Is the crossbow a good SHTF weapon?
It's better than nothing but worse than a gun. There area reasons why everyone traded their crossbows for muskets and those reasons are still valid today.
>>61447953Its quiet and has reusable ammunition. People hunt deer, elk, and bears with bows all the time.I'm thinking based
>>61447953There is no reason you shouldn't have been able to acquire a gun and thousands of rounds of ammunition before "SHTF" if you live in America, so no it's not an acceptable weapon.Nevertheless, a strong crossbow is obviously lethal, especially the fancier, faster shooting ones than that one in your picture. A high end crossbow can be extremely accurate, and have a substantial "maximum range" though obviously hunting is done generally at fairly close range to ensure a clean kill.They make crossbows now that have breached 500fps with light bolts, that'll put a broadhead straight through a bear any way you want to shoot him, even lengthwise. I shoot traditional archery. My bow could hunt or kill at the end of extreme need, but there's no reason I wouldn't use a gun.>>61448013Much ado is made of reusable bolts, but the fact of the matter is, if I was forced to rely on a crossbow for my survival, I would want one of the more powerful ones, and the more powerful ones tend to bust their ammunition when they impact anything more solid than those foam targets like say, bone.
>>61447971The highest end of modern crossbows would probably have out competed muskets if by some magic we put them in the same period, if not on the earlier armored battlefield, more certainly on the later unarmored one. Cost of ammunition notwithstanding.
>>61448259>I shoot traditional archery. My bow could hunt or kill at the end of extreme need, but there's no reason I wouldn't use a gun.Compound bow?
>>61448435Not for years, I shoot a sixty pound "hun" bow from Seven Meadows. I enjoy the history and it's good for your muscles.
>>61448715>Seven Meadowsdamn those are nice
>>61448267Repeating crossbows outperform muskets by orders of magnitude
>>61448749Not that one anyway. Too low FPS, too low projectile weight. Maybe the Siege, maybe, but not it's dinky little siblings. The siege is absolutely the only Jeorg repeater worth more than it's weight in dirt, because it's a compound. The others are just toys.
>>61448725Yeah, and honestly 300-400 isn't that crazy for a nice bow like that.
>>61448749Yes a crossbow made using science fiction tier technology for someone born 150 years ago is better than a 500 year old gun
>>61448974Musketfags should use their own scienece fiction tier technology to develop a gun better than a 500 year old gun then
>>61448259Wooden, 3d printed, and carbon bolts survive high energy xbows fairly well. If you want to make your bolts more survivable in a high lb xbow, increase the weight. A 150 lb can still throw a 600 grain bolt 150+ fps easily, more than enough for taking elk, deer, and even bears within 30-40 yards (if you are a good shot). Most of the xbows that quote speeds of 350 fps + are actually measuring that using light 400 grain bolts, which will go clean through most targets at 40 yards. When bow hunting you don't want a full pass through like you do with bullets, you want it to penetrate deep enough to go through the organs and get stuck on the other side of the carcass at best. The main advantages of xbows that most people completely underestimate is that it is manually holding the energy of the string on its own for a controlled release by the shooter. Making it easier to get high precision and accuracy from a resting position, and making it easier to hold at the ready and wait for targets/game. Making xbows a bit easier to use for game hunting. This also served a huge advantage in medieval times for point defense defenders who were not ideal physical specimens, meaning you could give you random townsfolk xbows and teach them to use them for cheap and get good returns on them, including by arming the elderly, women, and young who would otherwise not be able to contribute to the defense of the town/berg. The difficulty in cocking the heavy lb xbows is offset in that case by having 2 or 3 people working together on it, ie two help cock and one loads and shoots. Even with a low rate of fire if you spammed this, you could increase the capable defenders of your town/thorpe by a large percentage if you have a large stock of xbows and physically inept peasants who would otherwise just wait to be killed in an attack. In modern times xbow tech has gotten crazy; 18 round magazines, hardware store spring powered limbless xbows (bolt casters), higher lbs and lower draws.
>>61447953Crossbows are finicky princesses that require a lot of care. Limbs are prone to splintering and cracking if you shoot a bolt that is under grained or not straight. Strings fray if not properly waxed. The rail will get vane burn if not properly lubed. They all require a cocking rope or internal cocking device.I've been hunting and competition shooting with them for 15ish years now. People don't understand the amount of power and energy they generate and as such have no idea how prone they are to failure.
>>61449013lol
>>61449466I've got a shitty chinese compound crossbow that has hundreds probably thousands of shots through it and is 12 years old and still works no problem on the same string, and I could still hunt with it if I wanted to. I don't even wax or oil that often, maybe once every 6 months or after every other shooting session.
>>61449547I highly doubt you've shot thousands of bolts through a crossbow over the coarse of 12 years and have never changed the string. I change strings on my Excaliburs every other month because of string creep and fraying. The Tenpoint/Barnnet/Centerpoint crossbows I space out a bit more because I shoot them less and I hate having to use a bow press.The only way I could possibly see what your saying is true is if it's some youth crossbow with insanely low draw weight that has a heavily synthetic plastic string on it. Modern crossbows have far too much energy behind them to try and fuck around like that. It's not only dangerous but incredibly stupid. I've seen far too many limbs explode on people who think they don't need to take care of their crossbow.
>>61449629Well I've got the same string 12 years later, no issues it's just a basic 150 pound that I shoot every once in a while now. In the first year or two after I got it I easily shot it more than 500 times. When designed right there's not much if any issue with the stationary energy on the string or limbs. If you kept it cocked forever and never waxed or oiled at all, or used an overpowered bow with light bolts all the time I can see them exploding on people. But that's more of a user issue than a tech issue.
>>61449669>When designed right there's not much if any issue with the stationary energy on the string or limbsWell that just isn't true at all. Limbs will always be stressed no matter what grain bolts you're shooting. Sure they're stressed more if you're shooting under grained bolts to the extent it can simulate a dry fire but that isn't the only issue. It's a very well known problem with modern crossbows and that's why we've seen a massive influx of limb damage over the past 8 years. Crossbow manufacturers are pushing the limits trying to squeeze more and more energy out of their products and as a result damage to limbs have increased dramatically. Look at what Excalibur is doing with their crossbows now. Short limbs with short power strokes. It's borderline insane.
>>61449728I don't keep up with what new manufacturers are doing now but even older deigns that are powerful enough to hunt with will last more than a decade easily with casual shooting and even just sitting in a closet and only getting oiled once in a while. Carbon fiber/fiberglass/composites are a fairly resilient materials that can have stationary energy kept on them for years without breaking or degrading. Sort of like how magazine springs can be kept loaded for 20+ years without a problem. Even shooting my bow often it still has not worn down the limbs or the string visibly and like I said my maintenance regime is every couple to a few months at best. I'm not the only guy with a 10 year old plus and hundreds of shots later bow string that still works great.
>>61448725Sexxo>>61447953The only thing i have to add to this thread is a shitty walmart bow with target arrows can still kill small game although bamboo spears worked better
>>61449297>When bow hunting you don't want a full pass through like you do with bullets, you want it to penetrate deep enough to go through the organs and get stuck on the other side of the carcass at best.In the strictest sense of terminal Ballistics, the ideal is broadly always to put the largest hole possible all the way through a target, and the ideal of external (or "pre-terminal") ballistics is to do so at the greatest range possible with the most consistency possible.The thread's about a life and death scenario where a crossbow is not only your tool for hunting, but your only defense in an extremely hostile environment, so the concerns of ballistics as they apply to both combat and hunting at "unsportsmanlike" ranges.>This also served a huge advantage in medieval times for point defense defenders who were not ideal physical specimens, meaning you could give you random townsfolk xbows and teach them to use them for cheap and get good returns on them, including by arming the elderly, women, and young who would otherwise not be able to contribute to the defense of the town/berg. This is somewhat true, though in practice most crossbowmen were what you would call at least semi professional.
>>61448715Haha honCut your tit off for the draw?
>>61452314Why do you gotta be gay about this.
>>61447953Think of it like a shitter version of the "liberator" singleshot
>>61452598A good crossbow will put a hole through a man accurately from much further away, and punch through Kevlar.
>>61447953>horton scout hd125 the crossbow from the walking dead. also a child's bow.
>>61452674Crossbows with a decent speed and arrowhead can penetrate basic stab vests as well, not the vests designed against syringes etc but basic slash/stab vests get penetrated due to the concentrated force onto a small point.
>>61454158My crossbow with a 125 grain broadhead and a 400 grain bolt can punch straight through an elk, with a clean double lung, out to 60 yards. People don't understand the power of these things.
>>61447953depends on your situation. hunting or defensive against unarmed attackers then yes, anything else then no. It's to slow to reload. A decent bow should be sufficient if no guns, as long as you practice your rate of fire. revolvers were invented to be (at the time) the only gun to outspeed Comanche archers. Use a shorter more compact bow, avoid compound with the pulleys and junk for the same reason as a crossbow, to long to load. the shorter bow length lends itself to CQB and room clearing and let's you get off shots without the limbs hitting the ceiling robbing you of accuracy and power. with a crossbow you have to arm it which takes seconds, fire it, then arm it again. in the first seconds of arming it the other guy could easily unload a whole clip into you. if it's more than 1 guy(or you missed your shot) how many times do you realistically see yourself dropping the weapon down, stepping on it, reefing on the string to pull it up, place an arrow in it, while getting attacked and being full of adrenaline. are you planning on storing it cocked then? it's not good for the system and then still you get 1 shot. There's a reason if there's been an archer in the military over the last century he's using a traditional style bow and not a crossbow or compound.all in all though a semi auto is superior, while the ammo lasts
>>61455334>revolvers were invented to be (at the time) the only gun to outspeed Comanche archers.Nigga what. Revolvers were a concept for hundreds of years.
Only if you invest in high quality bolts and spare/varied heads.You can theoretically do a lot and it's quiet, but you only have one chance to make the shot if you don't you alerted the target and now you have to reload and I don't believe there's a badass mag fed semi auto X-bow type thang that's well built enough to trust over long term survival.
Save your money and buy a percussion musket. You can do more with a musket than you ever could with a crossbow.
>>61458003You can get a very nice entry level crossbow for less than 200 dollars, anon.
>>61458552Yeah I know. I have one. So what?
>>61458552If the thread is about an extreme scenario of survival, "entry level" is no good.
>>61447971But crossbow quiet, people stupid. Conventional war fighters traded their quiet weapons for guns, but you may not end up fighting a conventional war...
>>61459920That's where the entry ones excel though. Things like the Barnett wildcat are a relatively low poundage recurve crossbow. Don't have to worry about cams and you don't need a bow press to fix it. You don't have to worry about the problem a lot of modern high poundage bows have. Yet it can still punch out to 60 yards with good accuracy.
>>61447953I bought meme related.It's fun to shoot if nothing else, and in my eurostani country it's the best I can get.Rate of fire is about similar to a bolt-action, but needless to say everything else is subpar. I suspect a shot in the stomach with a broadhead would still put most dudes out of the fight.
>>61461603I wouldn't recommend that thing to anyone especially considering the price, but it does shoot out bolts at a fast enough velocity to do a lot of damage. It's also pretty fun but I only have limited time with it and didn't shoot anything past 40.
>>61461749>I wouldn't recommend that thing to anyone especially considering the priceNot a lot of alternatives if you can't buy a gun, the other repeating crossbows are too weak and the more powerful ones are too slow.>I only have limited time with it and didn't shoot anything past 40.Max range I did is 30 meters, at this point the issue becomes drop, and I wouldn't want to have to shoot at a moving target either. These bolts aren't exactly supersonic.
>>61447953Depends on your personal SHTF scenario. Not in anything that involves firefights.
>>61461778Did you put a scope on it or are you still using the red dot that came with it. The one I used had an older ten point scope. You're very limited at range when you're using a crossbow that doesn't have a scope. My Titan 400 is accurate out to 160 yards but I'm aiming far above the target at that distance and I would never realistically take a shot on game at that distance.I just don't have much experience with repeating crossbows. I've used self cocking ones before which I think is similar without being magazine fed. They'll stick something good at smelling distance even with a short as heck power stroke and tiny limbs.
>>61461848I replaced the cheapo airsoft red dot sight with a romeo 5, no magnification though. It seems a bit unrealistic to me to use this thing at more than 30 meters anyway.As for hunting, I doubt anything other than birding or fishing at short range is very likely, at least with the default short bolts and 130lbs prod.I'm considering buying the 190lbs prod and some longer bolts thogh, even if they don't fit in the mag and you have to load them from teh front, at least it might become useable for proper hunting.
>>61461908Not to come off as shilly but if you can get your hands on a Barnnet wildcat I would recommend it for a cheap alternative to what you already have. I've harvest 3 white tail with one so far with the first 2 being within 40 yards and the 3rd being at 50ish where admittedly I shouldn't have taken the shot but it was a nice buck and I didn't want to pass because I knew some gutshot fuds were down the line and they would have shot it.As for what you already have that thing could easily harvest small game and things like turkeys. Those darts it shoots aren't anything to laugh at. I just personally couldn't feel comfortable harvesting larger game with it. I'm sure it's capable though with the right shot placement and distance.
>>61462033Thanks for the rec man, looks pretty good. Probably not a bad idea to have something more long-ranged on top of the adder, just in case.
>>61447953Ok, Daryl
>>61458860When you run out of caps a flintlock will still keep shooting, and when a flintlock runs out of lead or sulphur for powder, a crossbow and normal bow will keep shooting (and at longer ranges than spears).
>>61461603> 90lb, 130lb, and 190lb limb interchangeable> longer shaft bolts can be fed through the rail, allowing room for most broadheads both mechanical and non> can fit a small scope if lever doesnt touch
>>61462792Yeah, although for the 190lb prod durability becomes an issue, apparently the lever can bend. You have too reinforce it.As for the longer bolts I haven't bought these yet, but I assule you cannot have it pre loaded, so you would need to first cock the crossbow, then put the bolt in, almost as slow as a regular crossbow. And obviously while you do that you cannot have the small bolts already in the magazine.But strictly for hunting I'm sure it's useful.The speedloader is pretty fun to use I will say, if abit gimmicky. I don't know if I would love to use it under stress.
>>61461603>>61461749>>61461778>>61461848gen 1 Adder is lame for power. Lets see a test through thick clothing against meat. The only Joerg memebow I'd suggest to anyone would be the Seige, because as a compound, it's much more powerful.
>>61461529>That's where the entry ones excel though.The critical functions of such a weapon would be >Rangeand >AccuracyTo kill at the furthest range possible, to penetrate Kevlar, to penetrate a body fully at the largest variety of ranges with the highest consistency and with any head. These are the overriding concerns.>CostIf you want to use a niche weapon don't be poor.
>>61463422Compound might not be the best if SHTF though. Way harder to maitain or replace.
>>61463883That is true, although they may still last you a long time before needing replacement parts and you can even carry the backup parts around with it in a small bag to extend its overall use should anything break. A good alternative that is fairly easy to make (but won't last as long) is a penobscot bow, you can see a hunting quality one being made in less than 72 hrs on youtube from scratch.
>>61463444I've harvested three white tail with it as said >>61462033 was able to punch all the way through with a clean double lung on each of them. That one is a relatively low poundage recurve too. Why does your mind jump right to killing people in a SHTF situation?
>>61463920>A good alternative that is fairly easy to make (but won't last as long) is a penobscot bow, you can see a hunting quality one being made in less than 72 hrs on youtube from scratch.Yeah I've seen this video, it's boss. But shooting a bow correctly takes years of practice, or at least that's what you hear all the time. I assume it'as at least somewhat true as far as shooting under stress is concerned.Meanwhile my european ass who has never weilded a weapon can get groupings the size of a dessert plate at 20 meters with a xbow after a few days of practice.
>>61464608..and a red dot, I should have added.
>>61464149>I've harvested three white tail with it as saidYou seem to either not understand what I said, or be intentionally misrepresenting what I said.You seem to be acting as though I said "You cant take game with a lighter poundage crossbow", and be arguing against that position.Try circling back to what I actually said.>why does your mind jump right to killing people in a SHTF situation?...Excuse me?
Forward units always carried game crossbows for hunting, even into the gunpowder age because it avoided them giving away their position. Another consideration is wild dogs and dangerous game, you don't want to give away your position shooting at a dog.Against people? Forget it. Like having a single shot musket but twice as unwieldy and half as powerful, couldn't penetrate armour or even dense foliage, liable to overpenetrate. It's entirely conceivable that a crossbow bolt could pass right through an unarmoured target but not impart enough kinetic energy to take the target down, and not do enough damage to kill the target outright, they'd just keep shooting at you for the 30 seconds it would take for you to reload
Also just to hammer more nails in the coffin>isn't weather proofBeing a kinetic energy weapon with a bunch of moving parts they don't perform well in the mud, wet, frost. Usable but they suffer in a way that a musket wouldn't. >unwieldy They're bulky, very hard to carry in dense foliage, hard to strap to your back, try climbing a chain link fence with one. >fragileYou can just break the string on some sharp bit of shit. They're not very durable overall. >scarce ammoYou can't rely make your own crossbow ammo, modern crossbows are too powerful for makeshift bolts. Bows are far more forgiving in this regard. You also won't find bolts on corpses, in cars, in houses.>hard to carry ammoHow many 9mm rounds can you fit in a tool box? Hundreds. How many bolts can you fit in a tool box? 30? 60? Yea you're going to run out of ammo even when hunting. How many times can you recover a bolt before you come out ahead? 4? 10? If shtf are you really going to spend hours searching for crossbow bolts buried in the dirt and undergrowth or stuck in trees?
>requires dexterityThis isn't about your current dexterity, it's about you ability to reload it in a weakened state. You've got a broken arm, haven't eaten in days, have diorhea and sunstroke. It's raining, etc etc. Putting a bullet in a gun remains relatively easy, reloading the crossbow is no longer easy. So my call here is that you're better off with a rubber catapult, reloaded with rocks, to take small game or fire arrows quietly.Food might run out in a week, trash won't run out for a month, pigeons will survive several months. You could just sit on your ass eating pigeons for several months with no real ill effect, the food that comes to you.
>>61466958Surem but some of us cannot realistically, or at all, get their hands on a firearm.The next best thing, historically, was a crossbow, and as far as I can tell this hasn't really changed.
>>61466613Do you honestly think in a SHTF situation all you're going to be doing is hunting people? Are you the predator, anon? What type of scenerio are you LARPing about? A call of duty warzone type situation or some other underage larp?
>>61467432Not him, but do you seriously not think there will be lunatics crawling all over the shop if SHTF?Hell there's enough violent psychos right now while the police and military are functional.
>>61447953Cross bows are cool, shtf is bullshit though
>>61448013>Its quiet and has reusable ammunition.crossbows are not quiet and bolts are extremely easily damaged and quite hard to make without the right components
>>61467710compared to a gun they are quiet
>>61467574That's why you have a gun. You know you can have both right?
>>61447953Decent. Bolts are reusable and shooting is pretty quiet. Your main problem is that bullets cause more damage so you need to aim for the vitals of anything you're hunting.
>>61467783No, I can't, like the vast majority of people. Of course I would get a gun if I could, no one clmais that crossbows are superior to guns.
>>61467710Crossbows are quieter than suppressed firearms and you can quiet them further with string silencers. Bolts are difficult to make but not impossible and require less specialized tools and materials than bullets.
>>61467800Well if you can't get a gun then what are you trying to say in regards to the reply chain? It sounds like a crossbow is your best and only option at that point.
>>61467817In this >>61467432 post you seemed to question the fact that a SHTF scenario would include massive numbers of hostile people, that's what I was disagreeing with.
>>61467574Only an idiot would shoot his neighbors over a box of MREs.A smart person would give his neighbors a box of fake MREs laced with poison. They'll still die but at much less risk to himself.
>>61468903...so when I encounter a pack of feral lunatics trying to murder me and take my shit, I should give them a box of poisoned MREs?
>>61469551My brother in pine trees what kind of shit are you larping about where that would happen?
>>61469551You should scatter them around the area preemptively. Fundamentally it's no different from leaving out poison boxes to kill rats and mice.
>>61469572I was being ironic, replying to >>61468903 's nonsensical post. Are you autistic?
>>61447953bump
>>61467803Black powder is a medieval technology.
>>61467803In a pinch you could cast bullets from electrical solder.
>>61474887Handgonnes tended to explode in the hand. Do you want a gun that explodes in your hand?>>61475094You could but that still leaves propellant. Black powder can be made at home but it'll be weaker and dirtier than modern propellants and without sulfur or percussion caps it'll also be unreliable.
>>61449013Should I tell him?
What a retarded gay LARP thread. Crossbow fags are the biggest losers on the planet.
>>61449013That is what a modern self loading rifle is anon.
>>61475415>Handgonnes tended to explode in the hand.Massively overstated problem, and you're retarded.
>>61467097>The next best thing, historically, was a crossbow, and as far as I can tell this hasn't really changed.Airguns might be a good contender depending on where you live.
>>61447953I'm not even convinced that it truly surpassed the standard bow.
>>61482093Powerful airguns are banned in my joke of acountry.
>>61482033They were extremely unreliable, partially due to sub-par steel but also because of poor powder portioning and inconsistent propellant mixing. Barrels would heat up and clog with residue, turning the muzzle loaders into grenades. There's a reason these weapons were mounted at the end of a stick and it has NOTHING to do with accuracy. But more to the point, Handgonnes were wildly ineffective as a means of killing someone. Accuracy was shit and reloading took the better part of a minute. Rifling got fouled easily and didn't have the proper twist rate to begin with. Handgonnes were mostly used for shock value. Firearms were still new and the smoke and noise was still novel. For modern man, a handgonne is just a target.
>>61483980>Rifling got fouled easily and didn't have the proper twist rate to begin with.Please be bait.
>>61484217You keep thinking of Napoleonic firearms. Did you really think Medieval firearms would be practical?
>>61483980>>61484320>medieval handgun>rifled
>>61484887Actually, rifling did show up in the late 1400s which was the very end of the Medieval peroid. Also, Handgonne really translates as Hand Cannon.
>>61484969Early experiments vs bringing it up as a common trait is absurd.
>>61483980Any other fuddlore you'd like to add or did you hit the entire checklist?
>>61483980>Professional armies stocked the armories of fortifications with tens of thousands of weapons functionally useless for causing injury
>>61485286It is, but I'm also covering my bases. If I didn't bring up rifling and simply said that the Handgonne was smoothbore and thus inaccurate someone would say that they can put in rifling. >>61485970Wrong, professional armies used Flintlocks made by experienced gunmakers. They had specialized tools for making gunbarrels, experience and training making strikers, state owned gunpowder companies that ensured predictable propellants. Paper cartridges had standardized sizes so a gunmaker knew how thick to make the chamber. Bullets were of a specific size and so that they would not get stuck in the barrel. Apprentice gunsmiths took years before making their own guns. Are you suggesting that some internet articles, pissed on logs, and leftover plumbing is going to equal century long gunmaking traditions?
>>61486539>professional armies used FlintlocksThis has got to be bait.
>>61462630You do know crossbows need to be restrung every so often, right? I guarantee I'll be able to scrounge up lead and powder well after your crossbow goes down.
>>61486539Handgones were used on a very large scale to great effect for many, many years, I don't know where you got this idea that they weren't.
>>61488251>Doesn't know about the Redcoats.>>61489530Nnnnno? The Handgonne was basically a gimick weapon until the Arquebus came out. Even then the Arquebus had to be used in conjunction with pikes until the development of Flintlocks and the Ring Bayonet. My evidence for this is that most depictions of Handgonne's feature the user in plate armor. If this was a weapon that could reliably pierce armor and was widely used then that armor should be useless. The Hand Cannoneers are therefore using armor either because A) Handgonnes were not effective against men in armor B) Handgonnes were not widespread C) Handgonnes were so dangerous to the user that they had to use body armor to protect themselves from exploding firearmsor D) Some combination of the above. Anyhow, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
>>61488272Bad bowstrings are good for 2 years while good ones are good for 5. You can also make decent bowstrings out of human hair. Just let your hair grow out for a year and you'll have a new bowstring.
>>61489941>Anyhow, thanks for coming to my TED talk.We already knew you were a fag
>>61492720Really dude? 7 hours and the best you can come up with is "Ur Gay"?
>>61475415Lets go through these silly statements one at a time.>Handgonnes tended to explode in the hand.This is a gross exaggeration, or simply deceptive wording. To put it simply, there is scarce information besides hearsay and supposition about whether they were "prone" to exploding at any significant rate, and past that, any so called "tendency" to explode would be easily chalked up to incorrect LOADING procedure, a problem that has caused the vast majority of pressure related failures in firearms for all of their history. Accurate measures didn't exist. Early power was FAMOUS for inconsistent burn, particularly if it had to be shipped long distance and was not re-mixed afterwards.Considering many examples of accidental double (or more) loading have been found from guns used hundreds of years removed from the handgonne, when accurate measures and pre-measured paper cartridges were commonplace. It is overwhelmingly likely that any problems with early firearms exploding was due more to poor loading procedure than to anything else. I've never seen the issue replicated without intentional misloading, even when using substandard materials purposefully re-create contemporary examples. This criticism of yours looks rather pedantic given the overall topic though, considering the dearth of superior materials present today, and the fact that any barrel weakness can be easily accounted for by thickening the barrel. Even if you WERE right (and you aren't) that traditional handgonnes were deathtraps, a modern equivalent would be far stronger, and the powder far more consistent. I doubt you could even explode an Aluminum barrel of reasonable weight with anything resembling a reasonable charge of black powder, and I would defy you to produce an experiment in which a historical design is destroyed by firing a properly measured load. >powder can be made at home but it'll be weaker and dirtier than modern propellantsStrong enough to kill is all that matters.
>>61483980>They were extremely unreliableShocking that no contemporary testing has been able to recreate this.>Barrels would heat up and clog with residueSo in other words they'd shoot many times in a row? That's not Extremely unreliable.>Handgonnes were wildly ineffective as a means of killing someone.Mythology. All contemporary accounts and modern testing have shown them to be reasonably lethal. >reloading took the better part of a minute.practiced hands could easily reload a simple handgonne and fire again in well under a minute, this should be obvious to anyone.>Rifling got fouled easily and didn't have the proper twist rate to begin with.Rifling was extremely uncommon in this era and it's preposterous you even mention it. >Handgonnes were mostly used for shock value.Mythology. Handgonnes were used to inflict shock via casualties, not because people thought smoke and sparks were scary.>For modern man, a handgonne is just a target.For a modern man, a .50 caliber hole through the back is just as lethal as it always has been.
>>61484320>Did you really think Medieval firearms would be practical?They were used at a huge scale and there was an entire industry for creating black powder, but I suppose you (who's probably never fired a gun before, much less a black powder one) would know best.>Wrong, professional armies used Flintlocks made by experienced gunmakers.Wrong on multiple accounts.First, armies made aggressive use of handgonnes when they could get them. They were used for siege defense a great deal, and the Hussites used thousands of them from the tops of their wagon-forts. Second, your bizarre statement not only insists handgonnes weren't commonly used in their time (they were) but also implies that Matchlocks (again, issued by the tens of thousands) and wheel locks ALSO werent common in their time, which is patently absurd.The use of Handgonnes at a large military scale is well known and documented. There exist thousands of examples in museums, there are many depictions in art, there are descriptions of their use, even diagrams of their construction. This isn't a point you can argue.>Are you suggesting that some internet articles, pissed on logs, and leftover plumbing is going to equal century long gunmaking traditions?What a dishonest and weasel like way to argue, shifting goalposts like that.
>>61489941>My evidence for this isThe word you are looking for is supposition.>most depictions of Handgonne's feature the user in plate armor. If this was a weapon that could reliably pierce armor and was widely used then that armor should be useless.This is so wrong it borders on some kind of bad joke.It's hard to even know where to begin.First off, *depictions* are not absolute evidence, undercutting your entire point even if the rest of it made the slightest sense.Second, plate armor was always different thicknesses in different areas, meaning a plate that could stop a shot in one area might not in another.Third, There was never an army in which the majority of men had suits of full plate armor, meaning that even if a shot from a handgonne COULD NOT penetrate anywhere on a high end suit of plate armor, there were a dearth of targets it COULD penetrate. Fourth, Barding for horses was often thinner than chestplates and helms for men.Fifth, for most of history ranged weapons coexisted with armor they could not reliably penetrate, including the medieval period, with even the strongest bows and crossbows struggling to penetrate plate armor at close range, and even chain+gambeson at long range. Sixth, your point presupposes that something being widespread must also mean that EVERY army had them, or deployed them in great numbers. If one in ten armies had them, that's widespread. If one in two armies had them, that's widespread. No matter the case, armor proof against other weapons would absolutely be useful, particularly as the line between "lethal" and "able to stop a determined charge of horses or deep column of men" is about ten miles wide. In short you fucking nigger, you started from a defunct position and worked backwards through discredited theories to try to shore up your decided upon conclusion.
Anyone in the modern world who wants a single shot muzzle loading firearm that can penetrate a man's torso at can build one with minimal resources, which can be fired with powder made using common resources. Black powder produces less pressure than smokeless powder, and is a more "forgiving" explosive to work with, and all realistic issues of a barrel's resistance to said pressure can be solved by a simple increase of scale. People are able to fire modern shotgun shells consistently through slamfire shotguns made of regular old steel pipes. People have made black powder guns out of wood and even rolls of paper that will fire a single shot with lethal velocity. The idea that a single shot smoothbore is somehow a great challenge for a modern man is as patently absurd as the idea that a single shot smoothbore could not easily be employed as a weapon of ambush against a modern enemy.
>>61447953It's a wishful, at best: waiting in ambush weapon, again animal. Shit has no range, and insane ballistic drop. Meaning aim above that shit will drop like a rock.
>>61496902More powerful crossbows can reach over 500 feet per second, giving them substantial range.
>>61496734>>61496698>>61496770>>61496845First off, every steel pipe zip gun in existence is evidence for how unreliable a handgonne is.Second, there aren't that man reproductions of Handgonnes to begin with. Those that are made are always made with concessions to safety. Third, you're confusing handgonnes with Arquebuses. A handgonne had neither sights no stock so there was no way to aim it. Forth, "The better part of a minute" means more than 30 seconds but less than a minute. As in, "I split a minute into two unequal parts and took the larger part."Fifth, the fact that handgonnes were used in conjuction with other ranged weapons despite being able to pierce plate armor proves how unreliable it was. The handgonne requires little trainind and we've seen entire arms industries spring up practically overnight in response to new weapons. In 1476 the Swiss beat Charles the Bold at Grandson and by 1503 pikes were the norm for warfare. Sixth, remember the context of this entire argument. As long as your handgonne is less effective than a homemade crossbow the crossbow takes it.
>>61500474>First off, every steel pipe zip gun in existence is evidence for how unreliable a handgonne is.Steel pipe zip guns are routinely fired with higher pressure loads than historical handgonnes you idiot, and they DON'T explode commonly.>Second, there aren't that man reproductions of Handgonnes to begin with.Completely irrelevant.>Those that are made are always made with concessions to safety.There are thousands of EXACT replicas of the Tannenberg Gonne floating around, and a fabulous number of shitty home made examples of handgonnes.The issue you're describing exists in your mind and your mind only.>Forth, "The better part of a minute" means more than 30 seconds but less than a minute. As in, "I split a minute into two unequal parts and took the larger part."In skilled hands a Handgonne can be loaded and fired in ten seconds. >Fifth, the fact that handgonnes were used in conjuction with other ranged weapons despite being able to pierce plate armor proves how unreliable it wasThat doesnt "prove" anything you moron, it could be accounted to a hundred different explanations, determined by a hundred different factors, such as -The availability of handgonnes (there is a mile's difference between "common" and "enough for everyone")-The availability of ammunition-The difference in maximum range as a weapon of harassment or against lighter armored troops>despite being able to pierce plate armor proves how unreliable it wasNot only the previous, but I discussed at length why piercing a curriass was not the end all be all of weapon utility.>he handgonne requires little trainindIt's still wonderful how you think issues of reliability were common then throw out a phrase like "you barely have to train people to use them", when incorrect loading procedure has always been the number one factor in a gun exploding, and you just cant see any connection.
>>61500474>we've seen entire arms industries spring up practically overnight in response to new weapons. The exact opposite was the norm for 99% of human history. There were still Europeans using thrown javelins in the age of flintlocks. >In 1476 the Swiss beat Charles the Bold at Grandson and by 1503 pikes were the norm for warfare.is this supposed to be some kind of argument? What, trying to shift the goalposts so that if Handgonnes did not DOMINATE all of warfare and replace everything else, they were somehow not used and useless? >, remember the context of this entire argumentI remember you insisting that Handgonnes weren't even issued in large numbers (patently false) and were nothing more than a novelty when single battles saw double digit percentages of armies using them and winning and we have multiple preserved armories with hundreds of Handgonnes in them. >As long as your handgonne is less effective than a homemade crossbow the crossbow takes it.If you want to talk about modern context, the Handgonne need not be mounted on a staff, and thus can be concealed with a much more ergonomic stock or handle. Multiple handgonne barrels could be concealed, and fired from ambush in battery. Shot can be fired, barrels lengthened, sights added for the purpose of hunting, and with modern materials there is functionally no concern of reliability or the weapon detonating that cannot be solved with scale and proper loading. A former head of state was recently assassinated with a muzzle loading scattergun made of old pipes.
>>61500579http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/hand_gonnes/hand_gonnes.htm
>>61467432>Do you honestly think in a SHTF situation all you're going to be doing is hunting peopleOnce again, you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said.I covered why both for hunting and for fighting, maximizing power was optimal, and you want to pretend I said A) you cant hunt with low poundage bowsB) all you can do is fight other humansBasically you're just lying, and it's tiresome.The higher power a crossbow, the further away you could take game, or drop a human enemy. Both of these are valid concerns. In a pure survival situation, the reality is taking sub-optimal shots. That means shooting at the highest range possible, taking shots at moving targets, etc. No matter how far you can take game with a lighter poundage crossbow, you can take it from further with a stronger crossbow. No matter how accurate you are with a lighter poundage crossbow, flatter shooting with less lag between shot and impact is always, always, a bonus. The advantages of a higher FPS shot are indisputable in this context. >Are you the predator, anon? What type of scenerio are you LARPing about? A call of duty warzone type situation or some other underage larp?1. SHTF means combat with armed men, this is so obvious it's kind of shocking to hear you puzzled about it, or trying to play it off as hyperbole.2. The OP itself asks if it's a good weapon. That means he is SPECIFICALLY asking about combat with armed men, everything else aside.
>>61447953no
>>61447953Ultra niche use in America where there's no excuse for not having a gun, but if you live in a turbo cucked country, a real high end crossbow could give you a significant advantage in both hunting and in defense against men. While being able to build a sub optimal crossbow at home is useful, and would have it's place in the continued survival of nogunsistani militias, if you're buying for preparation for times of violence and scarcity, there'd be absolutely no reason not to go as strong as possible. You might say "but high end crossbows are going to be impossible to replace" and I'll respond "better to win your first twenty life or death struggles, or take your first year's worth of game, and build your own shitty crossbow afterwards, rather than start with less than the best".In a situation where hunting isn't for sport or an alternative source of meat, but *absolutely* vital for survival, or worse you've having to rely on an archaic weapon to defend your life or property, an extra fifty yards of range or having to lead a target less when you don't have the luxury of waiting for a "clean" shot could make the difference between life and death.
