The m1804 British naval cutlass

adrian · 14th November 2022, 07:27 PM

Excert from The 1842 Rifled and sighted Musket which mentions the fire (debatable as a reason) ... and adds details.
It also mentions the RN Marines being issued percussion muskets in the full dissertation. Sadly, no mention of cutlasses...

There is no mention of cutlasses as the Royal Marines did not carry them, they were, in effect, Infantry & were armed in similar fashion. The cutlasses were carried by seamen, along with other small arms. In this period the intent was to arm the Royal Marines with the exact same pattern arms as the infantry, however for a short time the arms shortage of the mid 1850s saw them armed with Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Muskets.

The Extract from College Hill Arsenal contains several minor inaccuracies that new research corrects. Tim's write ups are first class and this does not disparage his work in any way. Just a couple of quick points: The Army did not fight with a mix of muskets & rifles, only the 4th Division had smoothbores, the other Divisions were armed with P/1851 Rifles until quite late in the war when the P/1853 began to be issued there; this was only battalions at the conflict, 'Home' battalions did have a mix of muskets & rifles though very few were rifles as most of their quota of P/1851 rifles was recalled & went with the fighting troops, muskets of a 'Home' battalion included a mix and the most extreme saw 'Home' Foot Guards with P/1838, P/1842 & even a few P/1845 Extra Service Muskets, other regts had the P/1839, P/1842 & a few regts also had a few P/1845 ESMs.

The Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket was not issued to land-based infantry in the Crimea - just imagine the ammunition calamity - it was for that reason it was forbade. The only force of import that was issued with it, besides the Royal Marines, were the Channel Island Militia who received 6,000 of the 27,400 AP/1842 RMs made. (All this is covered in detail in the aforementioned book coming out)

Apologies for again straying from the topic of cutlasses.

kronckew · 15th November 2022, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrian

. ...
There is no mention of cutlasses as the Royal Marines did not carry them, ...

I was not implying that UK Marines carried Cutlasses, they had bayonets. I just mentioned them as the main topic of this thread was cutlasses and there was no reference to cutlasses in that article being carried by anyone, let alone what model. The thread here was about cutlasses, not muskets. I was just emphasising that my excerpt had nothing to do with cutlasses, and was just adding to the item on muskets.

CutlassCollector · 16th November 2022, 08:46 PM

........ and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share.

I agree with this thought and have the utmost respect for those researchers who must have spent hours and days poring over documents, searching out examples and corresponding with museum curators. We have it a lot easier with the web, access to auction pictures and online museum collections worldwide.

The forum is also a major factor in sharing knowledge and I was struck when discussing the Tower of London fire that information came from completely different sources depending on whether the perspective was from firearms or cutlasses. All improving the understanding.

I was hoping that there would have been a few more 1804 cutlasses posted on Mark's excellent idea for a thread. But there are not so many 1804 survivors.

Often military firearms are talked about in the 100,000s while for cutlasses it is more like in the 1000s as they were assigned to ships not individuals. There is no standard because it would depend on the size of the crew but roughly 350 cutlasses for a British Ship of the Line and perhaps 280 to a frigate. A requisition order for the first three US Navy frigates states 550, which equates to around 180 per ship.

We know from Swords for Sea Service that a total of only 30,000 were ordered in 1804/1808 and Mark has listed the suppliers already in post 5. There are probably a few more than this number as it is also noted that Hadley was permitted to deliver more that his order of 2500 and there are also examples marked to Harvey, Eddels and Tatham and Egg.

The 1804 cutlass does not look pretty and the flat plain blade necessitates a fairly heavy blade for strength but it is still a very well balanced sword. Good enough to be in service for 30 years or so.

The construction is not as simple as it looks as the blade is made up of two parts. The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.

Sometimes, on worn blades, the scarf is visible with very faint lines and sometimes the texture of the surface is different because it has corroded in a slightly different way. The cypher is normally stamped into the softer steel.

The 1804 is still one of my favourites.

M ELEY · 17th November 2022, 03:20 AM

Quote:

The construction is not as simple as it looks as the blade is made up of two parts. The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.

Wow, CC! I had no idea about the two-part construction of these cutlasses! Makes total sense in that a heavy blade imparting with something hard (someone's skull, for instance!

) would put a great deal of shock to the tang. As you point out, these are 'beefy' weapons, very heavy and built to do some serious damage! Thank you for this information and for your kind words.

M ELEY · 17th November 2022, 03:27 AM

Quote:

The forum is also a major factor in sharing knowledge and I was struck when discussing the Tower of London fire that information came from completely different sources depending on whether the perspective was from firearms or cutlasses. All improving the understanding.

I agree as well. Sometimes, you just don't know where a thread will take you! In regards to the Tower fire, I certainly think it possible that such stores of cutlass that were there would have been lost. As these utilitarian weapons were considered more 'munitions grade' and not as important (not my opinion, but many) as firearms, it wouldn't be a surprise if said losses were under-reported. I do want to thank everyone for their contributions thus far, but as CC pointed out, it would have been great to see a few other examples posted.

adrian · 17th November 2022, 09:44 AM

The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge.

Musket bayonets are also constructed with an iron socket, elbow & up to about a third of the blade of iron scarf welded to steel. Ramrods likewise were iron & steel - the stem being steel & the head iron.

However, having harped on about muskets so much I'd better post a few photos of a P/1804 cutlass that used to be in my collection (sold to help fund a musket purchase!)

CutlassCollector · 17th November 2022, 10:49 AM

Great example Adrian and with a rare scabbard too.
I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it?

It is interesting that there are so many variations of the cypher, from the block GR to the fanciest scrolled text. This one is different as well. All 1804s would have been made during the reign of George III (1760-1820). Does this mean that manufacturers made their own interpretation of the cypher rather than a standard one?

14th November 2022, 07:27 PM	#1
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 118	Excert from The 1842 Rifled and sighted Musket which mentions the fire (debatable as a reason) ... and adds details. It also mentions the RN Marines being issued percussion muskets in the full dissertation. Sadly, no mention of cutlasses... There is no mention of cutlasses as the Royal Marines did not carry them, they were, in effect, Infantry & were armed in similar fashion. The cutlasses were carried by seamen, along with other small arms. In this period the intent was to arm the Royal Marines with the exact same pattern arms as the infantry, however for a short time the arms shortage of the mid 1850s saw them armed with Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Muskets. The Extract from College Hill Arsenal contains several minor inaccuracies that new research corrects. Tim's write ups are first class and this does not disparage his work in any way. Just a couple of quick points: The Army did not fight with a mix of muskets & rifles, only the 4th Division had smoothbores, the other Divisions were armed with P/1851 Rifles until quite late in the war when the P/1853 began to be issued there; this was only battalions at the conflict, 'Home' battalions did have a mix of muskets & rifles though very few were rifles as most of their quota of P/1851 rifles was recalled & went with the fighting troops, muskets of a 'Home' battalion included a mix and the most extreme saw 'Home' Foot Guards with P/1838, P/1842 & even a few P/1845 Extra Service Muskets, other regts had the P/1839, P/1842 & a few regts also had a few P/1845 ESMs. The Altered Pattern 1842 Rifled Musket was not issued to land-based infantry in the Crimea - just imagine the ammunition calamity - it was for that reason it was forbade. The only force of import that was issued with it, besides the Royal Marines, were the Channel Island Militia who received 6,000 of the 27,400 AP/1842 RMs made. (All this is covered in detail in the aforementioned book coming out) Apologies for again straying from the topic of cutlasses. Last edited by adrian; 14th November 2022 at 07:39 PM.

16th November 2022, 08:46 PM	#3
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 322	The 1804 is a great cutlass ........ and they are to be thanked & lauded for sharing the results of their long years of dedicated research and for their passion and enthusiasm which many benefit from & share. I agree with this thought and have the utmost respect for those researchers who must have spent hours and days poring over documents, searching out examples and corresponding with museum curators. We have it a lot easier with the web, access to auction pictures and online museum collections worldwide. The forum is also a major factor in sharing knowledge and I was struck when discussing the Tower of London fire that information came from completely different sources depending on whether the perspective was from firearms or cutlasses. All improving the understanding. I was hoping that there would have been a few more 1804 cutlasses posted on Mark's excellent idea for a thread. But there are not so many 1804 survivors. Often military firearms are talked about in the 100,000s while for cutlasses it is more like in the 1000s as they were assigned to ships not individuals. There is no standard because it would depend on the size of the crew but roughly 350 cutlasses for a British Ship of the Line and perhaps 280 to a frigate. A requisition order for the first three US Navy frigates states 550, which equates to around 180 per ship. We know from Swords for Sea Service that a total of only 30,000 were ordered in 1804/1808 and Mark has listed the suppliers already in post 5. There are probably a few more than this number as it is also noted that Hadley was permitted to deliver more that his order of 2500 and there are also examples marked to Harvey, Eddels and Tatham and Egg. The 1804 cutlass does not look pretty and the flat plain blade necessitates a fairly heavy blade for strength but it is still a very well balanced sword. Good enough to be in service for 30 years or so. The construction is not as simple as it looks as the blade is made up of two parts. The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge. Sometimes, on worn blades, the scarf is visible with very faint lines and sometimes the texture of the surface is different because it has corroded in a slightly different way. The cypher is normally stamped into the softer steel. The 1804 is still one of my favourites.

17th November 2022, 09:44 AM	#6
adrian Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 118	The tang and lower section of the blade is made from iron or mild steel (I am not sure which) which is more resilient to shock impact and less likely to fracture. It is scarf welded during the forging process to the rest of blade which is of of higher carbon steel more able to take an edge. Musket bayonets are also constructed with an iron socket, elbow & up to about a third of the blade of iron scarf welded to steel. Ramrods likewise were iron & steel - the stem being steel & the head iron. However, having harped on about muskets so much I'd better post a few photos of a P/1804 cutlass that used to be in my collection (sold to help fund a musket purchase!) Attached Images

17th November 2022, 10:49 AM	#7
CutlassCollector Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Scotland Posts: 322	Great example Adrian and with a rare scabbard too. I can't make out the maker's name, do you recall it? It is interesting that there are so many variations of the cypher, from the block GR to the fanciest scrolled text. This one is different as well. All 1804s would have been made during the reign of George III (1760-1820). Does this mean that manufacturers made their own interpretation of the cypher rather than a standard one?