Survivalist Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have been wondering for a while now about how one with a decent crossbow could do against foes with guns. I think if you had a crossbow and you could conceal yourself, you could get them and they wouldn't even know what was going on. How well do you think someone (trained in the art) could do against people with firearms? :confused:
 

·
Apathetic Protagonist
Joined
·
70 Posts
Crossbows are great hunting weapons but poor for self-defense. There's a reason why modern warfare favors firearms. Several actually:

1. Size. Most handguns are invisible if properly concealed in casual clothing. A crossbow is bulky and very difficult to conceal without arousing suspicion.

2. Loading time. After one shot, you reload by bracing the xbow by a loop at the head and then pulling back the string and loading another bolt. An experienced archer can do this in a couple of seconds - but you have to stand still and take your eyes off the target to do so. Conversely, it takes less than a second to release a magazine and load another.

This is the #1 reason why a crossbow should not be used as a primary, secondary, or even tertiary defensive weapon; multiple attackers will overwhelm you even if you manage to get a bolt or two off.

3. Stopping power. A well-placed bolt will kill almost anything; but lethality does not equal stopping power. A bolt can sever an artery or pierce the heart or throat, but your fatally-wounded attacker still has plenty of time to dump dozens of rounds into you. In fact, they may not even realize how bad they've been hit; modern arrowheads are razor sharp and complete pass-throughs are common on deer-sized targets with as little as a 50-pound pull. Your attacker is eventually brought down by blood loss - a process that can take hours even with a well-placed shot - but you will already be overwhelmed and slain by then.

The real damage done by a bullet isn't necessarily the direct path that it travels through something; its sheer kinetic energy tears the tissue around it and causes all sorts of secondary damage. Hence hollowpoints; they deliver ALL the kinetic energy of a bullet directly into the target, causing massive damage. A crossbow bolt will continue flying past your target, expending only a portion of its comparably small kinetic energy on the target itself.

4. Cost. A good crossbow will run you $500+ easily. You might be able to find a good deal somewhere, but you can buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun for the same amount of money. Or less.

Now, all that said: Experience is the best weapon. And an experienced xbow archer wouldn't get into a toe-to-toe fight with a firearm. It's as simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
Must agree with wild eyes here, although a crossbow is better than nothing.

It's also got at least some intimidation factor, so it's not impossible that you could turn someone away with the threat of it if they don't feel that stealing your goodies, or your life, is worth risking their own.

It would probably be most useful against humans as an offensive weapon, or for perimeter defense ... but no more effective than a gun psychologically methinks, and with significantly less stopping power.

Doritos go amazingly well with pork eggrolls.
 

·
ruralist
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Agreed with AK that it's certainly an offensive, surprise attacking, even murderous weapon rather than a self defence weapon. Wild Eyes makes good points, no more important one than that of reloading time. Here's one I will challenge though; :thumb:
complete pass-throughs are common on deer-sized targets with as little as a 50-pound pull. Your attacker is eventually brought down by blood loss - a process that can take hours even with a well-placed shot - but you will already be overwhelmed and slain by then.

The real damage done by a bullet isn't necessarily the direct path that it travels through something; its sheer kinetic energy tears the tissue around it and causes all sorts of secondary damage. Hence hollowpoints; they deliver ALL the kinetic energy of a bullet directly into the target, causing massive damage. A crossbow bolt will continue flying past your target, expending only a portion of its comparably small kinetic energy on the target itself.
There are razor sharp bolts, but also broadhead mechanical ones that expand to impressive, jaggy diameters and which are therefore less likely to pass through. 300WSM upped a report of a non pass through on a deer using a rage expandable broadhead in the hunting subforum right here. The relevance of this is similar to your hollow point message; all the comparatively small kinetic energy could in fact be dispersed in the target. Which in the case of a 22lr vs high-end crossbow would, by the average .22lr & ammo standards, be similar or more impact energy even were the bolt not particularly heavy (300gr etc) and if velocity not diminished by distance. Yes as with bullets the surface area of what munition one delivers is as important as it's weight and velocity and in the case of xbows this surface area can be significant as the bolt provides balance to an otherwise top heavy munition, so long as in cases of serious weight it is fired more as an arched weapon rather than by flat trajectory. Getting the equivilent of 170ft/lbs impact energy for example blasted into one's internal organs, puncturing a hole of inches not milimeters, is nothing to be sniffed at and would clearly be noticable on the part of the victim - high on adrenaline or not. But of course, the .22 lr user could reload, or just fire again, faster in return. Against higher calibres this relative stopping power is non-existant, so a bolt through the brain or heart would be the only chance.. after a miss of which, trouble lies ahead. With a hit there, one could just retreat and listen to the screams from afar, until they die out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I was meaning silent killing/surprise attacking (I should have said that) not a full on gun vs. xbow battle; that would be suicide. I have heard stories of the Montagnards in Vietnam fighting the VC in the jungle utilizing simple weapons including xbows. How would one accomplish these tactics?- DB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Using the xbow in a sniping type silent situation would require some skills similar to sniping. When comparing guns and xbows in this situation they would be equally matched except for range and stopping power. Getting within range will be difficult unless you are waiting for the target to come to you. Like mentioned previously you have to make your first shot count.
 

·
Where da' gold at?
Joined
·
566 Posts
Using the xbow in a sniping type silent situation would require some skills similar to sniping. When comparing guns and xbows in this situation they would be equally matched except for range and stopping power. Getting within range will be difficult unless you are waiting for the target to come to you. Like mentioned previously you have to make your first shot count.
I agree. I was watching a documentary about Vietnam where a guy remembered when he was on a patrol securing a village, and while going down the trail was shot in the back by VC with a crossbow. The guy lived and the VC hauled. But, it could have very well killed him. I would not however, even consider using one unless I had to (cause it is better than nothing) and I would shoot once, then get outta there.
 

·
Apathetic Protagonist
Joined
·
70 Posts
The range of a crossbow is a limiting factor, but as far as stealth goes, it's pretty good. Most bows are built to reduce noise so your prey doesn't jump the string.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Agreed with AK that it's certainly an offensive, surprise attacking, even murderous weapon rather than a self defence weapon. Wild Eyes makes good points, no more important one than that of reloading time. Here's one I will challenge though; :thumb:


There are razor sharp bolts, but also broadhead mechanical ones that expand to impressive, jaggy diameters and which are therefore less likely to pass through. 300WSM upped a report of a non pass through on a deer using a rage expandable broadhead in the hunting subforum right here. The relevance of this is similar to your hollow point message; all the comparatively small kinetic energy could in fact be dispersed in the target. Which in the case of a 22lr vs high-end crossbow would, by the average .22lr & ammo standards, be similar or more impact energy even were the bolt not particularly heavy (300gr etc) and if velocity not diminished by distance. Yes as with bullets the surface area of what munition one delivers is as important as it's weight and velocity and in the case of xbows this surface area can be significant as the bolt provides balance to an otherwise top heavy munition, so long as in cases of serious weight it is fired more as an arched weapon rather than by flat trajectory. Getting the equivilent of 170ft/lbs impact energy for example blasted into one's internal organs, puncturing a hole of inches not milimeters, is nothing to be sniffed at and would clearly be noticable on the part of the victim - high on adrenaline or not. But of course, the .22 lr user could reload, or just fire again, faster in return. Against higher calibres this relative stopping power is non-existant, so a bolt through the brain or heart would be the only chance.. after a miss of which, trouble lies ahead. With a hit there, one could just retreat and listen to the screams from afar, until they die out.
Where do you come up with this BS? Kinetic energy is never a consideration with any archery equipment with regard to knockdown power. Kinetic energy does play a consideration with some biggame hunting where penetration is an issue, hence one would choose 125 grain broadhead vs 85 grain broadhead when shooting an elk. Mass of the arrow must be balanced with draw weight for puropses of arrow flight because improper arrow spine leads to erratic flight. Speed is a consideration because it flattens the trajectory and increases the distance the arrow can travel before a reaction becomes possible (reaction time is always the same as it is determined by the speed of sound).

Your whole premise is based on the fallacy that a broadhead takes an extended time to kill. The average deer I shoot lives about 10 seconds after the arrow strikes. It would be the same for a person.

However crossbows have no place on the modern battlefield for a number of reasons. They would not penetrate body armour. The are completely ineffective for purposes of fire and movement. The modern battlefield is all about acheiving an advantage through suppressive fire, and then exploiting that advantage through movement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I had a Excaliber crossbow. It is one of the best. I could hit a five gallion bucket at 100 yards but it takes a lot of work to adjust the sights that high. A deer at 50 yards was easy. Slow to load and you almost have to be standing up.
 

·
ruralist
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Kinetic energy is never a consideration with any archery equipment with regard to knockdown power.

Kinetic energy does play a consideration with some biggame hunting where penetration is an issue, hence one would choose 125 grain broadhead vs 85 grain broadhead when shooting an elk.

It would be the same for a person.
Do you realise what you just said? Jibberish, that's what, self contradictory jibberish. Kinetic energy is of course a major importance in the design of and use of bows and crossbows. You are perhaps blissfully unaware of heavy hunting broadheads, or do not possess a bow or xbow powerful enough to deliver them with accuracy.
Mass of the arrow must be balanced with draw weight for puropses of arrow flight because improper arrow spine leads to erratic flight.
High end crossbows can fire upto 400grs, which is within their draw weight "purposes" you clueless muppet and exactly what context I was talking in.
Speed is a consideration because it flattens the trajectory and increases the distance the arrow can travel before a reaction becomes possible (reaction time is always the same as it is determined by the speed of sound).
Are you trying to state some facts here? Speed is a consideration because it flattens the trajectory and increases the distance the arrow can travel before a reaction becomes possible (reaction time is always the same as it is determined by the speed of sound)? What are you babbling about? This is totally irrelevant to what I have posted, just arbitary misfits of info. Reaction time? WTF I was talking balistics not the Matrix boy :rofl: In higher cases of weight which I think is what you are dribbling on about crossbows can be fired as arched weapons - perhaps you should try this sometime.
Your whole premise is based on the fallacy that a broadhead takes an extended time to kill.
What? I have not once insinuated that a broadhead takes an "extended" time to kill? Where do you read into this? I insinuated the exact opposite, quite clearly in the English language. You may know how to type clichés like "your whole premise is based on (upon) the fallacy that" but you need to then proceed to say something logical, to succeed in your trollery efforts.
The average deer I shoot lives about 10 seconds the arrow strikes. It would be the same for a person.
I don't believe for a second you have ever shot a deer. Aside this, what's your point? I've not insinuated that it would take a long time anywhere in the thread. I think you picked that "10 seconds" straight from the thread I adhered to in the last post and which totally dubunked your theory and supposed practical knowledge that there was no such thing as a non pass "thru" :rofl:
However crossbows have no place on the modern battlefield for a number of reasons. They would not penetrate body armour. The are completely ineffective for purposes of fire and movement. The modern battlefield is all about acheiving an advantage through suppressive fire, and then exploiting that advantage through movement.
I dont think that is what the OP is interested in, try to stay in the right thread sunshine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
Where do you come up with this BS? Kinetic energy is never a consideration with any archery equipment with regard to knockdown power. Kinetic energy does play a consideration with some biggame hunting where penetration is an issue, hence one would choose 125 grain broadhead vs 85 grain broadhead when shooting an elk. Mass of the arrow must be balanced with draw weight for puropses of arrow flight because improper arrow spine leads to erratic flight. Speed is a consideration because it flattens the trajectory and increases the distance the arrow can travel before a reaction becomes possible (reaction time is always the same as it is determined by the speed of sound).

Your whole premise is based on the fallacy that a broadhead takes an extended time to kill. The average deer I shoot lives about 10 seconds after the arrow strikes. It would be the same for a person.

However crossbows have no place on the modern battlefield for a number of reasons. They would not penetrate body armour. The are completely ineffective for purposes of fire and movement. The modern battlefield is all about acheiving an advantage through suppressive fire, and then exploiting that advantage through movement.
Pass-thru, your knowledge of bow hunting is amazing, amazingly incorrect. FACT Arrows kill by one thing alone, and that is damaging the circulatory system, BLOOD LOSS, 10 seconds? NOT.
Kinetic energy is the energy imparted on the arrow by the bow/crossbow.
Balanced mass? do you make this stuff up?
Body armor, with the exception of the plate itself Broadheads are especially well suited for defeating body armor as they SLICE not compress to penetrate the aramid fibers that defeat bullets.

You do realize that making this crap up is extremely annoying to those of us who know the real facts, don't you? And you are aware that we DO talk amongst ourselves and let others know who is totally full of it, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Arrexian.....I'm through trying to educate you.....you're hopelessly lost in ignorance.

Pass-thru, your knowledge of bow hunting is amazing, amazingly incorrect. FACT Arrows kill by one thing alone, and that is damaging the circulatory system, BLOOD LOSS, 10 seconds? NOT.
Kinetic energy is the energy imparted on the arrow by the bow/crossbow.
You can cast aspersions.....but I am an accomplished bowhunter and apparently the only one here with a working knowledge of killing with archery equipment. I do not dispute that broaheads kill by cutting and causing blood loss. That was the whole purpose of my debunking idiot-boys post on "trasferring energy" to the target....that would be irrelevant because knock down power is not a consideration with archery equipment...you just need enough power to run an arrow through the target, which for a deer or a person is about 30# draw weight. Increasing the draw weight increases accuracy by reducing the trajectory and improving the distance before the critter reacts to the sound of the shot. The fact that you dispute a 10 second kill shows that you are not an experienced bow hunter. I've killed about 2 dozen deer with my bow. All of these were hit in the heart or lungs. Only 2 of them lived more than 5 minutes after the shot. They were one lung sitters....they were only hit through one lung and sat down rather than running off. Still, they were both dead in well under 10 minutes. All of the rest were dead in under a minute, with the perponderance dead in approximately 10 seconds, a couple even less. How so? When you shoot a deer straight through the lungs, it takes off on a dead run and empties it's body of blood in just a few bounds. The biggest buck I ever killed with my bow was over 200#'s and coverd 75 yards after the shot, hopped a fense and fell dead in 7 seconds flat. You don't even have to hunt to understand this, just watch a few hunting videos.

Balanced mass? do you make this stuff up?
No, I don't. Anybody with a basic understanding of the physics of archery will understand what I mean. Spine referrs to the stiffness/bend resistance of the arrow. As you know, arrowrs and bolts are hollow. As you increase the kinetic energy by increasing the drawweight, you must correspondingly increase the spine of the arrow in order for it to withstand the kinectic energy and acheive proper flight. Spine is achieved by balancing the mass of the arrow. You can acheive this several ways. One, by increasing the mass of the arrow, which is in turn reduces arrow speed, negating the benefit of the increased draw weight: we've already established that energy transfer or knockdown power is irrelevant because it is the cutting and bleeding kills. You can also increase the over all diameter of the hollow shaft. Finally you can increase the thickness of the walls of the shaft. All of these methods have diminishing returns. Eventually you must sacrifice speed when increasing spine to accomodate increased kinetic energy. At that point you achieve nothing by increasing draw weight. That is why arrow speed max's out slightly above 300 fps. That is why you will never see a hunting bow with a draw weight of more than 70-80#. Even then, those shooting 80 are doing it to impress their friends. For a crossbow the pull weight is 150-200#, but guess what....still don't achieve faster arrow flight.

Body armor, with the exception of the plate itself Broadheads are especially well suited for defeating body armor as they SLICE not compress to penetrate the aramid fibers that defeat bullets.
You're fantasizing. Body armour would destroy a broadhead. It would never penetrate. Furthermore, the arrow/bolt would shatter on impact, making penetration impossible even if the broadhead could withstand impact with body armour.

You do realize that making this crap up is extremely annoying to those of us who know the real facts, don't you? And you are aware that we DO talk amongst ourselves and let others know who is totally full of it, right?
Oooooh gossip...lol! I'm terrified. Unfortunately this site is plagued with those who are full of it. Hence the fascination with combat cross bows. You appear to be at the top of the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Do you realise what you just said? Jibberish, that's what, self contradictory jibberish. Kinetic energy is of course a major importance in the design of and use of bows and crossbows. You are perhaps blissfully unaware of heavy hunting broadheads, or do not possess a bow or xbow powerful enough to deliver them with accuracy...

High end crossbows can fire upto 400grs, which is within their draw weight "purposes" you clueless muppet and exactly what context I was talking in.
Yep....never seen a broadhead of any kind heavier than 125 grains. Why don't you provide a link for us? Also show me a crossbow shooting more than 350fps. You blatantly have no clue, and it is amusing. Don't understand the concept of spine? Figures.....BTW, I said kinetic energy is not important for the purpose of energy transfer, aka knockdown power, as you drothered on about.....penetration and speed are important, penetration regarding large game like elk and bear.


Are you trying to state some facts here? Speed is a consideration because it flattens the trajectory and increases the distance the arrow can travel before a reaction becomes possible (reaction time is always the same as it is determined by the speed of sound)? What are you babbling about? This is totally irrelevant to what I have posted, just arbitary misfits of info. Reaction time? WTF I was talking balistics not the Matrix boy :rofl:
In higher cases of weight which I think is what you are dribbling on about crossbows can be fired as arched weapons - perhaps you should try this sometime.
"arched weapons".....freaking hilarious. You don't even understand the basic terminology you are grasping for. Try plunging fire vs grazing fire?

Your ignorance of reaction time is very telling. That's why shot's on a whitetail are a crapshoot past 30 yards....it hears the shot and has time to react by jumping the string. Try shooting at a person 80-100 yards away, they're going to hear the shot and have time to possibly react. Reaction time is always the same because it is determined by the speed of sound. However the speed of the bolt determines how far the bolt travels in that time, therefore giving you the distance in which your target will not have time to react to the shot. Don't you feel like an idiot having no clue about the fundamentals of archery.

What? I have not once insinuated that a broadhead takes an "extended" time to kill? Where do you read into this? I insinuated the exact opposite, quite clearly in the English language. You may know how to type clichés like "your whole premise is based on (upon) the fallacy that" but you need to then proceed to say something logical, to succeed in your trollery efforts.
I surmised that you were working off of that misconception, otherwise why would you blabber on about the transfer of energy and compare that of a crossbow with .22lr?! Of course I should have know better with you, all of your posts are based in fantasy and other nonense you pull of the web.
 

·
ruralist
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
You don't even have to hunt to understand this, just watch a few hunting videos.
That's exactly what you have done and all you do, on any topic you want to troll someone on. You've stormed in claiming that kinetic energy does not exist with archery equipment? But it only exists in your supposed experience, within certain parameters (50", 125gr)? Even if it did, the logic of the argument stands that not necessarily all firearms have more "stopping power" than high end crossbows. Swivel on it, in misery.
I surmised that you were working off of that misconception, otherwise why would you blabber on about the transfer of energy and compare that of a crossbow with .22lr?!
Someone made a blanket statement that all firearms had more stopping power (impact ft/lbs). That is not true. I demonstrated that with my experience and knowledge, something you could only froth and raise irrelevant points about.
 

·
Doomsayer
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
I can only assume your query is about crossbows vs handguns?

One man with an M1A could kill dozens of men with crossbows before they could get in range.
 

·
ruralist
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Can't believe I'm doing this..

Yep....never seen a broadhead of any kind heavier than 125 grains. Why don't you provide a link for us?
Alright,

The small diameter of .97” with the long time favored 3 to 1 ratio weighing 300 grains
I already had a 300 gr. setup for a wide 2 blade with steel adapters, and the 300-Xtreem flew perfect on these arrows from the bows I would be hunting with.
http://peteward.com/2008pages/test.Xtreem300.htm


Concorde 300 grain screw in 3 pack - $14.99
Concorde 300 specifications: .060 spring steel, 2 9/16" long and 1 1/8" wide.
Also show me a crossbow shooting more than 350fps.
Okay,

The Bowtech Stryker crossbow has a power stroke of 17" a draw weight of 175 lb and bolt velocity of 405 fps with the advised 425 grain bolt giving a kinetic energy of 155 foot pounds.
http://www.strykerxbow.com/stryker.php


http://www.barnettcrossbows.com/compoundcrossbows/predator_avi.asp
produces speeds to 375 Feet Per Second.
You blatantly have no clue, and it is amusing.
[/quote]
Really. There are a lot more such crossbows and broadheads, I've seen one at 450fps too. This took me about 10 mins to write (with pretty pictures for your little mind to understand included), but seconds to find a lot of examples of. Why I bothered I am unsure, you are an actor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,224 Posts
Broadheads won't cut body armor?
:rofl:


Ok ok....ceramic or steel plates plates maybe.....but no kevlar is toast as is the wearer.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top