I’d love to see a good production of an 1845, perhaps with an engineer hilt.

1821 too!

Simply glue it again

@gabrielwolf7534 you can't as the sheath doesn't disassemble. So no access to the bottom

Such a stupid way to save money. Like falling flat on your face, with a huge lead, running the last lap

The "r" is called 'intrusion" and exists is most non-rhotic English accents. If you say the r in water, you are less likely to do it. Most of the UK do this, as do the majority of English speakers. Only the US and South Africa have large areas where it's common not to link with r (or y or w) sounds

I have a recently (2021) made example. Distal taper is as linear as it's possible to get. Blade will soon be getting turned into a clipped point turceal.

I got me the new Windlass 1796 as well after Matt did his video on it. But as someone who previously owned the Cold Steel version, I can tell you that I also heard the same thing about them (Cold Steel) making an improvement in the way their 1796 LC Saber is made about 10 years ago, or so. Regarding the main differences between the two: The Cold Steel just doesn't start out quite thick enough at the shoulder, and doesn't taper off to the necessary thinness. It's close, which is actually frustrating! But it's just not quite right. The Windlass starts out just a little thicker than the Cold Steel at the shoulder, but then tapers off quite abruptly. From there, the taper is mostly gradual and even for the remainder of the blade's length, before finally tapering down to almost 1.5mm at the foible. I can attest that this definitely makes it considerably more "lively in the hand" as they say!

As long as it's been forged using traditional methods and you have a valid reason to have it. They're legal. Obviously if you use it in a manner where it could be considered an offensive weapon, that all changes

The 1811 Blucher is noticeable heavier, often well over 1kg compared to the roughly 850-900g 1796LC. The hilt is heavier as the guard is much thicker, but the distal taper is also different, having less extreme distal taper and staying rather thick until the end of the fuller. Overall they just feel like a slightly clunky version of the 1796LC. They aren't excessively forward balanced like the Cold Steel, just not as lively as the 1796.

It can make it more difficult to get through thick clothing yes, like thick greatcoats, but in most scenarios it doesn't make a huge difference.

Personally I always want these swords to represent the originals as best as possible, as these aren't intended to win cutting challenges, they are intended to represent the historical examples in form and function, and Iw ant to understand the originals in their original context. I must add though that the wobble here and the wobble you have experienced in training is likely very different. When HEMA blades wobble it is almost entirely on the entire length of their blade, and the distal taper is a significant factor here. WIth this extreme distal taper you get a very strong and rigid forte, and so that wobble and energy displaceent is very different. Also worth mentioning that many Indians loved the 1796 light cavalry blades and used them on their own hilts, and these are styles with a lot of motion as you describe. So I think we should always try and understand these weapons as they were made and in their context, rather than assert very modern opinions upon them. These were known as some of the finest cutting swords ever made, and so we should not ignore them.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 1. I agree that a reproduction behaving like the original is both wanted and expected. I mean that is probably the exact reason why one would buy this sabre or any other accurate reproduction. It captures feeling of the original to a satysfying degree. More power to that specific reproductionbif it accomplishes that. 2. I'll elaborate here: first sabre I mentioned was not specifically made for hema. I ordered it at a smithy and used it for HEMA. The smith only made it according to a spec/description. Results were... poor enough for a refund/redo to be necessary. There could be any number of reasons why it happened but I remember the "wobble" being present even without clashing against other "blades". Just some quick "cutting drils" were enough to made it "wobble". 3. I specifically mentioned that less wobble was my preference due to my subjective experience. I do not want or intend to "assert modern opinions" upon a reproduction piece. My only point was that for some people the flex/wobble may be a dealbreaker. 4. I might simply be used to more rigid "blades" due to fact that quite a few polish sabres were made to be rigid. It sort of shows in the sabres we use to spar at the club I attend. * addendum: to be fair we have only a few "steel fencers" now, so this might change. the sabres we have though are probably not tournament standard in terms of flexibility and other parameters.

Regards David

They sell 3-4 different versions by different manufacturers, the £90 one is by Deepeeka and the most expensive one is a Cold steel, the 250 is Universal swords (or the other makers they go by_ The Windlass model is the £280 one that says it is made by windless in the additional info and descrives the realistic distal taper

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing ahh thank-you for clearing that up pal!

HEMAist, someone who practices HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts)

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing thankyou so much !!!!

Yes you will, from the UK you will have to pay tax but not import duties. However this product is stocked by many resellers, I suggest you buy it from this excellent German reseller - www.swords-and-more.com/britischer-1796-leichter-kavallerie-sabel.html

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thank you very much!

Knightshop, link is in the description

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing cheers

In large part it comes from not caring from the manufacturers part. Indeed they all should have been able to copy photos better than they did. OVerall the approach has been make cheap swords quickly without much care. In Cold Steels case, the guy in charge just doesn't care for handling from what I hear. He just wants something that looks vaguely correct and is tough. This is the first time I have seen a mass market sword attempt to mimic the original and have any care for getting it close.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Regarding handling, how much of a difference is it? As someone who has never used swords the differences in weight and COM and such sound fairly minor. Is it the kind of thing that only really matters if you are "good enough to notice" or want perfection or do these minor differences completely change the usability?

The difference is huge. Point of balance is important, but its the overall mass distribution which makes a world of difference. You wouldn't need to be any kind of expert to notice the vast difference immediately. It is the difference between an unwieldy club and an agile and more delicate tool.

Yes.