| Author |
Message |
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Yes, but do you mean by that that period carburised iron would make better armour than the best modern steel or that a test with modern steel won't tell us what would have happened with the period material ? |
Hi Jean,
If I may, I think one of Dan's points is that modern steel, being different, will have different properties when reacting to various types of damage. The problem with saying modern steel is "better" is that we assume this means better at everything. Is it? I doubt it, but I'm no expert. It could very well be that modern steel is cheaper, more homogenized, easier to obtain, and easier to work, making it "better" for all modern purposes. But is it "better" for taking impact? Is it better for keeping a certain hardness? Maybe, maybe not. All I can say is that it's definately different, and by being different, it distorts the results. Maybe the distortions don't matter, maybe they're incredibly important. I don't know that either.
Another aspect of period metal vs. modern: Period armours are usually not the same thickness throughout. They were forged to shape, with certain areas being thicker than others. Most modern armour is of the same thickness more or less throughout because modern steel is generally available in sheets of specific gauges. I'm quite certain there are a number of other irregularities that distort modern armour vs. antiques.
Like I said, maybe these distortions make a difference, and maybe they don't. But we have to accept that exist, and for an experiment to be accepted as scientific it needs to minimize as many of these distortions as possible.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
   |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Yes, but do you mean by that that period carburised iron would make better armour than the best modern steel or that a test with modern steel won't tell us what would have happened with the period material ? |
Hi Jean,
If I may, I think one of Dan's points is that modern steel, being different, will have different properties when reacting to various types of damage. The problem with saying modern steel is "better" is that we assume this means better at everything. Is it? I doubt it, but I'm no expert. It could very well be that modern steel is cheaper, more homogenized, easier to obtain, and easier to work, making it "better" for all modern purposes. But is it "better" for taking impact? Is it better for keeping a certain hardness? Maybe, maybe not. All I can say is that it's definitely different, and by being different, it distorts the results. Maybe the distortions don't matter, maybe they're incredibly important. I don't know that either.
Another aspect of period metal vs. modern: Period armours are usually not the same thickness throughout. They were forged to shape, with certain areas being thicker than others. Most modern armour is of the same thickness more or less throughout because modern steel is generally available in sheets of specific gauges. I'm quite certain there are a number of other irregularities that distort modern armour vs. antiques.
Like I said, maybe these distortions make a difference, and maybe they don't. But we have to accept that exist, and for an experiment to be accepted as scientific it needs to minimize as many of these distortions as possible. |
Thank Bill and I think the design issues of varying plate thickness at different areas of a breast plate and all other variables that can be practically worked out is the goal of this test and is what they intend to do.
Using as close to possible metal for the test is better for period accuracy test, but one reaches a point were one wonders how close does one have to be for the test to give worthwhile results ?
By better I guess I mean that there would be fewer impurities or variability in modern steel and I don't see the impurities making period metal better.
So I don't want to argue for sloppiness in choosing materials only that if we are reasonably close there shouldn't be little practical difference in the results.
As I have mentioned in a post way back there: If a projectile sail through a reasonably accurate target like it was wet tissue paper it would be a miracle if the period stuff would stop the projectile cold.
Where the material subtleties come in is when the results would / could be very problematic: When just at the border between proof or not proof against a particular missile, small differences in materials could have huge impact on the results.
What tests can give us are upper and lower boundaries where we can be sure of the results and the more precise and authentic we can make the test the smaller will be the zone of uncertainty.
I'm curious about what the results will be and I don't care which way it goes except that I want to get as close to "some " truth that we can.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Yes, but do you mean by that that period carburised iron would make better armour than the best modern steel or that a test with modern steel won't tell us what would have happened with the period material ? |
Hi Jean,
If I may, I think one of Dan's points is that modern steel, being different, will have different properties when reacting to various types of damage. The problem with saying modern steel is "better" is that we assume this means better at everything. Is it? I doubt it, but I'm no expert. It could very well be that modern steel is cheaper, more homogenized, easier to obtain, and easier to work, making it "better" for all modern purposes. But is it "better" for taking impact? Is it better for keeping a certain hardness? Maybe, maybe not. All I can say is that it's definitely different, and by being different, it distorts the results. Maybe the distortions don't matter, maybe they're incredibly important. I don't know that either.
Another aspect of period metal vs. modern: Period armours are usually not the same thickness throughout. They were forged to shape, with certain areas being thicker than others. Most modern armour is of the same thickness more or less throughout because modern steel is generally available in sheets of specific gauges. I'm quite certain there are a number of other irregularities that distort modern armour vs. antiques.
Like I said, maybe these distortions make a difference, and maybe they don't. But we have to accept that exist, and for an experiment to be accepted as scientific it needs to minimize as many of these distortions as possible. |
Thank Bill and I think the design issues of varying plate thickness at different areas of a breast plate and all other variables that can be practically worked out is the goal of this test and is what they intend to do.
Using as close to possible metal for the test is better for period accuracy test, but one reaches a point were one wonders how close does one have to be for the test to give worthwhile results ?
By better I guess I mean that there would be fewer impurities or variability in modern steel and I don't see the impurities making period metal better.
So I don't want to argue for sloppiness in choosing materials only that if we are reasonably close there shouldn't be little practical difference in the results.
As I have mentioned in a post way back there: If a projectile sail through a reasonably accurate target like it was wet tissue paper it would be a miracle if the period stuff would stop the projectile cold.
Where the material subtleties come in is when the results would / could be very problematic: When just at the border between proof or not proof against a particular missile, small differences in materials could have huge impact on the results.
What tests can give us are upper and lower boundaries where we can be sure of the results and the more precise and authentic we can make the test the smaller will be the zone of uncertainty.
I'm curious about what the results will be and I don't care which way it goes except that I want to get as close to "some " truth that we can. |
You all have to understand something and it is something i talked to clint about today on the phone for about 30 minutes.
IF we get results of bolts and arrows sailing through armor OR even if we do not. The tests will not be called successful or failed. It will not be proof that it happen, just as its proof that it did not. It will be a plausable example of what was used in arms and armor of the time. What was possible, what could have happen. As i have said all along - did knights die to bolts and arrows - SURE DID. But it took circumstances to do so. Be it low grade armor, no armor, an angle shot, a weak link in the armor or a powerful weapon.
***for example**** People can draw thier own conclussions seeing a heavy crossbow bolt sailing through 3mm or even 5mm. They can take a look at the weapon power, range, angle, tip used and then see the plate thickness, hardness, the way it was made, the material to make it. From there we draw a conclussion of what was possible and even plausable.
In dan's defense - if he sees a video and picture set of armor getting torn up and says its not period - well thats HIS opinion dispite what is recorded on film, tape and records. Personally i will still respect that opinion. Just as if i can not poke one hole thru any plate i would just as fast expect him to respect the try and my opinion. Doesn't mean anything other then he personally doesn't agree. Others will have opinions and they will agree, not agree or still be undecided. In the end, clint, jody and i will be having the memory of punching (and/or) holes through plates using some pretty rare to see weaponry.... Personally i can not wait.
I am merely trying to get a close approxamate test in which the weapons of the time and armor of the time clash as they did 100's of years ago. I have not seen this happen as of yet and as clint said - destructive testing - IS ALWAYS fun.....
Besides as he said - he prolly won't hit things at 100 yards (he's never fired a crossbow over 100lbs)... But i sure can hit things out and beyond 130 yards with heavy bows and heavier crossbows - so as all things are equal - we will see what happens.
David
|
|
 |
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Yes, but do you mean by that that period carburised iron would make better armour than the best modern steel or that a test with modern steel won't tell us what would have happened with the period material ? |
Why does this matter? Any and all discussion regarding if modern vs. ancient is better is completely off-topic here, in my humble opinion. I thought the discussion was surrounding how historical armour reacted to damage caused by the bolts of a crossbow. This is why Dan has made the comments he's made: the context of this discussion dictates it. If we widen the context of the discussion, I think we need not really argue anything as it's just a matter of taking a modern-made crossbow and firing at modern-made armour and reporting what happened. David has done this already, and his findings are incredibly interesting in their own context. Unfortunately, any attempt to tie those results to a discussion of authentic antique armour and crossbow damage is faulty and impossible to validate.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of this topic.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Jun, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Yes, but do you mean by that that period carburised iron would make better armour than the best modern steel or that a test with modern steel won't tell us what would have happened with the period material ? |
Why does this matter? Any and all discussion regarding if modern vs. ancient is better is completely off-topic here, in my humble opinion. I thought the discussion was surrounding how historical armour reacted to damage caused by the bolts of a crossbow. This is why Dan has made the comments he's made: the context of this discussion dictates it. If we widen the context of the discussion, I think we need not really argue anything as it's just a matter of taking a modern-made crossbow and firing at modern-made armour and reporting what happened. David has done this already, and his findings are incredibly interesting in their own context. Unfortunately, any attempt to tie those results to a discussion of authentic antique armour and crossbow damage is faulty and impossible to validate.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of this topic. |
No you are spot on Nathan.
My question/comment in the other post - proceeded by <--- "get ready for me to get things wrong"..... was more of a question of i have heard 1050 is about the closest thing to period steels as one can get MINUS modern steel is pure where wrought iron would have more impurities, uneven carbon etc.
My thought process is that if modern carbon steel (as steel is steel is steel) is better, stronger and more pure this will lead to an exacting thickness at the point where i will be firing at, it will lead to even hardness and tempering I.E RC hardness will be better controlled and if this is all true would it not be better to test the weaponry on something that is pure made to the period specs. This way if a bow or crossbow sails through it - there would be little doubt that if the plate was period and less exact, less pure ect the bolt or arrow would sail though that as well.
Using more exacting steel to prove or disprove something.
I mean PLEASE correct me if im wrong, but isn't hardness numbers, thicknesses, sweep and design NOT the same for a period musiem piece compared to a carbon steel replica. Meaning (grabbing numbers from the air) you have a period plate 3mm thick and say 275 victors compared to a same design modern 1050 carbon steel plate that is 3mm thick and 275 vickors very alike?
I would assume the material thickness getting thinner is NOT going to make a difference, if i can punch a hole in say 4mm, anything thinner is toast UNLESS there is a flute or something in the armor that deflects the bolt. But even then an angle shot is not going to happen, the shooter would have made a center of mass shot OR aimed and a very specific point, like a helm or arm or etc.
Again - i am not arguing - more so, asking a question i really do not know the answer to....
It just seems to me if the thickness, the hardness and the item is copied, it would actually help the fact in armors corner if the piece in modern was more exacting in spec. This shows NOTHING of period, but the conclussion would be that if a can blow a hole in 4mm plate thats copied from a period example - then the bolt would blow through its medieval period example. Yes? no?
Clint can we do wrought iron?!?!?!?!?! heheheehhe, Jody said hes doing it in the chain maille both butted and rivited.
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
From
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/wrought/wrought.htm
| Quote: |
To accurately recreate items from the past, we must, even today use materials and methods similar to those used then. Draughtsmanship is a thing of the modern age, so too are obsessions with dimensions, symmetry and squareness. <snip>
</snip>
The iron of this period is now referred to as charcoal iron, a highly carburised form of iron which was made by constant reworking in the fire. It was even hardenable, unlike the puddled irons of the 19th century, and there is no substitute for it. Only very recently has this iron been made again for the conservation industry. It is available in sheet form.
|
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton Harris
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Clinton Harris wrote: | | I direct this to Dan- I need exacting specs of this legandary armour you speak of |
If you are being sarcastic it is misdirected. Every example I have presented so far has included the museum in which it is located and the catalogue number, so I wouldn't classify any of them as "legendary." I don't have any more info other than what has already been posted. The examples all came from Williams' "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" pp913-916. More info will have to come from the museums in question.
| Quote: | | Metalergy 101: the metals we produce today is of a far superior quality than what was manufactored even 80 years ago. |
Which is why I have said on multiple occasions that unless carburised wrought iron is used, the results will never be satisfactory. Modern steel just doesn't have the same mechanical properties. |
Not sarcastic just sems that no matter the test you will not be content. that not withstanding I am speaking of the fact that you quote "out of date" extremes in the armor catagory. at some point neither the horse not the rider can move in armor.
true these pieces exist, and migth actully be effective, time will tell all tales.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Clinton, Dan, everyone,
Keep it civil. Drop the sarcasm and sniping and hostile tones. It doesn't add to the discussion and can actually lessen the impact of your words. Enough is enough.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Clinton, Dan, everyone,
Keep it civil. Drop the sarcasm and sniping and hostile tones. It doesn't add to the discussion and can actually lessen the impact of your words. Enough is enough. |
No sarcassm here,
THIS is why in the beginning i offered to let dan create the plates to be fired on, he is in the know of what was used and thickness, temper etc.... I would create the bows, as i know the powers, and have the ability to create heavy crossbows and bows that were used. That way each person uses thier respective talents creating something from history. Dan is happy about the plate, i am happy about the weapons and the test results are solid.
Actually, it seems to me that two people have two opposing views. One that armor "was not penetrated by arrows and bolts" and the other"yes it was, and knights died to arrows and bolts" Believe me, i have the utter most respect for dan and his opinion, but i know he is wrong. Dan i feel, has the same respect for me, but knows im wrong. So we are talking about it and qouting historical referance which unfortunately is not real good due to examples having to survive all these years and no one able to go back in time to witness how the battles were fought and what the impact of a bow or crossbow really was.
So i have brought in several people whom have posted and whom are watching that will be helping us create the armor, create the bows and will add things as they wish. I know there are several PHd's and some curators watching the thread as i am getting emails from them and getting referances - things that are being shared with Clint and Dan (head smith at the forge). The reason why i will not share referances and things now is they will be presented in the testing writeup. This LESSENS the arguement here and are presented as fact in a test and writeup that is going to be very large.
I am litterally treating this test like a forensics scene and i feel piecing referances and qoutes from the past here and now will bring up more questions, rather present them with the video and photos as one - they all support eachother anda case can be made.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glen A Cleeton wrote: | From
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/wrought/wrought.htm
| Quote: |
To accurately recreate items from the past, we must, even today use materials and methods similar to those used then. Draughtsmanship is a thing of the modern age, so too are obsessions with dimensions, symmetry and squareness. <snip>
</snip>
The iron of this period is now referred to as charcoal iron, a highly carburised form of iron which was made by constant reworking in the fire. It was even hardenable, unlike the puddled irons of the 19th century, and there is no substitute for it. Only very recently has this iron been made again for the conservation industry. It is available in sheet form.
|
Cheers
GC |
Interesting read..... Thanks...
I can now say - HEY i have seen some of this in the forge building laying in corners. Now am wondering if the 100's of RR spikes we have are wrought.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ruff wrote: | Actually, it seems to me that two people have two opposing views. One that armor "was not penetrated by arrows and bolts" and the other"yes it was, and knights died to arrows and bolts" Believe me, i have the utter most respect for dan and his opinion, but i know he is wrong. Dan i feel, has the same respect for me, but knows im wrong. So we are talking about it and qouting historical referance which unfortunately is not real good due to examples having to survive all these years and no one able to go back in time to witness how the battles were fought and what the impact of a bow or crossbow really was.
|
It doesn't matter, and I personally don't care, if you think people are right or wrong. Everyone must keep discussions here civil. Period. Discussion is always welcomed here; differing points of view are heartily encouraged. But things must be discussed without rancor. It would be foolish to assume we'll all agree on everything or that we all know and accept the same things. Debate is natural; disagreement, too. It's even okay to agree to disagree, but discuss and debate ideas in the tone we have striven hard to establish and maintain here.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton Harris
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Did not seem to me I was being uncivil, just business like, time is money money is time. have a nice day and enjoy your time.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I got bored tonight and decided to go pull out some good plate.
This is NOT trying to prove ANYTHING related to this thread. I merely i had some friends over that happen to have some plate (they are armor makers) and i pulled out a weak crossbow and used my last heavy crossbow bolt for some fun. It began as a dare that i could not hit a target at 40 yards in the nighttime. I requested a target and a candle be lit next to what i was trying to hit.
They supplied 2 metal plates and i supplied the candle.
http://www.uccrossbows.com/2006testingplate.html
The only things i do know that were measured was bow poundage, bolt weight, bolt speed and the plates were measured with calipers prior to firing. The plates were fired at from 40 yards by me - by candlelight (shot em at 11pm. The plates were 8" wide by 10" tall and are being used for some armor project. The bolt shattered on impact on the heavy plate after surviving a hit and hole on the lighter plate.
AGAIN, not offering any proof that plates were peireced, not starting a debate about it, this is ONLY what i did tonight and do not offer an opinion about it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Jun, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a theoretical max range question. ( Not a historical question. )
The draw length of the historical crossbows seem to be limited to 5" to 8" : If I understand one reason is that a longer draw would be incompatible with a short bow ( prod length ). The reason being that too wide a crossbow would be impractical to carry around.
I just wonder why limit the draw length and size of the prod for a siege crossbow that would be used from cover of a castle wall or from the siege work of an attacker or if used in the field it would be more like field artillery than as an individual weapon ?
If one today wanted to design a crossbow to get maximum range firstly and extra power as a secondary benefit, I wonder if using a draw length closer to that of a longbow and with a prod also the length of a longbow but made out of steel, could give a very long and heavy bolt more speed and more energy due to higher velocity of bolt plus more mass ? Also getting a longer drawlength that would overstress a normal sized prod.
Would such a crossbow give more velocity than an equal draw weight conventinal design ?
Now to keep this crossbow " semi historically " built, but not historical in the sense that no crossbows that I am aware of were made with this design, I would avoid the pulley systems of modern hightech bows.
Just, a technical question to give the " historical side of things a rest until some tests results come out some months from now.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Jun, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Just a theoretical max range question. ( Not a historical question. )
The draw length of the historical crossbows seem to be limited to 5" to 8" : If I understand one reason is that a longer draw would be incompatible with a short bow ( prod length ). The reason being that too wide a crossbow would be impractical to carry around.
I just wonder why limit the draw length and size of the prod for a siege crossbow that would be used from cover of a castle wall or from the siege work of an attacker or if used in the field it would be more like field artillery than as an individual weapon ?
If one today wanted to design a crossbow to get maximum range firstly and extra power as a secondary benefit, I wonder if using a draw length closer to that of a longbow and with a prod also the length of a longbow but made out of steel, could give a very long and heavy bolt more speed and more energy due to higher velocity of bolt plus more mass ? Also getting a longer drawlength that would overstress a normal sized prod.
Would such a crossbow give more velocity than an equal draw weight conventinal design ?
Now to keep this crossbow " semi historically " built, but not historical in the sense that no crossbows that I am aware of were made with this design, I would avoid the pulley systems of modern hightech bows.
Just, a technical question to give the " historical side of things a rest until some tests results come out some months from now. |
Ermm i would suppose that it would have to do with they didn't have real good grasp on pure steels back then. Even today you want to only draw a steel prod about 8" for the given length of the prod - which is about 27 to 29" long. This just ensures that you will not over draw it and crack the steel. I suppose back then they drew prods and found that 5 to 7 inches was a "safe" area and thats (i suppose) why they drew them only that far....
Its been MY experiance that crossbows got longer and the tickler trigger came about due to the heavy draw weights on the bows and you needed leverage to get the thing to fire. (see trigger systems below for more on this). Seems to me and my seeing period crossbows and research that heavy bows pullling heavy draw weights with short powerstrokes topped out at about 15 to 25lbs - weight in the hand - but back to draw stoke.
Now as far as ***MY*** period builds.... I use the same draw that is found on historical bows, from my research, viewing of such bows and pictures, doc's etc. This is a draw of about 5 to 7" being the "norm". Now with modern materials - yes you can draw prods farther back and gain more feet per second, longer range and better accuracy - to a point. I build a prod that can be draw (power stroke) of 15" with a 3.5" brace. This puppy shoots bolts out fast (best of 305 fps) on a light bolt. However with fps comes reduced accuracy as there is a trade off and this is one of them when you start over drawing bows, shooting real fast and using lighter missiles - well, atleast for me. But in the long run you are still tied to the tip speed of the prod, if you can't speed the tips up the missile will not go any faster. Excalibre has done a ton of research in this field and is not suited for posting here.
Its my opinion that medieval builders knew that crossbows can be very accurate and with the materials they had they were limited... besides - they knew what a crossbow could do, knew it worked - why change it. The only real changes in my opinion from the 1300's to about 1450's was really not much - the steel prod was about it. Then you see people like the germans and swiss come in and start developing trigger systems. This started leading to advancement of some pretty nice crossbows and the trigger systems used in early wicklock, flintlock - leading upto the set triggers and modern guns of today.
Just my opinions.
Oh and i blew a hole in the .121 thick 1075 plate today with the 450lb crossbow from the same 40 yard mark with power to spare judging from the quarrel coming out the other side, thru the hay bails and stopping after it skipped off the ground and hit a tree 30 yards behind the bails. Still trying to get the bodkin out. <--- not period testing and no opinions by me expressed, just stating what i did today for kicks and giggles.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
David,
someday I am going to buy a crossbow from you. Your crossbows look very nice and I am anxious to see them in action. I have built my own up on a simple peg release and interchangable bow but think anything over a few hundred pounds draw I would like to buy as it seems beyond my normal skills. I think I may have just broke the bow on my crossbow (wood) because it made a pop sound but outside looks good but I am not sure i want it to break while I am using it.... What would you all recommend test it or not too?
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | David,
someday I am going to buy a crossbow from you. Your crossbows look very nice and I am anxious to see them in action. I have built my own up on a simple peg release and interchangable bow but think anything over a few hundred pounds draw I would like to buy as it seems beyond my normal skills. I think I may have just broke the bow on my crossbow (wood) because it made a pop sound but outside looks good but I am not sure i want it to break while I am using it.... What would you all recommend test it or not too?
Randall |
Randall,
Sorry to hear about the possible break. Theres a few things you can do to see if the prod is breaking. Generally on the outside of the prod (part facing forward) there will be a seperation and this can be seen if you 1/4 draw the bow. Your looking for any cracking or lifting of the wood. If the prod is laminated this might also be between the laminations and will be very hard to see, but generally it still can be seen.
If you still can not see the cracking you can do one of the following.
Tie a heavy string on the front of the bow (part the faces forward) along the curve and fasten it between the nocks. What you are doing is tying the prod tips together. The string needs to be heavy as it will catch the prod should it snap and seperate. This keeps the prod from flying apart. However with a wood prod any seperation should not be real hard, rather it would prolly "mush" over. Might make a loud snap sound. After tying the prod together, span the prod as normal. Look for any seperations in the wood. KEEP YOUR FINGERS and face away from the prod when doing this.
If you still do not see any breaks, fire the bow (with a bolt). Keep the "leash" (string) on the prod until you have fired about 25 to 50 bolts. If the prod has not broken then you can remove the string - or keep it on the bow. But generally a prod will lose strength or snap in the 25 to 50 shots if something is wrong.
Wood prods can be fun, i have a few with horn and sinew backings that i play with. They are not real strong nor fast, but they are fun. Lemme know how it turns out. Adding another prod, like a steel or fiberglass might be a way to get you going until you can build a nother bow or as you are looking at buying one from us.
Thanks!!!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton Harris
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Jun, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ordered the wrought iron form a nice, though odd, supplier, this is then be forged to shape using the good old, get it hot beat it for awhile then get it hot again beat it for while, repeat as nessary fashion. worked down to 4.5mm shaped to a proper armor breatplate shape. and large enough to absord the impacting blows. The cross bow/arrow heads same procedure, maybe hardened if historical evidence can be found.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Jun, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Is it "puddled iron" or is it true wrought iron worked from a bloom smelt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a