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)

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".

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.

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.

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