smoothbore musket vs crossbow???

[Alan Block]

The medieval crossbow had draw weights of as much as 1000 lbs. The mechanical device to draw it called a cranequin and it has a long rack with a hook on the end to pull the string. A crank operates gears that mesh with the rack and reduce the gearing so that the archer could wind the string back to the nut, the notched roler that held the string until the lever (tickler) released it.

[glennsche]

Also, a musket fixed with a bayonet doubles as a spear and staff for melee fighting, at which point a crossbow is utterly useless.

i think this is an imnporant point to remember (if one excuses the pun): infantry had multiple roles to play, they delivered fire, they charged and took/held ground, and had to be able to withstand other infantry and cavalry.

crossbowmen wouldnt be suitable for any of those roles except for delivering fire. They get run down like grass against cavalry, and cant charge and hold ground and fight hand to hand.

an interesting metnal exercise tho, thanks for the question OP.

[glennsche]

Smoothbore frontloaders in the hands of someone who knows how to shot are going to be more accurate than a crossbow in trained hands. During the War of Northern Aggression, a well trained unit could load, aim and fire 3 rounds a minute. I've got no problem shooting a musket against a crossbow at 100 yards. I'm positive that I can shoot more accurate, precise and faster than the average acomplished crossbow shooter.

that always makes me laugh. heh.

to OPs point tho, mr cannoneer, the muskets used between 1861 and 1865 were very good, very accurate, very lethal, and relatively safe and straightforward for their operators to use. The firearms used in the early modern period or during the renaissance were nothing like them in any way. they were at times as dangerous to their operators as to the enemy.

indeed, the origins of modern Drill trace back to musketeers using matchlocks with lit matches and open horns of powder all doing things at the same time so they didnt blow themselves up as it was about effectiveness of volley fire. the early matchlocks had 48 distinctive steps to minimize the risk of the shooter blowing his *** off trying to load and fire his weapon. This boiled down eventually to just "Ready Aim Fire".

the question posed by OP is a valid one; as a simple weapon system the crossbow probably was in some ways as effective as an old matchlock and certailny was less dangerous to its user. Just, well, the "infantryman" was more versatile and self sufficient than the crossbowman.

[Mike A]

Interesting/fun topic. I even learned a couple of things. (Do I hear you say, "NO-O-O, Mike that's just not POSSIBLE! Obviously, you know it ALL!").

[arslin]

I know that you are referring to the crossbow, but during the Napoleonic Wars, England considered activating their long bowmen. The rate or fire, and range of a longbow are much better than a musket of the time. The problem is that it takes a massive amount of time to become a proficient with the weapon. The freemen were supposed to keep training with their weapons. However, it had been generations since anyone had checked that anyone was. When a call was put out, the army could hardly fill a company of bowmen.

[arslin]

One advantage that muskets have over cross bowmen is that the musket was not completely worthless in hand to hand combat. A crossbowman (unless he carried a secondary weapon) would be just about screwed if he was caught in hand to hand combat with just about anyone.

A musketeer would have a bayonet (even a plug bayonet), and could use his firearm as an effective pike.

[Marcus von W.]

Caplocks and flintlocks are for sissies. Even matchlocks are kind of pansy guns. If you want to know what a real firearm looks and feels like and you want to compare comtemporary guns to crossbows, you gotta go back further, much futher.

Yeah, I'm talking about our old friend, the little cannon on a pole, fired by a touch hole, the mighty hand gonne!

For a little interesting an practical information on these historic bang-sticks, check out www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html

I at one time had 5 original vintage Southeast Asian hand cannons. I sold the 2 more "recent" ones (maybe only a couple hundred years old) and kept the oldest 3. There is just something cool about a 500-600 year old gun that spend the past few centuries napping in the dirt, but could still easily cleaned up and quickly returned to firing condition. Talk about "curio" and "relic"! I'll bet I have the 3 oldest original firearms of anyone here on Calguns.

My 3 remaining hand cannon are still packed with the dirt they were buried in a few hundred years back and will remain that way, so I can't actually comment on firing them and have no actual experience with this type of weapon. But just looking at them and comparing them to a couple crossbows I once owned, my personal feeling is that at the dawn of the firearms era, crossbows probably kicked a.s.s on firearms. Of course, when it came to speed, power, reliability, and ease and cost of maintenance, the horse probably kicked the first automobile's a.s.s also.

The major problems with the early firearms would be the quality and consistancy of the powder (can you imagine a priest's urine being used for anything other than "watersports" with alter boys?), the dubious quality of many of the weapons themselves (the little whining liberal b1tches snivel and complain about those so-called undetectable "plastic" guns - imagine how they would feel about ones made of bamboo or wood), and the problems with reliable ignition (how would you like to have to start a fire or carry one around with you every time you wanted to shoot your gun?) even under the best weather conditions. Now add a little rain, snow, wind, and/or heavy fog to that!

I think that the development of the matchlock was one of the major steps in firearms technology that really helped render bows and crossbows obsolete, followed by those wind-up spark throwing things (who here remembers the little toy "space ray guns" with the little trigger activated spinning wheel that made the colored sparks?), and finally the simple but, at that time and place, infinately more reliable (even with its own weather and ignition related probems) flintlock.

And of course the development of firearms that could be held to the shoulder and actually aimed, instead of merely pointed (as many of the early crossbows were also) was also a significant improvement

[Mikeb]

Interesting/fun topic. I even learned a couple of things. (Do I hear you say, "NO-O-O, Mike that's just not POSSIBLE! Obviously, you know it ALL!").

ALL... no, I do know a few things. In fact I know now I'll have to learn to use those smiley things for the humor impaired. But nothing is funny if it doesn't have a bit of truth. If the stuff ever does hit the fan then BP weapons and Cross bows will rule the day. I hope you don't live next door when you start trying to make smokeless powder.
take care
Mike

[gun toting monkeyboy]

that always makes me laugh. heh.

to OPs point tho, mr cannoneer, the muskets used between 1861 and 1865 were very good, very accurate, very lethal, and relatively safe and straightforward for their operators to use. The firearms used in the early modern period or during the renaissance were nothing like them in any way. they were at times as dangerous to their operators as to the enemy.

indeed, the origins of modern Drill trace back to musketeers using matchlocks with lit matches and open horns of powder all doing things at the same time so they didnt blow themselves up as it was about effectiveness of volley fire. the early matchlocks had 48 distinctive steps to minimize the risk of the shooter blowing his *** off trying to load and fire his weapon. This boiled down eventually to just "Ready Aim Fire".

the question posed by OP is a valid one; as a simple weapon system the crossbow probably was in some ways as effective as an old matchlock and certailny was less dangerous to its user. Just, well, the "infantryman" was more versatile and self sufficient than the crossbowman.

The thing is, you can still pack more matchlocks into a formation than you can crossbowmen. And it is easier to have the ranks move around with a matchlock than a crossbow. The loading in formation have many distinct steps, but in the heat of battle, it was still less time consuming than trying to opperate the winch on the crossbow. I have a hunting matchlock, and it is much slower to load than the smoothbore arquebus' were. But I can still get off two shots a minute is I have to. And I suck. Try winding a 700-100 pound crossbow with a small hand crank and pully system. My guess is that it normally took more than 30 seconds. They also didn't normally have open powder horns. Normally they had pre-loaded wooden "apostles" or bottles that they only uncorked when they were loading. Each one held one powder charge. The lit "matches" which were slow-burning ropes, were normally wrapped around the stock, or kept in cage-like tubes hanging from the belt.

-Mb

[saki302]

I always wondered-

Could you make a modern 'musket' with a 'hop-up' system to put backspin on the ball just like airsoft guns?

You would get a spin stabilized bullet with a very flat flight path if done right

-Dave