I seem to remember Arms and Armor displaying one of the Cold Steel 1796s at ISMAC in July that they modified to look more like the original. I don't think they were going to continue to modify them to sell, but it was interesting to see the changes they had made (like reshaping the point and pinning the hilt from what I can remember). Now all I want to do is find a rebated 1796 or even a CW cavalry sword for training.

Mike

Military Heritage offers several replicas of British military swords, including the 1796 light and heavy cavalry swords (just scroll down): http://www.militaryheritage.com/swords2.htm I believe they are sold blunt.

Jonathan

Hi All

Michael is correct. I did have a Cold Steel that I had modified on the table at ISMAC. That’s what happens when you hang around the HMCA guys and Kirk too much :)

We have a couple versions of this in the original in The Oakeshott Collection and I was interested in comparing the cold steel side by side and seeing what it would take to modify it to a closer representation of the originals we had. I having always thought they did a pretty good job with this piece and was impressed on how close they were to the items we had. It was interesting to note the variations in the originals as well as they are not all exactly the same.

A note here as I just checked out Jonathan' s link to Military Heritage. I purchased my sword as a cold steel off of eBay at a reduced price it came packaged as described by Mathew, but the piece I got was pinned in the grip as the originals and the Military Heritage piece are it also did not have the tang button. The scabbard was metal. So I just realized I may have been sold one of theirs as a cold steel. Does the cold steel have a mark?

The piece I received had a decent steel guard it did not seem to be of pot metal but is almost certainly cast.

Now to the replica item: The tip was shaped in profile like the general officer swords we have, this is a bit thinner and with a touch more taper than the trooper issue we have in the collection (this item is one that was in the regiment formed by the Percy's) this tip is a touch broader and less tapered.

The guard on the replica was more like the trooper weapon as the General officer pieces are more refined in a way and I see more variation in these, as one would expect.

The trooper original we have had literally a degree or two more cant downward in the position of the hilt to the blade. I modified mine in this way but it was so minor that I would guess it was in the envelope of standard either way for the sword.

The biggest difference is of course the weight of the sword. The replica being quite a bit heavier. This often surprises people as the saber looks so substantial when viewed in profile but the last third of the blade is very thin and one can flex the tip easily with three fingers on the original blade. I spent some time working the replica blade down to close to this thickness but I still would have some way to go before being right on. All of the weight reduction was done on the last half of the blade and the lower bevel below the fuller. This improves the handling a great deal. It is a light fast weapon one did not club people with these swords and I imagine they were quite good in close combat.

All in all I thought the replica I got was well worth the money and now I just need to figure out which piece it is :)

Best
Craig

Matthew,
I am not sure why Cold Steel (or whoever sharpened your blade) chose to only sharpen half of the blade. I have not heard of the using an unsharpened portion of a blade to catch another blade, especially pertaining to the 1796 light cavalry sword. It sounds like speculation to me, but I would need to do some research on LeMarchant’s sword drills to be able to speak to how the 1796 was to be used when facing another swordsman. I need to look more closely at my antiques, but I can tell you that my variant pattern was sharpened to within about 3” to 4” of the hilt. My 1796 heavy cavalry trooper’s sword was sharpened for its entire length. BTW, is that statement from the SBG review or the vendor’s item description?

Craig,
They still knew about distal taper in the final century of the sword as a battlefield weapon! I have heard other people echo your remarks about the Cold Steel 1796 blade. If you have any photos to share of your re-worked CS (or Military Heritage) 1796 and/or the originals from the Oakeshott Collection, it would make for an interesting comparison.

There is subtle variation from maker to maker regarding original 1796 LC trooper sabers, but also surprising uniformity. I have found it interesting to weigh and measure my antique British military swords and compare the specs with those originally conceived for the patterns. Almost invariably they are spot-on weight- and length-wise.

Jonathan (who one day might be tempted to get a replica 1796 just for fun)

Hi Jonathan

I will see if I can take some side by side detail shots to post.

I think this is a good opportunity for those interested in this period and style of comabt to use these replicas to good advantage in working the systems of the day and doing some work with the sword as a replica. Especially with the ability to do some minor modification to the blade one can get a good feeling item that will play as the original would quite nicely.

Craig

The review at SBG was done by Mike Harris, who is also a member here. Hopefully he will chime-in with some additional thoughts. Maybe he can comment on how his has held up over time.

Jonathan

Thanks for giving me the heads-up Jonathan.

It has been, or at least seems like, quite a while since I wrote that review. The bit about the strong of the blade being commonly unsharpened was gleaned from the first Cold Steel video on the saber, with Lynn Thompson and Anthony DeLonghis. I can't recall the exact wording, but it led me to that conclusion. So, historical information it is certainly not. Just my blathering. :eek:

Regarding the durability of this particular sword, it is still just about as sound and tight as when I reviewed it. And the guard is definitely very solid and durable steel, based on some "brass knuckle-like" melee testing of close range punching. But I must confess that it hasn't seen a lot of strenuous use since then. I don't particularly care for its handling, much preferring a saber that's less blade-heavy. Since the review it has only been used for a little bottle cutting, one outing on tatami mats, and some testing on a fresh cow carcass where it startled me with its ability to make deep slicing cuts with practically no effort.

Thanks, Mike.

Here is a quote on th e1796's cutting ability as cited in one of the articles I linked in my first post:

Charles Parquin of the French 20th Chasseurs wrote:

If, however, the edge of the blade found its mark only once, it was a terrible blow, and it was not unusual to see an arm cut clean from the body”.

Jonathan

ADDED:

Matthew,
Here is another article that might be of interest to you as a hussar enthusiast: Cavalry Combat and the Sword

After completing that custom, then you really must get a Hungarian cavalry estoc. :D

Those are great pics of some very striking swords, Matthew--thanks for posting!

Jonathan

... or maybe a Palash ??? B-)

This blade had always been on my "want list" and when it appeared on Ryan's new items list over at KoA I couldn't resist.
Mine has the metal scabbard, and handle made of "something" which could either be a leather wrap over wood (it certainly mimics the original style well) or some other material. Blade is wicked gorgeous. Guard fittings are a little above so-so, but are really fine for the price range. I do notice the pin that was discussed earlier in this thread. And the pommel is finished out with a button that might be threaded or might be peened (I would bet threaded)... although if it loosens and is threaded, I expect that some of that thread lock gunk from the automotive store would cure that permanently.
I have an 1880 Imperial German NCO sword on the way which will make a nice match beside this, since its blade is somewhat between the 1796 and a U.S. cavalry saber.
It's time to get serious about a wall display!
Hanging this stuff by the scabbard from shelving is getting to be iffy.

After getting all the axle grease off this thing and finished getting everything all cleaned up, I have to note that the handle is after all a leather-wrapped grip. No question about it. I'm not sure what tanning process was used, as it doen't have the "sweet" smell of leather, but instead has a less-agreeable smell.
Feels really great in the hand.
Looking forward to building an X-type wall display (similar to those found in Scottish castles).

The metal scabbard that accompanies this thing is almost a weapon in its own right. Nice and beefy.

And thanks.
Yes, it's a nice "early" Christmas.

I had thought I was getting the metal scabbard too, but the leather w/metal is not at all displeasing.
While it might be made of less-historical bits and pieces, with something added for whatever the
reason ( the plastic insert that you can see looking into the mouth of the scabbard ), I have of late
thought about " scabbard care " along with blade care ... And I've come to the conclusion that the
least amount of metal bits and pieces to clean up the better ... But that's just me. B-)

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the excellent information in this thread.
As someone who's made a few 1796s, I only wish that I'd seen it a while ago.

Mine were done as blunts, which adds to the weight a bit, from specs from an original blade with what is probably a lighter variant hilt, if not a later replacement. The technical challenges in forging blades like this were considerable, given the radical distal taper (nearly Icnm accross the back of the blade at the hilt) and the deep concavity of the fuller.
It was an anxious wait for the blades to come back from the heat-treater, as architecture like this leaves plenty of scope for things to go wrong in my experience. Fortunately, there was no warping.

The last one required a scabbard, and I easily spent more hands-on time on that than I did on the sword itself. I am definitely not a scabbard-maker. What surprised me about the pictures posted here is that the scabbards appear a lot less narrow than the ones I've seen - mainly in auction catalogues. I was left wondering how something that looked so slimline accomodated the curvature of the blade and the splayed tip.

I will organise some pics as soon as I can. (Rod Walker, if you see this - I haven't forgotten you!)

Tim
Nonnumquam proctalgia