On 14 Oct 2004 01:29:49 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
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* ."

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.

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* ."

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.

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.

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