Not really, only so much as to argue against those who don't want crossbows. The difference in one to the other arre just as huge and obvious - I compare ALL of them while you're just stuck on crossbows. True ?
Not true. I have always stated clearly the differences in the long, recurve and compound bows. All I need to do to conclude the crossbow is different is show how it does not share what all 3 of the bows share in common. That is how they are drawn and "held" at full draw and how they all require the same form to be shot accurately. (Form = bow hand grip, consistent anchor point, consistent sighting method, smooth arrow release and follow through)
McAlister military base don't allow compounds. Does that mean they aren't bows ? Certain areas of Idaho are Trad only - no compounds. Does that make a compound not a bow ?
Come on, of course it doesn't! Military bases, state parks, even some communities all have "special" rules they make to control game and limit hunting access.
You are NOT serious ? A Mathews Outback works identically to a recurve ? Do you really believe that ?
Dude, do you really believe otherwise? If you do; you are not nearly as intelligent as you pretend to be on-line. The one thing ALL bows have in common are the manual drawing of a string attached to limbs that store the energy tranferred to them by the muscles of the person drawing the bow. Upon the manual release of the string that energy stored in the limbs is expelled and transferred into the string and then onto the arrow. At no point is the energy released from the "human" until release of the arrow occurs. This is why compounds are still bows and crossbows are not.... silly little man. This is easy to just take snippets and rip them apart!
Not gets them included soley based on effective range - but yes, it is yet another reason to allow them. They (crossbows) are bows that work every bit like a compound does - and equally as different as a reurve too
Every bit??? Read above post, they don't work the same. If they did, then the crossbow couldn't create and maintain energy without the direct result of human muscle. But it does.. it is why they are different.
Majority of people 25 years ago was against compounds. Aren't you glad they lost the battle ?
This is just your "opinion" and a dumb one at that. There was no HUGE anti compound sentiment... as I said before, when the compound was launched ... it was an inferior weapon to traditional equipment based on it's lack of reliability, consistency and noise alone.
AR,OH,GA,TX and every handicap person in every state that shoots crossbows disagre with that narrowminded, elitist point of view. As easily as you can declare that, so too can I say that since I shoot a recurve, your choice of a compoound makes you inferior and not worthy of the title "bowhunter" - right ?
You are a meatball. I have never said "better" or "inferior", just different. I personally think "Crossbowhunter" doesn't sound like a bad moniker to have... but why are you crossbow guys avoiding it like it's diseased? Perhaps because it validates the "different" part????
Here you have a valid point. Choice, and mine and other archers and 47 states have made the choice that a crossbow is not "archery" equipment. Doesn't make you less of a hunter to use one where legal, doesn't make you inferior to bowhunters .. it just makes you a crossbow hunter or in the case of the handicapped, a crossbow hunter hunting during archery season.
Ouch Data.. using this format all of your points seem so .... "silly"