The advantage of the crossbow

[FlyinCedar]

BT hit the nail on the head about the compound bow. It has almost NOTHING in common with a traditional bow, ecxept that it has a string. A lot of modern compounds have parallel limbs that bend slightly if at all, and energy and speed is produed by the cam(s)..I think thats what they are called. A traditional bow stores energy in the limbs, and the mass,density and material determine the potential for speed and energy. There is no mre holding of the full draw weight as with a traditional bow either. Most hunters with modern archery gear only hold between 20-35%of the actual draw weight. A traditional bow does not even reach its full potential until completely draw. Yes, I would have to sat that the compound is most definitely more related to a crossbow.

[BT]

Not that I personally have anything against compounds

I like it all

[FlyinCedar]

I don't have anything against either compound or crossbow...to each his own.

[deadeye]

The common ground between compounds and traditional bows is that they are bow hand held and hand drawn. Bowhunting being a close range sport compared to hunting with a firearm makes that a disadvantage. One of the challenges that we face.

The crossbow, once cocked, has the edge as it can be raised to the shoulder far in advance of the animal walking into range. No movement at the moment of truth other than squeezing the trigger.

flyincedar... " Yes, I would have to say that the compound is most definitely more related to a crossbow".

The crossbow has a full length stock, a permanently attached trigger and most are equipped with a scope. Much more closely related to a firearm than the compound bow.

I understand the advances in high tech equipment. There have been advances in the making of recurves and longbows as well.

Bottom line, they are hand held and hand drawn.

[deadeye]

I better have another cup of coffee after seeing my errors. AH, I see the safe guards changed the spelling of one word.

The common ground between compounds and traditional bows is that they are both hand held and hand drawn. Bowhunting being a close range sport compared to hunting with a firearm makes that a disadvantage. One of the challenges that we face.

The crossbow, once drawn to fire, has the edge as it can be raised to the shoulder far in advance of the animal walking into range. No movement at the moment of truth other than squeezing the trigger.

[BT]

The common ground between compounds and traditional bows is that they are both hand held and hand drawn. Bowhunting being a close range sport compared to hunting with a firearm makes that a disadvantage. One of the challenges that we face.

The crossbow, once drawn to fire, has the edge as it can be raised to the shoulder far in advance of the animal walking into range. No movement at the moment of truth other than squeezing the trigger.

O.K.....I can go with that statement in the big Picture but I think there has to be some real comparisons overall if you really want to be objective

First of all...although the recurve and compound are both drawn while the body of the bow is held , the compound more closely reflects the crossbow in as much as it can be held for a comparative eternity compared to the recurve/longbow.

In fact....a 99% let off bow could be held for perhaps 10 Min's. and probably far more than that by myself if the max weight were 50# or less by utilizing the lowered elbow technique which acts as a draw lock in it's application.

A 45 ACP can be held outright for 5 Min's. Max and that gun is heavy ....holding a 1/2 pound from sternum level would be a cake walk

Be that as it may....

If the crossbow truly has an advantage , is that advantage out weighted by the compounds advantage ?.

I would say yes (IMO) due to the fact that I can shoot further with more K.E. and more times (in the case of a second chance follow up) while cutting my fatigue in the field due to a lesser tote weight.

Compounds have laser scopes and all the jazz if you want it and crossbows can utilize fixed pins so thats a wash.

I just think that if you are looking at advantages you have to look at all of them as it pertains to all of them

[smj]

Maybe I am a bit off here - but to me, what sets the crossbow in it's own world is simply that you don't have to be an archer to use one. You shoot a bow, you have to know what you are doing. A recurve or longbow takes a lot longer to learn, a compound is certainly the quicker route - but both require that you become an archer in order to use them and take game. I don't see where this is a requirement with a crossbow, you don't have to be an archer. That all said, I don't shoot a crossbow, so I might be missing something.

[BT]

SMJ....I will give it to you that a crossbow can be an easy weapon to learn to use effectively but it's not a cake walk like most think.

First of all.... the drop window is larger than that of a compound but better than a recurve to a degree.

This means that you still have to judge your targets distance even better than a compound.

For instance....a compound @ 280fps will get an arrow out to 25yrds. whereas a crossbow @ 325 will get 20 yrds. average based on the average bolt to arrow weights.

I had two guys here some time ago who just bought crossbows to hunt with and were telling me that they were going to use Muzzy heads... same as they used on their compounds.

I told them they would never hit anything and the next day one came back and told me that I was right and the arrows went everywhere

I suggested expandables and he said ...."why"
I said because you don't have the knowledge to tune your crossbow and even if you did , there is very little you can do with it , if it is out of tune , unless you are a bowyer with a shop

They gave up on the idea

Cross bows are not simple and at their best , they are hard to use effectively , hence their demise throughout Europe during the rise of the longbow.

[Greg Krause]

smj said:

Maybe I am a bit off here - but to me, what sets the crossbow in it's own world is simply that you don't have to be an archer to use one. You shoot a bow, you have to know what you are doing. A recurve or longbow takes a lot longer to learn, a compound is certainly the quicker route - but both require that you become an archer in order to use them and take game. I don't see where this is a requirement with a crossbow, you don't have to be an archer. That all said, I don't shoot a crossbow, so I might be missing something.

I agree a lot with this statement. Maybe the reason I'm not a fan of seeing crossbows in the archery season is because I'm a bit selfesh or maybe elitest. I think they are a fine hunting tool with just as many drawbacks if not more, over a compound. The thing that gets me (and I'm not saying it's right) is that anybody can pick up a crossbow and become proficient with it in a short amount of time. Yes, BT makes a good point about judging distance becomeing more criticle...but we live in the age of laser rangefinders. I have no problem sharing the woods during archery season with new hunters, I just don't want a bunch of gun hunters picking up crossbows, storming the woods and hunt just like they always do during the gun season. I have worked my tail off for years to become proficient with a bow and to me that is what bow season represents...hard work to achieve a goal. That all being said, I have shot crossbows and I'll tell you what, I don't know if I'd ever hunt with one just for the fact that I am more deadly at longer ranges with my compound. I can shoot my bow into the kill zone at 70yds(not that I would on a healthy animal), I would need a solid rest to do so with a crossbow. It just took me much more practice to be able to do that with my bow. As for the argumaent about follow up shots, yes the crossbow does take longer, but how many times do we get second shots with our bows now? The noise...at least the few I've seen are loud as heck compared to a compound or trad bow. As far as being able to draw in advance with the crossbow, in the past 5 years of hunting I have yet to be picked off by an animal while drawing. at the end of the day the only real advantage to the crossbow is becoming deadly in a very short amount of time. Being able to simply raise and fire it could also be considered an advantage, I just don't see it as a major one.

[BT]

I would agree that gun hunters would likely take up crossbows in a percentage term but certainly not all of them.

Also I think we have to look at the end result of that action.

What if they like it?

They might just want to protect it in the same way that they want to protect their guns

Imagine that

As I said starting out...the same debate went on with alot more fire when the compound was introduced.
It was going to be the death of archery because anyone could pick up one of these things and in a short amount of time...be a successful hunter with it.

Sound familiar ?

The fact was that the compound saved archery by bringing in 1000 fold the numbers that were involved at that time and from that number , a percentage went to the traditional bow.

So the very people who were so concerned for their sport were saved by the very thing they felt would end it.

I think this philosophy is what encourages me as I see the time drawing near when the crossbow will indeed be allowed into the field.