Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Mike_G]

I believe most balls were lead, so would deform quite easily to get into the barrel. Would you know if any other metals were trialled or used, or was lead the default go to?

Looking up some videos, (link), it seems to indicate that the entire cartridge would have been rammed down the barrel, with the ball enclosed inside the paper, rather than the gunpowder, wadding and ball being put in separately.

Judging from older depictions of loading muskets using a powder horn with separate wadding and ball, I can see why this innovation was such a landmark.

I do remember that even with the paper cartridges, rifled barrels made loading tight fitting balls slower - during the Napoleonic era, the standard ROF by line infantry using the Brown Bess musket was ~4 shots/minute, while the Baker rifle usually only managed 1 or 2 (and not just because they took the effort to aim).

AS far as I recall, the drill called for tearing the paper cartridge open with your teeth, pouring in the powder, then putting the ball in and ramming it down. That's one of the reasons the Enfield musket helped lead to the Mutiny in India. Sepoys thought the cartridge had been greased with beef or pork fat, and biting such a cartridge would be a tough sell to a Hindu or Muslim.

[fusilier]

I believe most balls were lead, so would deform quite easily to get into the barrel. Would you know if any other metals were trialled or used, or was lead the default go to?

Looking up some videos, (link), it seems to indicate that the entire cartridge would have been rammed down the barrel, with the ball enclosed inside the paper, rather than the gunpowder, wadding and ball being put in separately.

Judging from older depictions of loading muskets using a powder horn with separate wadding and ball, I can see why this innovation was such a landmark.

I do remember that even with the paper cartridges, rifled barrels made loading tight fitting balls slower - during the Napoleonic era, the standard ROF by line infantry using the Brown Bess musket was ~4 shots/minute, while the Baker rifle usually only managed 1 or 2 (and not just because they took the effort to aim).

Lead was the most common. Mexico was known to use copper during the 19th century, as that country was copper rich but lead poor. They even used some copper cannonballs which is surprising. I've heard rumors of iron occasionally being used for armor penetration in the 16th century, but I've never been able to confirm that.

As for paper cartridges, that's a "it depends" situation. Paper cartridges can be found in the early 1500s, but they seem to have been rare at that point, and usually used with rather expensive guns. When they start being issued to armies around 1630, I think they were just a premeasured amount of gunpowder, and not powder and ball. Instead they were like the wooden chargers that musketeers would carry on a bandolier, but in paper form. I'd have to double check that, but I don't think it was until the end of the century (if not sometime in the next), that ball and powder started to be packaged together in a paper cartridge.*

What Mike G. states is correct, that biting the cartridge to tear it open was standard procedure (developing at least by the 18th century). If a flintlock weapon, a small amount of powder was then poured into the priming pan and the pan shut. Then the remaining powder was poured down the barrel. At this point, the practices may diverge, depending upon specific drill and the type of weapon/ammunition.

If the weapon was smoothbore then the ball (and buckshot typically), where left inside the paper and the paper and projectile(s) were rammed down together. The paper, in theory, working as a crude patch, in practice it probably sufficed as wadding.

If the weapon was a rifle, firing minie ball, then in US practice the ball was squeezed out of the remaining paper and rammed down the barrel. In CS practice, I believe it was the opposite, the paper was left on the ball and all was rammed down together. However, the windage was so low when using a minie ball, that the paper probably didn't survive being rammed down the barrel. Note that with a minie ball there were actually two paper wrappers: the interior one containing just the powder, and the exterior one containing the interior wrapper and the ball. This was to prevent the grease used on the ball from contaminating the gunpowder.

Rate of fire is tricky, as what was possible and what was commonly done were two different things. I've heard claims for flintlock muskets as high as six shots a minute. This is achieved by all sorts of dangerous and suspect tricks. 1. Don't prime -- the old muskets often had oversized vent-holes, so the hope was enough powder would leak through the vent into the priming pan. 2. Don't ram -- just spit/blow down the barrel and hope that that is enough to seat the ball on the powder. All of this sounds really dodgy, but some claim it worked. The militaries of the world often expected a well trained soldier to load and fire three shots a minute (not skipping any step). For the most part expect a rate of fire of about 1-2 shots a minute from the 18th century onwards.

Riflemen, prior to the introduction of the minie ball, were expected to have a slower rate of fire. Military rifles typically had shorter barrels to help speed up loading.

AS far as I recall, the drill called for tearing the paper cartridge open with your teeth, pouring in the powder, then putting the ball in and ramming it down. That's one of the reasons the Enfield musket helped lead to the Mutiny in India. Sepoys thought the cartridge had been greased with beef or pork fat, and biting such a cartridge would be a tough sell to a Hindu or Muslim.

Beef tallow and pork fat were commonly used lubricants on minie balls at that time. The factories probably used whichever was available/cheapest at the time of manufacture. While it was possible to use an alternative, the original ammunition shipped to India was probably of that style. The minie ball, while designed to expand upon firing, still had a very slight windage, and greasing it was necessary.

*The earliest paper cartridges I've seen, from the 1500s, consist of a paper tube with the ball plugging one end of the tube shut. Again, this seems to have been rare and for expensive hunting weapons (possibly even breechloaders), and not for common military firearms. It should be kept in mind that many ideas took a long time catch on, and during the 17th century you could easily find multiple systems in use simultaneously (paper cartridges, wooden chargers, and flasks).

[Clistenes]

Does any of you know about any test done to compare the effectivity of poleaxes, warhammers and warpicks against plate armor?

I have seen many weapons with an axe blade and a hammer or pick head at the other side, or with both a hammer and a pick head. I think that the axe blade was used against the worst armoured foes, while the pick or hammer head was used against plate armor, and I have heard that the pick head was the most effective anti-armor weapon, but you risked having your weapon stuck after a successful hit, unlike the hammer.

I have heard all those theories, but, do you know about somebody who had scientifically tested the weapons on metal plate?

[Matthew]

True, but I'm not asking for D&D purposes (D&D actually has a weapon somewhat like that, the Jovar in the Planar Handbook). I wanted to know about the actual handling of weapons which is why I came to this thread where some people post who are more knowledgeable and trained than I am.

(Another detail question: would this affect the ability to draw cut?)

Right, I was thinking more along the lines of how specific are you looking to be? Spiryt and Galloglaich seem to have answered this more fully, the general behaviour is predictable, but to what degree depends on numerous other factors. Oh well, difficult question!

Does any of you know about any test done to compare the effectivity of poleaxes, warhammers and warpicks against plate armor?

I have seen many weapons with an axe blade and a hammer or pick head at the other side, or with both a hammer and a pick head. I think that the axe blade was used against the worst armoured foes, while the pick or hammer head was used against plate armor, and I have heard that the pick head was the most effective anti-armor weapon, but you risked having your weapon stuck after a successful hit, unlike the hammer.

I have heard all those theories, but, do you know that somebody who had scientifically tested the weapons on metal plate?

Scientifically? Well, the problem is in recreating the conditions of use as they were at the time and then predicting lethality. For example, on Weapons that Made Britain they conducted various tests for armour piercing, and showed the effects of a pole-axe being brought down hammer first on plate armour with the jelly stuff they use behind. It was pretty awful looking, but then the blow was delivered overarm on a prone plate with no actual body to protect. So much for television science. There have been tests on energy required at Royal Armouries, I believe, but what kind of conclusions are you looking to draw? Pick > Hammer > Axe? They all had their situational uses against an opponent in plate.

[Spiryt]

Does any of you know about any test done to compare the effectivity of poleaxes, warhammers and warpicks against plate armor?

I have seen many weapons with an axe blade and a hammer or pick head at the other side, or with both a hammer and a pick head. I think that the axe blade was used against the worst armoured foes, while the pick or hammer head was used against plate armor, and I have heard that the pick head was the most effective anti-armor weapon, but you risked having your weapon stuck after a successful hit, unlike the hammer.

I have heard all those theories, but, do you know that somebody who had scientifically tested the weapons on metal plate?

I'm afraid that nothing even close to 'scientific' had been done in this particular matter.

Your theories are perfectly 'logical' but at the end it would all depend on particular weapon geometry, mass, etc.

For what it's worth, against full plate armor at least, manuals and illustrations from the period suggest stabbing into joints with pollaxes, anyway.

[Yora]

What type of armor is shown on the soldier sculptures of the terracota army?

Spoiler

Show

What's it made of and how does it work?

[Spiryt]

Some kind of brigandine/coat of plates. Seemed to be really popular in the Medieval East in general, together with all kinds of scales and lamellars.

Those are from completely different period obviously, but still nice example.

http://www.chinese-swords-guide.com/...ese-armour.jpg

[Clistenes]

For what it's worth, against full plate armor at least, manuals and illustrations from the period suggest stabbing into joints with pollaxes, anyway.

With the axe blade, or with the pick head?

What type of armor is shown on the soldier sculptures of the terracota army?

Spoiler

Show

What's it made of and how does it work?

That looks like lamellar armor. Just go to wikipedia and search for lamellar.

[Yora]

There seems indeed to be an overlap of the plates rather than them being revited to the backing side by side, as can be seen in the center column. And the shoulder guards clearly show ribbons used for lacing as seen in Japanese lamellar. I hadn't noticed that before.

There also seems to be a buckle near the right shoulder on the cuirass. Any idea what that is for? Reminds me a bit of linothorax reconstructions, maybe the right shoulder can be lifted up and the cuirass can be opened on the right side to get into it.

[Spiryt]

With the axe blade, or with the pick head?

With the top spike, obviously, since it was stabbing.

With weapons that had one, naturally. Though in "pollaxes" top spike was funnily enough pretty much only 'guaranteed' part.

Spoiler

Show

[Yora]

There also seems to be a buckle near the right shoulder on the cuirass. Any idea what that is for? Reminds me a bit of linothorax reconstructions, maybe the right shoulder can be lifted up and the cuirass can be opened on the right side to get into it.

That thing seems to be found in all types of armor on the sculptures. Here's some more.

Spoiler

Show

The last one shows very clearly how the lacing for the neck ends in almost the same area. I think it's only a single string that goed from the shoulder plate through the chest plate and then from the inside goes through the shoulder piece again and is then fixed to the chestplate. Which I would dare to say confirms that it is lamellar and that the right shoulder is losened from the chest to get in and out of the armor.

Spoiler

Show

On this one I can't see that feature, but it shows very well how the plates overlapp and the lacing at the lower skirt, confirming that it's rivited lamellar.

[Thiel]

AS far as I recall, the drill called for tearing the paper cartridge open with your teeth, pouring in the powder, then putting the ball in and ramming it down.

This is correct. In fact having two teeth capable of biting down on each other was the only medical requirement for Danish conscripts in the 1850ies and 60ies.

[Mike_G]

If the weapon was smoothbore then the ball (and buckshot typically), where left inside the paper and the paper and projectile(s) were rammed down together. The paper, in theory, working as a crude patch, in practice it probably sufficed as wadding.

If the weapon was a rifle, firing minie ball, then in US practice the ball was squeezed out of the remaining paper and rammed down the barrel. In CS practice, I believe it was the opposite, the paper was left on the ball and all was rammed down together. However, the windage was so low when using a minie ball, that the paper probably didn't survive being rammed down the barrel. Note that with a minie ball there were actually two paper wrappers: the interior one containing just the powder, and the exterior one containing the interior wrapper and the ball. This was to prevent the grease used on the ball from contaminating the gunpowder.

Rate of fire is tricky, as what was possible and what was commonly done were two different things. I've heard claims for flintlock muskets as high as six shots a minute. This is achieved by all sorts of dangerous and suspect tricks. 1. Don't prime -- the old muskets often had oversized vent-holes, so the hope was enough powder would leak through the vent into the priming pan. 2. Don't ram -- just spit/blow down the barrel and hope that that is enough to seat the ball on the powder. All of this sounds really dodgy, but some claim it worked. The militaries of the world often expected a well trained soldier to load and fire three shots a minute (not skipping any step). For the most part expect a rate of fire of about 1-2 shots a minute from the 18th century onwards.

Riflemen, prior to the introduction of the minie ball, were expected to have a slower rate of fire. Military rifles typically had shorter barrels to help speed up loading.

I don't see why any army would want to strive for six rounds of musket fire a minute. All those shortcuts will mean more misfires and worse accuracy with the shots that do go off.

Two aimed shots with a properly loaded weapon will get more hits than six haphazard shots, half of which won't even fire.

I know a musket isn't crazy accurate, but most firing was done at a large target, like an enemy battalion, at relatively short rages. Better to maximize the effect of one or two volleys than have a whole regiment spaying lead all over the shop to no effect. Plus it plays hell with supply if each man is firing his pouch dry in two minutes.

[fusilier]

I don't see why any army would want to strive for six rounds of musket fire a minute. All those shortcuts will mean more misfires and worse accuracy with the shots that do go off.

Two aimed shots with a properly loaded weapon will get more hits than six haphazard shots, half of which won't even fire.

I know a musket isn't crazy accurate, but most firing was done at a large target, like an enemy battalion, at relatively short rages. Better to maximize the effect of one or two volleys than have a whole regiment spaying lead all over the shop to no effect. Plus it plays hell with supply if each man is firing his pouch dry in two minutes.

That's why I find such claims suspect. Accuracy wasn't a concern by this time period, but those cheats had to lead to more misfires (and possibly worse), which would probably cancel out any improvement in rate of fire. I was just passing on what I've heard claimed. Other sources state that 1-2 shots a minute was common, and some evidence from the American Civil War claims that those who fired more slowly (taking time to load carefully -- which can have an affect on accuracy), inflicted more damage than those units which loaded and fired as fast as possible.

[Mike_G]

I saw a show on History channel (yeah, I know) where some American Civil War reenactors had two minutes to load and fire as best they could at a group of human silhouette targets in formation 80 yards away.

They averaged four rounds fired per man, with two hits.

Now, these guys were using rifled muskets with paper cartridge Minie ball ammo and percussion caps. They were timed, but nobody was shooting back, so the stress level was less than it would have been at Gettysburg. The cloud of black powder smoke was just as much an issue as it would have been.

It's not even a remotely perfect study but it shows that you can get decent effectiveness from these weapons at a pretty good range for the period. Considering how badly attacking units got shot up during the ACW, I'd say that while I'm sure 50% hits didn't happen, the rifles of the day were very effective against massed infantry.

[Yhynens]

A friend of mine and I were talking about armor in video games (namely Demon's/Dark Souls, but also other things.) We noticed a few different sets of armor had a pauldron just covering one shoulder or mismatched pauldrons in general, which is something I don't think I've seen in any real armor I've looked at. Was real armor ever like that? And if so, what's the reasoning behind it?

[Lapak]

A friend of mine and I were talking about armor in video games (namely Demon's/Dark Souls, but also other things.) We noticed a few different sets of armor had a pauldron just covering one shoulder or mismatched pauldrons in general, which is something I don't think I've seen in any real armor I've looked at. Was real armor ever like that? And if so, what's the reasoning behind it?

Two kinds I can think of.

- Jousting armor often had one side that was more reinforced than the other and/or had an enlarged or thickened shoulder on one side that was designed to deal with lance strikes. One side is covered by the shield, but the lance-holding arm needed extra protection. And because one side had the shield, and the armor was only going to be used for a specific purpose while on horseback, concerns about uneven balance and additional weight weren't as much of a problem.

- Gladiator's armor. There are lots of representations of Roman gladiators that have only one shoulder and arm covered as part of their kit; again, this is a specialized use where actually providing the best protection in a real combat situation was not the first design concern.

[Spiryt]

Asymmetrical pauldrons or arm protections in general were pretty common in later 15th century.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21152

As far as I know they were common in "Milanese" style of Gothic armor, less so in other regional styles of plate armor.

[Yhynens]

Alright, cool. Needing more protection on one side in a one on one fight is what my theory for it was, but it did seem impractical or weird for a normal armor set. Makes a lot more sense when you look at specialized things like jousting.
Thanks for the help!

EDIT:

Asymmetrical pauldrons or arm protections in general were pretty common in later 15th century.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21152

As far as I know they were common in "Milanese" style of Gothic armor, less so in other regional styles of plate armor.

Oh, cool. A lot of that matches Dark Souls's style, so I can see where the inspiration came from. Thanks for the link!

[Spiryt]

Yeah, as far as I understand, certain asymmetry was used on 'normal' armors as well.

Basically, a bit bulked up plates were supposed to replace shield completely - allowing free hand for a lot of things, starting with two handed weapon obviously.

Generally, while fighting on feet, right handed human will assume stance with his left arm forward, obviously, so catching strikes with it was to be expected.

[Traab]

That does make sense. How effective was it overall in comparison to using a shield? Could they make the armor thick enough to match the protection of a shield without hindering movement to the point where the advantage of a free hand was lost?

[bigstipidfighte]

Could a medieval crossbow be kept ready o fire indefinitely? i.e. in the home as a handy way to fend off horse thieves and he like, or in an armory? If not, how long could they safely hold a bolt?

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

[fusilier]

Could a medieval crossbow be kept ready o fire indefinitely? i.e. in the home as a handy way to fend off horse thieves and he like, or in an armory? If not, how long could they safely hold a bolt?

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

The short answer to your first question is it's bad to leave springs under tension: they wear out more quickly. It's probably not terribly safe having loaded crossbows lying around either . . . However, it may be okay to leave a crossbow strung, unlike a bow which should be unstrung (but I'm not certain, it may depend upon the type of prod). Hopefully someone else will know. If it's a relatively light crossbow, it can be loaded quickly without need of extra gear.

For the second question, I don't have specific data at hand. The complexity of the particular crossbow was probably an issue. Possibly hurting one's self while loading it (back injury)? Also accidentally shooting someone. I would imagine it's more difficult to accidentally let an arrow fly from a bow than a crossbow, and in that sense it would be more like a firearm.

[Brother Oni]

The short answer to your first question is it's bad to leave springs under tension: they wear out more quickly. It's probably not terribly safe having loaded crossbows lying around either . . . However, it may be okay to leave a crossbow strung, unlike a bow which should be unstrung (but I'm not certain, it may depend upon the type of prod). Hopefully someone else will know. If it's a relatively light crossbow, it can be loaded quickly without need of extra gear.

While I don't have first hand experience with crossbows, I've been told that they can be stored strung but not under tension, unlike a traditional wood bow, which should be kept unstrung to avoid tension deforming the bow, resulting in a loss of power.

As with all things, it depends on how the crossbow is stored. In a cool, dry location, it could probably last months or longer while strung with no loss of tension.
Somewhere hot and humid would probably cause a noticable loss of power after a compartively short time (corrosion to the metal parts of the mechanism, deformation of the limbs if under tension or decay of the glue in case of laminate limbs).

[Spiryt]

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

As with everything, it depends on what ones means by 'proficiency' - with some goat foot spanned bow, in 'comfortable' conditions, pretty much any healthy human can become very dangerous shooting it with a week of training.

Actually being 'good', so accurate, fast-shooting, able to take care of it was another thing.

Crossbows loaded with every popular belt hook were often different thing - many sources mention 'good archers' being able to span heavy crossbows, shoot them quickly etc.

Action of pulling the bow with your back obviously depends more on strength, coordination and so on, after all.

Crossbow generally wasn't strictly 'peasant' weapon if by 'peasant' we mean someone relatively poor and so on - because crossbows were relatively to very expensive and delicate pieces of craftsmanship.

A lot of steel bows could be relatively 'fool-proof' - but then they were still pretty expensive - piece of heat treated, elastic, properly bending steel isn't that cheap today either.

As for the last, part, I can't honestly see loading crossbow as being very dangerous, at least not to the user.

I guess that someone could ruin his fingers if he had placed them on the path of the string and shot.

[Brother Oni]

As for the last, part, I can't honestly see loading crossbow as being very dangerous, at least not to the user.

I guess that someone could ruin his fingers if he had placed them on the path of the string and shot.

I guess it would depend on the type of crossbow, but never underestimate the stupidity of people.
I can see very clumsy people doing something stupid with a more powerful cranked crossbow, resulting in the string being loosed prematurely, cutting something off.

With hand drawn ones, I agree that the act of loading is very hard to mess up (about all I can think of is missing the string locking mechanism at maximum tension with certain crossbow types), although incorrect loading may cause errors in firing - I was speaking with someone who had trouble drawing the string back evenly, thus the bolt always went off to one side.

[fusilier]

I guess it would depend on the type of crossbow, but never underestimate the stupidity of people.
I can see very clumsy people doing something stupid with a more powerful cranked crossbow, resulting in the string being loosed prematurely, cutting something off.

With hand drawn ones, I agree that the act of loading is very hard to mess up (about all I can think of is missing the string locking mechanism at maximum tension with certain crossbow types), although incorrect loading may cause errors in firing - I was speaking with someone who had trouble drawing the string back evenly, thus the bolt always went off to one side.

I was just reading instructions on how to span a crossbow using a belt hook: they stated that after spanning the hook should be released before the foot is removed from stirrup -- otherwise if the bowstring didn't latch correctly, removing the foot first would cause the crossbow itself to be propelled toward the body, potentially causing serious injury.

[Storm Bringer]

a quick question that popped into my mind:

is thier any record or blackpowder pistols having some form of saftey catch?

as was pointed out upthread, pistols were one of the few projectile weapons of their time that were kept loaded most of the time, and were expected to be carried loaded when other weapons, like muskets. would be left unloaded until they were needed.

was their a significant chance of accidental discharge with pistols? or was it not an issue until the introduction of modern automatic pistols?

[Galloglaich]

That does make sense. How effective was it overall in comparison to using a shield? Could they make the armor thick enough to match the protection of a shield without hindering movement to the point where the advantage of a free hand was lost?

Yes, not so much thick, as strong enough. The earliest plate armor in the 1200's and 1300's was originally iron, usually fairly thin (1-2mm on most of the armor, up to 3-4mm in the thickest parts of the body and helmet). A cavalry harness might be around 60-80lbs.

By the later middle ages (1400's) steel armor began to be more popular, produced in a few key centers in Southern Germany and Northern Italy, notably Milan, Brescia, and Augsburg. Later Innsbruck in Austria. Steel armor was much trickier (and generally, more expensive) to make (and was only made in a few places), but could be much thinner for the same or better level of protection. Well-tempered, medium-carbon steel armor was even rarer, but much stronger. Steel armor tended to be thin, often as little as 2mm in the thickest parts, and therefore lighter - even though they were much stronger than the earlier iron armor. Some gothic harnesses weighed as little as 40 lbs.

After the mid 1500's there were some major changes in the nature of warfare (and the type of people fighting), demand for armor fell, and the most sophisticated centers of the armor-making industry either collapsed or shrank to a luxury product for the very rich. Armor was reduced in scope to just torso and head protection in many cases, and most armor was mass produced by less skilled smiths using iron again. To cope with pistols and musket balls, they started making the iron breast plates and helmets thicker than ever before, some breast plates in the 1600's were as much as 6mm thick and could weigh 40 lbs for the individual piece of armor! And less effective than the best armor from the 1400's and early 1500's.

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

The point of confusion on crossbows is simply that there were many different types of crossbows, which required much different levels of skill to use, cost different amounts, and were used by different types of people.

We also have an overlapping problem with the idea of 'peasants' which I'll try to clear up first. In the pop culture we tend to divide up the pre-industrial world into nobles and 'peasants', by which we really mean serfs. A peasant by definition owned his own land and could be fairly wealthy, and we know from period records more well-off peasants often owned horses, nice armor, and good quality weapons, at least in certain places like Sweden, Poland, Switzerland, and parts of Germany. In addition, you also have burghers, city-dwellers, who were neither serfs, peasants, or nobles. Townfolk were often quite wealthy and by law, had to be quite well armed.

Regrding crossbows, there were many different types.

A weapon like this, with a draw weight of around 150-200 lbs, was fairly simple to use, like a modern hunting crossbow. You could span it with your hands. Often they would have a simple wooden prod (bow), usually made of yew, or sometimes a steel prod like this one. This would basically be a hunting weapon which could also be used in war or for self defense.



This is a more powerful weapon in the 300-400 lb draw range. To span it you'll need a belt-hook or a device like a 'goats foot'. At that level of power, the bow is somewhat dangerous to use. If you slip while spanning it, or if the prod breaks, you could be injured. A lot of these also had composite prods which could easily be damaged by rain, so the prod had to be kept covered. The string is also vulnerable to moisture regardless of the type of prod.



In the later Middle Ages crossbows like these started to appear, with up to 1200 lbs draw. This is a lot more powerful than any crossbow you can get today. So people assume crossbows are like the ones they are familiar with, of the same level of power as the really simple one above. These things can't be spanned by hand, you have to use a device like a jack. If you slip while spanning, if the string or prod breaks, you could get seriously injured. In terms of power it's closer to a rifle or a musket than what we usually think of as a bow. This is a weapon which will be used by an expert.



a lot of these weapons were actually used mounted

Spoiler

Show

Similarly, you also have powerful siege crossbows like this, spanned by a windlass.



G

[Clistenes]

a quick question that popped into my mind:

is thier any record or blackpowder pistols having some form of saftey catch?

as was pointed out upthread, pistols were one of the few projectile weapons of their time that were kept loaded most of the time, and were expected to be carried loaded when other weapons, like muskets. would be left unloaded until they were needed.

was their a significant chance of accidental discharge with pistols? or was it not an issue until the introduction of modern automatic pistols?

I think the wheellock guns were considered dangerous, and could provoke accidents, but the flintlocks ones were quite safer, and would rarely accidentally discharge while uncocked.

Of course, any kind of gun was VERY likely to accidentally discharge once cocked (you would NEVER keep them cocked, but keep them uncocked and only pull the hammer/dog right before firing, unless you were planning an assassination and were keeping the gun hidden under your cloak).

The flintlocks had a "half-cocked" position that was safe but allowed to **** the weapon faster than from the uncocked position.