The Gun Counter

One of the old guys in my archery club hunts with a crossbow 'cause he can't use his compound anymore. He claims that most crossbows on the market can't kill a deer at more than 10 yards due the short power stroke (the distance the string pushes the bolt). Most crossbows have a draw weight of 150 lbs. and power stroke of 8-10 inches.

I would like a crossbow to play with during the winter, but I'd like it to be a real weapon. I'm fascinated by the New World Arbalest bows at http://www.crossbows.net/. They are old school crossbows, available in draw weights up to 175 lbs.

Would this be a substantial crossbow? I'd like a heavier one, perhaps one that needed a goat's foot lever or a belt claw. Perhaps the New World Arbalest crossbows are good enough?

Any thoughts on this?

The old Barnett Commando had an available 200lb (IIRC) bow to replace the standard 150lb draw.(175?)
Forgive my memory, I haven't had it out in a few years.

But realistically, the draw weight isn't as important as the accuracy, bolt weight and type of point on the bolt.
The more bolt and point weight, the more mass and retained energy. The point should have as large a cutting surface as can be reliably maintained, just as with a conventional arrow.

What more power realistically gives you is more range not more penetration.
I've shot through deer with a conventional recurve (45lb) and decent broadheads with no difference to a friends 100lb compound bow.

What kills deer with any arrow/bolt is the cutting edges and hemorrhaging. If you don't cut something vital, it doesn't matter what you use.

stupid state i live in requires a permit to buy them, only state in the nation that does.

mekender wrote:stupid state i live in requires a permit to buy them, only state in the nation that does.

Yup, but then again NC also considers short barrel rifles and shotguns to be WMDs.

Another source for crossbow stuff is: Alchem

I have a few wooden crossbows from the various makers out there competing mostly for the SCA trade and not hunters...I have taken a deer with one a 175# draw with crank mechanism and I don't see why any of the others wouldn't as well...Did deer get tougher over the 1,200+ years that the crossbow has been around...

For a truly superb modern, compound crossbow designed for hunting I like my Parker Bows the best--they also have a wood bodied one...

Other old style builders
Alchem Inc.
Crossbows by Siegfried
Freegate Armory
Meric's Armoury
Surefoot-Fellwalker Boltwrights
Hollow Earth

I had a list of more names but lost it in the crash and lots of the bowyers are no longer in business or are dealing only at what they feel like building over a year and selling at the various events and Ren Faires...

IIRC, Indiana requires a minimum draw weight of 150lb. for crossbows on deer. Dunno about varmints, goblins, and socialists.

Forget crossbows.

I took my Barnett crossbow (about 200 lbs) out to compare with my compound bow (about 70 lbs).

At 40 yards - about as far as I can hit anything - the compound bow was just as accurate as the crossbow.

Furthermore, the arrows penetrated further than the bolts! This gave me a WTF moment. How does a 70 pound bow outperform a 200 pound crossbow? Then I dredged some high-school physics up from my memory banks.

Here's the math:
Crossbow bolt -- about 12" long
Arrow -- about 32" long (I have long arms)

Crossbow draw distance -- about 10"
Bow draw distance -- about 30"

So the bow is working on the arrow for 3x the distance of the crossbow. The crossbow is putting 190 foot-pounds of force on the bolt (10/12 feet x 200 lbs = 190 foot-pounds), about the same as the 70 pound bow (30/12 feet x 70 lbs = 190 foot-pounds).

About the same force on the projectile says both the bolt and arrow should penetrate about the same, however, one additional piece of math: My arrows are 13 grains per inch (heavy arrows for heavy bow). The bolt is 10 grains per inch. The arrow is over 3x as massive as the bolt, so it's carrying more momentum when it hits the target, hence, it penetrates further.

Final point: The Barnett crossbow has that funky break-action mechanism to give some leverage in cocking 200 lbs. One shot per minute is about as fast as I can go. I can get 3 to 4 shots off my compound bow in a minute.

More power downrange, more shots per minute, just as accurate -- go with a compound bow.

What is nice about the crossbow and why it is so much easier to learn to shoot is that you do not have constant strain on your muscles...

Until the advent of the compound bow with as much as 80% let off it would be difficult to hold a drawn bow for any length of time waiting for the correct angle to take your animal and it still is; the crossbow eliminated that and made hunting that much easier and a major reason that the majority of crossbow hunting falls during the blackpowder season and not the archery season...

The factor of penetration is of course to the longer projectile of the drawn bow for various physics formulae but both are sufficient to make it to the animals vital organs and it isn’t the shaft but, as mentioned, the blades that do the damage by tearing up massive tissue, blood vessels, organs and causing both blood loss and shock…

For SHTF I'd take a crossbow over a bow any day.

It's easier to use, and it's easier to store the energy. It's also easier to train people to use.

Why do you think the European nobility in the Middle Ages didn't like them?

Yup, Whirlibird made the same point in the SHTF:Bows thread, and my own experience agrees with it. Anybody familiar with shooting rifles should have little trouble translating those skills to shooting a crossbow.