th3ranger

Fun with Guns!

47 posts in this topic

This is a topic to talk about any firearms you may own. I have a two, a Beretta U22 Neos and a Beretta Cx4 Storm. I got into them about two years ago, after coworkers told me about how fun it is to shoot paper targets at indoor and outdoor ranges. There happened to be a local Gun shop/indoor range that rented pistols for $10 for unlimited time and you could switch out the gun for as many different ones as you wanted, you simply had to buy the ammo. A nice deal if you ask me, and since I first went there I've taken several friends there also. A side note here, they also rented full auto rifles for $15 with the same kind of deal (especially nice because without an ATF license civilians cannot buy them anymore). Let me tell you though, you can blow though a lot of money in a short time with those!

Anyway, I first bought a Beretta U22 Neos. My reasons for this pistol in no particular order: cheap ammo ($15 for 550), low recoil (this was my first gun), light weight (with a red dot sight it will take great skill to be accurate at relatively great distance), very easy to clean (again first gun), built in scope rail, looks cool (minor issue).

ber_neos_6_bl.jpg

When I first got this gun I almost immediately bought a red dot scope since the built in sights on it aren't that great. In fact the back sight tiny windage screw popped out a few times and I eventually lost it. But since there is a built-in scope rail this is no problem at all. I've been using a TruGlo red dot sight with 2x magnification, and I can shoot empty shotgun shells at 20 yards. The accuracy with this gun is amazing, and, while I'm not that great at it yet, in some bench test, a review was able to get a 1.2 inch diameter group at 100 yards. For those who may not know, a group is usually five rounds within some diameter of a circle. It is something like splitting an arrow when it is within an inch or so, the small .22 bullet holes overlapping. To be accurate at more that ten yards (about 10m) requires immense concentration. I have found that, due to the light weight of the gun, holding my breath actually makes a difference.

Breaking this gun down for cleaning is incredibly simple: Loosen thumb screw, the entire barrel/top rail comes off, let the slide come forward off the rail, let the firing pin pop forward and you are done. In contrast, some rifles and pistols have 20 or more steps and you often need tools to do it. Not so with this pistol. Five steps, just your hands, and in about 30 seconds you are done.

However, the small bullet size and relative harmlessness of the caliber, led me to want at more realistic weapon to shoot. Quick story: the United States Navy states in some weapons manual I read at some point, that .22cal can often be stopped by thick clothing, if the target is more than fifty feet (about 15 meters) away. I thought that Beretta seemed to have good designs and simple disassembly, so I started looking around there first. The Beretta Cx4 Storm caught my eye immediately. Simple, no tools disassembly, cool appearance, reliability, and availability in several different calibers.

beretta_cx4-2.jpg

I got it in .40cal S&W. I have also bought a front grip/bi-pod combo, a 3-9x NcStar scope, and two 20 round clips. Accurate and fun to shoot, but ammo is somewhat expensive ($15 for 50 or $67 for 250). At 25 yards, I can shoot the center out of targets with little effort. Lately I've taken to pinning examples of this to my apartment entrance wall to give would-be robbers fair warning. Not that I'm all that worried about that.

The fun with these firearms, and I think guns in general, is trying to get better every time you visit the range. With pistols the difficulty is higher than rifles, owed mainly to the smaller mass and therefore smaller inertia.

Note: somehow, to date, I haven't robbed a bank or killed anyone! Well, actually, one time at the outdoor range I almost hit a butterfly that landed on my target...almost. It didn't even notice, and obliviously flitted away.

So what kind, if any, firearms do you own? Likes/Dislikes? Cheap target tips? (like political signs haha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still own the Nintendo Zapper. Full plastic handle, good weighting, barley any recoil, and it makes a fun springy sound when you pull the trigger.

zapper.jpg

And it kills 2D ducks like you wouldn’t believe (something my 2D dog is very happy about.)

:angry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still own the Nintendo Zapper. Full plastic handle, good weighting, barley any recoil, and it makes a fun springy sound when you pull the trigger.

zapper.jpg

And it kills 2D ducks like you wouldn’t believe (something my 2D dog is very happy about.)

:angry2:

nice! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gun nut firearms enthusiast can't resist!

In general, I prefer rifles to pistols. I know nothing about shotguns. I also prefer something old, especially if it was involved in making history. So a four foot long rifle with a lot of wood on it certainly interests me much more than a Glock. I'm sure the day will come when I stumble upon some muzzle-loading charcoal burner that I can't live without and the next thing you know I'll be re-enacting Revolutionary and/or Civil War battles. It sounds fun like Renaissance Fairs, just with guns. :angry2:

So I'll start with the pistols, of which I own four. Two of them are M1911s and the third is a Browning Hi-Power. This one is the pick of the litter: a Colt US Army issue with a 1913 serial number. It may be 95 years old, but it fires great! My last pistol is a Browning Buckmark: a .22 target pistol that I bought for cheap target shooting and introducing new shooters. It has all of the qualities of the Beretta U22 except that it is very difficult to field strip. (Sorry about the poor image quality on the link.)

OK, now we get into the fun stuff: rifles in order of purchase. My first two are a German designed, Yugoslavian built Mauser M48 and a Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30. Both of these are cheap. I will admit that I am not happy with the Yugo 48, and I will put it up for sale soon. It is impossible to be unsatisfied with a Mosin, though. That is because they are dirt cheap. I spent some time re-finishing the stock on mine, and you can still see the repairs on it. If you are willing to buy something in the same condition as a dockside tart the morning after payday in need of some work, these rifles can be had for under $100. But also beware, they kick. My Russian has left a black bruise on my shoulder after an afternoon's fun.

Next is something obscure that I bought on a lark: a Walther Gewehr 43. This is a Nazi semi-automatic rifle that they only made about 400,000 of. They fire the same kraut 8mm as the k98, but they tend to be a tad pricey. I'll leave it at that.

At this point I began to wonder, I have three rifles designed for Nazis and/or Communists. Just whose side am I on? So my next purchase was a Winchester M1 Carbine. I cannot praise this rifle highly enough. I suddenly no longer needed driving an hour to a rifle range with 200 and 300 yard targets, but could fire it at an indoors range. And shoot it I did! In fact, I shot it so much that that I had to take it in for repairs three times in the first two years I owned it. I'm wondering if that's because I shot it at least as often as it was fired in WWII.

The next two are the Neutral Bunch: a Swedish Mauser and a Swiss Schmidt-Rubin. These rifles are cheap ($450 for a Swede and $220 for a Swiss), but they are accurate. I call them the Neutral Bunch because since both Sweden and Switzerland were neutral during both World Wars, there was no need for wartime production shortcuts. It's hard to find a Swede with a banged up stock. Most Swiss rifles are former army issue, and thus their stocks bear the scars of being banged about the Alps. So I left my Swede's stock alone and re-finished my Swiss as best as I could. I was proud to have somebody want to buy it from me the first time I took it to the range with the new furniture! :) BTW, both shoot great. With the Swede I am able, on a good day, to drop 8 of 10 rounds into a 6" diameter at 200 yards with open sights from a bench. That won't win me any matches, but I'll still brag about it.

Lastly, I have a couple of DIY project rifles. The first is a Ruger 10/22 that I am building up to be a practice rifle for competitions. The photo you see has a standard walnut stock with after-market military peep sights, sling swivels, and a sling installed. Next is a better trigger than the nine-pound lawyers job that come from the factory. The second project is what I call Project Infidel. Given that AR-15's can be built from the ground up and thus spread the pain between multiple paychecks, I have been doing just that that for the last few months. The last step is to have a match grade upper assembly built...

So that's my collection ... for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great guns.

Our government shamefully disarmed the populace almost immediately after coming to office, but pre-ban I used to like the classic WW2 Colt .45 semi-automatic or a 9mm Browning. I tried the Israeli Desert Eagle but found it a tad over-powerful, and ditto the Magnum 44 (Hey you cannot watch Dirty Harry and not want to try that gun).

One chap had a Austrian gun, (I think a Steyr if memory serves) which I recall shot .22 caliber bullets, but had a high capacity magazine because of the small size of the bullets and very limited recoil.

Now I'm stick with the odd shotgun (you can't even really have pump-action types) or black power revolvers, although, perhaps due to necessity, I'm rather fancying one of the old Colt Dragoon revolvers circa 1850 (you need a licence even for this in the UK). You wouldn't hit much more than 20 yards away I fancy and I don't think it would do much against modern body armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still own the Nintendo Zapper. Full plastic handle, good weighting, barley any recoil, and it makes a fun springy sound when you pull the trigger.

zapper.jpg

And it kills 2D ducks like you wouldn’t believe (something my 2D dog is very happy about.)

:angry2:

Make sure you stay on top of the cleaning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a 22 rifle and a 20 gauge shotgun, but they are resting peacefully in a large gun safe in my parents farm house (along with like 15 other guns).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/305575...98e556cca_o.jpg

Here is my "gun", much easier on the ears, and will go through a bullet proof vest.

Really? Is that true, presumably only at relatively short ranges/direct shots as the hitting power must drop off quite quickly

Do you need special tipped arrows, like the bodkin of old to penetrate a Knights armour?

(I should add, I'm not looking to shoot anyone, just curious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, I loved that thing. I had Battle Clash, such a fun game! It gave me a bad crick in my neck when I first used it, though.

I am conflicted on real guns, though. While I believe people should be allowed to own them, I personally don't understand the fascination with them and would rather not be around them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't enjoy shooting that much, but I do find guns (and fine knives, fine watches, etc - any kind of fine crafted products) attractive. A Model 1911 with an above-average barrel length has a unique visual appeal, and they are so comfy to hold. I also like the legend attached to some other guns such as the Walther PPK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/305575...98e556cca_o.jpg

Here is my "gun", much easier on the ears, and will go through a bullet proof vest.

Really? Is that true, presumably only at relatively short ranges/direct shots as the hitting power must drop off quite quickly

Do you need special tipped arrows, like the bodkin of old to penetrate a Knights armour?

(I should add, I'm not looking to shoot anyone, just curious)

I have not checked this out myself, but relied on what I had read. The principle is much like what happens when a rifle is fired into water at someone swimming below the surface. The most deadly (on Myth Busters) were the slowest because they didn't destroy themselves on contact with the water. High speed had the effect of making the water "harder", in that it couldn't part in time and 'get out of the way'. The most powerful rifle was the least effective.

An arrow which travels at over 250 ft/sec is slow in comparison to a bullet, yet, because of it's mass, has a lot of kinetic energy. The point on my arrow can be seen just above my hand; it is a target point, and is bullet shaped. Hunting arrows have the typical broad arrowhead in order to do as much damage as possible and drop your quarry. A target arrow would whistle clean through your target resulting in you chasing your dinner for a second shot.

My understanding (one for the Myth Busters) is that a bullet proof vest, reacts to high speed like water, and the slower arrow keeps on coming after it's point makes contact. These bows are the most accurate there are, having a peep sight mounted on the string (which can be seen on the picture). I once managed to shoot an entire six arrow 'flight' into a grape fruit size bull's eye from 70 meters. I was never able to repeat that but it shows what is possible. The string is released by a trigger held in your hand, since the pressure on your fingers is very high on a 60lb pull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about this quoting format but the way of replying to select posts didn't seem to work, though I've done it before, so I did this

Quote: Go 4 TLI yesterday 04:05 AM

"I also prefer something old, especially if it was involved in making history...At this point I began to wonder, I have three rifles designed for

Nazis and/or Communists. Just whose side am I on?..."

Yes those old rifles have a mechanical quality to them that make them kind of fun to use. I should get one. When you shoot one it's like you're more to your rifle than a magazine loader. As to having so many Axis/Communist rifles, I guess it takes a high quality weapons to use against the human spirit? But It's not like that rifle format was invented by Axis/Communists so you can't feel too bad about it. Almost as soon as there were long rifles of any kind, they were in a format close to that.

Quote: Carlos yesterday 03:21 PM

"Real men move onto the bigger stuff:

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/...25904.jpg"

You did not just link the Nintendo bazooka! lol! Good times.

Quote: bborg yesterday 03:59 PM

"Ha, I loved that thing. I had Battle Clash, such a fun game! It gave me a bad crick in my neck when I first used it, though.

I am conflicted on real guns, though. While I believe people should be allowed to own them, I personally don't understand the fascination with them

and would rather not be around them."

Statistically, automobiles are as dangerous, if not, more so, than firearms are, but I doubt you fear them. Really, if you wanted to fear cars, you should fear the driver who runs people over on purpose, not every anonymous driver. What I'm trying to say is, that, to kill, a gun needs to be pointed with intent to kill, and is no more inherently dangerous than a really sharp No. 2 pencil is. Fear the man who would use any given object to kill, not the object itself.

That said, guns are one of the few objects with over 500 of development time behind them. Imagine if the user interface of a computer had been developed for such a long time! No blue screens of death that's for sure.

Quote; Joss Delage yesterday 07:37 PM

" I don't enjoy shooting that much, but I do find guns (and fine knives, fine watches, etc - any kind of fine crafted products) attractive. A Model 1911

with an above-average barrel length has a unique visual appeal, and they are so comfy to hold. I also like the legend attached to some other guns such

as the Walther PPK."

I understand what you mean. My co-workers thought me strange to enjoy staring at the fascinating tiny clockwork of an open face pocket watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/305575...98e556cca_o.jpg

Here is my "gun", much easier on the ears, and will go through a bullet proof vest.

Really? Is that true, presumably only at relatively short ranges/direct shots as the hitting power must drop off quite quickly

Do you need special tipped arrows, like the bodkin of old to penetrate a Knights armour?

(I should add, I'm not looking to shoot anyone, just curious)

I have not checked this out myself, but relied on what I had read. The principle is much like what happens when a rifle is fired into water at someone swimming below the surface. The most deadly (on Myth Busters) were the slowest because they didn't destroy themselves on contact with the water. High speed had the effect of making the water "harder", in that it couldn't part in time and 'get out of the way'. The most powerful rifle was the least effective.

An arrow which travels at over 250 ft/sec is slow in comparison to a bullet, yet, because of it's mass, has a lot of kinetic energy. The point on my arrow can be seen just above my hand; it is a target point, and is bullet shaped. Hunting arrows have the typical broad arrowhead in order to do as much damage as possible and drop your quarry. A target arrow would whistle clean through your target resulting in you chasing your dinner for a second shot.

My understanding (one for the Myth Busters) is that a bullet proof vest, reacts to high speed like water, and the slower arrow keeps on coming after it's point makes contact. These bows are the most accurate there are, having a peep sight mounted on the string (which can be seen on the picture). I once managed to shoot an entire six arrow 'flight' into a grape fruit size bull's eye from 70 meters. I was never able to repeat that but it shows what is possible. The string is released by a trigger held in your hand, since the pressure on your fingers is very high on a 60lb pull.

Thank you for the extremely detailed and logical reply.

Unless longbows are now banned in the UK (I'm not joking, I will have to check!) I'm thinking Mrs Stussy88 might have found her ideal Christmas gift for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longbows are much, much more difficult to shoot well than modern bows. I agree that they're pretty cool though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistically, automobiles are as dangerous, if not, more so, than firearms are, but I doubt you fear them. Really, if you wanted to fear cars, you should fear the driver who runs people over on purpose, not every anonymous driver. What I'm trying to say is, that, to kill, a gun needs to be pointed with intent to kill, and is no more inherently dangerous than a really sharp No. 2 pencil is. Fear the man who would use any given object to kill, not the object itself.

That said, guns are one of the few objects with over 500 of development time behind them. Imagine if the user interface of a computer had been developed for such a long time! No blue screens of death that's for sure.

You don't think that guns can do more serious and permanent damage (including death) more easily than a car or No. 2 pencil? All it takes is to pull a trigger while pointing it at someone. Doesn't the danger of automobiles relative to guns have something to do with the fact that they are used so much more, and in such great concentrations (drivers are all on the same roads with each other, multiplying the effect of human error)? What would the relative danger look like if you compared automobile deaths per automobile use to gun deaths per gun use?

To be clear, I am not arguing against the use of guns and people should be free to own them. However, I think I am right to be more wary about being around people with guns than people with No. 2 pencils. Both can be used to deal physical injury, but it takes considerably less effort to deal it with a gun. And yes, I agree it matters who is holding the gun, but because of the ease with which someone holding a gun could hurt me I have to trust them to be comfortable standing next to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good timing starting this thread, since last Sunday I qualified for a concealed handgun license using a little Beretta.

The county where I live is more than 560 square miles and more than a hundred thousand people live here. There are a few small incorporated towns with their own police force, but most people live in unincorporated areas. They're protected by the county sheriff's department, which has 6 deputies.

Not being able to defend yourself here amounts to negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would the relative danger look like if you compared automobile deaths per automobile use to gun deaths per gun use?

I did a nowhere near thorough Google search and found these iffy numbers:

In 2006, there were about 16.93 fatalities per 100K registered vehicles (link), with over 251M registered vehicles (link).

Several sites, both far and against gun control, estimated that there are between 238 and 276 million firearms in the US. Several sites claim that there are about 10 fatalities/100K people in the US (link), with most of these fatalities being suicides. If we take the US population to be 300M, and assume that there are 257M firearms in the US, we get [an admittedly questionable] 11.7 fatalities per 100K firearms.

The numbers are closer than I thought they would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a nowhere near thorough Google search and found these iffy numbers:

In 2006, there were about 16.93 fatalities per 100K registered vehicles (link), with over 251M registered vehicles (link).

Several sites, both far and against gun control, estimated that there are between 238 and 276 million firearms in the US. Several sites claim that there are about 10 fatalities/100K people in the US (link), with most of these fatalities being suicides. If we take the US population to be 300M, and assume that there are 257M firearms in the US, we get [an admittedly questionable] 11.7 fatalities per 100K firearms.

The numbers are closer than I thought they would be.

Thanks, although these numbers don't measure what I was getting at. Maybe the right numbers haven't been researched yet. Of the 257M firearms in the US, how many are sitting on shelves or in cabinets, untouched? And how many gun owners own multiple guns? At least with cars, you know that the vast majority are being taken on the road where risk can be properly measured.

I'll put it a different way, because I generally find statistics unhelpful. Just imagine someone holding a gun. It doesn't bother me if they have a gun at home in a locked cabinet. It's also less threatening to have a gun stored in the car, or even in a holster, than it is to see someone holding one. It can do no harm in a holster; it's when it's transferred to the hand that damage can be done. Certainly who is holding the gun matters. Is it a police officer? I know that police are trained in the use of firearms, and they have sworn to protect me, so it is unlikely I would feel threatened by an officer with a gun out unless he was actually pointing it at me. But what if it isn't an officer? If I saw some guy walking down the street with a gun in his hand, I would stay out of his sight. Would I do the same if I saw the same man holding a No. 2 pencil? It's silly to even ask the question.

What it comes down to is a gun is a weapon, whereas a car is not. A car can do harm, but that is not its purpose, and when I see people driving on the road my first thought is not "are they going to hit me?" A gun was designed to do damage with very little effort. A reckless driver is less of a threat to me than a reckless person wielding a gun. And the gun is a choice tool of criminals, which means if I see someone holding a gun I am going to be suspicious of him (if I don't know him personally).

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread. I don't think there's anything wrong with admiring the craftsmanship of weaponry, or enjoying shooting a gun at a firing range or hunting animals. I just wanted to explain my own apprehension about them, and why I don't think a risk comparison to cars or other nonweapons is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how many gun owners own multiple guns?

During this search I repeatedly read that somewhere between 70-85% of these firearms are owned by about 25% of Americans.

At least with cars, you know that the vast majority are being taken on the road where risk can be properly measured.

I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of firearms in the country are kept in a ready to fire or near ready to fire state.

Just imagine someone holding a gun. It doesn't bother me if they have a gun at home in a locked cabinet. It's also less threatening to have a gun stored in the car, or even in a holster, than it is to see someone holding one.

I agree. All kinds of reasonable alarms should go off at the sight of an openly displayed weapon. (Dr Binswanger has made the case that when a citizen is carrying a weapon it must be concealed.)

Some time ago Paul's Here made the point that it's hard to justify owning a firearm that can accidentally shoot a round through a nearby residence. I now think that there should be limits on the types of weapons enthusiasts that live in densely populated can store in their homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are raised in really rural areas where people use and have guns often, they really aren't a scary or dangerous thing. I could imagine if I were raised in a heavily urbanized setting where things like hunting every deer season or shooting beer cans wasn't the norm then guns would certainly have kind of a scary aura to me.

In the farm town where I was raised, there were guns everywhere yet little to no gun accidents or guns used in crime to speak of. When you are dealing with people who were holding and shooting their first firearms under the careful instruction of a father from age 7, guns are probably the safest thing on earth.

I wonder how much of this stigma that is attached to guns is purely the result of the liberal media's relentless efforts to demonize guns and gun owners? If you were to only be educated through magazines and TV shows, I think you'd almost believe that firearms are like live grenades that can just unpredictably kill at any moment.

Of all the issues out there, I think the controversy surrounding the 2nd amendment really brings to the surface the true beliefs of rural Republicans vs urban Democrats: the former believe that any man out there has the good sense and self responsibility to own a firearm, and that the government has no place to intrude and be our caretaker. The urban Democrat hates guns and the concept that any stupid hillbilly could think he has the self-responsibility to even own one.

And honestly, there are some raging idiots out there who get behind the wheel every day and are probably far more dangerous than a moving bullet. How often do you see drivers who will risk their life and yours at the drop of a hat merely to save 3 seconds of travel time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun regulation is still something that is very scary to me.

In Canada and Europe the fascistsLeftists have made it plainly clear that we can expect the following strategy:

1: One class of firearms at a time, various guns are required by law to be licensed. If they do it one class at a time, not too many people will protest all at once, and the legislating can move forward somewhat silently.

2: Begin issuing bans on one class of firearms at a time. It's not like the gun owners can hide them because the government knows through the licensing process who owns what guns. Once again, take it one step at a time. They can ban all large rifles first, and the pistol owners could possibly shrug and say "well, that doesn't apply to me.."

3: Wake up in a world where repeatedly convicted felons can break into your home threatening violence, and if you shoot them with a gun that has been banned, you will go to jail for a longer amount than the vandals who robbed and attacked you (this is a real story that happened to a man in Canada. He was sent to jail for several years without parole, and the individual who broke into his house and robbed him was released sooner!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those fatality stats - trended over several years - are available I believe at the CDC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Longbows are much, much more difficult to shoot well than modern bows. I agree that they're pretty cool though.

The long bow is rather primitive, and does not match the sophisticated composite re-curve (reverse curve) bows of the Mongols, for example. In battle, the long bow was fine because the strategy was for a rain of arrows to fall, not pin point accuracy.

This is from Wikipedea

"Re-curve bows made out of composite materials were used by, among other groups, the Scythians, Hyksos, Magyars, Huns, Turks, Mongols, and Chinese. The re-curve bow spread to Egypt and much of Asia in the second millennium BC. Presumably Greek and Phoenician influence would have introduced the re-curve form to the rest of the Mediterranean region. The standard weapon of Roman imperial archers was a composite re-curve, and the stiffening laths used to form the actual recurved ends have been found on Roman sites throughout the Empire, as far north as Bar Hill on the Antonine Wall in Scotland.[2] During the Middle Ages composite re-curve bows were used in the drier European countries; the all-wooden straight longbow was the normal form in wetter areas. Recurved bows depicted in the British Isles (see illustrations in "The Great War Bow")[3] may have been composite weapons, or wooden bows with ends recurved by heat and force, or simply artistic licence. Many North American bows were recurved, especially West Coast bows. Re-curve bows went out of widespread use with the availability of effective firearms. Self bows, composite bows, and laminated bows using the re-curve form are still made and used by amateur and professional bowyers."

The Olympics do not allow the Compound Bow I am using, instead the modern Composite Re-curve. The Re-curve has no rear peep sight, and relies on accurate hand placement alongside your face as a 'back sight'. Neither does it have the pulleys and cams of the Compound. It requires a lot more skill to be accurate with the Re-curve, and even more with the long bow.

At our field the a particular typical cross bow did not have the accuracy or power of the Compound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites