CS 1796 light calvary saber?

rev_jch said:
Has anyone ever seen, or owned one of cold steel's 1796 light calvary sabers?
Click to expand...

A friend of mine did a nice review of the CS 1796 LCS here:

http://www.realfighting.com/issue7/knifereviewsframe.html

The original "German example from WWI" that he mentions is mine.

I would concur with the review that the CS 1796 is rock solid, and has amazing cutting capacity (look at those pics), just like the original. However, I would also concur that the CS model does not balance like the original at all.

Heaviness and poor balance are the only downfalls to Cold Steel's swords, though those are obviously crucial features for functional weapons. Of all the CS swords I have handled thus far, the 1796 at least seems to be the most funtional. It feels a little clunky, but is still usable. This contrasts sharply with the CS Scottish basket-hilts, which all feel like friggin' baseball bats.
 
I have posted a request for information on the Military Heritage swords in the General Discussion Forum over on SwordForum and I will keep you all posted on the results.
 
FullerH said:
I have posted a request for information on the Military Heritage swords in the General Discussion Forum over on SwordForum and I will keep you all posted on the results.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, bro.

Another SFI patron, eh? :)
 
Thanks for the comments and links guys!! Much appreciated!!! Ive heard many good things about it, very few negative. The one thing that seems to stand out is that many say the same thing about it being a bit on the heavy side. Ive onyl heard a few people say it was well balanced.

I did look at military heritage's page and it appears to be the same, except unsharpened?
 
To date, feedback over at SwordForum on the MH saber is that it is made by the same folks that make the CS one, but that the MH version does not come sharpened. It also appears to be some $100 less expensive. Unsharpened is reasonable for two reasons; first that it eases international shipping and second that MH's primary market is re-enactors, who need unsharpened sabers anyway. BTW, many cavalry regimental regulations required that sabers be kept unsharpened unless the regiment was actually going into combat. That was in order to cut down on "accidents".

The Early 18th Century Basket Hilted Broadsword has drawn comments that it appears to be from the same as the folks as the CS version, but that the basket seems identical to that on the old CASI/WS basket hilts, but blued rather than chromed. It also appears to be the same oversized basket, although the posting person is not certain of this and would love to read a review from someone who has actually held one to find out if it is really oversized.
 
FullerH said:
To date, feedback over at SwordForum on the MH saber is that it is made by the same folks that make the CS one, but that the MH version does not come sharpened. It also appears to be some $100 less expensive. Unsharpened is reasonable for two reasons; first that it eases international shipping and second that MH's primary market is re-enactors, who need unsharpened sabers anyway. BTW, many cavalry regimental regulations required that sabers be kept unsharpened unless the regiment was actually going into combat. That was in order to cut down on "accidents".

The Early 18th Century Basket Hilted Broadsword has drawn comments that it appears to be from the same as the folks as the CS version, but that the basket seems identical to that on the old CASI/WS basket hilts, but blued rather than chromed. It also appears to be the same oversized basket, although the posting person is not certain of this and would love to read a review from someone who has actually held one to find out if it is really oversized.
Click to expand...




Please excuse tag on.
I have a late 1800's German artillery NCO's sword & found it on the net but lost it somehow. Google helped me price it but I have no history to go with it.

Much obliged ! Uncle Alan :confused:
 
I had one of these from CS. I was unhappy with the fit and finish on the handle. Even with a gauntlet on, the edges of the metal part of the handle dug into my hand.
 
I have bothe the 1796 LC and a baskethilt sword. The 1796 is way too heavy
in comparison with the originals( there is a thread about this on SFI) and the balance is all wrong. I have reshaped the last 100mm or so of mine and thinned the blade a bit and there is a great improvement. The Baskethilt is also heavier than it needs to be, but I am reasonably strong and don't find it a problem as long as the sword is used in the fashion it was designed for.
Right foot back,blows well formed and delivered with a step or other body movement. It is a very poor choice to "fence" with. I have just ordered the backsword version and will modify the blade to make it lighter and more responsive.
Phil
 
pmel018 said:
The Baskethilt is also heavier than it needs to be, but I am reasonably strong and don't find it a problem as long as the sword is used in the fashion it was designed for. Right foot back,blows well formed and delivered with a step or other body movement. It is a very poor choice to "fence" with.
Click to expand...

Pmel018,

There are several problems with what you posted above.

1. The "Right foot back,blows well formed and delivered with a step or other body movement" is not the only way of swordfighting that the basket-hilt was "designed for", as you put it. In his Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence (c. 1605), the great Elizabethan swordsman George Silver described fighting right foot forward as being part of the repertoire with the basket-hilted "short sword" of his day. In addition, later 18th century Anglo-Scottish fencing treatises show fighters with basket-hilts leading with the strong side. In many instances, they makes cuts from the wrist only. The method you describe makes more sense if one has a shield, as per the traditional Highland Scottish method of wielding the broadsword in conjunction with a targe--but again, this is only one way of using that weapon.

2. The sword-and-shield style, making use of passes and powerful full-arm cuts, is still a method of "fencing". Fighters who made use of stout cut-and-thrust swords in combination with targets and/or bucklers were known as "skirmisours", escrimeurs, schermitori, esgrimadors, etc.--i.e., "fencers".

3. Regardless of what style one is using with the basket-hilt, the fighter using something akin to the Cold Steel models will be at a distinct disadvantage against someone using a properly weighted and balanced model of the same weapon. The swordsman with the lighter, better-balanced weapon will be faster on the attack, faster on the parry, faster on the riposte, and faster on the stop-hit. Pretty simple, when you think about it.

4. The Cold Steel basket-hilts are so heavy and poorly balanced that even a big, strong man like Lynn Thompson comes off-balance when making cuts (see the Sword Proof video)--that alone should be an indicator of the actual inutility of these particular replicas.

The thread below has some more info on this subject:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311098

Peace,

S e P
 
well guys I got the sword, but it is a little on the heavy side, and a little ugly. Ive decided its not for me, but if anyone is interested I have it up in the trade forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top