Yep you got me Confirmed Hinge release shooter but this is such a fun thread to get involved with and I had forgotten about the Oneida bows Ive only ever seen one in all the years Ive been shooting
I agree with you about what you would least like to face. That got me thinking and what I would least like to face is a compound cross bow in open country, at ranges of 150 to 80 yds. Below that fixed pin compound.Think about what you would least like to face as an enemy combatant - that's the one you should choose. I'd say crossbow, followed by compound shot with a fixed pin sight. I'd have little concern if the enemy was using longbows/warbows.
That leaves the extra power of the compound which enables engagement at longer ranges than long bows.It would all depend on the battles layout really. If your archers were a big body of infantry akin to medieval regiments then the accuracy of the compound would be lost as volley fire would be just as effective. If it was small groups then perhaps it would be more worth the extra expense.
OR
Perhaps without gun powder we'd have worked more on the repeater crossbow to increase the power, accuracy and speed by making it more automated. leaving other bowtypes for the speacialists, e.g. snipers/artillary
Just curious - has anyone tried loosing a 'modern livery arrow' (ie a modern interpretation of the mediaeval war-arrow) from a 120lb compound?That leaves the extra power of the compound which enables engagement at longer ranges than long bows.
Very good question... The better acceleration characteristic of a compound might get lost a bit in the shorter draw and I dunno how the various pivots, cams etc would react to the higher inertial loading of a big fat arrow.Just curious - has anyone tried loosing a 'modern livery arrow' (ie a modern interpretation of the mediaeval war-arrow) from a 120lb compound?
Ie - something with a bodkin type pile, and the weight behind it to punch through the armour that would undoubtedly come into sudden fashion.
I'm curious because most modern archery is done with 'as light as possible' arrows - not 'as heavy as reasonably usable'. (the reason for the weight obviously is to give the arrow a decently fatal amount of momentum at the point if impact. momentum = mass x velocity iirc)
Half inch arrow wouldn't fit through their stupid contraptions would it? There must be all manner of bits and pieces all carefully calibrated to the Nth degree which would collapse with a hernia if it was offered a 13mm shaft.
The arrow on the left is a 30X.
These are similar in size to a Doinker stabilizer.
Compounds (and their bits) LOOOVE heavy arrows. And even a short draw compounds of say 26" delivers any given arrow with more energy than an equivalent longbow, even with 5 or 6 extra inches of draw.Very good question... The better acceleration characteristic of a compound might get lost a bit in the shorter draw and I dunno how the various pivots, cams etc would react to the higher inertial loading of a big fat arrow.
The reliability issues after a weeks march would be interesting....
"Ooooh has anyone got an Allen key??"
Del
No. For long distance target archery anyway, you want an arrow that is as thin as possible and as heavy as you possibly can - so long as it allows decent sight marks. These characteristics minimise wind effects.I'm curious because most modern archery is done with 'as light as possible' arrows - not 'as heavy as reasonably usable'.
Highly entertaining, and I cannot resist. I gave up compounds some years back when bits started falling off on the line halfway through a comp. An international archer I know says she has seen several compounds exploded in their cases when opened after plane flights? But our cousins the Sceptics hunt with them all the time? Perhaps they just drive to the tree stand and open the boot? And carry spare cables, strings, rests, etc. Howard Hill of course hunted elephant in Africa with a longbow.