Just get a gun. Much easier to use.

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On 12 Oct 2004 13:57:53 -0700, (Parallax) wrote:

Is a crossbow considered to be a firearm? Prob not. So.........

Some places they are. Or if not a firearm, given their own category and
also controlled.

Use a tube as a crossbow bolt with sufficient ID to hold a 410 shotgun
shell. Inside the tube is a lead slug with a firing pin on its front
almost touching the primer of the shell. The shell is prevented from
sliding abckward against the pin by a lip so it cannot fire during
launch. However, the sudden stop of the bolt on reaching the target
causes the lead slug to slide forward firing the shell. Your bolts
would be pre-loaded but "safed" by a removeable piece that prevents
the lead slug from sliding. A hand cocked crossbow would be
sufficient since you are not relying on the velocity of the bolt to do
much.

Why go through all that? A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability) then what
you're describing above. Besides, even if the crossbow itself isn't
considered a firearm, your projectiles would be... so what's the point?
You're basically shooting a zip gun.

Steve

A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30 feet, as
compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow, however, could
penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed for war (except against
the infidels) by some pope.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
| A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
| effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)
|
| as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as
| compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow, however, could
| penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed for war (except
against
| the infidels) by some pope.

Gee, my Anglo background, I must have never been born, assuming of course,
the dubious pope was ignored by those most witting.

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

On 13 Oct 2004 11:12:22 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Did that tidbit about repeating rates come from the museum also? It was
obviously written by someone who has no experience firing either a
crossbow or a longbow.

Steve


Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2004 11:12:22 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive
display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the
lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Did that tidbit about repeating rates come from the museum also? It was
obviously written by someone who has no experience firing either a
crossbow or a longbow.

Steve


Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:40 -0400, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Last time I used a crossbow, it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault
No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field
'artillery" piece common since the Romans.

Now, if you could rig a mast-based trebuchet, you'd really have a
pirate deterrent, but I suspect it would only work on an unstayed rig
G

R.

Last time I used a crossbow,

the kiddie toys sold as crossbows today have draws similar to less than kiddie
longbows sold today. The weapons of war crossbows of old were something else.

it took maybe 10 seconds to load
and shoot. Maybe he was thinking of a catapault :

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.

(Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 10/13/2004 8:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 11:12:22 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive
display
of crossbows.

btw, IIRC it took two men most of two minutes to load and fire a crossbow,
while a longbowman could pump out three shafts a minute. That made the
lowbow
the artillery of its time and the crossbow the armor-busting handgranade.

Did that tidbit about repeating rates come from the museum also? It was
obviously written by someone who has no experience firing either a
crossbow or a longbow.

Steve


Jim Richardson
Date: 10/13/2004 5:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 13 Oct 2004 01:10:16 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
A real crossbow bolt would be a much more
effective projectile (accuracy, range, lethality, reliability)

as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet, as compared to about 100 years for long bows. the crossbow,
however, could penetrate a knight's armor. crossbows were outlawed
for war (except against the infidels) by some pope.


I assure you, that "as a weapon of war" crossbows are not limited in
range to 30 feet. Nor were long bows limited to 100 yards, (ignoring
obvious typo)

A good yew longbow, is capable of penetrating iron mail, at a distance
of greater than 100 yards. It's effectiveness on unarmoured targets goes
beyond that range.

A strong crossbow, with a metal prod, of about 200lbs, is quite capable
of penetrating light mail at 50 yards (not feet) The heavier quarrel
does have less effective range than a longbow or modern compound bow
shooting longer, but lighter arrows. The main advantage of the crossbow
was the simplicity of use, a longbowman took years to develope the
needed skill, crossbows could be used with far less training and
practice.

The last use of crossbows in general warfare, rather than as indigenous
weapons (like the Hmong bamboo crossbows in Vietnam) or special forces
type uses, was in the 1894-95 sino-japanese war, where many of the
chinese troops were armed with repeating crossbows, they weren't
particularly powerful, but they were interesting devices none the less,
and they were certainly lethal at a far greater range than 30 ft



--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Step by step, day by day, machine by machine, the penguins march forward.