| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
a non-fire fire-arm
Is a crossbow considered to be a firearm? Prob not. So.........
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. |
What you describe would be considered a firearm in most circles.
Crossbows are generally considered as a "firearm" in many areas. Doug s/v Callista "Parallax" wrote in message om... Is a crossbow considered to be a firearm? Prob not. So......... 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. |
|
|
in NYC, a slingshot is considered a lethal weapon.
You go through NYC going from western LIS to the Atlantic. lot of pirates there, though. be sure to take your Bowie Knife. Is a crossbow considered to be a firearm? Prob not. So......... 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. |
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. |
The attachment you are describing was readily available commercially in
the sixties and seventies when it was known as a powerhead, and used on spearguns, hand spears and hawaiin slings to slaughter sharks, groupers, rays, etc. I remember the joys of exploding jellyfish. Usually the powerhead was carried on the waist belt, and then clipped onto the spear over the usual head when needed. The authorities initially ignored powerheads, or were unaware of their existance, and then decided that they were concealable weapons with all the licensing requirements thereof. If you cruise internationally firearms of any form can be a major head ache, and concealable firearms even more so. Fair winds Graeme |
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. |
"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 :) Nobody, including Jax, knows what Jax was really thinking of. rhys wrote: No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field 'artillery" piece common since the Romans. Or an onager. 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 Might have a problem with accuracy. However, if you are attacked by pirates who have built a protective stone wall around their boat, you'd be all set! DSK |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:52:42 -0400, DSK wrote:
"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 :) Nobody, including Jax, knows what Jax was really thinking of. I was quite surprised at his claim to have visited a museum. Aren't they "no shoes, no shirt, no service" institutions? rhys wrote: No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field 'artillery" piece common since the Romans. Or an onager. AKA the mangonel...if there's a difference I can't see it. The one I like is the "Petraria Arcatinus", a bow-powered catapult. Combines the best of both worlds, although I suspect pretty decent-sized backing plates under the foredeck would be required. On the other hand, you could use the windlass to tension the thing. Certainly would impress the Commodore on Sailpast Day G 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 Might have a problem with accuracy. However, if you are attacked by pirates who have built a protective stone wall around their boat, you'd be all set! That would adversely affect most powerboats with the exception of the Magregor 26, which could use the ballast. R. |
OOH! The new trebouchet rig! Could be a real hit!
"rhys" wrote in message ... 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. |
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. |
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 : |
Would it be possible to fling a pestilence ridden dead animal over the stone
wall with this rig? Where would you keep this animal? I would think you'd want it close at hand, but far enough down wind.... "DSK" wrote in message ... "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 :) Nobody, including Jax, knows what Jax was really thinking of. rhys wrote: No, he was likely thinking of a ballista, the crossbow-like field 'artillery" piece common since the Romans. Or an onager. 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 Might have a problem with accuracy. However, if you are attacked by pirates who have built a protective stone wall around their boat, you'd be all set! DSK |
MMC wrote:
Would it be possible to fling a pestilence ridden dead animal over the stone wall with this rig? Where would you keep this animal? I would think you'd want it close at hand, but far enough down wind.... Sure. You could keep it downwind by hanging it from the spinnaker pole prior to loading it in the trebuchet. Umm, are we getting points for "silliest thread currently on usenet"? Regards Doug King |
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. Jox, your rate of fire on each are way off on the low side. As usual, you are wrong. Steve (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. |
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. Repeating it doesn't make it true. 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. I don't know where you get this kind of missinformation. While an archer can far exceed the rate of fire of most crossbows. Crossbows do not require 2 people, and 2 minutes to reload. A medieval type crossbow, of some 150-200lb draw weight, can be cocked and loaded in about 30-45sec using a goat's foot lever (google for details, it's a compound lever that allows you to cock the relatively short, but strong draw on the prod, relatively easily. For some of the siege crossbows, large frame mounted devices, they were often crew served, but those are a different kettle of fish. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock "If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started." |
On 14 Oct 2004 01:31:32 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote: 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 : Actually, a modern crossbow, with the fiberglas or composite prod, compares rather favourably with the medieval type. The higher grade metals used on the trigger system allow a higher pull weight, and the draw is longer also, increasing the energy imparted to the projectile. While many of the medieval style crossbows had pulls in excess of 200lbs, they also had short draws, often as little as 6 inches, due to the nature of the prod (whalebone, horn, sometimes metal, although good spring steel was not easy to make with the techniques known at the time) A modern hunting crossbow, with a draw weight of 150-175lbs, and a draw of 12-14 inches, is actually more powerful than the older style. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock RFC 882 put the dot in .com. |
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* ." |
sure, schlackoff, a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty bolts a minute, while a
100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a minute. anything you say. (Steven Shelikoff) Date: 10/13/2004 11:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: 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. Jox, your rate of fire on each are way off on the low side. As usual, you are wrong. Steve (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. |
well, jimmy, it is like this. I trust a museum for valid information more than
I trust you. notice how you dropped the size of the war grade crossbow from 350# draw to 150#, thusly dropping its already short range stopping power to an even shorter distance and it penetration power by 60%. you also dropped its reload time from two minutes to 3/4 of a minute. I suggest you not consider a crossbow as a defensive weapon. the crossbow lost out as a weapon of war long ago, and the longbow lost out first to artillery in a French battle in 1369. I was just repeating what I read in the Museum that had the extensive display of crossbows. Repeating it doesn't make it true. 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. I don't know where you get this kind of missinformation. While an archer can far exceed the rate of fire of most crossbows. Crossbows do not require 2 people, and 2 minutes to reload. A medieval type crossbow, of some 150-200lb draw weight, can be cocked and loaded in about 30-45sec using a goat's foot lever (google for details, it's a compound lever that allows you to cock the relatively short, but strong draw on the prod, relatively easily. For some of the siege crossbows, large frame mounted devices, they were often crew served, but those are a different kettle of fish. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock "If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started." |
jim a crossbow of long ago would so easily go through metal armor of the time
at a distance of up to 30 feet, that a pope outlawed the use of crossbows except against the infidels. the pope did not outlaw longbows. 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 : Actually, a modern crossbow, with the fiberglas or composite prod, compares rather favourably with the medieval type. The higher grade metals used on the trigger system allow a higher pull weight, and the draw is longer also, increasing the energy imparted to the projectile. While many of the medieval style crossbows had pulls in excess of 200lbs, they also had short draws, often as little as 6 inches, due to the nature of the prod (whalebone, horn, sometimes metal, although good spring steel was not easy to make with the techniques known at the time) A modern hunting crossbow, with a draw weight of 150-175lbs, and a draw of 12-14 inches, is actually more powerful than the older style. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock RFC 882 put the dot in .com. |
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* ." |
In article ,
Jim Richardson wrote: I don't know where you get this kind of missinformation. While an archer can far exceed the rate of fire of most crossbows. Crossbows do not require 2 people, and 2 minutes to reload. A medieval type crossbow, of some 150-200lb draw weight, can be cocked and loaded in about 30-45sec using a goat's foot lever (google for details, it's a compound lever that allows you to cock the relatively short, but strong draw on the prod, relatively easily. 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"? |
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? 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? Terry K |
On 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
sure, schlackoff, a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a minute. anything you say. Lol. That's what YOU said, not me. I just said you're way off on the firing rate, on the low side. It doesn't take 2 men 2 minutes to re-fire a crossbow and it doesn't take 20 seconds re-fire a longbow. Those numbers are gross exaggerations... just like your IQ. Steve (Steven Shelikoff) Date: 10/13/2004 11:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: 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. Jox, your rate of fire on each are way off on the low side. As usual, you are wrong. Steve (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. |
"Parallax" wrote
Is a crossbow considered to be a firearm? Prob not. So......... No, but it is a "dangerous weapon". A high ranking police official once laughed at gang bangers carrying "Numb Nuts" sticks because, as "dangerous weapons" they come under the same laws as firearms - with one major exception. If you get caught with a gun of dubious legality the NRA might come to your aid. So, if in doubt, carry the real thing. |
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:42:02 GMT, "MMC" wrote:
Would it be possible to fling a pestilence ridden dead animal over the stone wall with this rig? Where would you keep this animal? I would think you'd want it close at hand, but far enough down wind.... Launch it out of the hatch in the head. That why Peggie Hall places such importance on proper venting G R. |
On 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
sure, schlackoff, a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a minute. I don't think even Robin Hood could manage to pull, aim and release in 0.6 seconds, JAX. That would be premature archeration. Try "six per minute" and not sustained, either, as it is very tiring to volley arrows. If you wanted to "shoot your load", a modern longbow can loose up to 14 arrows in a minute (see http://www.channel4.com/history/micr.../longbow1.html but if you got six a minute for 20 minutes at say, Agincourt or other real-life battles where the longbow was the primary offensive weapon, you would be doing very well indeed. R. |
On 14 Oct 2004 12:34:37 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote: well, jimmy, it is like this. I trust a museum for valid information more than I trust you. notice how you dropped the size of the war grade crossbow from 350# draw to 150#, thusly dropping its already short range stopping power to an even shorter distance and it penetration power by 60%. you also dropped its reload time from two minutes to 3/4 of a minute. since you were the one that came up with the 350lb figure in the first place, I dropped nothing.... Jax evasion noted Since you were the one that came up with the 2 min number in the first place, I dropped nothing. further Jax evasion noted. Your need to belittle those who disagree with you is also noted. I agree that a museum would be a good source of info on crossbows, as are several books, I don't know how much your blinders will let you see though. I suggest you not consider a crossbow as a defensive weapon. the crossbow lost out as a weapon of war long ago, and the longbow lost out first to artillery in a French battle in 1369. Crossbows, despite your claim to the contrary, outlasted longbows as a weapon in general use, in both europe, and China. 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. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock When the DM smiles, it's already too late. |
On 14 Oct 2004 12:36:57 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote: jim a crossbow of long ago would so easily go through metal armor of the time at a distance of up to 30 feet, that a pope outlawed the use of crossbows except against the infidels. the pope did not outlaw longbows. Finally, some accurate facts from you. But again, only half the story. Yes, a bodkin point would penetrate mail at 30ft, and at 30 yards, and some distance beyond. Yes, pope Innocent II declared the crossbow "ateful to God and unfit for Christians." sometime in the 12th centyury. What you seem to miss, is that he did so, because the crossbow leveled the field wrt the armoured knight. Allowing any peasant to kill an expensively trained and armoured knight. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Ahhh... I see the ****-up fairy has visited us again. |
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. |
What are "Numb Nuts" sticks? Do you mean numchucks?
Doug s/v Callista "Vito" wrote in message ... "Parallax" wrote Is a crossbow considered to be a firearm? Prob not. So......... No, but it is a "dangerous weapon". A high ranking police official once laughed at gang bangers carrying "Numb Nuts" sticks because, as "dangerous weapons" they come under the same laws as firearms - with one major exception. If you get caught with a gun of dubious legality the NRA might come to your aid. So, if in doubt, carry the real thing. |
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. rhys Date: 10/14/2004 11:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: On 14 Oct 2004 12:28:53 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote: sure, schlackoff, a 350# draw crossbow can fire twenty bolts a minute, while a 100# longbow can fire off nearer to 100 shafts a minute. I don't think even Robin Hood could manage to pull, aim and release in 0.6 seconds, JAX. That would be premature archeration. Try "six per minute" and not sustained, either, as it is very tiring to volley arrows. If you wanted to "shoot your load", a modern longbow can loose up to 14 arrows in a minute (see http://www.channel4.com/history/micr.../longbow1.html but if you got six a minute for 20 minutes at say, Agincourt or other real-life battles where the longbow was the primary offensive weapon, you would be doing very well indeed. R. |
[head shakes]
Jim Richardson Date: 10/14/2004 2:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: On 14 Oct 2004 12:34:37 GMT, JAXAshby wrote: well, jimmy, it is like this. I trust a museum for valid information more than I trust you. notice how you dropped the size of the war grade crossbow from 350# draw to 150#, thusly dropping its already short range stopping power to an even shorter distance and it penetration power by 60%. you also dropped its reload time from two minutes to 3/4 of a minute. since you were the one that came up with the 350lb figure in the first place, I dropped nothing.... Jax evasion noted Since you were the one that came up with the 2 min number in the first place, I dropped nothing. further Jax evasion noted. Your need to belittle those who disagree with you is also noted. I agree that a museum would be a good source of info on crossbows, as are several books, I don't know how much your blinders will let you see though. I suggest you not consider a crossbow as a defensive weapon. the crossbow lost out as a weapon of war long ago, and the longbow lost out first to artillery in a French battle in 1369. Crossbows, despite your claim to the contrary, outlasted longbows as a weapon in general use, in both europe, and China. 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. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock When the DM smiles, it's already too late. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com