|
Post by tomek on Dec 14, 2022 12:30:46 GMT
Price: The equivalent of 260-280 E Manufacture year: Probably 1914
Condition: Good, only the tassel (bobble?) is really worn out Weight: ca 0,9 kg POB: 16-17 cm from the hilt COP: not to sure how to measure it but probably somewhere below the foible Blade length: ca 82 cm Hilt and grip length: ca 14-14,5 cm Scabbard: some rattling but it holds its master really good! The blade is dull and foible (ca 20 cm long) seems to be lenticular but is probably worn out-you can still feel some kind of central ridge Profile temper: 25-24-22 mm Distal taper: ~7-6,1-5,5-5-5-4,9-4,5-3,9-3,7-2,6-1,9mm (maybe 1,7 mm at the tip of the foible) Most of the blade doesn't have really distinct distal taper (at least from my amateurish point of view). It starts with ca 7mm alright, but most of the blade seems to be somewhere between 5-4,8 mm. Its distal taper resembles modern, often critisized modern replicas (again, at least for such an amateur like me ) Handling:It feels heavy! I was really surprised when I unsheathed it for the first time. I really thought that it weighs more than 1 kg but it is only about 0,9 kg! Lots of cutting authority in the blade. I really like to swing with it but mainly when I use its index finger leather strap.
When you hold out your hand and move it vertically you can really feel earth's gravity Conclusion: Real "tip heavy" and "blade heavy" sword. Lots of cutting power. It is not a "wrist flicker"-forget it! Probably most of modern sword enthusiasts would be surprised but that blade. For me it is a typical example of "Not all antique swords were masterfully well balanced fancy blades" but I really like it I think we modern people just don't quite understand antique swords and how to use them in real combat.
|
|
|
Post by tomek on Dec 14, 2022 13:27:03 GMT
I forgot my original Swiss army saddle. Now I have almost full kit
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 14, 2022 13:28:27 GMT
Thank you for the review. I was surprised to see the PoB that far out. From that and the way you described the handling I gathered that it was a cavalry sabre, and then went back and saw your full title. As for it being unsharpened, the western nations did not issue sharpened swords. The sword was sharpened only with pending combat. And then afterwards unsharpened. I think in the case of the cavalry, where the vast majority of sabres were destined, the government was more worried about the horse’s safety than the trooper, although the trooper was of a concern. FWIW, the “index finger leather strap” is known as a martingale.
|
|
|
Post by tomek on Dec 14, 2022 13:38:48 GMT
I am surprised by its distal taper and handling. Slightly Cold Steelish I might say I think we are a little bit to harsh for modern replicas. This original blade is quite chunky-at least for my taste. But maybe someone who is an expert in antique swords should judge it.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 14, 2022 14:44:33 GMT
It sounds like it was not intended to be a fencing/duelling sabre. Weapons were designed in accordance with the current school of combat of a country at that time. This is strictly a guess on my part but possibly the trend in cavalry combat at that time was disregarding the melee in favour of the charge giving point. I base this on the British P1908 and the US M1913 sabres. And it seems to me that the Austrians had a similar sabre. With the spear point and handling characteristics you state, your M1896 would fit into this line of thought.
I suggest keeping the leather oiled with a product dedicated for leather care, least it dries out and breaks.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Dec 14, 2022 19:36:26 GMT
Nice! I like the 19C Swiss swords quite a lot.
In my very humble opinion, the 1896 cav sabers are really quite nice, though they do seem to loose their identity and purpose just a bit. Regardless, they look awesome and that ergonomic hilt feels great in the hand.
They seem almost dainty when shoulder to shoulder with the Swiss 1867 cav trooper. Where the big ‘67 is a brute suitable for heavy cav duty, the ‘96 is a bit undersized for cav duty and a bit sluggish for foot duty. Nonetheless, they remain swords intended to be weapons of war.
Likewise, to my hand, the roughly contemporaneous (and beautiful) 1899 cav officer is a little heavy to have such a svelte look.
Anyway, congrats on a nice saber.
|
|
|
Post by snubnoze on Dec 15, 2022 17:00:38 GMT
Nice! I like the 19C Swiss swords quite a lot. In my very humble opinion, the 1896 cav sabers are really quite nice, though they do seem to loose their identity and purpose just a bit. Regardless, they look awesome and that ergonomic hilt feels great in the hand. They seem almost dainty when shoulder to shoulder with the Swiss 1867 cav trooper. Where the big ‘67 is a brute suitable for heavy cav duty, the ‘96 is a bit undersized for cav duty and a bit sluggish for foot duty. Nonetheless, they remain swords intended to be weapons of war. Likewise, to my hand, the roughly contemporaneous (and beautiful) 1899 cav officer is a little heavy to have such a svelte look. Anyway, congrats on a nice saber. Even though it's a lot bigger, I think the 1867 cav trooper handles better than the 1896. I prefer the way the handle slopes down a bit towards the back on the 67 as well, and it has a ton of hand protection. The 96 is still very nice though.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Dec 15, 2022 18:03:51 GMT
Yeah. The ‘67 is an athletic brute.
|
|
|
Post by tomek on Dec 15, 2022 18:18:33 GMT
Any ideas about its steel makeup and HRC?
|
|