[Archers] Early Crossbow with Stock

[Fen & Michelle]

Just as a point of courtesy for those who may not know: you *will* see some riflestock crossbows at Pennsic. Our ruling against is Atlantia specific only. So don't jump someone who brings you a riflestock during inspections. And no snarky remarks either ;)

Cheers
Fen

Atlantian Archery. Nothing exists within 100 yards without our permission.
  


On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:10 AM, Siegfried <siegfried at crossbows.biz> wrote:
  


On 6/18/14, 4:47 AM, Garth Groff wrote:
> So now, lets shift this discussion a bit. Our rules also prohibit
> "non-period trackless crossbows". While I haven't searched these
> diligently, all the images and photos I've seen are from the 17th
> century or later.
[...]
> All the 17th and 18th century trackless crossbows I've found in images
> are "stone bows"
[...]
> The 20th/21st century adaptations I've seen
> remove the slingshot-style pocket, and substitute a plain string for
> (apparently) bolts with large-sized nocks. If we could find a pre-17th
> century example of one of these bows adapted for bolts, could it serve
> as a prototype for a legal weapon

Also, they exist :)   VERY late period, but close enough that one can
extrapolate.  As you state, they look just like a stone bow, but are
designed in such a way as to be used with an arrow.

In fact, one could even make something that visually looks just like a
stonebow, but just modify it to take bolts, and use the:  "I wanted a
stonebow but our targets aren't designed to score a pellet hitting them,
only an arrow"

And you'd be perfectly fine.  You would have a period, or at least
period-looking crossbow.  Without any modern benefits.   (In fact, there
are some rather solid drawbacks because of physics about that style of bow).

I have a photo stored .... somewhere around here, of a late 16th century
crossbow that was designed with two prods, and to fire 2 bolts.   One
sat on a normal track.   The other one had a separate prod, that was
VERY bend upwards into the sky ... And then there was a raised post at
front and back, that a bolt would be supported in, that this second prod
shot.

> or are they prohibited as a class for some safety reason?

No, not at all.

Realize that with most of our rules (that one in particular, which goes
hand-in-hand with the 'no center shot crossbows') ... Are designed to do
one of two things:

either:

1. Keep the game fair, by disallowing modern technology/conveniences.
    or
2. Make sure we still appear medieval, since we ARE supposed to be doing
re-enactment.

That specific rule in question here (again, along with it's "no center
shot" counterpart) ... Are an attempt to ban the modern target
crossbows.   There are modern target crossbows, which are still not
compounds (by modern rules which disallow that, just like with Olympic
Recurves) ... Which cost upwards of $5000, and are designed to have
'same hole accuracy' at 300 yards.

Obviously, that's not in the spirit of the game here.   Besides being
made to exactly gun-level-standards out of all modern materials ...

They specifically make use of two features to achieve this:

1. They have a design of a 'floating track', that allows zero friction
on the string as there is no track for the string to ride upon.
    AND
2. They have their prod split in half, and the bolt passing through the
middle of it.  Meaning that it's extremely efficient, and has zero
'archers paradox' type effects on the bolts.

Those rules are designed to keep those crossbows (sometimes
ineffectively because of certain kingdoms rulings about them), off our
medieval fields.

In Service,
Siegfried



-- 
Barun Siegfried Sebastian Faust, OP - Atlantia
http://hf.atlantia.sca.org/- http://crossbows.biz/- http://eliw.com/
_______________________________________________
Archers mailing list
Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20140618/0199ad84/attachment.htm>