US 1902 Sword Carrier

kronckew · 19th August 2015, 01:49 PM

we tend to forget little details here, like how did the poor sod who had to carry one of these weapons for hours on end actually do that. i like to get an appropriate sword belt/frog/carrier/baldric for my swords where possible, or a close approximation.

the 1902 U.S Army sabre scabbard has two carrier rings. early sling straps had a pair of straps of unequal lengths terminating in two hooks with screw locks on the sword end and a single wide snap hook on the other that snapped onto a square metal loop protruding from the leather belt loop/clothing shield. looks a lot like a jeb stewart (patented) hanger. this was later replaced (see below) by a single fancy chain for the rear scabbard ring, the front ring hung on the hook. while that looks OK for dismounted carry, not having a 1902 sabre, i'm not sure how that would balance if you were actually mounted. i do have a couple of swords/sabres with single ring scabbards that, while not historically correct, this will do nicely if i ever do want to wear one of the single ring swords, at least until the real thing comes along.

p.s. - made in france.

Hotspur · 19th August 2015, 07:49 PM

You might want to check in with Tim Graham and George Wheeler over at
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...edged-weapons/

Both are familiar with anything m1902 from cadet to the Philippine Constabulary rigs. They also both frequent SFI Sean Scott (Varagian) also has a wealth of info and background for the M1902.

The single chain and hook arrangement dure to the fact that the sword was relegated to dress/parade use only. The French single ring move was (iirc) because of the sword being attached to the saddles rather than belt straps (the older swords having the middle fitting removed, band and all). The infantry swords retaining two rings.

Cheers

GC

Jim McDougall · 19th August 2015, 08:12 PM

Glen, as always the spectrum and range of your knowledge on these often esoteric topics is phenomenal!
Thanks for always popping in with these fantastic notes!!!
I'm having a hard time thinking of what a M1902 is, and keep thinking of the monstrous Patton swords

kronckew · 19th August 2015, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...
I'm having a hard time thinking of what a M1902 is, and keep thinking of the monstrous Patton swords

the info he posted was indeed interesting, as was the ref. site. as he notes, the m1902 sabre was a parade only item, not a combat weapon like the patton 'sabre' which was really just a short lance. i see the scabbard rings are quite close together on those with 2 and they really only need one if the sword is carried on a saddle rather that the man.

the m1902 had/has a very slender blade, and like the current USN equivalent*, would not stand up to actual combat, being made of brittle stainless. 'Cold Steel' makes one in 1050 HC steel, but it's the slender 3/4 in. 'issue' model which, even if sharp would be a poor weapon compared with the earlier 19c models. no more teddys charging up san juan hill...

*- the 1852 navy sword was 1 9/64 in. wide. the 1931 version, 3/4", current model is 5/8". i have a 3/4in. high carbon steel one myself...i imagine the army degraded theirs similarly.

the M1902, note the distinctive finger grooves: ( i have no desire to own one, as it's really only a big boy's toy. the hanger is cool tho

)

Jim McDougall · 19th August 2015, 09:18 PM

Thank you for the response and detail on the M1902, now that I see it I can remember somewhat. It seems these U.S. swords are seldom seen or discussed around here, so it is great to have this input. Very nice carry item you found, and it would seem pretty rare.

Hotspur · 20th August 2015, 02:23 AM

The US experimental cavalry sword used the same blade profile as the M1902, so we can't say the blades were entirely worthless. The Philippine Constabulary swords were definitely field swords but had a different wire wrapped grip and slightly heavier hilt.

The 1902 is well covered in Peterson's old testament. I have a short bladed Colonial brand example that aside from pretty blade etchings might make for a weapon if needed but no doubt an officer would have a pistol as well.

While the order for the m1902 was to be for all Army officers, I little doubt a cavalry officer wouldn't favor the 1906, which was just a steel hilted civil war pattern The 1913 scabbard was attached directly to the horse's rig.
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...-and-scabbard/

The fellows mentioned above are vastly more knowledgeable regarding 20th century US swords. I am kind of guilty in absorbing information through reading their thoughts.

This thread for the Philippine swords. It does show a belt and single strap.
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...fficer-swords/

Cheers

GC

fernando · 20th August 2015, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Thank you for the response and detail on the M1902 ... It seems these U.S. swords are seldom seen or discussed around here ...

Most probably because the scope of this sub-forum is more focused on earlier items; isn't that so, Jim ?

19th August 2015, 01:49 PM	#1
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,150	US 1902 Sword Carrier we tend to forget little details here, like how did the poor sod who had to carry one of these weapons for hours on end actually do that. i like to get an appropriate sword belt/frog/carrier/baldric for my swords where possible, or a close approximation. the 1902 U.S Army sabre scabbard has two carrier rings. early sling straps had a pair of straps of unequal lengths terminating in two hooks with screw locks on the sword end and a single wide snap hook on the other that snapped onto a square metal loop protruding from the leather belt loop/clothing shield. looks a lot like a jeb stewart (patented) hanger. this was later replaced (see below) by a single fancy chain for the rear scabbard ring, the front ring hung on the hook. while that looks OK for dismounted carry, not having a 1902 sabre, i'm not sure how that would balance if you were actually mounted. i do have a couple of swords/sabres with single ring scabbards that, while not historically correct, this will do nicely if i ever do want to wear one of the single ring swords, at least until the real thing comes along. p.s. - made in france. Attached Images

19th August 2015, 07:49 PM	#2
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 489	You might want to check in with Tim Graham and George Wheeler over at http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...edged-weapons/ Both are familiar with anything m1902 from cadet to the Philippine Constabulary rigs. They also both frequent SFI Sean Scott (Varagian) also has a wealth of info and background for the M1902. The single chain and hook arrangement dure to the fact that the sword was relegated to dress/parade use only. The French single ring move was (iirc) because of the sword being attached to the saddles rather than belt straps (the older swords having the middle fitting removed, band and all). The infantry swords retaining two rings. Cheers GC

19th August 2015, 08:12 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,762	Glen, as always the spectrum and range of your knowledge on these often esoteric topics is phenomenal! Thanks for always popping in with these fantastic notes!!! I'm having a hard time thinking of what a M1902 is, and keep thinking of the monstrous Patton swords

19th August 2015, 09:18 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,762	Thank you for the response and detail on the M1902, now that I see it I can remember somewhat. It seems these U.S. swords are seldom seen or discussed around here, so it is great to have this input. Very nice carry item you found, and it would seem pretty rare.

20th August 2015, 02:23 AM	#6
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 489	The US experimental cavalry sword used the same blade profile as the M1902, so we can't say the blades were entirely worthless. The Philippine Constabulary swords were definitely field swords but had a different wire wrapped grip and slightly heavier hilt. The 1902 is well covered in Peterson's old testament. I have a short bladed Colonial brand example that aside from pretty blade etchings might make for a weapon if needed but no doubt an officer would have a pistol as well. While the order for the m1902 was to be for all Army officers, I little doubt a cavalry officer wouldn't favor the 1906, which was just a steel hilted civil war pattern The 1913 scabbard was attached directly to the horse's rig. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...-and-scabbard/ The fellows mentioned above are vastly more knowledgeable regarding 20th century US swords. I am kind of guilty in absorbing information through reading their thoughts. This thread for the Philippine swords. It does show a belt and single strap. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...fficer-swords/ Cheers GC