"If I am wrong, please enlighten me."

We are talking about modern top of linecrossbows. Not the 100 buck specials with plastic limbs, and not one made circa 1975.

Doesnt matter much though. Even if they were inferior, they effectively kill deer. More guys afield more often = more deer killed.

Hardly needed with a trigger happy game commission unwilling to lower tag allocations, not to mention a pathetic buck herd whose harvest cant even be controlled via allocation.

Btw, a complete moron could buy a desert stryker and hit consistently to 40 yards and most likely well beyondwith ZERO practice.

Actually that isvery true. A crossbow is no match for a vertcal bow in capable hands if all else is equall. The major difference is that any monkey can shoot a crossbow accurately from a rest with only a few practice shots.

Cornelius - I believe that 40 yds is about the limit for the effective killing range of a crossbow.
From Petersen's Hunting magazine: "A modern hunting crossbow sighted in at twenty yards will impact its arrows approximately twenty inches low at forty yards, depending on their weight and flight characteristics."

So with open sights, a drop of 20" from 20 to 40 yds is pretty dramatic. And beyond that it gets even worse. So, as you put it, 'any moron" would have to be pretty lucky to hit anything past 30 yds, let alone 40 yards and beyond without practice.

Drop isnt an issue. 1st, that "piece" was written by PROCROSSBOW people purposely downplaying the capabilities of TOP OF THE LINE crossbows.

2nd, drop is STILL an issue with bows and crossguns of any sort. But you incorrectly stated that bows drop far less and that simply isnt true with todays top crossguns.

Comparable tests were done with compound top of line, and with desert stryker crossbow and the crossbow was flatter shooting to 40 yards. I'll see if I can find it and post details.

With todays rangefinder etc. drop isnt the main issue separating ease of use. One significant factorwould be the ability to rest it like a rifle and the much easier mechanics of its use by design.

BTB, thats ONLY the case with absolute top archers and comparing both shooters from an unaided standing offhand position. LEt the crossgunner rest it on his knee, a shooting rest or monopod or whatever, which would be the case in most instances in HUNTING, and there is no comparison.

I have to respectfully disagree to some extent. You are implying that anyone can pick up a crossbow and hit a target at 40 yds and beyond without any practice. That statement is totally absurd. As for drop, well check this site out. Here is a comparison test.
http://www.tenpointcrossbows.com/video_trajectory.asp
Another article from hunting-fishing.net:
Myth: Anyone can pick up a crossbow, practice for an hour, and be ready to head to the woods.

Fact: Any experienced crossbow hunter will tell you that there are many ways to make a bad shot with a crossbow. First, if a crossbow is not cocked perfectly straight, it will not shoot straight. If the bowstring is pulled even 1/16th of an inch to the right or left of center, that difference can translate into a six-inch error at 20-yards. Additionally, like any conventional bow shooter, a crossbow shooter must maintain a proper stance, control breathing, squeeze rather than “jerk” the trigger, steady the entire body, and follow through (watch the entire arrow flight through the sighting mechanism) after the release. And finally, the crossbow hunter must also be a good judge of distance and be practiced at shooting the crossbow at distances between five and approximately 35 yards.

Myth: A crossbow shoots much faster and farther than compound bows.

Fact: Under controlled conditions, a series of velocity and kinetic energy tests were performed on two compound bows with 70# peak draw weights (248 and 205 feet per second) and 2 crossbows with 150# peak draw weights (228 and 242 feet per second). The bottom line was that both the compound bows and crossbows produced similar ballistic results. That is, the crossbows did not shoot farther or faster than the compound bows.

Crossbows are rediculously easy to shoot and are a complete joke. I have zero respect for any able bodied man that cried for them to be legal, and they were only legalized to kill deer for pgcs antideer crusade and to gain archery tag sales. I am opposd 110 percent and legalization hasnt changed that. Ive fought this tooth and nail and despite 4 to 1 speaking out against, pgc chose to include them. End of story.

As for the crossbow manufacturer crap that you posted info from, its a bigger joke than the pgc is. Money grubbing greedy sobs who couldnt care less about hunters or hunting in pa, only a well padded bank account.

"Myth: A crossbow shoots much faster and farther than compound bows.

Fact: Under controlled conditions, a series of velocity and kinetic energy tests were performed on two compound bows with 70# peak draw weights (248 and 205 feet per second) and 2 crossbows with 150# peak draw weights (228 and 242 feet per second). The bottom line was that both the compound bows and crossbows produced similar ballistic results. That is, the crossbows did not shoot farther or faster than the compound bows. "

Dont know if you were to dumb to realize it or what, but 150 lbs. isnt the max weight of crossguns. Many are 175 and 200#. And one that shoots 228 to 242 fps is a total piece of chit! Many are WELL over 300 fps, and the STRYKER is 425 fps!!!!!!!!!!

Btw, tenpoint doesnt make the Stryker. But if they are gonna compete, they better up their performance, and Im sure they will match it soon enough, if not exceed it.

You are sadly way behind the times on that thinking my friend. LOL
Just a quick educational piece.

There are5 crossbows off the top of my head right now that are so far superior in ballistics to even the most powerful compound it isn't even comparable.

1.The PSE TAC-15 170# draw, 412fps with a 425gr bolt = 160ft lbs of KE
2. The BowtechStryker 175#, 405fps with a 425gr bolt = 155ft lbs of KE
3. The Bowtech Strike Force 180#? , 390fps with a 425gr bolt = 143ft lbs of KE
4. The Barnett Predator 175# draw, 375fps with a 425gr bolt = 128ft lbs of KE
5. The Bowtech Desert Stryker 150# draw? , 350fps with a 425gr bolt = 116ft lbs of KE

If you want FACTS on what some of these new ones can do ballistically simply run a trajectory chart for each one and see what those speeds mean with that weight bolt.
Most crossbows rate their speeds with much lighter bolts and speeds below these which can directly compare ballistically to the best compounds.........however don't kid yourself for a second thinking there aren't ones that blow even the FASTEST modern compound clean out of the water.

The average 29" , 70# compound generates about 65-70ft lbs of KE. The very top end fastest ones like the Bowtech Airborne 82nd or PSE X-Force will get in the 90+ft lbs range. These are the highest performaing compounds made.

Crossbow manufacturers purposely keep the performance low key to stay below the radar and not frighten compound shooters. It's a vehicle to sneak into more states and ultimately sell more crossbows. These hyperperformance ones are counetrproductive to that cause that's why you will see them ridiculed and attacked by crossbow supporters even though they are the pinnacle of crossbow performance.
If you notice, 4 of the 5 top performing models are made by a company that also makes vertical bows. They don't have to play by that laying in the weeds, tactic. They can just come out blazing with models that make the modest performaing crossbows look silly and inadequate.

Pure crossbow manufacturers HATE this because they don't want to raise their performance to keep up (even though they could) because again it is counterproductive to getting into new states and markets.
They have a model they follow by keeping things low key and downplaying what crossbows can and will do.

So don't believe for a second your thinking applies to all of them because it isn't even close.
Hell the TAC-15, Stryker or Strike Force have around 10-16% MORE energy at 100yds than the fastest Airborne 82nd compound does right at point blank.

Think about THAT and your thoughts of ballistics. [:-]

If I were a shortcut seeker looking to buy I crossgun, I doubt Id buy a piece of crap. Heres what Id buy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLFGfrCMa0

Will soon, no doubt be FAR surpassed by their company as well as competitors.

I shoot an 81 lb bowtech bow. It shoots NOWHERE NEAR 400+ fps!!!

The model pictured shows 405 fps. They also have them listed at 425 fps. Newer model perhaps or maybe lower bolt weight?.

This is one site that has it listed as 405-425 fps. http://www.bugsnbullets.com/products/Stryker_Camo_Crossbow-65-3.html

Well like I previously posted. I would not use a crossbow. I am more confident with my compound and I enjoy shooting both it and my recurves. I thank you for the update on the ballistics of a 175# crossbow vs a 70# compound. The fact of the matter though still remains that you need to practice with both in order to be proficient. Yeah, I agree the xbow is easier to shoot, but it isn't a cure all. Those that get them and do not practice with it are going to be unpleasantly surprised that they missed or worse yet, wounded and didn't recover an animal.
Another thing I agree with you on is the PGCs lack of interest in the hunter's opinions. This is just another one of their idiotic ideas.
I am not ashamed or too stuborn to admit if I am wrong. And in this case I was partially wrong. But I blame that on the searches I performed. I will however stand my my statement that no matter the weapon, you need to practice with it.

Bronko, while Im completely against the crossbow, what was the worst part was seeing how pgc ignored the hunters desires YET AGAIN. Most were against it at the meeting and in correspondence by a very wide margin. The commissioners whovoted on it yes, where the exact same who completely ignore hunters on EVERY issue and pass EVERYTHING that equates to one or moreless deer. These people have slapped us in the face yet again. If the role had been reversed, and the demand FOR crossguns was 4-1 FOR them, I wouldnt have liked it at all, but I could accept it alot easier seeing as that was really what hunter wanted. Supposedly it wasnt a biological issue so the hunters desires should have been the sole determining factor...

Not more tag money to enable irresponsible managementand killing more deer when we already succeed at killing more than enough. And certainly not kickbacks that I wouldnt doubt for one second have been dealt.