Talk:Model 1832 foot artillery sword

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

impractical for actual combat?[edit]

"While the design was impractical for actual combat"? Is this substantiated or is it a mere assumption? Dsunlin (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 months later, and the personal opinion questioned here still hasn't been removed or defended. Welcome to stinkipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.130.248 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the sword[edit]

The article starts by saying the sword was 25 inches long. It then counts off 6 inches of grip, 4 inches of crossguard(that's one hell of a crossguard...2/3 of the grip?) and 19 inches of blade...making that 29 inches. So, which is it? 25 or 29? Presumably the 4 inches refer to the WIDTH of the crossguard, but it doesn't say that. And grip is not hilt, meaning that the thickness of the crossguard, which looks to be at least an inch, isn't included either way. 85.229.59.216 (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]