| Author |
Message |
Luka Borscak
|
 Posted: Tue 27 Sep, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: Weaponedge 1796 pattern British heavy cavalry sword |
 |
|
Has anybody handled this one? Is it a decent replica of a 1796 HC sword or not (for that kind of money of course)? I'm usually not really attracted to swords of this period, but this one looks simple and brutal, just how I like it. 
http://www.weaponedge.com/images/swords/43.jpg
|
|
  |
 |
|
Robert Muse
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Sep, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: 1796 |
|
|
Hi,
I had one a few years ago. so I can't give the statistics, but it was very blade heavy. I found mine well built, and it looked pretty good. With work it took a good edge. Some wavering in the fuller. The scabbard had brass looking weld marks showing.
Still, if you like Sharpe's Rifles, where else can you find one? A heavy brutal sword, but I guess that makes it more like the original.
Regards
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Langley
Location: Stockport, UK Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Sep, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: 1796 |
|
|
| Robert Muse wrote: | Hi,
A heavy brutal sword, but I guess that makes it more like the original.
|
To be honest, I believe the reputation of this sword (the original that is not its replica) needs restoring.
Having handled originals version of both the 1796 light and heavy swords I think the 1796 HC is, in fact, a sensibly weighted sword that does nothing to deserve the reputation it has for being either 'heavy' or 'brutal' (in as much a too suggest it is overly unrefined in any way). Whilst it is certainly a 'chopper' personally I find the straight blade of the HC more manageable that the curved LC and, in general handling terms, certainly no worse than many a medieval arming sword or later 'broadsword'. It's only real (widely recognised) problem was that the earlier hatchet tip certainly required grinding to a spear point - a highly practical improvement to thrusting, and one that makes the sword appear (cosmetically at least) less vicious.
Neil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Sep, 2011 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to a review I've read, this particular reproduction has an unfortunately short hilt of 3.5 inches. Apparently you find this problem with several Weaponedge products.
The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.
"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Sep, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anders Backlund wrote: | | According to a review I've read, this particular reproduction has an unfortunately short hilt of 3.5 inches. Apparently you find this problem with several Weaponedge products. |
Unfortunately for many, I believe, but not for me, I have very small hands and this is a bonus for me, I usually shorten the grips of my one handers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Muse
|
| Posted: Tue 27 Sep, 2011 9:51 pm Post subject: 1796 HC |
|
|
Well, I certainly defer to Neil's knowledge of the real sword as I have never handled one. When I was interested in this period, I couldn't afford any of the good condition swords up for sale. Had I not changed my focus, I probably would have kept this replica. It is a nice sword with some short comings. IT IS UNWIELDY, I owned one. But there is no other choice. It is somewhere between a Deepeeka and Del Tin, with the Del Tin being better quality.
Somewhere the term "wrist breaker" comes to mind.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 28 Sep, 2011 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
glad someone makes a 1796 heavy cavaly sabre.
sharpes reputation with the sword is alsopartly due to the fact that hes a alley brawler by nature. and i think would be just as happy with a pickaxe.
|
|
 |
|
|
Neil Langley
Location: Stockport, UK Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Sep, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Out of interest I looked up some notes on a 1796 HC I handled at the Royal Armouries in Leeds (Stats courtesy of the RA's own notes):
Sword, Heavy Cavalry, Pattern 1796 - about 1805; Blade struck by C and I Hadley; Overall length 39"; Blade 34 5/8"; Weight 2lb 7oz. I also have a note I made to the effect that 'the POB is quite close to the hilt with a noticeable distal taper - point similar thickness to 1796 LC [did not get chance to measure this though I am afraid]'.
Incidentally a 1796 LC I handled at the same time weighed in at 2lb 1/2oz with a 32 1/2" blade.
Two and a half pounds (approx) is quite light for a sword with a reasonably substantial hilt and a good distal taper; rather, if anything, the type lacks enough 'meat' to make it a great cutter and I think this illustrates why a lot were ground to a spear point for thrusting. As a sword they are certainly not the 'cleavers' they are commonly portrayed as, rather the opposite may be true (but I still have a soft spot for them though).
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Sep, 2011 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thanks for all replies! Neil, this is very interesting. So if I bought Weaponedge replica I could theoretically grind of a lot of weight to make it both more historical and better handling. Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic