I agree Data may go about it in a different way than I do, but that dosen't mean he is anti-compound, if he was he wouldn't have hunted with one last year. I think what he is trying to say (sorry if i'm putting words in your mouth) is compounders (like myself) have no right to call something not a bow when their choice of weapon is very close to not being one as well. And only true longbow/recurve shooters have the RIGHT to say anything. Because like it or not, that was the original bow hunting equipment.

Ya'll please stop quoting each freaking sentence!!!! I can't keep up

Ill admit, I have never hunted with a cross bow, but have shot them. I have hunted with all but a long bow. My older brother is a long bow fanatic. I have shot long bows, quite a bit. I dont trust a long bow. My brother is one of the exception when it comes to long bows, he knows the bows limitations. Long bows are limited by speed and energy. Very slow bows, slow stacking, etc.. If any bow should be banned it should be a long bow due to ethical reasons. Not many people want to take the time to truly learn a long bow. As for a recurve, I some times like a recurve over a compound. Much easier to instinctive shot when fishing, hunting birds, or rabbits. Compound is much more inferior in this respect. I started shooting with long bows back in the early 80s and started my archery hunting with recurves short after. I didnt use a compound until the mid 80s.

None taken...it's not like I haven't done it myself

you're a fawn - I forgive you for your misunderstandings of my position

now that you clearly know I'm not against compounds ......... what say you ?

Mattiac - I htink you "get it"

I'm not sugar coating what compounds are. They HAVE changed archery in ways never though possible. They are the to trad shooters no more than what crossbows are to compound shooters. And I aint afraid to say that.

You know of the Elitist views some trad archers have. Why ? Why do they feel that its the trad way or no way at all ? I can tell you why because I shoot trad and I KNOW why. Compounders take the easy way out using their tricked out high techy bowthingy's - they don't want to put the time and effort into learning the REAL side of archery. I know this - but I don't cop that attitude in truth. Why ? Because without the compound there would be vastly fewer archers and archery wouldn't be nothing what it is today. Compounds are not a negative to archery season though they bring in hundreds of thousands of 2 season archers and quite a few worthless ones at that. But - that someone chooses a compound won't effect my archery season one bit.

If I made an argument against compounds based on how they draw, the design differences, triggers, high letoffs, cables and wheels and cams, sights, - hell it would be MORE of an argument than the ones compounders make against crossbows !

But its irrelevant - the compounders choice is THERE challenge - its not for me to belittle that. And its not for a compounder to belittle a crossbowers choice either.

Theres your honest datamax for the day

I never said they were apples to apples. I said it was irrelevant because there performance was identical and I don't care if little Johnny gets to shoot a crossbow or not.

lmao

I just had to do this to ya.

I do think this thread is acting up though I cannot read the last entries. I will not be able to read this one until someone elso posts but it shows up that I posted....strange.

One of the concerns I saw was poaching. Now I fully understand that its the person and the poor attitude that causes someone to be a poacher...BUT....certain weapons lend themselves to poaching. Enabling people to poach "easier" if you will. I would think a crossbow would be one of those weapons. Silent, easy to fire from a truck or car window, etc. Now I dont want to say ban them all, because, as mentioned, I really dont want to prevent people from pursuing this wonderful sport. But....in a way, they are bad because they are a silent weapon that can aid in poaching. Does anyone agree?

Of course silenced pistols would be another weapon to aid in poaching game, but I think they would be harder to get your hands on. Im not sure though....Im not into guns, so I dont know much about them. I guess each state would have different laws pertaining to handguns and silenced weapons. Maybe someone else can speak more knowledgeably on that topic.

[/quote]

Mattiac

First off, when I was younger I knew people that poached. They didn't use a crossbow the used rifles and shotguns. Why? Because they wanted a quick, clean kill at longer distances. They knew that by the time someone called the game warden to report that they heard a shot they would already have the deer dressed out a long way from where they shot it.

Second

Suppressers (silencers) have been illegal since 1934 in the same legistlation that banned automatic weapons. They exception of course is the military, police, class III gun dealers, and those that want to pay $600 per suppressor and go through a background checks and approval by the ATF. Some states have additional restrictions. My brother in law was a class III dealer, had suppressed weapons, and even though we had access to them, we never used them on wildlife (illegal in AR).

Point is; whoever is going to break the law will do it anyway.