[David Edelen]

Hello all,
I have a question about repro U.S. Civil War sabres: I have seen pics of the U.S. 1840 Hvy Cav Sabre "Old Wrist Breaker", and U.S. 1860 Lt. Cav Sabre. They look very similar to me and have been told the differences between the two by a friend that has one of each. Have any of you ever handled both? If so, what is the major difference and how does each handle? Is there that much of a difference between the two, how they handle, weight and feel in the hand, etc.? One buddy that has both (a cavalry reenactor) told me he prefers the 1840 Heavy Cavalry Sabre over the 1860 Lt Cav sabre. I don't care which is the more authentic for what event or unit, I am studying sabre fighting and want to figure which one I want if I had to really fight with one. Which would handle the better and do the most damage to an opponent? Just curious as to what y'all's opinions were.
Thanks,
David Edelen
Alabama

[Gordon Frye]

David;

There is actually quite a bit of difference in the handling charactaristics of both sabres, though outwardly they do look rather similar. Both are of course "supposed to be" copies of the French 1822 Cavalry sabre, but neither one of them is quite "there". But the 1840 is to my mind much closer, and a much better weapon.

The first big difference is the much broader blade of the old "Wristbreaker", the M1840. It's also got a slightly deeper bow to it, and the grip has no middle swell in it. Also the brass guard is a bit heavier as well.

This of course translates into the M1860 (which is a misnomer, it actually came out in 1858) is slightly narrower in breadth, slightly straighter, has a bit of a swell in the middle of the grip, and has a slightly lighter guard.

I've had examples of both, and I find, myself, that the old Wristbreaker flows more easily in my hands, even though it's a tad heavier. I like the deeper bow, and the broad blade, it just "feels" better in my hand. Although some of the Cavalry officers felt otherwise and whined loudly about the poor qualities of the older sabre, many of the old veterans agreed with me and much prefered the M1840.

Cheers!

Gordon

[David Edelen]

Thanks Gordon. I too think the 1840 looks better. I used to be in CW reenacting and had a 1860 Lt. Cagv Sabre from Ames (their own repro), although Ames actually calls it an 1862 model. Anyway, my captain had an 1840. It has been a few years, but I remember being impressed with the feel of the 1840, how it felt and liked it better. I am not sure who made his repro 1840. He says that the ones out there now are not as well made nor well balanced, nor of as good a steel as his old repro. The only one I know of is offered by Legendary Arsms. I wonder if theirs is ok.
Thanks,
David Edelen
Millbrook, Al.

[Gordon Frye]

David;

The repro I had (which oddly enough I just sold a few weeks ago, after having it bang around the house for several years unused) was imported by the old Ordnance Park Corp,. which is long since out of business. They were bringing some high-end (for then) stuff out of India in the mid-to-late 1980's, and their M1840's are still considered (by the buyer of mine) to be among the best. But sadly I have no experience with later imports, so sorry, can't be of service there.

Interestingly enough the old M1840 continued to be issued right along side the later Light Cavalry model through the Indian Wars. There exist a number of the former model with nickel-plated scabbards from an experiment done in the 1870's, where it seems as though the Ordnance Dept. simply took "X" number of sabres from store and nickel plated the scabbards, be they the Dragoon or Cavalry models. Or at least that's the impression I got from reading the information at hand.

Cheers!

Gordon