Underline US and then realize patterned swords were being made in the colonies before the American Revolution. A first step in learning early modern stuff is to look beyond ad copy and where Matt Easton learned his own "expertise". Cheers GC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:00:20 GMT
A few sources I have consulted regard the 1833 as the first mass produced US CAVALRY saber. Perhaps it is the first as a dedicated cavalry saber? I really don't think this matters anymore as I am getting way off target. I'm interested in the efficacy of the replica by Universal Swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:21:30 GMT
Fwiw, I just read the truewestmagazine.com/author/phil-spangenberger/ article and as much as I have admired some of his writing, he is just off base with his assertions and he offers no bibliographic reference to his findings. A first official US cavalry regiment does not make for a first mass produced cavalry sword. I can see where it might be construed as the same. Phil's article on the 1833 is kind of like comparing Kevin Costner's Dancing With Wolves with the Bayeux Tapestry. Cheers GC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:27:09 GMT
"A few sources I have consulted regard the 1833"
List them.
I listed mine
We may seem off track and as SBG will forever be the land of "fun", I suppose accuracy can take a hike but I will remain particular regarding allusion and facts.
Whatever GC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:32:05 GMT
First, let me downgrade "a few" to "one." This is the article you just reviewed. I simply misspoke when I typed "a few." I'm not perfect. I have absolutely no clout to debate about sources on modern swords as I have very little familiarity with this topic. Don't go to DEFCON ONE on me, edelweiss. I value your input and I thank you for it, I just get a little.. overexcited sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 17:59:17 GMT
Hardly defcon one. As mentioned, Starr was awarded the first US cavalry sword contract in 1798 and Phil does mention the Starr American horseman swords (two models 1812-1813 and 1818) in and of themselves with several variation (See Hicks). That there was no official US Army dragoon regiment before 1833 doesn't mean there weren't dragoon regiments in the US militia (before a US Army). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Continental_Light_DragoonsOr how about a feller named Potter in NYC during the American Revolution "mass producing" cavalry swords for the British loyalists or the Rose family in Philadelphia and a demand "nation" wide for pattern made horseman swords. I like the 1833 for what it is but as mentioned, I wouldn't buy a reproduction with performance in mind. Oh, Phil writing two weights for the Ames swords is nonsense. Scabbards, yes, they vary. Cheers GC
|
|