A crossbow consists of a prod (similar in appearance to a bow) mounted on a stock similar to a rifle stock, which has a mechanism to wind and shoot its bolts. These bolts are typically called quarrels, and do not depend upon lift as arrows do. The stock and trigger of hand-held firearms may have been copied from crossbows.
Crossbow bolts must be made to have consistent weights as the mechanical process of engaging a bolt forces a more uniform process than that of using a bow and arrow. This consistent performance was part of what made the crossbow historically a significant force in warfare.
A crossbow contains a string which is held in place by a nut when the bolt is loaded and the cross bow is engaged (referred to as at full cock). Typically, the nut is at the end of the shelf (also called the bolt rest).
MA Jay,
You know, you would have thought with all of this posting I would have looked up the definition of crossbow but I didn't until your post. So I did and here is the definition as per the Websters Dictonary Modern Desk Edition.
"Crossbow: a medieval weapon consisting of a bow set transversely on a wooden stock"
Pretty much sums up what I have been saying all along, it's a form of a bow.
I want to make myself very clear here, I know there are differences between a crossbow and a handheld bow. That has been well documented and I agree with all of those who have posted to that effect.
However to me and to the Websters Dictionary, it's still considered a bow. Furthermore I have listed many differences between a crossbow and a firearm some of which are so obvious and contrasted that there is no way a crossbow could ever be classified as a firearm yet only a handfull of people acknowledged this at all. I think, and I could be wrong here but only BOWFANATIC and yourself.
It seems like everyone else wants to forget the basic premise of how these weapons work and how it makes them vastly different. That will never change.