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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.