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.