[Harold R.]

My first sword will be an Angus Trim 1321. It will be arriving in a couple days. I went with AT for my first because rediculous as this may sound, I don't want something that will just be a decoration. If I am going to have swords, I want functional weapons.

Some of MRL's swords interest me but I am hesitant to buy from them. I have read that they are very open about returns and exchanges but that their stuff can be kind of spotty.
How are they assembled? Are they peened? I have read some accounts that imply that handles and pommels are just glued on and that kind of worries me. I am not looking for something that will just be a wallhanger.
The models in particular that I have been eyeing up are the Falchion and German Falchion and their hoplite swords.
I don't really know how to ask this question other than to just ask this: Would you trust one of their weapons in a real fight? If not them, does anyone know where I can look to find something similar to their offerings that would stand up to actual combat?
Thanks in advance.

[Tom Carr]

MRL makes a tough serviceable field grade sword. Far from pefect, but a lot better than some you will find. The pommels are generally peened these days, though a few years ago they would have been screwed on to the tang. Ive never had a problem with them and they are a good starter sword for anyone, though some models are better than others. Indeed they have had a few real sleepers than turned out to be quite desireable. I dont know about the Hoplite, but I hear good things about their German falcion. There is a review of that one on this site along with several other MRL models.
http://www.myArmoury.com/review_mrl_falc.html

[Chuck Russell]

as in combat ready like go fight on the field now with them? no there sharpes and have no place on the reenactor field. BUT if something say were to happen WW3 etc... no. i would not want my life left up to a mrl blade. sorry. i just cant.

[Bill Grandy]

I consider MRL's swords to be on the low end of functional, but still functional. They aren't just wallhangers. The blades tend to be surprisingly well made for the price, but my major problem (function-wise, anyway) is that the hilts have a tendency to start getting a bit loose after only swinging it around in the air. Not all of them do, but I've experienced it more commonly with MRL than with other makers.

[Chris Olsen]

I would generally agree with both accounts, I have have had mixed results with MRL's items, I own the German Falchion and the best I can say is that it is a sword that has not broken on me on stage. Over all if I am looking for a durable belt hanger that I might on the rare occassion use for a back up when my first string stage weapon is unavalable I would use one of their swords (bare in mind this is a generalized statement and not to be taken as I would never use an item from them if I found one that fit my needs) it also must stand up to well over sixty hours of rehersal prior to the actual production.

if I may a few other good places to look:
www.roguesteel.com
www.arms-n-armor.com
www.amfence.com

the above three are places that I have had dealings with in the past and all make good quality weapons that fit my needs to a T,

[Kel Rekuta]

We're talking about MRL swords made by Windlass?

Against pool noodles and water bottles, they might serve well enough. For waving around at demos and perhaps solo drills, some of them (ie. the Towton) are not badly balanced.

Actually defending yourself against another weapon? No way. It'll fall apart after a few blows. The edge will look like a rip saw in no time. What would you expect from something that costs $150-200 USD????

Good tools are expensive. You get what you pay for.

[Sean Flynt]

[Ken Rankin]

[Sean Flynt]

You raise another good point, Ken--There are many different sub-communities that fall under the general heading of "arms enthusiasts". We really can co-exist although our specific requirements and interests don't overlap and may even conflict. In many cases, we just have to agree to disagree. I think we all have to keep in mind that, for example, every answer in this thread may be exactly the right answer for a given sub-community. The nice thing about this forum is that we can all chime in and let the questioner decide which answer seems to best represent his particular interests.

[Steve Grisetti]

[Bryce Felperin]

Well as a person who takes regular long sword classes, has cut himself deeply with a sharp sword (something I'm not proud of) and fought steel versus steel with someone (though of course not with sharp blades) I can say that the quality of a sword does matter.

At my salle we rarely if ever fight with steel, and you do you need to be fighting with someone you totally trust, with predefined rules and have good safety equipment on to do it. I generally don't do it much since I don't trust myself to keep it slow and safe enough with most people. Also it is easier to pick up the speed and force with steel when fighting than with wood wasters since they move so nice and fast when used properly. Getting carried away with them is easy.

I have however fought in quite a few drills with steel though and I find that ALL swords get beaten and develop nicks and burrs quickly when hitting each other. I can just imagine that sharp swords in battle would get nicks and burrs even more so than rebated (dulled) swords would. As a precaution we often hammer the edges of our beaters on an anvil to toughen the edges up beforehand but they still get burrs and nicks on occasion. I don't use really expensive swords for this since it would be dumb to do so, but I have used a CAS Iberia, a Del Tin and a Lutel for these kinds of drills in the past. I don't currently own or plan to own a MRL, but that's because I don't need to at this point own one at all.

The Del Tin 2160 performed very well with hardly a burr in drills. It's a beast though and needs both hands and good technique to use right, something I'm still developing. I would definitely use this sword in combat though since it really packs a wholop and stands up to abuse pretty well in my opinion. Solidly constructed in all parts, it still is overly heavy and unbalanced to some degree for really practical fighting. We shaved off a bit of the blade and balanced it back more, but in the end it still is heavy. A good sword for building up your strength and stamina though. :-)

The CAS Iberia I had (forgot the model) was a non-sharp model that really didn't aspire to being anything other than a cheap beater. However, it was a bit of disappointment in that after six months the guard started loosening and the blade nicks easily and frequently more than any others I have used. I would not use this one for anything more than a cheap beater and don't recommend it beyond that purpose. It does good for a cheap beater though because at $160 it is, well, cheap. :-) Not a war sword though in even my wildest imagination. I sold it to a poor comrade at my salle and he still uses it often for drills with no complaints. I guess I'm just a sword snob. :-)

My Lutel (model 15003) though is a really gem and at $600 wasn't cheap either. However I'm using that as my primary non-sharp drill/practice/fight sword now and it holds up excellently! I have yet to put a serious nick on the blade despite almost a year of use. It's balanced superbly and has a good feel to it that makes one want to do renowned deeds and great feats with it when gripped in the hand. If you can afford it I recommend it for this role since it shoes signs of doing well as a beater for decades with no problem. My instructor, Steaphen Fisk, has a similar model he's had for years and though beat up a lot is quite serviceable. He beats up others in armor with though whereas mine is mostly a drill weapon, though I did beat on an armored foe during an exhibition during a Renaissance faire once with mine. All in all sharpened it would be a good war weapon.

So the point of this post is that quality tells, even for beaters, and that you can definitely tell what is good and what isn't for fighting with a sword. I won't ever be striking in combat with a sharpy, but I am sure that a good quality blade over a bad quality/cheap one wouldn't do as good based upon my experiences.

Regards,

Bryce Felperin

[Harold R.]

First, thank you all for your insight.

Please let me clarify my point of view.
Although I don't plan to go around settling my disputes with a sword, having a sword that is a weapon is important to me. The only reason I would want one that wasn't is if I needed a blunt sword for training. Even then, it would have to probably be more durable because I have the ability to accidentally break just about anything.
I look at from the standpoint of owning firearms (although I don't want to discuss that interest here. Just need an analogy.)
I don't see the point of a nonfunctional replica of anything. If I buy a replica brown bess, bearded axe, or sword, I want to know that it would work like an original. If it doesn't do that, it isn't much of a replica.
The fact that I will not be waging war against the British or a horde of vikings doesn't have anything to do with it.
If I own it, it needs to be functional.

Having a display weapon is like having a zipper on your jeans that doesn't unzip. I just don't see the point.
To me, price isn't really the issue. If I have to always go with Angus Trim or some other maker instead of ever buying a MRL to get what I require from a sword then I will. If it can be done for a couple hundred dollars less, great!

One of their offerings that I think I probably will eventually get is a rondel dagger. As long as the blade is good and the handle is firmly attached it would be hard to screw that up.

Hopefully that makes sense.
Again, thanks for the advice.

[Pamela Muir]

[Brad Harada]

IMHO "battle worthiness" is more of a marketing term for, in truth, even a crowbar could be used in combat if one needed an impromptu weapon. In the context of functionality it all depends on your intention. MLR is on the lower end of the repro (production) sword market. Windlass, to their credit, does produce interesting types not often offered by other manufacturers. Their swords are affordable, priced for an entry level collector. They are not horrible, although MLR/Windlass may occasionally have a quality control issue with some of the products they ship out, but MLR does have a good return policy should you be unsatisfied so long as you don't sharpen/modify your purchase. (Be aware that swords from MLR do not come with a sharpened edge, so if you want "functional" you'll need to spend some time honing it.) That being said they are definitely of a lesser quality than swords from such makers as Atrim or Arms & Armor or Albion; then again, for the price no one should expect them to be. If you have the means you could even go the custom route where sky's the limit. Ask yourself, though, what are you looking for in a sword? Historical accuracy? Performance? Both? The answer to those questions along with just how much you're willing to spend will help determine your purchase.

[Kel Rekuta]

[Sean Flynt]

I don't think you and I disagree on any significant point, Kel. I'm a former ARMA student, so I, too, can recognize both the benefits and limitations of modern WMA training as it relates to the study of antique weapons. I know that MRLs are hit-and-miss, make sometimes inexplicable compromises in design and construction and usually need some after-purchase work. But the question was not whether blunted MRLs would stand up to modern WMA training (it seems that some can) but whether or not they are theoretically suitable for some undefined concept of "actual combat".

Pretty much any MRL sword is a lethal weapon generally representing a particular historical period. It may not be ideal or efficient for a given historical combat environment, and certainly can't match, say, an Albion weapon in any category, but it is a weapon and can be used as such (and not just in the way that a pencil or flower pot can be used as a weapon). I wouldn't choose an MRL if my life depended on it, either. But neither would I choose a Lutel, Del Tin, or ATrim, for varying reasons. But, again, the central question wasn't "does MRL offer the best weapons?". The answer to that question is, as you suggest, an emphatic "no". But MRL swords are weapons.

There's been plenty of debate about how much more expensive blades perform against "combat' style targets (plate, mail, "fresh" meat, etc) and I'm not going to beat that horse. Suffice it to say, again, that paying more for a blade doesn't necessarily mean that it's any more "combat ready" than cheaper blades. I agree with Kel. If you want the best, you're going to pay for it (although paying more doesn't necessarily get you the best). If your life depends on your choice, you won't mind the expense. But our lives don't depend on the choice, so we have to decide, based on our intended use, which of a variety of weapons suits our needs. That brings me back to the question I posed--How much are you willing to invest in an educated guess about the combat worthiness of weapon that will never be used in combat? We're all going to answer that question differently and correctly.

[Chad Arnow]

This post has seen some responses that are beyond respectful disagreement. These need to stop. We encourage the discussion of differing viewpoints, but this discussion needs to be done calmly and without rancor or grandstanding. You don't have to agree with each other, but you do have keep things civil.

[Steve Grisetti]

[Bill Grandy]

I think one of the things that's not being entirely taken into account is the difference between a practice sword and a real sword. A practice sword, but it's very nature, will see far more use than a real sword ever will. It will be put up against more stress than a real sword will, because it will be used over and over and over again.

How much combat training does a modern soldier see in his entire career? A lot. Nearly constant training. But how much combat does the person actually do? Some more than others, but no one actually fights as much as they train.

Point being that I would not use a MRL for serious bouting, but that's because they aren't designed for it. I also these days wouldn't use an unsharpened sword built to the specs of a high quality antique weapon for constant bouting, either. Not if I expect it to last, anyway... and I've dinged up quite a few swords that were much higher quality than MRL in doing so.

I'd still consider MRL swords more than wallhangers, and I really do think they'd be adequate weapons if somehow transported back in time. Not necessarily ideal weapons, but assuming the weilder knew what he was doing, they'd last at least a fight or two. That's as much as many historical swords lasted.

[Harold R.]

That does make sense.
I guess I could have worded my question better but I never have been real good with words.

Although my chances of ever using a sword or really any other weapon to defend myself are pretty slim, I want to know that the swords I own COULD be used that way and that they would hold up. I will agree that there are probably people who have defended themselves with dollar general store butcher knives but that isn't really what I am asking.
What I am trying to ask is if a MRL sword is at least as functional as an original would have been. By functional, I do mean standing up to being swung around a lot and possibly contacting something once in awhile.
As was stated above, I guess it is subjective.
I wouldn't be afraid to bet that a whole lot of originals broke when they were used and that a sword used by a common person was probably of lower quality than the one that the king used.

In retrospect, I guess I should have asked a different question.
Thanks.