A number of recent studies by Latter-day Saint scholars have suggested that the pre-Columbian Mesoamerican weapon known as the macuahuitl or macana fits the criteria for the Book of Mormon New World "sword." Critics maintain that the term "sword" in the Book of Mormon must refer to a weapon similar to a metal cavalry broadsword (much like we see in the movies of the civil war and the old west). They base their assumptions on certain terms or phrases mentioned in the text. One of those references is found in Alma 44:12-13, where in Mormon's description of Zerahemnah's unsuccessful attempt to kill Moroni the term "hilt" is used.
According to Matthew Roper, the critics first of all ignore Hamblin's discussion of this issue: "Structurally, the macuahuitl does have a hilt. The lower portion of the weapon lacks obsidian blades so it can be held, which thus functionally distinguishes the handle or hilt from the blade." Concerning this passage Hamblin notes, "If a macuahuitl were to be broken when struck by another weapon, one expected place for such breakage would be where the obsidian blades did not protect the wood of the shaft, leaving the wood directly exposed to the blades of the other sword." (Hamblin and Merrill, "Swords in the Book of Mormon," in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, pp. 341-342) According to Gomara, "The swords could cut cleanly through a lance or the neck of a horse, and even penetrate or nick iron, which seems impossible." This seems to have been what occurred to Zerahemnah's sword.
In any case, Mesoamerican swords definitely had "hilts." According to one conquistador, the Mexicans "have swords that are like broadswords, but their hilts are not quite so long and are three fingers wide." According to the Spanish historian Solis, Montezuma possessed "Two-handed Swords, and others of extraordinary Wood with flint Edges, and most curious and costly Handles." [Matthew Roper, "On Cynics and Swords," in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9/1 1997, pp. 148-156]