Full Version: Arrow Design
Zen: Sorry, but archery is all about technique, not aim. If your technique isn't clean-- namely, if you take any of the shortcuts you mentioned-- your aim will be badly off. Even with a smartlink, you still need to re-acquire your target; the smartlink just makes that easier to do.
:: grins :: I'm not an expert on using a bow, and I'll admit it.
-Botch:
Yeah, I agree, but the listings for max weight aren't for benching, it's for actual lift
carry in the field, so it's at least a smidge closer... I'd prolly cut it to three fourths max or so, maybe less, but still more than half. Anyway, what do you think the pull on str10 bow is going to be?
I hope I haven't come across as an idiot during this debate, or a crank.
-Botch:
Yeah, I agree, but the listings for max weight aren't for benching, it's for actual lift
carry in the field, so it's at least a smidge closer... I'd prolly cut it to three fourths max or so, maybe less, but still more than half. Anyway, what do you think the pull on str10 bow is going to be?
I hope I haven't come across as an idiot during this debate, or a crank.
I didn't really mean to imply that they were. The example was a bit snidy, but I was trying to get across that lifting an object with the majority of a body's muscles is much easier than using basically the just muscles in half of each arm, shoulders, and middle of the back. Added to this the bent, straining arm is responsible for making sure the arrow goes where the sights are pointing. Unlike with a gun front and rear targetting point alignment is affected by body posture.
Using a bow takes as much if not more practice as any other projectile weapon, this is also a consideration in setting a poundage for the Ranger-X. The archer may be strong enough to target fire a more powerful bow a few times before aim suffers, but he will use a bow with a lower poundage. The lower poundage allows the bow to be used effectively for hours of training each week and use in less than ideal field conditions.
I currently stand by the example posted above - a peak poundage of 215lbs, you can use the link to convert this to compound poundage. The problem is that novice archers are given crappy fibreglass bows to start with. Aim is the controlling force on how powerful a bow you use, the further you can shoot straight, the further the target, and hence a bigger bow. Once you have mastered hitting a target at 80-120 yrds you have developed a specific musclature to fire a powerful bow that does not necessary reflect a person general muscle development.
If you wish me to try a specific RL strength test (books miles away) to figure my SR STR, I can over the weekend at the gym. Then we could use the Botch Standard - 86lbs x STR/BotchSTR.
But I reckon 215lbs for a Ranger-X if I am STR4, I could be 5, but I don't feel that vain.
Using a bow takes as much if not more practice as any other projectile weapon, this is also a consideration in setting a poundage for the Ranger-X. The archer may be strong enough to target fire a more powerful bow a few times before aim suffers, but he will use a bow with a lower poundage. The lower poundage allows the bow to be used effectively for hours of training each week and use in less than ideal field conditions.
I currently stand by the example posted above - a peak poundage of 215lbs, you can use the link to convert this to compound poundage. The problem is that novice archers are given crappy fibreglass bows to start with. Aim is the controlling force on how powerful a bow you use, the further you can shoot straight, the further the target, and hence a bigger bow. Once you have mastered hitting a target at 80-120 yrds you have developed a specific musclature to fire a powerful bow that does not necessary reflect a person general muscle development.
If you wish me to try a specific RL strength test (books miles away) to figure my SR STR, I can over the weekend at the gym. Then we could use the Botch Standard - 86lbs x STR/BotchSTR.
But I reckon 215lbs for a Ranger-X if I am STR4, I could be 5, but I don't feel that vain.
:: nods :: that seems to make sense... that's still a bloody huge arrow with some serious punch. :: grins ::
examples of bodkins and penetrator bullet heads my uninformed opinion is that bodkin it gonna bloody hurt.
BTW, which link?
examples of bodkins and penetrator bullet heads my uninformed opinion is that bodkin it gonna bloody hurt.
BTW, which link?
Zen, use the link at the start of the thread that references arrowweight/poundage.
For the record I have gone through the strength lift/loads and it appears I am currently STR4.5, so in the tradition of rounding down.
The Botch Standard would be 86x(STR/4)lbs for recurve and 68x(STR/4)lbs for compound. I would rate that any bow that falls below 45lbs peak poundage to be unsuitable for combat/hunting of any target bigger than small animals.
Bear in mind that the additional weight of the arrow is normally dispersed along the shaft to aide rigidity. Not all the addtional weight can be taken up by explosive heads, this is why I am a proponent of making the shaft a mini-shotgun to increase damage.
For the record I have gone through the strength lift/loads and it appears I am currently STR4.5, so in the tradition of rounding down.
The Botch Standard would be 86x(STR/4)lbs for recurve and 68x(STR/4)lbs for compound. I would rate that any bow that falls below 45lbs peak poundage to be unsuitable for combat/hunting of any target bigger than small animals.
Bear in mind that the additional weight of the arrow is normally dispersed along the shaft to aide rigidity. Not all the addtional weight can be taken up by explosive heads, this is why I am a proponent of making the shaft a mini-shotgun to increase damage.
Sounds like a plan. ::grins :: I think we've got just about every major issue ironed out, well...excluding the actual effect of using obsidian heads 
, but I don't think we're gonna make a lick of progress in that respect. For the record, what do you think they'd do? I know what obsidian does to flesh, and it ain't pretty.
170 for energy cam is way off the charts, as is 215 for a recurve. I think we're looking at 1000+ grain weights... which is getting rather well up there.
, but I don't think we're gonna make a lick of progress in that respect. For the record, what do you think they'd do? I know what obsidian does to flesh, and it ain't pretty.170 for energy cam is way off the charts, as is 215 for a recurve. I think we're looking at 1000+ grain weights... which is getting rather well up there.
| QUOTE |
| 170 for energy cam is way off the charts, as is 215 for a recurve. I think we're looking at 1000+ grain weights... which is getting rather well up there. |
Don't worry, the table has a fairly linear progression, use a spreadsheet to extend the table.
IMO I think that the obsidian arrowheads would have no higher a damage code than ex-ex explosive arrowheads, but with a cooler description. The obsidian fragments might be small, sharp, and fast moving, but so are the particules from any frangible warhead. The main penalty for the obsidian arrowheads are their total uniqueness, hand-built ammo for bows? How the hell do you stop it being contaminated with DNA traces?
For the mini-shotgun shaft, I just remembered what happens when porous silicon comes into contact with liquid nitrogen and it turns out it (LN) isn't needed, you can dope the porous silicon and detonate it was a miserly 9V. The destructive force of a silicon explosion is massive, the BBC stated that porous silicon is the most powerful conventional explosive material known.
IMO I think that the obsidian arrowheads would have no higher a damage code than ex-ex explosive arrowheads, but with a cooler description. The obsidian fragments might be small, sharp, and fast moving, but so are the particules from any frangible warhead. The main penalty for the obsidian arrowheads are their total uniqueness, hand-built ammo for bows? How the hell do you stop it being contaminated with DNA traces?
For the mini-shotgun shaft, I just remembered what happens when porous silicon comes into contact with liquid nitrogen and it turns out it (LN) isn't needed, you can dope the porous silicon and detonate it was a miserly 9V. The destructive force of a silicon explosion is massive, the BBC stated that porous silicon is the most powerful conventional explosive material known.
Funny, I thought that that was astrolite…
~J
~J
I would like to at this time give a hearty "Hello!" to the fine folks at the US Department of Homeland Security.
-karma
-karma
What's wrong with this? It's not as if anyone has even hinted that producing any of the weapons mentioned in this thread would be possible IRL with current technology, let alone privately.
They should be more concerned with the threads about CAR BOMBING KILLING MURDERING THE PRESIDENT.
They should be more concerned with the threads about CAR BOMBING KILLING MURDERING THE PRESIDENT.
How much damage could you do if you punctured the gas tank of a large truck (18-wheeler large), waited fifteen minutes, and set the stuff alight?
Of course, you'd have explosives to back it up…
~J
Of course, you'd have explosives to back it up…
~J
:: laughs :: I think obsidian arrow heads would actually have different stats from the ex-explosive arrows because of the combination of super-fine penetration (been working on the math, it'll prolly go through most armor like butter) and the subsequent fragmentation of the entire bloody arrow inside the armor.
Btw, they aren't quite handmade, but they're close... they're basically DNI cad-cam'd using a microtronics shop.
So the final arrow is a porous silicon core wrapped in carbon weave or something similarly silly and high tech tipped with a fine pointed leaf shaped broad head... So it'd basically act as an ex explosive arrow? That seems a lil underpowered for the product of so much effort, and remember that damage code represents the sheer mayhem inflicted.
On the other hand, I guess I can understand why they'd basically be just ex-explosive arrows but... :: shrugs ::
Btw, they aren't quite handmade, but they're close... they're basically DNI cad-cam'd using a microtronics shop.
So the final arrow is a porous silicon core wrapped in carbon weave or something similarly silly and high tech tipped with a fine pointed leaf shaped broad head... So it'd basically act as an ex explosive arrow? That seems a lil underpowered for the product of so much effort, and remember that damage code represents the sheer mayhem inflicted.
On the other hand, I guess I can understand why they'd basically be just ex-explosive arrows but... :: shrugs ::
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.