But a compound with a machined riser, non-working horizonal limb technology, huge multi cams that allow >80% letoff, triggered released, fall away rests, cables and string and pulley ........ yeah, THATS a bow huh ?

There are no negatives to muzzleloaders. They are a single shot, primitive (suppose to be anyway) weapon that uses a barrel loaded loose power/then bullet combo that allowed short range accuracy (suppose to anyway) with singel shot capability. They're suppose to be more challenging than a rifle, not as challenging as archery. And moden muzzleloaders have bastardized what muzzleloading is with the funky powder pellets, scoped guns, synthetic stocks, 101 primers, sabot's ...... people want easier and more accurate with less practice and that demand has led to G&F allowing things no one would have though allowable 10 years ago.

But with them, I HAVE seen muzzleloader seasons tweaked and adjusted - the arguement could be made that the inline and modern muzzleloader impact HAS been great enough to make a difference. I'm not syaing thats true - but the reality is potentially there IMO.

why not take it one step further and say that anyone able to draw a recurve should be required to use one ?

But I thought you said you were willing to give up some time in the field to get others involved in the sport????????

After reading most of this mess, I need to submit something to consider. Before I must let my form/forms of hunting be known. I hunt traditional, Mamba take down recurve. I hunt compound, compounds ranging from round wheel bears, to double cams hoyts, and cam in a halves. I also like rifle and pistol hunting.

With that said, I have seen this grip with anyone who is holier than thou, due to there rugged, manly persona. "I hunt X way, and you don't, you are not a real hunter". Now to say a traditionalist is much better than a compound shooter is crazy. I use both and both have there inherent problems. A compound is easier to hold and aim, but then again, if you practice right, a recurve and long bow are just as easy. Some thing else to consider when getting holy, if you think crossbows/compounds are harder, there for not as challenging making you a better hunter; Do me a favor and please do not ever come hunt around my place. Last thing I want is a bunch of wounded deer. I have heard many gripes about having traditional bows banned, due to their lack of speed,accuracy, and energy. So are we griping ethics, or bragging rights with this tread. If it is ethics, yes crossbows should only be used, less chance of messing up. If it is bragging rights,,, Well you need to find something better to do with your time then.

Well done Mattiac

Because as Mattiac said traditional equipment is inferior. I also believe I addressed why not to use traditional equipment about 20 pages back.

Well if we're basing it on that we should be opening the door for crossbows shouldn't we?

Maryland DNR is defining what is legal, not what the WORD is. Arkansas defines are crossbow as a bow - there, I'm right

If I almost had you reasoning will eventually set in

I doubt my tactics really affected your opinion one way or the other. The facts that I am typing are undeniable - you choose which to believe one way or the other regardless of presentation

Why don't you feel guilty ? You ARE using an easier weapon, aren't you ? i used on last fall. Crossbow hunters in AR,OH and GA used easier weapons last fall too - and you're awfully quick to jump on them, aren't you ?

Doesn't feel good, does it ?

Funny - crossbow hunters do the same thing for the same reasons.


Well actually rifle hunters wound the most game every year - we'd have to start by banning them, wouldn't we ? You can figure out how it goes from there that silly argument

My boss would schit if I were shooting a bow at work - it'd be quite obvious. You DON'T know I'm proficient enough to hunt with my recurve - I don't know your skills either. I trust you'l take good shots and I'll expect the same.

Actually, you have valid concerns on trad shooters that i'd be glad to explore. Now - lets talk about those stinking compound, shall we ?

No - actually I wouldn't have

Actually, you're wrong, yet again, which isn't surprisng. What I've shown - over and over, is that crossbows as easy and thats why compounders hate them, but compunds are easy too yet compounders WANT that easy without allowing anyone else easy.

Does that REALLY make any sense at all ? From a recurve shooters perspective compounds and crossbows are both ridiculously easy.

Its very easy to do though and it best makes my point.


Hey, thats actually pretty good.

Hey everyone, my name is Brad, I live in a crossbow state and they've never been a negative. Please allow them in your state - thank you - you'll be glad you did

Wow, and this whole time I thought you guys were claiming that xbows were infact less effective than compunds due to K.E.

It's kind of funny how the facts change to suit your argument.

burniegoeasily - you shoot a Mamba ? GADS !! You don't count then

MNRut - refresh me please ? Mattiac has valid points on trad shooters I'll agree ......... but thats a personal ethics issue and another thread perhaps.

I believe the compound IS a superior weapons - silent has said so too - thats why he uses one and why many people in crossbow states still use them

From a range, trajectory, and KE standpoint they are less effective. I didn't say they wern't simpler to shoot I said they were less effective (i.e. you can't kill a deer as far with your crossbow as I can with my compound nor out shoot me with). No one, that I am aware of, ever implied they were simpler to shoot than trad equipment. I think they are even simpler to shoot than a compound but. But, when you take a guy that's really good and put a compound that's infinitely tunable in his hand and you take a guy thats really good and put crossbow in his hand, the guy with the compound is going to wax the crossbow guys @SS every time. That doesn't imply IMO that I think they would have a lower success rate than trad equipment but that was a nice try