Hand Crossbows

Every crossbow is a hand crossbow

>>33673549
They are useful for applying poison at 15-30 ft, that's about it.

>>33673560
Sorry I meant more in real life than in games

>>33673549
the crossbow in your picture, if it's as small as it looks, would be tossing that bolt at a very low speed at very close range. like maybe less power than throwing a rock

so yeah if these ever existed they were for putting a poisoned bolt into something that was just too far away to stab with your actual weapon. i'd be very suprised to hear that this thing can even pierce a sheet of leather or a live animal hide. proper crossbows existed to pierce through platemail, the chainmail under it, and then into the person under that

>>33673585

This. Much like flails with long chains, hand crossbows were never widely used in medieval times due to how shitty they are in practice.

>>33673549
They're called a Balestrino
Basically a 300lb draw weight, with a tiny bolt and will probably kill a rabbit or someone unfortunate enough to be hit in the face with one at close range

>>33673549
No crossbow small enough to hold in one hand would be powerful enough to use as a serious weapon. If they existed (I've never seen a historical one but maybe they did) they were novelty items and not intended for any serious attempt at defending oneself.

Their effectiveness could probably be compared to the average BB/pellet gun, technically capable of hurting someone, but not something you would plan to use as a weapon.

>>33673565
Me too, nerd.

File: 1441906376120.jpg (115KB, 800x641px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x641px

>>33673549
Here you go OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_N8CrooPY

>>33674067
300lbs draw in a handheld package is actually really fucking impressive.

>>33673585
Not even a 1000lbs crossbow will reliably penetrate plate armor of the day unless you're lucky to get one in the eyeslit or armpit.

>>33674174
A 1200lbs windlass with a long span -might- do it at very close range.

Thankfully for most crossbowmen, most disposable footsoldiers didn't have plate.

>>33674165
Problem isn't the draw weight, it's the length of pull.
The string is only pushing the bolt for the first 2 or 3 inches and doesn't have time to transfer that power effectively

>>33673549
>So I've heard about hand crossbows and seen them featured alot in games such as D&D but when I actually try to look them up I can find virtually no useful information on historically accurate ones.


I've experimented with 80lb versions and larger bulkier 150lb versions with pistol stocks.

The larger versions may as well have a rifle stock on them and are unwieldy to aim single handed

You are going to wind up with between 7 and 10 ft.lbs from a pistol crossbow. Note a great deal, the lethality is a actor of how well it lacerates, crossbows being a bleeding out weapon like handguns.

At best they are a distraction weapon like a throwing knife. They have a very very marginal chance of a kill (e.g. eye socket from point black, possible but unlikely) and a slightly better one of a slow kill over several days or weeks if there is no treatment. That is entirely dependent on the bolts being fitted with some form of broadhead, explosive or poison such as nicotine sulphate.

They will never 'drop' an aggressor in a timeframe that matters to the defender. Range is difficult to because as with all crossbows and particularly ones with short draw lengths they have an initial flat trajectory and then a massive and rapid fall off. Anything more than 10 meters and there is no way you could estimate range rapidly enough to hold off for a hit. In other words you better already have something else in your other hand.

>>33674288
>Problem isn't the draw weight, it's the length of pull.

True

>>33674288
You can compensate a bit by using heavy bolts.

>>33674067
what i would give for a smaller collapsible version....

to be able to pop faggots from 30-40 yards with little non-leathal sapper bolts would be hilarious.

>>33673585
>>33674298
>>33673635
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsqrlaIef2o

>>33673585
Even a steel arbalest was hard pressed to pierce plate. At best you got a gigantic dent but more often than not the bolt bounces off.

Early guns, and I'm talking pre-muskets, were developed solely to pierce armor and actually didn't have the rate of fire to hold off a cavalry charge on their own.

File: 600px-Tdomecrossbow2.jpg (48KB, 600x248px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x248px

>>33673549

>>33674312
To a point, but this both adds weight to the ammunition and hurts the maximum range. Lower "muzzle" velocity and such.

>>33673554
Just like every gun is a handgun?

You better be pretending to be retarded, for your sake.

>>33674649
range is not much of a concern for such a small weapon. but you can do some damage with a heavy bolt. that said, this items where a toy for rich guys back then, and not a serious weapon.

File: mak_9024-04.jpg (49KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x600px

>>33673549
Their draw weight and length are way too short to be even close to lethal in any way.

Modern pistol crossbows with 80 lbs/ 36,3 kg of draw weight shooting a 6,8 gram/ 105 grain projectile at 173fps/ 53,4 m/s generate about 7.2 ft/lbs/ 9,75 J of energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td-uQmuiwds

This is barely enough to pierce naked skin or shoot your eye out. It's weaker than 17J toy air guns. I guess you could push them to about 17J with heavier bolts but that's it, maybe even more with a different design, but it's not going to be lethal.

They would be sufficient for hunting small game at best, or as >>33673560 said, applying poison but even that's a stretch as I seriously doubt they have enough energy to pierce any sort of clothing reliably.

> was going to build an interesting historically accurate army in a campaign based on using them
Well if you want to be historically accurate that army better lose big time.

They are toys, that's the reality. Not even repeating crossbows like pic related were lethal enough to kill a man in thin clothes reliably without poison or a dozen of hits.

>>33674067
If you actualy bothered to read the description you would know those things were just toys popular with nobility with too much disposable income.

300 lbs of draw weight is pretty much irrelevant with such a short draw length.

>>33674674
No, there are guns you can't fire with your hands. You sound like someone who defends traps as straight.

>>33674831
>If you actualy bothered to read the description
I did read it and posted that here. Open your eyes motherfucker!

>>33674846
>No, there are guns you can't fire with your hands
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you have brain damage?

First off, there are no guns you can't fire with your hands. Second, even if there was a gun you can't fire with your hands, it wouldn't change the fact that we don't call rifles handguns.

>You sound like someone who defends traps as straight.
The fact that you bring unrelated shit like this up only makes you look like an even bigger retard which is quite a feat considering the garbage you wrote before.

>>33674856
>Open your eyes motherfucker!
Shit Anon, what am I supposed to open my eyes at? You posted that without mentioning it's a toy. As a matter of fact you didn't mention a single thing, you just posted a video.

A video that is just showcasing and doesn't include any information OP is looking for. So why did you even post it?

>>33674895
Because it says so in the vid. Now go lick the shit of your boyfriends dick, sperglord.

So does anyone know the lightest crossbow one could have that would shoot at least 120 meters and still have enough power to penetrate skin and leather? Preferably one that can be held in one hand and reloaded without tools?

>>33674174
... what are you talking about

even weak yard goons with longbows can easily punch plate armor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2euRQCdsJDM

>>33677609
>plate armor.
More like some sheet metal abomination. proper armor looks more like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

>>33673549
I used to have a hand crossbow that I bought at a flea market; I have no doubt it would kill someone at 15 yards, if they were unarmored. Might be nice to have one to fire once and then drop it at the start of the battle, but a dedicated crossbowman would want a full size crossbow.

>>33674831
>It's weaker than 17J toy air guns. I guess you could push them to about 17J with heavier bolts but that's it, maybe even more with a different design, but it's not going to be lethal.
Toy air guns don't shot sharp arrows.

File: chateau-castelnaud-arms-arbalete-1.jpg (116KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x800px

>Hunting cranequin crossbow

Date: 16th–17th century
Characteristics: metal bow, wooden stock covered on top by bone and incrusted on the sides with circular motifs also made of bone; the metal cranequin was attached to the stock by a loop of cord.
Inv. N°: 199


The crossbow is a powerful, silent and precise weapon. It was used as much for fighting as for hunting. Very widespread in medieval times, the weapon-makers constantly tried to improve it. The model here loads with the help of a cranequin that the men wore at their belt. This crossbow winder was used to draw the bow string and allowed for the weapon’s use by horsemen.

>>33681213
>>33681088
Draw weight?

>>33681561
sadly neither the Museum Château de Castelnaud nor the Met record draw weight for artifacts. you'd think the museum for medieval warfare might.

File: handgonne.jpg (21KB, 920x215px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 920x215px

>>33674875
Not him but artillery is semi commonly called "guns" and all early guns that could be carried and fired by one person are handcannons, handgonnes and the like also I'm pretty sure he was joking.

>>33681712
I participated in a test of various crossbows made to the Italian pattern.
Early version had a draw weight of two hundred pounds and a power stroke of nine inches. Easy to cock by hand using the stirrup, penitrated ballistic gell to the leather vanes, bounced off twelve gauge steel plate.
Late version was larger. Five hundred pounds draw weight and could not be cocked by hand. Goats foot could just cock the bow, windlass made it easy if incredibly slow. Easerly passed through twelve inches of gell, could penetrate plate if it hit square.
Last was a German arbslist.
Steel span, steel string, iron and wood stock. 1100 pounds draw, fourteen inch stroke. This hand artillery shot a twenty inch bolt of oak three quarters of an inch round. Tipped with a strange pyramid point it was able to tear through twelve and eight gauge steel plate at angles of twenty five deg.
Could only be cocked using a crank and worm screw that took just under a minute to set, wind and remove.
It was never a weapon of war, it was a hunting bow for taking down wolves and bores.

Thanks to Nat geo and MIT for letting me participate.

>>33683966
>Could only be cocked using a crank and worm screw that took just under a minute to set, wind and remove.
>It was never a weapon of war, it was a hunting bow for taking down wolves and bores.
Heavy arabalests where a weapon of war, but they where used in stationary role on castles for defense. In this role the German name is Wallarmbrust (Wall-crossbow). On the other hand it is way to heavy to go hunting with.
The pyramidal tip is an T1-5s type, they've been in use from around 1300-1500, they are not that common for medieval points but can be found from Sweden down to Sicily.