|
|
Post by pellius on May 13, 2021 19:02:27 GMT
Outstanding!
Thank you for the detailed comparison of stats. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by bas on May 13, 2021 23:21:57 GMT
Congratulations on the nice Blucher and thank you for sharing the stats. They certainly are a beast of a sword!
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 14, 2021 14:01:25 GMT
Bas and Pellius – thank you.
I said in another thread I‘d say something about my impressions of differences in handling. While the Blücher handles quite well, its main strength is robustness, I think. It moves with authority and strikes like a freight train. Despite balancing further out, the 1796 is more responsive, less tiresome and faster to bring back to guard. It's better at changing directions off a feint. It can be accelerated much quicker, lends itself better to the tight cuts, using the muscles of the hand. The way the grip is set up allows for the needed subtleness of the wrist and fingers (its thinner, less wide and shorter than the Blücher’s, with the bulp supporting the hand more towards the index finger, which leaves more room to work from the hand by relaxing and tightening the middle, ring and pinky fingers – the Blücher’s grip, in contrast, supports the hand more at the area of the middle finger and fills the palm, which facilitates a tighter grip during a longer phase of the striking action). Both swords are fun to handle, but the difference is remarkable. No wonder with the Blücher weighing 269 g more than its British older brother.
The Cold Steel has its merits, too. 180 g lighter than the Blücher, with a hilt weighing about as much as the 1796, but balancing almost 5 cm further out, it moves well around the axis and cuts like a beast, providing both enormous percussive power and a slicing action. It’s best suited for larger motions, but due to the nicely shaped grip (pretty similar to the 1796), it moves well around the forearm, too. That’s one of the strong aspects of the Osborn/Le Merchant design – the grip allows for very good control both in small and large cutting actions.
Of course, regarding “responsiveness”, they are all topped by the Indian Army saber, that weighs 130 g less than the 1796 and balances almost a cm closer than the Blücher. With its flat, oblong handle facilitating the hammer grip, it asks for strong cuts, will give good edge orientation and follow-through as well as a strong parry, and won't tire you. Also it won’t seduce you into any kind of “tag play”.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 26, 2021 17:34:31 GMT
Prussian / Reichswehr Artillery saber. Afaik, these where used by the Prussians from 1848 onwards, and by the German Reichswehr from 1919 until way into the Third Reich era. As a real multi-purpose cold sidearm, these where issued to artillery, cavalry, infantry, military police and what have you. This one is a later issue with bakelite grip and screwed on back strap. Handles quite well, behaves much like you’d imagine a downsized version of the older 1811 “Blücher”. I like the handling of the 1796 and the likes a lot more though – in contrast to the German “Blücher” style variants, my Osborn & Gunby and the Indian Bourne & Son are pretty light overall and especially in the hilt, don’t sit too fat in the hand, and have the weight concentrated more forwards, to give more of a “snapping” impact. Just like Col. Guillaume Stanislas Marey-Monge describes a good saber. Needless to say, the Prussian / Reichswehr Artillery will make for a good thruster despite its curvature. The blade is pretty stiff till the tip and quite slim also. Very, very robust sword, well build and good materials. Slightly sharpened. No scabbard. |
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on May 26, 2021 17:35:20 GMT
Updated stats...
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on May 26, 2021 19:37:28 GMT
Very nice saber.
Thanks for the stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by bas on May 26, 2021 20:31:08 GMT
Congrats, that's a neat looking sabre.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 18:31:41 GMT
A Tulwar. No stats, did sell it right away. Blade must’ve been around 76 cm or so. Weight around 830 g, IIRC. My hand did not fit into the grip. Blade with slight play in the hilt. Little distal taper. Sharpened. Wooden, cloth covered scabbard. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 18:33:29 GMT
On top: British GR V Royal Artillery Sword, by Wilkinson.
Below: British ER VII Infantry Officer’s Sword, Thurkle, retailed by Millar Armourer. Nice wooden, leather covered scabbards. Blades not sharpened.
Two all-time favorites. |
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 18:35:36 GMT
British Victorian Police Cutlass. No markings. Sharpened. Leather sheath in heavily worn condition. This has the retention clip. I think these where for the Bute Dock Police of Cardiff, issued from 1865 till 1887. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 18:36:46 GMT
Unknown Infantry Officer’s Saber, ca. 1800. No markings. Perhaps Austrian? Info welcome. No sheath. Sharpened. A very lovely saber. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 18:37:36 GMT
Portuguese P1821 Light Cavalry Saber, Ballesteros Toledo. Steel scabbard. (Yet) unsharpened. The guard broke on me when disassembling the sword. It is now cleaned and the components are epoxied together, the sword's waiting for action. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 18:38:28 GMT
British Victorian Rifle Volunteers Officer’s Sword. Steel scabbard. Unsharpened. What an impressive handling sword this is. Unknown maker. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Oct 7, 2021 18:44:02 GMT
Outstanding, as always
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2021 19:59:02 GMT
Something that could be added to distal properties is aside from the base, at the pob and at the fuller's end (often around the cop). I am always curious as to the nonlinear properties of distal and how I describe them. Some sabres and spadroons lose as much as a third of the thickness in those first inches, then nearly maintaining that to the end of the fuller, losing maybe 1mm. Then at the foible another drop of a couple of mm. Things go more linear in the 19th century but earlier blades are usually not a linear distal. Hence why I measure at the pob.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
Post by snubnoze on Oct 7, 2021 20:18:44 GMT
I'm jealous of that Swiss 1867 Cavalry Trooper in the first post. That and the mounted Officer are on my bucket list. I have a mint dismounted officer already.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 20:27:24 GMT
Something that could be added to distal properties is aside from the base, at the pob and at the fuller's end (often around the cop). I am always curious as to the nonlinear properties of distal and how I describe them. Some sabres and spadroons lose as much as a third of the thickness in those first inches, then nearly maintaining that to the end of the fuller, losing maybe 1mm. Then at the foible another drop of a couple of mm. Things go more linear in the 19th century but earlier blades are usually not a linear distal. Hence why I measure at the pob. Cheers GC Very true and good advice. I‘ll remember that.
Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 20:29:15 GMT
I'm jealous of that Swiss 1867 Cavalry Trooper in the first post. That and the mounted Officer are on my bucket list. I have a mint dismounted officer already. Here are stats for some Swiss officer’s I used to own. |
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Oct 7, 2021 20:38:05 GMT
And an 1899 for parade. Sorry, no stats. Feels much like a French 1882, though the grip is much slimmer. And it's not a sabre by any stretch (except the French's stretch, lol). Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by snubnoze on Oct 7, 2021 21:47:00 GMT
markus313 Appreciate it. The Swiss swords a very aesthetically pleasing and very well made.
|
|
