Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Twin crossbows?

Expand Messages
  • Alberic
    Greetings all, I just saw LadyHawke (again). So, the inevitable question floats to the top of my mind: are over- n-under double barrelled crossbows within
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings all,

      I just saw LadyHawke (again). So, the inevitable question floats to the
      top of my mind: are over-'n-under double barrelled crossbows within the
      rules for SCA target archery? This is strictly a "within the rules"
      question. I have no desire to start a flame war, as I suspect this is a
      topic that's shambled round once or twice. (Nevermind practicality or
      desirability, strict legality is the current question.)

      The answer to the unspoken question is (A) because I think it'd make a
      neat toy, and (B) because I can. (Why does he want to build a 1000#
      crossbow? Because he can...)(Why did he build a laser boresighted
      crossbow? Right, because he could...)

      I'm dangerous when I'm bored.
      Alberic
    • Obsidian
      ... Greetings ...And, in fact, 1000# crossbows (well, alright, hand-held seige arbalests) are entirely period. I believe the record is held by an item
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Alberic wrote:
        >
        > From: Alberic <alberic@...>
        >
        > Greetings all,
        >
        > I just saw LadyHawke (again). So, the inevitable question floats to the
        > top of my mind: are over-'n-under double barrelled crossbows within the
        > rules for SCA target archery? This is strictly a "within the rules"
        > question. I have no desire to start a flame war, as I suspect this is a
        > topic that's shambled round once or twice. (Nevermind practicality or
        > desirability, strict legality is the current question.)
        >
        > The answer to the unspoken question is (A) because I think it'd make a
        > neat toy, and (B) because I can. (Why does he want to build a 1000#
        > crossbow? Because he can...)(Why did he build a laser boresighted
        > crossbow? Right, because he could...)
        >
        > I'm dangerous when I'm bored.
        > Alberic

        Greetings
        ...And, in fact, 1000# crossbows (well, alright, hand-held seige
        arbalests) are entirely period. I believe the record is held by an item
        gathering dust in some Austrian armoury/museum that has been indirectly
        measured at roughly 1400# pull...
        Anyway, the rules for SCA legal tend to drift from Kingdom to Kingdom
        somewhat, but I suspect that most places an over-n'-under would be
        technically ok, although looked upon with considerable skepticism. We
        allow Whammos, after all. As long as it didn't have forward sights,
        pulleys, or a hollowed out stock, it would probably slip in. The
        alternate point of view would be that it wouldn't pass, because we
        disallow goofball equipment such as crossbow pistols, on the grounds
        that they werent period.
        If you could find a reference in, say, Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks to
        such a beastie, then you are definitely in. If no reference exist, then
        I think it'd be up to the individual running the shoot as to whether
        such a critter did sufficient violence to the spirit of "in period" to
        be disallowed.

        Forester Nigel FitzMaurice
        --

        Ex Tenebra, Lux

        http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/index.html
      • D Humberson
        Within Aethelmearc rules, the problem areas would be the no center shot crossbow rule and the unfair advantage clause. The former simply forbids center shot
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Within Aethelmearc rules, the problem areas would be the no center shot
          crossbow rule and the unfair advantage clause. The former simply forbids
          center shot bows( without specifying what constitutes a center shot
          crossbow) the latter is subject to interpretation.

          Unfair has a good deal of stretch - break-cocking bows have been held to be
          unfair(in the East, before we split off), but rifle stocked bows with modern
          locks are acceptable in all kingdoms with which I am familiar. I assume
          your concern would be the speed round, and here the question of which
          kingdom becomes crucial. Others on this list have told of handbow archers
          firing two shafts at once in the speed round, there were those Chinese
          repeaters a few years back, and there are other magazine-fed repeating
          designs out there, so you have precedents if not period precedents. In a
          speed round, would you reload both bows, or only the top one?

          My own questions would revolve around how the 'under' bow can be loaded
          safely - I know you would make safe locks, but how do you get a bolt into
          battery quickly without violating the zone swept by the string?

          Ragnar

          BTW the multibolt carrier I called a 'sabot' does get 4 bolts downrange at
          once, and if I was doing antipersonnel work I'd love the dispersion pattern
          at 20 yards. Since I want golds, 10 inches at 20 yards just doesn't cut it.
          Mark II involves 4 projectiles, only 3 of which are fletched, the fourth
          being a 1/2" dowel with 5/16" radius grooves routed about 1/8" deep in it.
          Shooting tests have provided a real surprise there: the grooved dowel
          stabilizes well, and showed a rather consistent angle of impact with the
          target.


          >From: Alberic <alberic@...>
          >Reply-To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
          >To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
          >Subject: [SCA-Archery] Twin crossbows?
          >Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:44:21 -0700
          >
          >Greetings all,
          >
          >I just saw LadyHawke (again). So, the inevitable question floats to the
          >top of my mind: are over-'n-under double barrelled crossbows within the
          >rules for SCA target archery? This is strictly a "within the rules"
          >question. I have no desire to start a flame war, as I suspect this is a
          >topic that's shambled round once or twice. (Nevermind practicality or
          >desirability, strict legality is the current question.)
          >
          >The answer to the unspoken question is (A) because I think it'd make a
          >neat toy, and (B) because I can. (Why does he want to build a 1000#
          >crossbow? Because he can...)(Why did he build a laser boresighted
          >crossbow? Right, because he could...)
          >
          >I'm dangerous when I'm bored.
          >Alberic
          >
        • Bob & Nancy Upson
          ... This was discussed last year during the formulation of the Society level rules which, like the Aethelmearc rules, were largely derived from the Eastern
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            > Within Aethelmearc rules, the problem areas would be the no center shot
            > crossbow rule and the unfair advantage clause. The former simply forbids
            > center shot bows( without specifying what constitutes a center shot
            > crossbow) the latter is subject to interpretation.

            This was discussed last year during the formulation of the Society
            level rules which, like the Aethelmearc rules, were largely derived
            from the Eastern rules. The concensus was that "center shot" was
            intended to mean modern style split prod designs. This would not
            affect an "over and under" design crossbow that utilized typical
            SCA one piece prods.

            FWIW, I've been playing with the idea of building an over and under
            for a while and have found nothing in Eastern nor the final form
            Society rules to prohibit them.

            > Unfair has a good deal of stretch - break-cocking bows have been held to be
            > unfair(in the East, before we split off), but rifle stocked bows with modern
            > locks are acceptable in all kingdoms with which I am familiar.

            Keep in mind also that so-called "rifle stocks" are often period. It's
            a common misconception that only primative tillers are period for
            crossbows. (This misconception is unfairly perpetuated by archery
            competitions that exclude "rifle stocks" from so-called "period"
            divisions that should, IMHO, more accurately labeled "primitive"
            divisions.)

            > I assume
            > your concern would be the speed round, and here the question of which
            > kingdom becomes crucial. Others on this list have told of handbow archers
            > firing two shafts at once in the speed round, there were those Chinese
            > repeaters a few years back, and there are other magazine-fed repeating
            > designs out there, so you have precedents if not period precedents. In a
            > speed round, would you reload both bows, or only the top one?

            Whichever method is used, I suspect that the only advantage
            would be in the first (pair of) shots. Depending on the shoot and
            the rules in use, pre-loading both bows may or may not be allowed
            anyway. In the East for Royal Rounds, for instance, only one
            arrow or bolt may be knocked at the start of a speed round.

            > My own questions would revolve around how the 'under' bow can be loaded
            > safely - I know you would make safe locks, but how do you get a bolt into
            > battery quickly without violating the zone swept by the string?

            Personally, I don't see this as inherently a "problem." Any type of
            bow will require some period during loading when the bolt is in the
            string's line of travel. Even "normal" crossbows that use spring clip
            bolt retainers often require that the bolt be slid backwards along the
            stock to the lock assembly. Loading the "under" bow would be
            little different. In any event, a safe, well built lock is the key to both.

            Macsen
          • Rlongbow@xxx.xxx
            unless it s specifically forbidden, there would probably be no legal reason to forbid it. The rules are widely taken as interpretted example: Eastern rules
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              unless it's specifically forbidden, there would probably be no legal reason
              to forbid it.
              The rules are widely taken as "interpretted" example: Eastern rules say
              "start with an arrow knocked.." for the timed end. Since it didn't actually
              say ONE arrow, may folk now start with two.
            • Bob & Nancy Upson
              ... As written, Eastern rules specify that one may start with an arrow nocked or a bolt loaded. As both a and an are singular articles, it *does*
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                > unless it's specifically forbidden, there would probably be no legal reason
                > to forbid it.
                > The rules are widely taken as "interpretted" example: Eastern rules say
                > "start with an arrow knocked.." for the timed end. Since it didn't actually
                > say ONE arrow, may folk now start with two.

                As written, Eastern rules specify that one may start with "an arrow
                nocked" or "a bolt loaded." As both "a" and "an" are singular
                articles, it *does* actually say one arrow. In other words, EK rules
                prohibit starting a speed round with more than one arrow or bolt
                loaded and anyone who does so on an official Royal Round is in
                violation. Plus, any Marshal who *allows* it and turns in a RR
                score is equally in violation and not doing his/her job.

                Macsen
              • Alberic
                Ragnar: No, my concern isn t really with the speed shoot, I just think it d make a neat toy. (Like I said, I have more fun building them than shooting.) As
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ragnar:

                  No, my concern isn't really with the speed shoot, I just think it'd make
                  a neat toy. (Like I said, I have more fun building them than shooting.)
                  As for actuall speed use, I suspect I'd have to start off with the
                  bottom barrel loaded, and save it for the last shot, while cycling the
                  top bow.
                  Near as I can tell, you'd pretty much have to point the bow skyward, and
                  drop a bolt down into the groove for the lower string. (Sort of like
                  loading one of those "barreled" slurbows.) Not the quickest trick on
                  earth. But a neat toy.
                  My actual "scheme" if there was one, was to have a team of loaders
                  handing me my bows already cocked and loaded, and then just use a
                  different bow for each range on the speed, working down from the 500# at
                  60, and saving the double for the last two close range targets. (But it
                  wasn't much more than a sick idea, really, after I realized I had enough
                  bows to *do* it.)(Actually, with current rules, loaders are out again,
                  aren't they?)(But I can document them! (Really)(I think))

                  So your sabot design is more of a cluster carrier? I'm picturing a
                  bolt, onto which a series of lengthwise grooves are milled. The
                  submunitions fit into the grooves, and the whole mess flies downrange
                  together. How do you release (and control the release) of the secondary
                  projectiles? As for the milled dowel, I'm not surprised that it flies
                  pretty well: my infamous fletchless bolts are very similar in
                  construction, although I set those up so that the grooves end about .75"
                  forward of the rear of the bolt, so there's a full diameter section at
                  the rear. (causes drag which helps stabize the bolt) (You've seen
                  them, right?)

                  Cheers-
                  Alberic
                • AGPitts@xxx.xxx
                  Just FYI..... it s been done. I made up one as a special order for a midrealmer about 4 -5 years ago. The top bow was more or less normal rolling nutand
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Just FYI..... it's been done. I made up one as a special order for a
                    midrealmer about 4 -5 years ago. The top bow was more or less "normal"
                    rolling nutand the lower bow was a rising block slurbow (due to the groove
                    the string had to run in). It weighed a ton due to 2 prods and was most
                    unwieldy. Loading the lower bow with a bolt was VERY slow to do. I saw
                    absolutely no advantage to using the bow in speed rounds as you might get
                    off the lower bow in the beginning, but not again in 30 secs and the added
                    weight and unwieldy-ness of the whole unit more than reverse-compensated for
                    the double first shots. But it DID look cool!
                    Ailean
                  • D Humberson
                    ... The specific bows I had in mind were Powermasters and Excalibur Relayers. The phrase Primitive conjures interesting vistas of shooters sighting
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 30, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Macsen wrote:
                      >Keep in mind also that so-called "rifle stocks" are often period. It's
                      >a common misconception that only primative tillers are period for
                      >crossbows. (This misconception is unfairly perpetuated by archery
                      >competitions that exclude "rifle stocks" from so-called "period"
                      >divisions that should, IMHO, more accurately labeled "primitive"
                      >divisions.)
                      >

                      The specific bows I had in mind were Powermasters and Excalibur Relayers.
                      The phrase 'Primitive' conjures interesting vistas of shooters sighting
                      all-wood(prod included) notchlocks at peeled sapling wands. Not a bad
                      image, actually.

                      > > >>(snip of my original post).. into
                      > > battery quickly without violating the zone swept by the string?
                      >
                      >Personally, I don't see this as inherently a "problem." Any type of
                      >bow will require some period during loading when the bolt is in the
                      >string's line of travel. Even "normal" crossbows that use spring clip
                      >bolt retainers often require that the bolt be slid backwards along the
                      >stock to the lock assembly. Loading the "under" bow would be
                      >little different. In any event, a safe, well built lock is the key to
                      >both.
                      >
                      >Macsen
                      >

                      I don't regard a bolt in the sweep plane to be a violation, so long as the
                      bolt is pointed in a safe direction. I use a lock which requires exactly
                      the motion you describe, in fact. My concern was how a shooter would load a
                      bolt in the lower bow without letting his fingers cut the plane swept by the
                      bowstring. The Ladyhawk bow appears to place the lower table very close to
                      the bottom of the upper table, leaving little room to load the bow from
                      above.

                      This is where loading the underbow is different, in that there is no easy
                      access from above. Certainly a bow could be designed to allow this, but I
                      suspect it would be piling Ossa on Pelion for unwieldiness.

                      Ragnar Ketilsson
                    • Karl W. Evoy
                      ... Yes loaders can be interpreted from an illistration showing 2 crossbow men, one firing, the one behind him loading, with the latter the only one with a
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 1, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > From: Alberic <alberic@...>
                        > My actual "scheme" if there was one, was to have a team of loaders
                        > handing me my bows already cocked and loaded, and then just use a
                        > different bow for each range on the speed, working down from the 500# at
                        > 60, and saving the double for the last two close range targets. (But it
                        > wasn't much more than a sick idea, really, after I realized I had enough
                        > bows to *do* it.)(Actually, with current rules, loaders are out again,
                        > aren't they?)(But I can document them! (Really)(I think))
                        >
                        Yes loaders can be interpreted from an illistration showing 2 crossbow
                        men, one firing,
                        the one behind him loading, with the latter the only one with a quiver of
                        bolts
                      • JimHart ConalO'hAirt
                        I think I have fired this. One thing though... the string on the upper prod was a little too long. It caused the string to jump the end of the bolt and break
                        Message 11 of 11 , Nov 2, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I think I have fired this.
                          One thing though...
                          the string on the upper prod was a little too
                          long. It caused the string to jump the end of the
                          bolt and break it in the center, sending one piece
                          forward and one piece backward ( my 10yr old nephew
                          still gets a kick out of telling the story about how
                          arrows bounce off my head ;) ) After the incident, we
                          talked about what could have caused the problem and
                          I think ( I hope ) the owner of the bow has corrected
                          the problem.

                          Conal


                          >From: AGPitts@...
                          >Reply-To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
                          >To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
                          >Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Twin crossbows?
                          >Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:18:24 EDT
                          >
                          >Just FYI..... it's been done. I made up one as a special order for a
                          >midrealmer about 4 -5 years ago. The top bow was more or less "normal"
                          >rolling nutand the lower bow was a rising block slurbow (due to the groove
                          >the string had to run in). It weighed a ton due to 2 prods and was most
                          >unwieldy. Loading the lower bow with a bolt was VERY slow to do. I saw
                          >absolutely no advantage to using the bow in speed rounds as you might get
                          >off the lower bow in the beginning, but not again in 30 secs and the added
                          >weight and unwieldy-ness of the whole unit more than reverse-compensated
                          >for
                          >the double first shots. But it DID look cool!
                          >Ailean
                          >
                          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          >This list sponsored by House Wyvern Hall
                          >of Barony Beyond the Mountain, East Kingdom
                          >[SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@... to leave this list]
                          ><< text3.html >>
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.