[MR] NOCK requirements Approved nocks

[Rupert Gaddy]

>Return-Path: <Rgaddy1 at mindspring.com>
>X-Sender: Rgaddy1 at mindspring.com
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:05:38 -0400
>To: Rupert Gaddy <Rgaddy1 at mindspring.com>
>From: Rupert Gaddy <Rgaddy1 at mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: [MR] NOCK requirements Approved nocks
>
>
>This is the only source of information on the ABD or APD that I can
>currently find, I understand it is also being linked to the SEM's web page.
>
>http://fellwalker.com/SCA/missile/ABD/index2.html
>
>Please note that the constuction shown is in one case for fellwalkers (what
>ever they are)
>
>Also note that at the moment, they are working on a device for crossbows.....
>
>You might cut and paste the link in the hopes that it gets updated in time
>for you to do something to your arrows before Pennsic.
>
>
>Rupert
>
>
>
>At 06:27 PM 4/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>>Greeting to Gentles in the Tavern who are engaged in combat archery, or who
>>commmand units composed in part of archers, marshals and autocrats who are
>>concerned with CA at events, etc:
>>
>>
>>For those of you who have not been following the actions of the SEM, it
>>appears that all combat arrows must be retrofitted with an anti bounce back
>>device (also called an anti penetration device) to be legal after August 1.
>>
>>There are a few such devices "approved" but testing goes on and the plans
>>for them are not widely available.  None that I know of have been testing
>>in this Kingdom and approved by the KEM or the KAM.  I will attempt to post
>>as much information on "approved" (by the SEM) devices as I am able to find
>>them.
>>
>>For those of you interesting in trying to follow the discussions and
>>suggestions on how to comply, as well as new constructions being tested,
>>please subscribe to SCA-MissileCombat at yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>While I am as concerned as anyone with the possiblity of eye injuries from
>>an arrow....or any other source....I personally see this reaction to the
>>events at Gulf Wars as being way too strong and way too fast. IMHO These
>>devices are still being developed, have no safety record, and may even
>>eventually prove to increase danger is some way. (Trying do decrease bounce
>>back they made the baldars so that they are almost sure to glance if shot
>>at a target at more than a 30 degree angle according to Robert the
>>Forgotten)  They also fail to address the major, well documented causes of
>>eye injury in combat, focusing instead on the one documented eye injury and
>>a few helm penetrations mostly at Gulf Wars, and has failed to address the
>>increased risk of these incidents with crossbow as opposed to recurves.  To
>>my opinion, the suggestion of eye protection, if not the requirement of
>>some type of goggle would make far more sense in solving eye dangers for
>>those who do not want to take the risk.
>>
>>Most of the Atlantian posts on the various lists have been opposed to this
>>requirement, but the BOD has seen fit to uphold the actions of its officer,
>>and it is its right to do so.  However since the BOD is to take it up again
>>in October, I urge you each to write your comments to the BOD at once.
>>
>>
>>Apparently the BOD received over 300 emails in the two or three days the
>>SEM's actions were generally known on the combat archery list, I have no
>>way of knowing how many favored and how many opposed, but the BOD has at
>>least for now upheld the SEM and will "review" the decision in Oct.  This
>>basicly makes it a done deal, especially for Pennsic
>>
>>While I strongly disagree with the SEM's rule, I know he is doing what he
>>is thinking is the best route to safety, please do not take my post as an
>>attack on him or the BOD, I just think they have made the wrong call on
>>this one.
>>
>>
>>Please plan accordingly.
>>
>>I personally will probably NOT try to meet the requirements in the time
>>period allowed.  I have too many questions, not enough information, and if
>>(a BIG IF now) I attend Pennsic I will probably just take my old golftube
>>arrows...Which I suggest to any gentles still having them as being an short
>>term solution.
>>
>>I do not know what this will do the the Atlantian archers at Pennsic or
>>other events after August 1, but captains and other leaders should survey
>>their expected archers, spread this word, and plan accordingly.  Autocrats
>>and MICs may wish to revisit plans for CA at events or plan on golftubes
>>and few archers for a while.
>>
>>Once again, if you disagree/agree with the KEM's rule, you might consisider
>>posting to directors at SCA.org with your concerns and ideas.
>>
>>It appears POSSIBLE that exceptions will be made for kingdoms who are
>>currently screening helms..... this may be the revisting the BOD will do in
>>OCT. If this is true, how this will affect interkingdom wars has not yet be
>>addressed.
>>
>>Ld Rupert the Persistent
>>
>>========================================================================
>>                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>>    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>>  Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
>>Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
>>
>