|
Post by highlander200268 on Mar 16, 2018 1:50:19 GMT
Quite the selection of fixed blades you have there . yeah 400 or so
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Mar 14, 2018 20:28:50 GMT
Yes but yours is winged nice. hah i posted the wrong one! i have 2 from them
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Mar 13, 2018 20:40:28 GMT
Cool deal I have the same spear, windlass viking spear yes?
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jan 14, 2018 18:57:29 GMT
This is probably going to be one of my next purchases. I have a ton of swords, but very few melee weapons. I think this one is a must have. Yah I am the same, I have about 20 swords, but lately, I have gotten into hawks, hammers, spears, batons, etc, I have yet to get a mace though, which is on my list
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jan 14, 2018 0:11:53 GMT
That's badass, dawg. Especially the burning on the handle. I wish this website had a 'thumbs-up' symbol...you'd get three from me. I guess you'll have to settle for my avatar pic. thanks
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jan 13, 2018 7:53:35 GMT
My Cold Steel War Hammer after I moded it of course, great choice, about 40-50$ and good steel 1055
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jul 24, 2017 14:52:11 GMT
Excellent
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 27, 2017 2:34:53 GMT
actually it did not say what wood , just said hardwood and did not say how thick, but it is 70 3/4" tall
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 26, 2017 23:48:17 GMT
Got this in today, wow this thing is thick and 70+ inches tall, it is sectional it comes in 3 pieces, i love it! (more reviews coming once i test)
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 23, 2016 17:30:25 GMT
Against a modern crossbow, the enemy would probably be wearing a modern helmet.
I see there are lots of videos of helmets both modern and otherwise being tested with just about everything and also body armor as well. None were exactly scientific but all were interesting. Tests of old Roman and Medieval helmets are a little suspect because reproductions are being used and which may not equal the originals in quality or thickness. All the projectile weapons used were at short range, which should be taken into account, too. One of the best things you can do to increase projectile effectiveness no matter what your shooting at is to try to get the target to hold still.
I also wonder about the historical accuracy of more or less contemporary illustrations of battles during the Middle Ages. So many illustrations show helmets being cleaved by a sword or other bladed weapon. There are probably YouTube videos of someone testing that idea, although I didn't go look for any. I had also mentioned in some other thread that in some illustrations (from the Morgan Bible) of mounted warriors being stabbed in the face with a dagger by another mounted warrior, which seems a little far-fetched. But in all these cases, allowance has to be made for artistic conventions, whatever they might have been.
It's ironic that there are so many good illustrations of knightly battles found in old Bibles. true of course today we have harder steels and better broadheads, the one he used here was a blunt head so that makes a huge difference along with the kinetic energy and power stroke of the bow. but even modern helmets wouldn't fair well against a 3 bladed broadhead from a modern crossbow, they aren't really made to be bullet proof just shrapnel proof
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 22, 2016 4:27:09 GMT
I don't know about that. I used to have a crossbow that I think might have been manufactured by the Whamo Corporation in the 1950s. I was in junior high school at the time. The steel bow was, I think, less than eighteen inches, probably closer to fifteen inches. I only had target arrows for the thing. With those, it would make a hole in corrugated steel building material but would not actually penetrate. The draw weight, though, was at least light enough for me to manage it but I couldn't say what it was. It had a pistol grip and no shoulder stock. So, a heavier draw and better arrow heads would almost certainly have produced something that would fully penetrate that same metal, which I suspect was heavier than the helmets in the video. In situations like this, however, just as in a tank gun projectile striking another tank, there is a lot in the details. The projectile itself and the angle of attack make a lot of difference and it applies equally to a little crossbow bolt against metal body armor which has no flat surfaces. The penetration, or rather, holing of the metal , that I mentioned would not be sufficient to cause injury to whatever was on the other side, provided that the skin was not directly touching the metal on the other side. There would probably be no blunt force trauma inflicted, either. There were larger crossbows used, too, with much larger projectiles, but you might call them siege weapons. I don't know how heavy or powerful the portable ones were but the most powerful ones required mechanical assistance to rooster. The projectiles would invariably been heavier than the ones I was using, too. The first requirement is still hitting the target. A helmet isn't very big at fifty yards. I was shooting at a barn. the ones today are very powerful, lots of kinetic energy, the difference is you have compound crossbows today with larger power strokes and matched bolts set with heavier tips, and shafts and better foc of the bolts, check this out
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 21, 2016 20:28:42 GMT
not against a modern crossbow, that bow wouldn't achieve 20ftlbs of ke, and such a small power stroke you loose fps, a modern bow will hit with over 100ftlbs of ke and destroy that helmet I guess it's a good thing no one had modern crossbows back in 700 AD. right, i just hear a lot of misinformation about old crossbows being so powerful because of their draw weight when in reality draw weight means nothing
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Nov 17, 2016 16:49:17 GMT
Nice! If I was wearing that helm I'd be a happy customer. Sweet crossbow too. not against a modern crossbow, that bow wouldn't achieve 20ftlbs of ke, and such a small power stroke you loose fps, a modern bow will hit with over 100ftlbs of ke and destroy that helmet
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Oct 10, 2016 13:56:04 GMT
waaaaant!
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jul 29, 2016 2:42:43 GMT
hey my kind of sword
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 12, 2016 17:59:36 GMT
Rob Roy
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 6, 2016 14:34:18 GMT
it isnt always about the speed, when you get a bow capable of a certain fps or kinetic energy you get higher quality materials, you as a hunter should be able to spot the junky bows on the market, that is why i said look for ones that are higher quality that will last, if it is for an shtf scenario you want something that isnt made in china and will fall apart within a year, those specs were generally used to spot higher end quality bows
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 5, 2016 15:40:13 GMT
Rubbish! Bows that are designed to produce that sort of energy are very highly stressed precision machines that only require the slightest thing to go awry to completely melt down with no hope of fixing,with perhaps the exception of the Excalibur range which I will admit are very tough a simple,to the expense of size and draw weight. On the other hand,the more powerful your bow is,the harder it is to manufacture arrows to use in it. Of course,it is nice to know you can ream a cow from one end to the other ☺ umm no not rubbish infact, I really do not know your experience i have used bows for 30 years and hunted the same amount, when you get "cheap" bows with low kenetic energy you pay for sub par parts, like the SA sport models, or the cobra bows, etc, they are very cheaply machined parts, when you spend money on a higher end bow you get quality parts like aluminum or carbon fiber risers and limbs, they are designed to take more punishment, i have shot my crossbow thousands of times and only replaced the string 1 time within over 10 years of hunting and shooting with it.. i dunno where you get your information, but the more kenetic energy the better and more humane the kill is, they come out with a list of what it takes for an animal, but the better you can achieve a kill the more humane it will be overall, so unless you are a hunter i would say your rebuttal is a bit moot
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 5, 2016 9:23:49 GMT
100 foot pounds of energy for hunting ! What do you plan to shoot,elephants ! Maybe the hundreds of animals I've taken with bows that would barely produce 40 foot pound should all arise from their graves as clearly my bows weren't powful enough ! deer require about 25 ftlbs, however when you hit 100ftpls on a bow or crossbow you get into higher quality constructions, limbs are better, performance is better, that is what i was stating, your cheaper end bows will not produce nearly that amount of energy, better to have it than not need it as it were
|
|
|
Post by highlander200268 on Jun 3, 2016 20:27:41 GMT
I like barnett, parker, carbon express, excalibur, tenpoint, etc, be careful there are a lot of cheap ones, i would shoot for over 300fps and around 100ftlbs of torque on a crossbow
|
|