jimmy, your rantings on about "protecting" oneself is the main reason most
people believe that weapons freaks have short dicks, emotionally.

Jim Richardson
Date: 10/14/2004 2:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 14 Oct 2004 12:41:03 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
a hunting knife took even less training and worked at an even less
distance.

anyone trying to "protect" their boat with a crossbow from 17 year old
pirates
in loin cloths carrying rifles is taking a penknife to the fight. One wild
shot going way wide of the rifle toting boy and you bought the farm.



Not relevent to my demolishing your rediculous claims crossbows.

Would I prefer to have a decent firearm than a crossbow in most
circumstances? heck yes! But the subject began as a way around some of
the rediculous anti-gun laws in some jurisdictions.

schlackoff, weapons of war crossbows were not the kiddie toys you are
thinking of. They had draws, I believe, of 250 to 350 pounds, and two
men with a windlass drew them back into firing position. Hard to keep
up with a longbow with that.

two different weapons, with the tactical advantage going to longbows
because of their range and rate of fire.



Two different weapons alright, it sounds as if you are confusing a
crossbow ( a man portable, single person weapon) with a ballista ( a
crew served weapon)

Windlasses were common on some crossbows, particularly on the larger
ones used in sieges. But the "common" crossbow, was usually cocked with
a stirrup, or a goats foot lever. Some had a crank mechanism in the
stock, and a removeable handle like a winch (hey! back on topic! :) but
those were fairly uncommon, being relatively expensive to make, and the
main benefit of the crossbow was low cost, and the low training
requirements compared to other missile weapons of the pre-firearms era.




--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Who was the sick-minded SOB who called it a "lisp"?
"What's wrong with you?" "I litthhp."
"You what?" "I *litthhp* ."










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Instruction ends in the schoolroom -- but education
ends only with life. -- Publilius Syrus.

IIRC, the last "world championship" (held in the usa) in archery where the yew
bow was used was in the early 1930's, the winner (World Champion) missed the
entire target something like 20 times out of 100. I am reciting that from
memory, but someone somewhere check the specifics and report back.


Jim, your example points out the differences between types of weapons.
There were many variations of bows and and many crossbows used during
the height of bows (e.g., 12th and 13th century). But, my son and I
just got back from the West Point Museum.

According to the military's researchers, long bows made of yew had a
draw pull of about 150 pounds (6 times the pull of my son's tournament
olympic style bow) and archers could get 6 arrows off per minute and
shoot about 300 - 450 feet and pierce a metal helmet with an arrow and
archers "sighted" by feel, much like the Japanese horse archers.

The cross bows they had were operated by one person, had an opening by
the front to put ones feet so both hands could be used on the crank, had
a much farther range and draw pull (I don't remember the exact amount
but I am pretty sure both were more than five times that of a long bow)
and did take 2 minutes between shots to operate. According to the Point,
the difference was that a lot more folks could operate a cross bow than
could pull a long bow.

harlan

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

real figures for bows as weapons of war were about one bolt even two minutes
for the crossbow, and about 6 shafts a minute for the longbow. the crossbow
had a net effective range of about 30 feet, the longbow about 100 yards.


Your range figure for crossbows is silly. Effective range of a crossbow
of medieval pattern, against armoured targets, is about 50 yards. Rate
of fire numbers are a bit bogus also, 6 shots/min for a longbow is
doable, for a very short time period. A std crossbow could do about 1
shot per min, or perhaps a bit more. Slower for some designs, faster for
others.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If guns cause crime, mine must be defective." -Ted Nugent

On 15 Oct 2004 00:34:43 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jimmy, your rantings on about "protecting" oneself is the main reason most
people believe that weapons freaks have short dicks, emotionally.


I see, so your total inability to actually defend your position, to back
up your claims, is a result of your personal physical shortcomings?

Sorry to hear that. How about you drag your mind out of the gutter and
put your walter mitty superpowers to work actually responding to what I
actually said, rather than what you *wish* I had said?




--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"You have grown old in the fine art of *******y. My compliments."
-Suresh Ramasubramanian

Terry Spragg wrote:

Doug Dotson wrote:
OOH! The new trebouchet rig! Could be a real hit!



I want to build a trebuchet on my old dock ruin, so I can sell rides
to tourists and finance the reconstruction of the dock.

I wonder how many riders I might get, and what I should charge. I
mean, if people go for bungy jumping, why not trebuchet rides?

IIRC, the acceleration will kill you when you are being lanched. But flying
through the air when you are experiencing your last moments in life has got
to be worth something to some people. I don't think I'd call these
travellers to the neither worlds tourists though...


The dock ruin is about 25 feet wide and 100 feet long, all torn up
by the river ice. It looks like a bunch of rocks and old tree
trunks, cribbing all scattered nearby.

Could I charge a little more because the riders would be landing in
fresh water?

Yes you could. I assume some people would be very happy to be burried in
fresh water, rather than sea or in the ground.

Terry K

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin msblaster.pif

schlakoff, admit you were the source of the conclusion, **IF** you are capable
of understanding the ramifications of your statement. otherwise, admit you
abject stupidity.

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

jim, you seem to not understand that crossbows used shorts bolts that had no
fletching. that means the bolts weren't much more than frisbees past a very
short distance. 30 feet, the museum stated. having seen a bolt, I don't doubt
that figure.

Jim Richardson
Date: 10/15/2004 3:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

real figures for bows as weapons of war were about one bolt even two
minutes
for the crossbow, and about 6 shafts a minute for the longbow. the
crossbow
had a net effective range of about 30 feet, the longbow about 100 yards.


Your range figure for crossbows is silly. Effective range of a crossbow
of medieval pattern, against armoured targets, is about 50 yards. Rate
of fire numbers are a bit bogus also, 6 shots/min for a longbow is
doable, for a very short time period. A std crossbow could do about 1
shot per min, or perhaps a bit more. Slower for some designs, faster for
others.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If guns cause crime, mine must be defective." -Ted Nugent

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
What are "Numb Nuts" sticks? Do you mean numchucks?

Yes - quoting the cop. He figured anybody who carried rice flails that'd
get him jail time in LA, vs a baton or gun, was a "numb nut" hence "numb
nuts' sticks".

Whatever a "rice flail" is?

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
What are "Numb Nuts" sticks? Do you mean numchucks?

Yes - quoting the cop. He figured anybody who carried rice flails that'd
get him jail time in LA, vs a baton or gun, was a "numb nut" hence "numb
nuts' sticks".

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:32:17 GMT, Jim Richardson
wrote:

A crossbow, especially a modern design, makes a fine defensive weapon
within it's limits, which are similar in many ways to a muzzle loading
firearm. Except that the crossbow is silent in operation, usually less
restricted by law, and is also usable for tasks such as throwing a line.

That why I've considered adding it to my manifest of "extended
cruising supplies". It's compact and can be used in a limited sense
for safety and rescue and even "spearfishing from the deck". It can
certainly be brought up from below easier than a longbow, and it is
ideal for pitching messenger lines for tows, docking in a current,
etc. when a line is shot overhead the "catcher".

Oh, and the ammo, if retrievable, is reusable.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:10:00 -0400, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Whatever a "rice flail" is?

That's a numchuk, two short lengths of pole joined by a few links of
chain. It's in the fine martial arts tradition of arming the populace
with agricultural tools so that they wouldn't be confiscated by their
overlords.

Karate got its start in Okinawa that way, probably when the samurai
figured out the rice flail ruse G
R.

On 15 Oct 2004 12:02:22 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jim, you seem to not understand that crossbows used shorts bolts that
had no fletching. that means the bolts weren't much more than
frisbees past a very short distance. 30 feet, the museum stated.
having seen a bolt, I don't doubt that figure.


Actually, some of them were fletched. Often with thin leather, or wood,
occasionally with feathers, depending on the weight of the pull. Some
weren't, it all depended on a lot of factors. In either case, the range
was certainly not limited to 30 ft.



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
In Vino Veritas, In Cervesio Felicitas
(In wine there is truth, in beer there is joy)

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlakoff, admit you were the source of the conclusion, **IF** you are capable
of understanding the ramifications of your statement. otherwise, admit you
abject stupidity.

Jox, admit your conclusion that "a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty
bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a
minute" is a completely absurd extension from the simple statement that
your original firing rate of "it took two men most of two minutes to
load and fire a crossbow, while a longbowman could pump out three shafts
a minute" is on the high side. If you can't imagine a true firing rate
somewhere between those two extremes, you are even dumber than you
appear to be... and that's pretty dumb.

Steve


(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

rhys? have you ANY idea what a crossbow is? if so, just why did you post the
following?

rhys
Date: 10/15/2004 12:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:32:17 GMT, Jim Richardson
wrote:

A crossbow, especially a modern design, makes a fine defensive weapon
within it's limits, which are similar in many ways to a muzzle loading
firearm. Except that the crossbow is silent in operation, usually less
restricted by law, and is also usable for tasks such as throwing a line.

That why I've considered adding it to my manifest of "extended
cruising supplies". It's compact and can be used in a limited sense
for safety and rescue and even "spearfishing from the deck". It can
certainly be brought up from below easier than a longbow, and it is
ideal for pitching messenger lines for tows, docking in a current,
etc. when a line is shot overhead the "catcher".

Oh, and the ammo, if retrievable, is reusable.

In either case, the range
was certainly not limited to 30 ft.


the term used was "net effective range", not "net total range". what the
military calls "killing radius".

schlackoff, are you drunk so early in the evening that you post this trip
without knowing it?


(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 ----------------- 6:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
----------------------
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlakoff, admit you were the source of the conclusion, **IF** you are
capable
of understanding the ramifications of your statement. otherwise, admit you
abject stupidity.

Jox, admit your conclusion that "a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty
bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a
minute" is a completely absurd extension from the simple statement that
your original firing rate of "it took two men most of two minutes to
load and fire a crossbow, while a longbowman could pump out three shafts
a minute" is on the high side. If you can't imagine a true firing rate
somewhere between those two extremes, you are even dumber than you
appear to be... and that's pretty dumb.

Steve


(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

On 16 Oct 2004 01:18:58 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
In either case, the range
was certainly not limited to 30 ft.


the term used was "net effective range", not "net total range". what the
military calls "killing radius".


The term you used, was range, you claimed

"as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

Which is utter ********.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
They may call it 'ant and roach spray' but it sure does a
number on birds if you spray them with it long enough.

On 16 Oct 2004 01:20:48 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlackoff, are you drunk so early in the evening that you post this trip
without knowing it?

I didn't think you'd have the mental capacity to understand it. Here
you admit it's true.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 ----------------- 6:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
----------------------
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlakoff, admit you were the source of the conclusion, **IF** you are
capable
of understanding the ramifications of your statement. otherwise, admit you
abject stupidity.

Jox, admit your conclusion that "a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty
bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a
minute" is a completely absurd extension from the simple statement that
your original firing rate of "it took two men most of two minutes to
load and fire a crossbow, while a longbowman could pump out three shafts
a minute" is on the high side. If you can't imagine a true firing rate
somewhere between those two extremes, you are even dumber than you
appear to be... and that's pretty dumb.

Steve


(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/15/2004 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Oct 2004 00:30:55 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

rhys, I was taking schlackoff's stupid statement to its conclusion.

No, you were making yet another of your stupid statements.

Steve

jimmy, let me parse this for you.

"as a ------------------ weapon ---------------------------- of
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((war)))))))))))))))))) )))))))))), the biggest
crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

jimmy, that statement means if the damned thing is useless beyond 30 feet it
ain't a weapon of war. therefore, its [effective] range [as a weapon of war]
is 30 feet.

jimmy, let me explain this another way. An M-14 can pitch a round something
like 3,000 yards, yet its [effective] range is about 500 yards. Getting hit by
an M-14 round at 500 yards is going to cause some problems, while getting hit
by an M-14 round at 3,000 yards is likely to merely **** you off.

Jim Richardson
Date: 10/16/2004 12:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 16 Oct 2004 01:18:58 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
In either case, the range
was certainly not limited to 30 ft.


the term used was "net effective range", not "net total range". what the
military calls "killing radius".


The term you used, was range, you claimed

"as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

Which is utter ********.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
They may call it 'ant and roach spray' but it sure does a
number on birds if you spray them with it long enough.

schlackoff writes:

I didn't think

that ain't news, dood.

On 16 Oct 2004 13:30:09 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlackoff writes:

I didn't think

that ain't news, dood.

lol, enough said.:) Thanks for resorting to the oldest trick in the
book and proving once and for all that you're an idiot.

Steve

On 16 Oct 2004 16:49:33 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

idiot? schlackoff, *you* are the guy who to a toy crossbow and go hunting 17
year old pirates with AK-47's. So, who is the idiot?

Lay off the booze before you post, will ya? Oh, and to answer your
question, you are.

Steve

From: (Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/16/2004 11:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 16 Oct 2004 13:30:09 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlackoff writes:

I didn't think

that ain't news, dood.

lol, enough said.:) Thanks for resorting to the oldest trick in the
book and proving once and for all that you're an idiot.

Steve

On 16 Oct 2004 13:29:06 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jimmy, let me parse this for you.

"as a ------------------ weapon ---------------------------- of
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((war)))))))))))))))))) )))))))))), the biggest
crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

jimmy, that statement means if the damned thing is useless beyond 30 feet it
ain't a weapon of war. therefore, its [effective] range [as a weapon of war]
is 30 feet.


It doesn't matter how often you repeat it Jax, you are incorrect.


jimmy, let me explain this another way. An M-14 can pitch a round
something like 3,000 yards, yet its [effective] range is about 500
yards. Getting hit by an M-14 round at 500 yards is going to cause
some problems, while getting hit by an M-14 round at 3,000 yards is
likely to merely **** you off.


Not relevent to the claim you made regarding crossbows.



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life is too short to be taken seriously.
-- Oscar Wilde

jimmy, reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

not sure I am happy to see you are beyond reality, but hey, enjoy dood all
those green and orange colors.

From: Jim Richardson
Date: 10/16/2004 9:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 16 Oct 2004 13:29:06 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jimmy, let me parse this for you.

"as a ------------------ weapon ---------------------------- of
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((war)))))))))))))))))) )))))))))), the biggest
crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

jimmy, that statement means if the damned thing is useless beyond 30 feet
it
ain't a weapon of war. therefore, its [effective] range [as a weapon of
war]
is 30 feet.


It doesn't matter how often you repeat it Jax, you are incorrect.


jimmy, let me explain this another way. An M-14 can pitch a round
something like 3,000 yards, yet its [effective] range is about 500
yards. Getting hit by an M-14 round at 500 yards is going to cause
some problems, while getting hit by an M-14 round at 3,000 yards is
likely to merely **** you off.


Not relevent to the claim you made regarding crossbows.



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life is too short to be taken seriously.
-- Oscar Wilde