|
Post by MichaelRS on Aug 30, 2022 6:22:02 GMT
So I was just on the Museum Replicas/Windless site going over the 1840 heavy Cavalry saber and the 1860 (or whatever) light one and it says that the heavy saber was known as the wrist breaker.
But when I get down to the specs sections for both those swords, the weight for each is listed as 2.5 pounds.t?
So how is the heavy Cavalry saber, the "wrist breaker", the same weight as the light one?
|
|
|
Post by bas on Aug 30, 2022 7:45:50 GMT
Sword weight is only part of the story. The point of balance makes a big difference in how a sword handles. I have two small swords that only have 10 grams difference in weight. The lighter one has a POB of 105mm while the other has 35mm and it actually feels lighter in hand because of it.
|
|
|
Post by jhykron on Aug 30, 2022 8:19:58 GMT
The 1860 looks like a typical Windlass replica that starts with 5mm stock and they polish it down to around 4mm for pretty much the whole blade.
The 1840, which I have one of, starts much thicker (7-8mm) and tapers down to around 3mm near the tip.
I think the original 1860s were closer in thickness and tapering to Windlass 1840s, and the original 1840's had even thicker blades (9-10mm at the guard).
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Aug 30, 2022 10:38:12 GMT
Dear MichaelRS, So I was just on the Museum Replicas/Windless site going over the 1840 heavy Cavalry saber and the 1860 (or whatever) light one and it says that the heavy saber was known as the wrist breaker. But when I get down to the specs sections for both those swords, the weight for each is lusted as 2.5 pounds.t? So how is the heavy Cavalry saber, the "wrist breaker", the same weight as the light one? While bas and jhykron make good points, the fact that the Heavy Cavalry saber and the Light Cavalry saber have a perceived difference in handling is coincidental. The M1840 was conceived of as a saber for heavy-cavalry units--shock cavalry, in other words--while the M1860 was conceived of as a saber for light-cavalry units--ones used for scouting, skirmishing, pursuit, courier work, and the like. U.S. Army cavalry doctrine changed between 1840 and 1860 and largely dispensed with heavy cavalry, although some states still fielded heavy-cavalry units. Personally, I also suspect that the "old wristbreaker" nickname was originally a comparison not with the later M1860, but with the earlier sabers from Starr and other manufacturers that largely imitated the British Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry sabre in form and handling. But I certainly could be wrong, and in any case it would be difficult to prove this. While the handling of the M1860 may be better than that of the M1840 (I don't know, because while I've had the opportunity to handle an original M1860 I have not had a chance to handle an original M1840--or, for that matter, a Starr saber), any such difference in handling is unrelated to the two models' names. I hope this proves helpful. Best, Mark Millman
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Aug 30, 2022 10:57:38 GMT
The “heavy” and “light” presumably refer to the type of cavalry, not the weight of the sword (i.e., sword for the heavy cavalry).
Original Wristbreakers had a reputation for terrible handling for a cavalry saber. The modern swordsman and sword collector Dave Kelly apparently agrees. I pretty much take his word for everything.
I own a few historical examples, but all of mine were made in Solingen. To my untrained hand, they all feel okay, and light years ahead of a modern repro. Still, the handling of an original first-gen French 1822 light cav (on which the Wristbreaker was based) is far superior, even to me. Swordsmen of the day certainly would’ve noticed.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Aug 30, 2022 10:59:23 GMT
Wups.
Mark posted while I was typing.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 30, 2022 11:07:21 GMT
So how is the heavy Cavalry saber, the "wrist breaker", the same weight as the light one? Simply because they made the repros this way ignoring the original sabers. sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/50945/cavalry-m1840-1860-saber-familyEsp. Windlass' 1860 is a relative badly made saber, I have the sluggish Officers with less distal taper and fullers not deep enough due to the etching I assume. The 1840 is larger with more or less the same handling due to a better mass distribution. My 1906 repro is by far the best. The overall weight is less important than the mass distribution. Having more mass near the guard makes a better handling even on a heavier sword.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 30, 2022 11:12:00 GMT
Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry were different concepts with different weapons esp. in Europe but afaik the US Cavalry were all indeed Dragoons, mounted infantry, and the "Heavy" and "Light" is here related to the saber, not the cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Spathologist on Aug 30, 2022 23:18:07 GMT
While bas and jhykron make good points, the fact that the Heavy Cavalry saber and the Light Cavalry saber have a perceived difference in handling is coincidental. The M1840 was conceived of as a saber for heavy-cavalry units--shock cavalry, in other words--while the M1860 was conceived of as a saber for light-cavalry units--ones used for scouting, skirmishing, pursuit, courier work, and the like. U.S. Army cavalry doctrine changed between 1840 and 1860 and largely dispensed with heavy cavalry, although some states still fielded heavy-cavalry units. Personally, I also suspect that the "old wristbreaker" nickname was originally a comparison not with the later M1860, but with the earlier sabers from Starr and other manufacturers that largely imitated the British Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry sabre in form and handling. But I certainly could be wrong, and in any case it would be difficult to prove this. While the handling of the M1860 may be better than that of the M1840 (I don't know, because while I've had the opportunity to handle an original M1860 I have not had a chance to handle an original M1840--or, for that matter, a Starr saber), any such difference in handling is unrelated to the two models' names. I hope this proves helpful. Best, Mark Millman This is incorrect. At the time the M1840 was issued, the US had two regiments of Dragoons and one of Mounted Riflemen, but no Cavalry. These units were converted to Cavalry, and other Cavalry regiments raised, in 1861. There was no "heavy" or "light" US Cavalry. The M1840 is a much larger and heavier saber than the M1860. This difference in size and weight distinguished the later "light saber" from the earlier "saber". The contracts for the heavy M1840 saber ended at roughly the same time that contracts for the new M1860 light saber were issued.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Aug 31, 2022 12:42:37 GMT
Dear AndiTheBarvarian and Spathologist,
Thank you for the correction. I apologize for my error.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Aug 31, 2022 12:53:41 GMT
And when in doubt, ask for refrences, primary sources are awesome.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 31, 2022 13:35:51 GMT
And when in doubt, ask for refrences, primary sources are awesome. Flash, Ah, ah, Saviour of the universe Flash, Ah, ah, He'll save ev'ry one of us
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Sept 1, 2022 2:52:55 GMT
And when in doubt, ask for refrences, primary sources are awesome. And also: Best, Mark Millman
|
|
|
Post by MichaelRS on Sept 4, 2022 8:28:26 GMT
Thanks everybody for your input.
Now, other than Windlass, since most seem to think that it is 💩 in this case, does anybody know where I can get a decent reproduction of the 1860 that won't break the bank?
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Sept 4, 2022 14:33:11 GMT
Thanks everybody for your input. Now, other than Windlass, since most seem to think that it is 💩 in this case, does anybody know where I can get a decent reproduction of the 1860 that won't break the bank? With absolutely zero intended condescension, I have come to believe the unfortunate but unavoidable answer to your question is that there just aren’t any decent repro’s of 19C cav sabers available at a price lower than a good condition original. My anecdotal experience was a long search followed by repeated disappointment. Key characteristics such as an 8-11mm thick ricasso, non-linear distal taper, a less than 2mm thick foible, an appropriately long grip, and appropriately roomy bars or basket all seem beyond the reach of modern budget manufacturing. Since my interests were (and are) in the saber itself rather than the particular historical circumstances it represents, I’ve been free to choose lower hanging fruit in the antique market. To me, the Fr. 1822 cav sabers, heavy, light, and officer, are superior to and more desirable than the MAW and ACW copies. Collectors, thankfully, strongly disagree. ACW sabers of like condition seem to go for 4x the price of the Frenchies. Same for Napoleonic sabers. Anyway, I suppose it comes down to what is “decent” for you. For me, the searching and sampling was a nice learning experience that was rewarding and worthwhile. Whatever you choose, please share your experiences with us, and good hunting! Edit Hopefully, the new LK Chen will be the exception. We shall see. lkchensword.com/us-1860-cavalry-saberPerhaps it is worth noting that the last photo in the above link seems to feature a third gen Fr. 1822 cav officer saber rather than a US 1860. I’m not entirely sure why they included that, but they probably have their reasons.
|
|
|
Post by jimmythedonut on Sept 5, 2022 2:59:11 GMT
Without any intention to belittle or criticize anyone's interest in swords for National reasons, I would also like to throw my 2 cents into the ring and say if you are wanting the pattern more so than a USA sword specifically, look around and you can find a Swiss 1842/52 troopers or officer's sword for not much money and they are fantastic, FANTASTIC examples of the 1822 pattern. Yes, the troopers can be a massive weapon (moreso in mass and thickness, with mine around 11mm at the base of the spine) but the officers is a nimble and delicate weapon with the added bonus of having a nice fishskin grip as well (not always). The hard part tends to be finding one, but compared to US sword prices (which I will admit to never understanding how they command such a high fee) they can be anywhere from about 300-600 american eagle doubloons.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelRS on Sept 5, 2022 3:36:40 GMT
Thanks guys. Appreciate it
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Sept 5, 2022 15:27:01 GMT
Without any intention to belittle or criticize anyone's interest in swords for National reasons, I would also like to throw my 2 cents into the ring and say if you are wanting the pattern more so than a USA sword specifically, look around and you can find a Swiss 1842/52 troopers or officer's sword for not much money and they are fantastic, FANTASTIC examples of the 1822 pattern. Yes, the troopers can be a massive weapon (moreso in mass and thickness, with mine around 11mm at the base of the spine) but the officers is a nimble and delicate weapon with the added bonus of having a nice fishskin grip as well (not always). The hard part tends to be finding one, but compared to US sword prices (which I will admit to never understanding how they command such a high fee) they can be anywhere from about 300-600 american eagle doubloons.
I think a large portion of it is not so much Nationalistic, as it is availability. For a collector in Europe, there are a lot of readily available sabres from a multitude of countries. Here in the USA, the most common ones will be the American military versions.
I would love to find a reputable dealer here in the USA with 19th Century European sabres for $300-600 USD. Any recommendations?
|
|
|
Post by jimmythedonut on Sept 6, 2022 1:34:58 GMT
Without any intention to belittle or criticize anyone's interest in swords for National reasons, I would also like to throw my 2 cents into the ring and say if you are wanting the pattern more so than a USA sword specifically, look around and you can find a Swiss 1842/52 troopers or officer's sword for not much money and they are fantastic, FANTASTIC examples of the 1822 pattern. Yes, the troopers can be a massive weapon (moreso in mass and thickness, with mine around 11mm at the base of the spine) but the officers is a nimble and delicate weapon with the added bonus of having a nice fishskin grip as well (not always). The hard part tends to be finding one, but compared to US sword prices (which I will admit to never understanding how they command such a high fee) they can be anywhere from about 300-600 american eagle doubloons.
I think a large portion of it is not so much Nationalistic, as it is availability. For a collector in Europe, there are a lot of readily available sabres from a multitude of countries. Here in the USA, the most common ones will be the American military versions.
I would love to find a reputable dealer here in the USA with 19th Century European sabres for $300-600 USD. Any recommendations?
let me take a look! Some of these are both US and maybe a /little/ high (but US swords command high prices anyways), I can 100% rep Stewarts Military Antiques, I remember 5 years ago I got my first sword, a 1871 ish Saxon court sword from him when I was still in college. Take a look here: stewartsmilitaryantiques.com/swords.50.htmlGunderson Militaria has some too, though I get a bit crosseyed at their layout: gundersonmilitaria.com/swordad.htmlHorsesoldier is a good one too, albeit expensive, same for Collectorsfirearms (don't be fooled, they have a large selection of swords) One thing to also keep in mind, sometimes European shipping isn't that awful, www.naturabuy.fr/Sabres-cat-833.html is a great place to look for sabres and if you ask the seller they usually can ship to the USA, there's so many swords out there!
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Sept 6, 2022 2:26:16 GMT
thanks, I'll give those sites a look
|
|