God knows I hate posting anything about this company, Windlass steel normally makes blades that are unusable by us, with a few exceptions (unless you want to be re-welding tangs. Quality control is so sporadic from them (I admit I have a few pieces from them, and I lucked out in that whoever was responsible for inspecting the pieces happened to be doing their job that day!)

That disclaimer out of the way, in their latest catalog (#60) an the last inside page, they have introduced a line of Theatrical weapons that might well be suitable (at least in part - I'll explain later on) for our use.

They are properly rebated swords - the point of the blade is heavily rebated, and the best part is that the tangs are of solid construction - they aren't welded on. These things are designed to be abused. In fact, they are designed for the sort of flashy ren-faire combat that sets the sparks flying. At the same time, they arent too heavy (like most crowbar types used in "combat" where they try to throw sparks), they weigh in at 1 lb 11 oz to 2 lbs 2 oz.

OK, that's the good side to them, here is the bad side. The hilt/grip/pommel are cast out of ONE piece (their effort to stop the dreaded hilt rattle - I guess its to much bother for most folks to get the sword peened down when the wood of a proper grip shrinks). Bad side # 2 - these swords have the hand assembly cast out of brass or aluminum - those are your choices folks - thats it!

I personally don't like brass hilted swords - I've seen M1860/M1840 US cavalry sabres have guards sheared in re-enactment combat - the combat wasn't too vigerous either. I prefer steel/iron hilts, although a brass crossguard/pommel combination is probably safe for the ARMET rules I am in the process of writing. Aluminum guards on the other hand are right out. Not only are the Historically incorrect, but you couldn't convince me they are safe to use.

On the other hand, they are an option to consider, as they price in between $160 to $170 dollars. I don't think you can find a single piece blade/tang tempered carbon steel blade (they are made of spring steel)on the market in that price range. You could always swap out the guard/pommel/grip for something more appropriate.

Commentary would be appreciated!

Like EVERY time you use it!

------------------
For God, King and Lancaster

In my humble opinion and experience with them: They are ok. They are pretty durable (during the entire fest only one was broken out of about 20), they look decent from a distance, they're safe. But, the balance is a little wierd. It's hard to explain, but you can kinda tell it's all one piece. Not knowing exactly what is needed in a re-enactment blunt, I'll say that they worked fine for the combatants (sic), but not too well for us in the joust, as we have to use them against targets and the bluntness is a hinderance (yes, we use unrebated blades).

I am relieved to hear of someone else beside me who has had experience with these swords, and who has something other than a knee-jerk negative reaction to MRL.

A friend of mine swears by MRL (go figure), and he got a set of these, in brass. So we clashed blades for the fun of it. I've toyed with steel since 1975, and I find these to be decent re-enactment swords. I've used too many swords that turn into saw blades too quickly. Also, many of the "historically accurate" 3-part hilts start working loose after a few battles' worth of hard use. In fact, I remember a re-enactor posting to one of the Other Forums that a loose hilt was the One Unforgivable Sin in a re-enactment sword.

I wouldn't bring a $400 sword to a battle rec. So build it cheap, and cast brass - in one piece - is fully acceptable in my book. I can camouflage it and customize it easily with a glued-on leather wrap, and I'm good to go.

I'm just waiting for them to make 1066-era swords...

My only concern is that the blade is extremely flexible. If I hold the sword horizontally from the hilt, the blade droops quite a bit. This might be a good thing though. I can't really say until I've had a chance to use it.