Longbow and Crossbow Tests

Ok, I've just run some basic back-yard tests.

A 180 lb Recurve Crossbow put up against an English 55 lb Longbow.

Range was 15 - 17 Yards. Not a great distance I know, but that's the back garden for you

Target materials were industrial cardboard (4 layers) then the same with thick PPE overalls (designed for the oil and gas industry).



Interesting results. Roughly comparable but at full draw (or near to full draw) the longbow had the edge (at the end of the video) with easy pass throughs etc.

Now it's important to note that I don't think the 180 lb Barnett I was using was as full powered as the manufacturer claims. So about 150 lb strength imo.

The tips of the arrows, are they identical?

In the US we have two kinds of tips, pointed metal for practice and then a razor tip for deer hunting.

Long bows are way cool. Takes a lot of practice though... Here the compound bow is common.

Do you work for a king there?

reply to post by WatchRider


Interesting, I'd have thought that the crossbow would have had better penetration given its higher draw, nice video, thanks a lot.

I bought a Barnett Panzer 5 crossbow this past summer, but do to work I haven't had the time to try it out. Would it be considered to be a decent survival weapon? I am planning on putting a scope on it eventually.

Originally posted by kawika
The tips of the arrows, are they identical?

In the US we have two kinds of tips, pointed metal for practice and then a razor tip for deer hunting.

Long bows are way cool. Takes a lot of practice though... Here the compound bow is common.

Do you work for a king there?

edit on 13-2-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

edit on 13-2-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

The arrows and bolts were both shot with target points ie not hunting heads.

Originally posted by JasonBourne35
I bought a Barnett Panzer 5 crossbow this past summer, but do to work I haven't had the time to try it out. Would it be considered to be a decent survival weapon? I am planning on putting a scope on it eventually.

Well if it's a compound crossbow (ie the one with wheels and pulleys on it) I wouldn't consider it a survival weapon.
Better to stick with a recurve crossbow or longbow.

reply to post by WatchRider


It is a plain recurve crossbow. I was thinking on getting one with pulleys but decided against it in regards to replacement parts, too costly in the long run in my opinion. The simpler the better. The biggest cost for my recurve crossbow is buying replacement string and the little bottle of oil. The arrows are the most expensive thing to get for it, $32.00 bucks for a pack of 5 arrows. And I'm not going to buy the fancy arrow tips either. The tips that are on these arrows are plain bullet tips.

I think Bow's and crossbows have the advantage that they are stealth. If you become good enough you could fashion your own arrows and sculpt them with some skill and practice and it can be a formidable survival package out in the open woods or even in urban combat.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Making your own arrows is not as daunting a task as you might think.

Many archers assemble their own arrows from parts ordered online, and then assembled using a jig, to attached the feathers in a helical shape around the shaft. Most competitors do this much themselves, since the quality is much higher when you attend to details, instead of allowing them to be mass-produced.

Sort of like hand-loading you own rifle, pistol or shotgun ammunition--the results are almost always better than what you can afford to pay for.

Once you have a jig and some decent glue, the source of feathers is really wide open, as are the sources for shafts.

reply to post by tovenar


Oh absolutely, A nice $500-800 crossbow or heavy longbow would be an excellent urban survival package. The advantage is that they are very silent and lethal. People hear gunshots and all war breaks loose. You must maintain stealth at all times for you not to be targeted.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I'm more comfortable with the bow that the crossbow, but it's more of a question of personal style than of superiority.

The problem with snares is that they leave evidence behind. It would be possible to rabbit-hunt with a bow, and leave no trace a couple of hours afterward, other than a dearth of bunnies.

Where I live a 22 is legal to possess, and so while it does make a noticeable noise at close range, it is probably the easiest to bag game with. But where you face pressure, a bow or crossbow looks better and better.

reply to post by WatchRider


Was the crossbow a Quad 300 or the more recent said to be equivelent Demon ? I had a quad till a couple months ago and it seemed to be much more powerful. It would go thru our back fence at 20 yards. That thing was badass.

SnF

Crossbows are definitely easiern to use than tradtional bows, however they are noiser and also quite a bulky and akward item to pack. Also,arrows(bolts) need to be considerably stronger and stiffer than trad bow arrows. if your arrow isn't up to snuff and splits on firing,it is similar to a dry fire and can result in a wrecked bow. Something like a Excalibur crossbow may well survice thise with nothing more than a new string needed, but compound crossbows could definitely suffer.
I'm a big fan of the compound bow.It's easier to become proficient with than a trad bow,with better range and precision. A good compound should last for many years with proper care, maybe a have a spare string and cable on hand,beyond that you shouldn't need any parts. I shoot both compound and recurve, but if serious hunting needs to be done the compound gets the nod. With the recurve I'm comfortable to 20 yards,with the compound it's easily twice that.