The Armour Archive

Alot of references to 1A1B.

Could somebody start a thread titled 1A1B, and then describe exactly what it is?

I missed the explanation somewhere...

Broadway wrote:Alot of references to 1A1B.

Could somebody start a thread titled 1A1B, and then describe exactly what it is?

I missed the explanation somewhere...

I was just about to ask the same thing ((I thought it was just because I am new))

Balin50 wrote:Ivan yours is no solution all you have said is "if you dont like CA then f you f off and sit this one out and let the real men play!", but whatever do what you want and i will make sure they feel welcome...no really i will tell them and make sure they know their worth.


Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

PS Richard it was a statement to Ivan not a name i said he was lying in his post hence he is a liar. That was civil; however your thread so i am out you can continue to play pat each other on the back with Ivan if you want.

Calling someone a liar is not civil. So yes, please stay off the thread from this point on if you can't see that. In civilized debate you can tell someone they are wrong, that they are misinterpreting the facts or that there argument is not supported by the facts.

While I hate to see you go, especially since I actually agree with some of your points in response to Ivan but not your language, yes, you need to stay off the thread if you can't follow the rules as everyone else understands them. No name calling, no flames.

Balin, you realize of course, you can stay on the thread, and call anybody you want a liar. No matter what Richard says.

I'm beginning to totally understand Avery's stance on this issue.......

And pie.

Broadway wrote:Balin, you realize of course, you can stay on the thread, and call anybody you want a liar. No matter what Richard says.

And if the moderator's won't grant my request to delete flames, or to give me the ability to delete flames on this thread (as they have done in other threads or sections, so there is precedent - such as Duke Paul's section and others), my understanding is that I can delete this entire thread since I started it.

I don't want to do that, but if the only other choice is have this be a flame war, I'll do it.

The vast majority of those posting have been civil. It is a reasonable request for this thread I think, that everybody on it be held to the same standard.

I'd prefer it be voluntary.

I know that if a peer (or anyone else for that matter) started a thread and posted a requirement like that, I'd either follow the rules or not post.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult.

If we can't behave on a list, how are we going to behave in the heat of battle when tired, hot, hurt and under pressure.


We are better than this.

Richard

Broadway wrote:Alot of references to 1A1B.

Could somebody start a thread titled 1A1B, and then describe exactly what it is?

I missed the explanation somewhere...

I posted a short summary earlier in this thread, here it is. If you want to start a separate thread go ahead, feel free to repost this there too.

-Richard

[b][color=darkred][quote]1A1B is my idea from about 20+ years ago. It is not a specific design, but rather an overall concept. It means one arrow and one bolt design only, universal society wide standard ammunition that would be legal for use in all kingdoms society wide (assuming that kingdom has CA).



The idea is that all ammo would be identical, easy to inspect, safely built, easy to find damage on during inspection, reduce costs to the archers, increase safety, etc. All materials for construction would be peer reveiwed (archers and fighters, not SCA peerages) and approved by materials engineers, ballistics experts, SCA archers and fighters, with a very specific list of allowed materials, how it is to be built, how it is to be maintained, inspected and tested.

Once that is done, stick to that standard and never change it again. Ever. So that the archers only have to buy an arrow once and not have to worry that in a year or two all their ammo would get tossed or have to be modified for new regs.

It could be a design standard that everyone builds to or mass produced ammo.



So the actual design just has to meet those 1A1B requirements.



I do have preferences, but those are my opinions, 1A1B above does not necessarily have to use one of my preferred design.



If I were doing the design, I’d insist that:



1. It must incorporate an integrated APD & safety tip that cannot be separated from the shaft under extreme use and aging.

2. It does not use duct tape, electrical tape or soft foam of any kind. If for some reason any tape must used in any way, it should not be on the portion of the head that strikes the target as tape restricts the ability to inspect the ammunition.

3. I’d like the tip to be translucent, allowing for ready inspections of the shaft/tube to tip attachment and for any degradation or damage to the head.

4. Any tip padding would be bonded permanently on and highly resistant to fragmentation, tearing or shattering: preferably a durable rubber or rubber like material over an indestructible core, possibly UMHW. Similar to the way new design Baldar’s have a UHMW completely encased in bonded on rubbery material.

5. That the shaft not be able to go sideways through the bars on legal helms, preferably by meeting the standard HW 1.25â€

Duke Paul has his own section. You are not Duke Paul.

Again, you can ask folks to do this or that, but whether they actually do it or not is entirely up to them.

Generally, we allow the original poster to delete a thread they started because they are embarassed by what they said in the original post, and would like it wiped from the record. We do not let somebody use it as a "card" to control the flow of a thread.

Just a heads up.

Feel free to make false threats to the posters on this forum that do not conform to your "thread" rules.

Richard Blackmoore wrote:And if the moderator's won't grant my request to delete flames, or to give me the ability to delete flames on this thread (as they have done in other threads or sections, so there is precedent - such as Duke Paul's section and others), my understanding is that I can delete this entire thread since I started it.

I don't want to do that, but if the only other choice is have this be a flame war, I'll do it.

The vast majority of those posting have been civil. It is a reasonable request for this thread I think, that everybody on it be held to the same standard.

I'd prefer it be voluntary.

I know that if a peer (or anyone else for that matter) started a thread and posted a requirement like that, I'd either follow the rules or not post.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult.

If we can't behave on a list, how are we going to behave in the heat of battle when tired, hot, hurt and under pressure.


We are better than this.

Richard

gentlemen,

Duke Avery made a suggestion that you could use a Alden Wars concept to help bridge this gap ( the idea that there is a safety issues with shafted ammo and that issue makes it impossible for some to participate in scenarios with shafted CA scenarios). Alden Wars as they have come to be known are simply events that the fighting scenarios are not limted to the normal 2-4 scenarios, but instead have at times upwards of 20+ scenarios in a days combat. This system allows for the maximum amount of combat a person chooses, and if 4 or 5 of these scenarios have conventions one might object to for safety or other reasons it allows significant scenarios they can choose to participate in ( This may help in a reasonable comprimise).

Count Johnothan I state for the record that disallowing (society wide bans or conventions) of ammo/weapons/armor/techniques ect for "safety" reasons necessitates those pursuing said ban/conventions a provable ,verifiable and proven risk factors and actual failures and injuries and that evidence must be compelling ( in both numbers and severity ). At this juncture I see no compelling reason to ban shated ammo society wide.

There are many reasons I believe CA has no place on the Noble field of combat, but the "safety" of those being targeted fails to motivate me.

regards,
gilbert

Richard Blackmoore wrote:I posted a short summary earlier in this thread, here it is. If you want to start a separate thread go ahead, feel free to repost this there too.

-Richard

Thankyou for posting it again, I just finished reading this thread but must of missed it, sorry.

Broadway wrote:Duke Paul has his own section. You are not Duke Paul.

Again, you can ask folks to do this or that, but whether they actually do it or not is entirely up to them.

Generally, we allow the original poster to delete a thread they started because they are embarassed by what they said in the original post, and would like it wiped from the record. We do not let somebody use it as a "card" to control the flow of a thread.

Just a heads up.

Feel free to make false threats to the posters on this forum that do not conform to your "thread" rules.

Richard Blackmoore wrote:And if the moderator's won't grant my request to delete flames, or to give me the ability to delete flames on this thread (as they have done in other threads or sections, so there is precedent - such as Duke Paul's section and others), my understanding is that I can delete this entire thread since I started it.

I don't want to do that, but if the only other choice is have this be a flame war, I'll do it.

The vast majority of those posting have been civil. It is a reasonable request for this thread I think, that everybody on it be held to the same standard.

I'd prefer it be voluntary.

I know that if a peer (or anyone else for that matter) started a thread and posted a requirement like that, I'd either follow the rules or not post.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult.

If we can't behave on a list, how are we going to behave in the heat of battle when tired, hot, hurt and under pressure.


We are better than this.

Richard

Broadway,

I'm not trying to make false threats. I thought I made it clear I would "ask" the moderators to act but that I don't know if they will. If I can't delete a thread either? So be it. I thought I could.

I'm just trying for once, to have a civil thread. And I used Duke Paul as an example, I thought there were a number of moderated threads in other sections as well where a person was given the authority to delete inappropriate and off topic posts; if I'm wrong I apologize, but I thought there was well established precedent.

Regards,

Richard

I am new to the SCA, having only been along to a few training sessions with my local group, but have been doing other forms of re-enactment for a few years now.

Several re-enactment groups I know of have a group-owned supply of projectiles, these are inspected at the start of the battle by the marshals/captains of archers, then handed out to the archers, these are then used, and at the end of the day are inspected again before going into storage (I am not sure how well this would work with the SCA organisation as I get the impression that there are much larger groups of CA'ers in SCA than I am used to seeing on a battle site).

a fundamental difference that makes that method nonviable, Younghussite (welcome, by the way) is the nature of SCA "stuff".

Ever since the SCA started as a garden party gone horribly out of control (seriously...), it's very much been a "You're responsible for your own stuff, we will supply minimum standards, but we're going to make them as minimum as possible so everyone who wants to play can meet them" organization.

"The group" owns a bare minimum of stuff for use at events, and it's generally things that it would be an unfair imposition to ask someone to handle themselves (for example, the Kingdoms own thrones and crowns, because to ask someone to be responsible for buying their own thrones and crowns for a 6 month reign would be silly).

Having centrally owned and controlled ammunition would be a 180 degree turn from "how it's been done". that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is historically damned near impossible to do in this organization.

Additionally, currently the SCA, Inc is very risk adverse, as the result of a number of things. In the current environment, issuing and controlling missiles would lead to the SCA being responsible for any injuries caused *IF* those missiles failed or were used irresponsibly. The corporation currently has less than no desire to take that kind of risk onto itself.

We meet the problem by having a very stringent inspection protocol for every single missile at every single use. Some folks believe that protocol isn't strict enough, that's a legitimate argument.

YoungHussite wrote:I am new to the SCA, having only been along to a few training sessions with my local group, but have been doing other forms of re-enactment for a few years now.

Several re-enactment groups I know of have a group-owned supply of projectiles, these are inspected at the start of the battle by the marshals/captains of archers, then handed out to the archers, these are then used, and at the end of the day are inspected again before going into storage (I am not sure how well this would work with the SCA organisation as I get the impression that there are much larger groups of CA'ers in SCA than I am used to seeing on a battle site).

I suggest you not read this thread. And avoid all others on this topic. Don't let it jade you, or have you think that there are a large number of overbearing asshats in the SCA that seem to materialize out of the mists of jackhollery when the topic of missile weapons is brought up here.

Gorm wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:Tube ammo is safer. As Jonathon More put it tube ammo "fails safe". Solid fiberglass rods don't.

And yet, the majority of *actual* *documented* injuries (the only ones that have a place in this discussion, as if it ain't written down, it ain't verifiable) associated at times when CA is on the field have involved tube ammo.

Could it be that the fact that the fact that if a fiberglass shafted ammo's head comes off that there is an issue has caused the community to be ultra serious about devising a redundant and proven effective way of making sure that doesn't happen under any realistic condition of use, whereas the perceived "safety" of tube ammo has made that community lax?

I'm sorry, but every incident mentioned in the recent CA threads has involved a shafted arrow. or am I wrong?

Jonathon More wrote:

Gorm wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:Tube ammo is safer. As Jonathon More put it tube ammo "fails safe". Solid fiberglass rods don't.

And yet, the majority of *actual* *documented* injuries (the only ones that have a place in this discussion, as if it ain't written down, it ain't verifiable) associated at times when CA is on the field have involved tube ammo.

Could it be that the fact that the fact that if a fiberglass shafted ammo's head comes off that there is an issue has caused the community to be ultra serious about devising a redundant and proven effective way of making sure that doesn't happen under any realistic condition of use, whereas the perceived "safety" of tube ammo has made that community lax?

I'm sorry, but every incident mentioned in the recent CA threads has involved a shafted arrow. or am I wrong?

There were I think others, but yes the "shafted" arrow does seem to be the main offender. Siloflex and a tennis ball seems a better choice to me.

Can't penetrate a helm: Check.
Fails safely: Check
Requires practice in order to be accurate: Check

Jonathon More wrote:

Gorm wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:Tube ammo is safer. As Jonathon More put it tube ammo "fails safe". Solid fiberglass rods don't.

And yet, the majority of *actual* *documented* injuries (the only ones that have a place in this discussion, as if it ain't written down, it ain't verifiable) associated at times when CA is on the field have involved tube ammo.

Could it be that the fact that the fact that if a fiberglass shafted ammo's head comes off that there is an issue has caused the community to be ultra serious about devising a redundant and proven effective way of making sure that doesn't happen under any realistic condition of use, whereas the perceived "safety" of tube ammo has made that community lax?

I'm sorry, but every incident mentioned in the recent CA threads has involved a shafted arrow. or am I wrong?

No, it has been a mix. The big Pennsic 2008 problem that led to early implementation of side wraps that might have been added anyway when the major 2008 complete rewrite was to go into effect, was tube, not shafted. Kingdom crusades some years back with Lucan's squire was shafted. The Gulf wars incident with Fern was IIRC shafted nock (old one). The Ohio event some time where a non-combattant reportedly was hit by an arrow that had been deflected and gotten his ocular bone broken from it was at Northern Oaken War Maneuevers: I've requested details on this one directly from the former Aethelmearc KEM and will post it when I have it, as I don't have direct personal knowledge of the details.

The older incidents where people were talking about real arrows fired with real metal tips were all shafted, those that occured within the SCA are all old (often a decade or two old). Where we are talking about headless shafted SCA arrows, I think the most recent is the kindgom crusades from a number of years back.

The number of injuries whether from shafted or tube, including the one Jarl Valgard was present for where a real arrow hit somebody and drew blood, are fortunately low.

thanks for the clarification, I guess some of the anecdotes weren't very specific as to type, or I just wasn't that observant. you may want to try the Midrealm KEM for the Northern Oaken event. It is a Mid event after all...

JohannM wrote:Can't penetrate a helm: Check.

Untrue.

I can get a tennis ball to penetrate an SCA legal helm.

I admit, it isn't easy, and it requires forces significantly different than those that would be encountered on the battlefield, however, those are the same standards that shafted arrows are being held to, so they matter.

If, however, you are willing to declare that we should be concerned about forces that can be encountered on the battlefield by a properly constructed and inspected piece of ammo, then you are correct, Tennis Ball ammo cannot penetrate a helm, however, in that scenario, neither can a piece of shafted ammo.

Jonathon More wrote:thanks for the clarification, I guess some of the anecdotes weren't very specific as to type, or I just wasn't that observant. you may want to try the Midrealm KEM for the Northern Oaken event. It is a Mid event after all...

Yes, Former Middle KEM Sir Koredono is already digging it up for me, I just don't want to post more than that until I have accurate details. It was I think years back, so he did not have it handy.

Richard

Gorm wrote:

JohannM wrote:Can't penetrate a helm: Check.

Untrue.

I can get a tennis ball to penetrate an SCA legal helm.

I admit, it isn't easy, and it requires forces significantly different than those that would be encountered on the battlefield, however, those are the same standards that shafted arrows are being held to, so they matter.

If, however, you are willing to declare that we should be concerned about forces that can be encountered on the battlefield by a properly constructed and inspected piece of ammo, then you are correct, Tennis Ball ammo cannot penetrate a helm, however, in that scenario, neither can a piece of shafted ammo.

Hi Gorm,

We have proven repeatedly that a shafted arrow (not most bolts due to their length) will easily go sideways through many bar grill helms, especially those that have legal horizontal bars on early open face type helms including spagenhelms and Norman conical cap type helms etc, where the bars go back pretty far on a helm. To be clear, that is an arrow going in sideways, not tip first or nock first.

Gorm wrote:

JohannM wrote:Can't penetrate a helm: Check.

Untrue.

I can get a tennis ball to penetrate an SCA legal helm.

I admit, it isn't easy, and it requires forces significantly different than those that would be encountered on the battlefield, however, those are the same standards that shafted arrows are being held to, so they matter.

If, however, you are willing to declare that we should be concerned about forces that can be encountered on the battlefield by a properly constructed and inspected piece of ammo, then you are correct, Tennis Ball ammo cannot penetrate a helm, however, in that scenario, neither can a piece of shafted ammo.

Fair enough...although I suspect I could also make a list legal rattan weapon penetrate a helm.

Richard Blackmoore wrote:
We have proven repeatedly that a shafted arrow (not most bolts due to their length) will easily go sideways through many bar grill helms, especially those that have legal horizontal bars on early open face type helms including spagenhelms and Norman conical cap type helms etc, where the bars go back pretty far on a helm. To be clear, that is an arrow going in sideways, not tip first or nock first.

I have seen no such proof.

I admit, I am not in your circle, so I do not expect you would have shared it with me.

Gorm wrote:

JohannM wrote:Can't penetrate a helm: Check.

Untrue.

I can get a tennis ball to penetrate an SCA legal helm.

I admit, it isn't easy, and it requires forces significantly different than those that would be encountered on the battlefield, however, those are the same standards that shafted arrows are being held to, so they matter.

If, however, you are willing to declare that we should be concerned about forces that can be encountered on the battlefield by a properly constructed and inspected piece of ammo, then you are correct, Tennis Ball ammo cannot penetrate a helm, however, in that scenario, neither can a piece of shafted ammo.

Quoting Cain here (a CAer and previous CA marshal) ...

Every batch of Duke Baldar's tips I tested in Atenveldt FAILED. Even ones he brought me at one Estrella. We cut them open only to find 5 (?) of twelve had the anti-penetration disk cracked. These were direct off the assembly line. I understand the current design uses UHMW, which is great. However, I cannot inspect the tip, and the disc is of vital importance....

It's not the blunt of the arrow I am concerned about entering into a grill. It's the rigid shaft of fiberglass that can pass through the blunt or the APD that falls off or breaks allowing the shaft to enter a helm with potentially lethal force. If the arrows are designed in such a way that the safety device on the inside cannot be inspected and a failing blunt is passed because it looks fine from the outside appearances these types of ammo are unacceptable. I have seen CAers post to these boards that mention that these blunts fail consistently at slightly higher draw weights than what we currently allow. Much of this ammo is used repeatedly and will eventually wear out even under lower draw weights and eventually one will fail in the worst way possible.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you could get a tennis ball to pass through a 7/8 inch gap. Even if you could do that the tube shaft could never pass through the ball and enter the grill. Even if it did the material used for the tube ammo is not structurally solid enough to penetrate a skull and kill someone.

That is why tube and ball ammo is inherently safer. I don't know how anyone could logically argue that fact. Is there potential for even tube ammo to cause harm to a target? Sure but the potential lethality of the weapons failure can be completely eliminated from the equation.

With tube and ball ammo you don't even need to check the ball for damage because even if it did fail it could not kill someone by hitting them in the face. Of course they would check them anyway but that would only further increase the safety factor of the weapons ensuring that no lethal accidents involving CA would ever be possible. Since we can remove the possibility of a fatal accident we should. It seems very selfish and uncaring IMO to see some of the CAers out there more interested in having a better flying , faster, and more accurate rigid thin shaft arrow then to desire a safer field for their targets.

Gorm wrote:

Richard Blackmoore wrote:
We have proven repeatedly that a shafted arrow (not most bolts due to their length) will easily go sideways through many bar grill helms, especially those that have legal horizontal bars on early open face type helms including spagenhelms and Norman conical cap type helms etc, where the bars go back pretty far on a helm. To be clear, that is an arrow going in sideways, not tip first or nock first.

I have seen no such proof.

I admit, I am not in your circle, so I do not expect you would have shared it with me.

Hi Gorm.

I believe this was posted to the SCA missile combat list (the known world CA list) multiple times. It has come up before, also the same issue was raised by some CA folks regarding the experimental flail program. They pointed out the chain (hose covered rope) from the flail could on some helms get between the bars and hit the eye or face. So the flail was being exempted from the 1.25" requirement, just like thin shafted arrows and bolts.

While it is not easy for that to happen, given the short chain in the Eastern Flails, it is technically possible. Sir Mordreth's pointed this out and used his early period spagen helm. As a result we changed the flail design to require a 1.25" or bigger item on the chain, to prevent this in worst case scenarios.

However the arrows and bolts for CA were never required to have this fix, they remain exempted from the rule.

Several of us have taken CA thin shafted over the years and shown this is a a problem on some legal helms. Not most, some. It isn't a problem on any of my current helms as I use tighter than legal spacing and I've gone to vertical bars with a horizontal attachment on those with bar grills.

On my old Thornbird bascinet and one of my old closed face sallets with a small (1/2" tall occularium) opening, thin shafted arrows easily go in sideways. On the Thornbird it would hit my face, not my eye, on the sallet it would hit my nose, eyes and/or cheek depending on the angle. I sold those so it does not affect me directly, unless a shaft loses its head or APD.

However it is also a problem for some people with legal closed face helms with slots, the thin shafted ammo goes right in sideways without a problem at all.

Richard

Broadway,

What I had in mind for this thread in terms of requested helpfulness & civility, was something along the lines of what JT & Robert had set up for handling "Armour. I want to be a..."

I wasn't having delusions of grandeur and thinking I was Duke Paul...

And frankly I asked that the moderators delete flaming posts, that way my personal biases would not enter into it. I only offered to delete flaming posts if the moderators did not want to do it themselves and if they'd let me, just on this thread.

The sticky post for those AIWTBA threads describing the content management are copied below, for those not familiar with them.

With respect,

Richard Blackmoore
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In another post, Robert of Canterbury wrote:

Please can we have, on this board only, some ruthless draconian censorship by the editor/s?

(I am willing to throw myself on that grenade if needs be. )

Not of "Incorrect" posts, as opinion will always be mutable on that front, but of "me too" and Funnies posts.

Imagine a lean, trimmed, information rich, low noise-to-signal ratio place where folks from all over can start their information search.

Any discussions arising can be talked through on the appropriate board, but this one kept just to the essential kernels.

Let's all as a community do a little self editing too, Find what you posted here was a little off? Go back and Edit accordingly.

We could be Heroes, (Not) just for one day.

Welcome, Mr Moderator.

If you have a complaint about how Robert moderates...


Sit back and think... was your post useful, or was it a "me-too" ha-ha post?

Take a bit more time... were you being helpful to the "I Wanna Be A..." thread in question?

Send an e-mail or PM to Robert.



If you get past (1) and (2) and (3), and still think he's been abusive, drop me a PM. That's not a guarantee that your complaint will result in a reprimand. It's just an assurance that I'll read what you have to say.

(Edited because Robert was right... you should contact him and try to work things out before calling on Overwhelming Editorial Authority(tm))

Last edited by JT on Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:53 am; edited 3 times in total

Back to top
--------------------------------------------

Robert of Canterbury
Archive Member


Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 1366
Location: London, UK
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:53 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you JT.

For that matter, let me know as well, I have not yet been Deified, and so I too am open to error..

Here's to a leaner, cleaner, information rich board.

We've tried Persona in a Box (PIAB). We've tried setting up a forum for people to submit Personae in a Box. So far, it hasn't been successful.

But still, people come to the Archive and say "I wanna be a(n) ... and I need help on buying/making things."

So, that's what this forum will be for. At least for the start, it is going to be set up so that only an Editor can start a thread. That's being done to try and keep a handle on the number of personae being developed at any given time. Later, this might change.


What sort of reply are you looking for?

Well... helpful ones.

On top of that, things that you state should be supported. I'm not talking about elaborate references, but you should not base your post-reply on "I think that..." or "This movie I saw showed that..."

Links would be most excellent. Links within the Archive are included as being most excellent.

References to books would be good. Supply at least the title and author. Having the ISBN would be great. If it's hard to find, expensive, and/or out of print, pointers on how to get a peek at a book would be useful.

Pictures would be good, too. Don't violate someone's copyright, though.

Civility should always be maintained, as well. Remember that not everyone knows as much as you know -- that goes for the person asking for the information, and for other people replying, and it goes for you, too.

Try and stay on track. If the thread is about developing a Viking, please don't post about how great Samurai are. (Yes, that's an extreme example. Eschew the more subtle shifts as well.)

Regards

Robert of Canterbury

That is a completely different forum Richard.

Count Johnathan wrote:

Gorm wrote:

JohannM wrote:Can't penetrate a helm: Check.

Untrue.

I can get a tennis ball to penetrate an SCA legal helm.

I admit, it isn't easy, and it requires forces significantly different than those that would be encountered on the battlefield, however, those are the same standards that shafted arrows are being held to, so they matter.

If, however, you are willing to declare that we should be concerned about forces that can be encountered on the battlefield by a properly constructed and inspected piece of ammo, then you are correct, Tennis Ball ammo cannot penetrate a helm, however, in that scenario, neither can a piece of shafted ammo.

Quoting Cain here (a CAer and previous CA marshal) ...

Every batch of Duke Baldar's tips I tested in Atenveldt FAILED. Even ones he brought me at one Estrella. We cut them open only to find 5 (?) of twelve had the anti-penetration disk cracked. These were direct off the assembly line. I understand the current design uses UHMW, which is great. However, I cannot inspect the tip, and the disc is of vital importance....

It's not the blunt of the arrow I am concerned about entering into a grill. It's the rigid shaft of fiberglass that can pass through the blunt or the APD that falls off or breaks allowing the shaft to enter a helm with potentially lethal force. If the arrows are designed in such a way that the safety device on the inside cannot be inspected and a failing blunt is passed because it looks fine from the outside appearances these types of ammo are unacceptable. I have seen CAers post to these boards that mention that these blunts fail consistently at slightly higher draw weights than what we currently allow. Much of this ammo is used repeatedly and will eventually wear out even under lower draw weights and eventually one will fail in the worst way possible.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you could get a tennis ball to pass through a 7/8 inch gap. Even if you could do that the tube shaft could never pass through the ball and enter the grill. Even if it did the material used for the tube ammo is not structurally solid enough to penetrate a skull and kill someone.

That is why tube and ball ammo is inherently safer. I don't know how anyone could logically argue that fact. Is there potential for even tube ammo to cause harm to a target? Sure but the potential lethality of the weapons failure can be completely eliminated from the equation.

With tube and ball ammo you don't even need to check the ball for damage because even if it did fail it could not kill someone by hitting them in the face. Of course they would check them anyway but that would only further increase the safety factor of the weapons ensuring that no lethal accidents involving CA would ever be possible. Since we can remove the possibility of a fatal accident we should. It seems very selfish and uncaring IMO to see some of the CAers out there more interested in having a better flying , faster, and more accurate rigid thin shaft arrow then to desire a safer field for their targets.

My dislike of shafted is for pretty much the same reasons as Johnathan's, the potential lethality (as well as possible blindness/eye damage).

While I used to share his belief that "It seems very selfish and uncaring IMO to see some of the CAers out there more interested in having a better flying , faster, and more accurate rigid thin shaft arrow then to desire a safer field for their targets."? I think most of those archers are gone. The overwhelming majority of the archers I think do care very much about not killing/blinding their targets, they simply think that the ammo is currently safe.

I like the tubes and other solutions, because it is obvious not only during inspection but also during actual pitched battles, that the ammo is not a real arrow (or a headless or APDless fiberglass shafted SCA arrow) that might kill or blind somebody.

If a thin shafted design is found where there is no way the tip or APD can come off, than most of my concerns go away in terms of the 'legal' shafted ammo (other than going sideways through helms). It does not make it obvious however when a cheater or worse brings a real arrow on the field, which granted should not happen, but it has in the past. It is much less likely now to happen and not be noticed, as many have pointed out and was already a rarity. But tubes eliminate that concern completely.

Also to be blunt, if a single ammo design was put forth, a tube based one has the biggest chance of being accepted society wide, as some kingdoms simply don't want shafted for safety reasons (Calontir for example), so going to a society wide shafted standard, would be a harder sell and might result in some kingdoms banning CA outright. This could be done in such a way that a real arrow would still stand out like a sore thumb, helping to alleviate that concern. The main barriers to this approach are cost and that it would likely need to be professionally mass produced, something many archers are against for a variety of valid reasons.

I could be wrong, it would not be the first time.

It is certainly possible to design a shafted arrow that would meet most if not all of the requirements of those concerned with safety, but they might require center shot bows. Essentially go to a shafted arrow with a very sturdy specified material & diameter, pressure fit & glue and indestructible tip and APD to it, put a 1.25" ball in the center to prevent grille penetrations, then bond over the entire arrow with a translucent strong material so that even if the primary attachments failed, the APD & tip could not come off. And it would be inspectable.

Richard Blackmoore

Broadway wrote:That is a completely different forum Richard.

Yes, agreed. I just meant there is precedent for moderation of some threads/forums. So I did not think asking JT to allow that on this one thread, on this very contentious topic that usually devolves to unproductive flaming, was unreasonable.

I'm OK with him (or you) saying no, I'm just voicing an opinion.

I'd have asked Duke Paul to host this topic on his forum, but it seemed inappropriate as that is an 'Ask Duke Paul' oriented space and it obviously did not fit in AIWTBA either.

Anyway, I'm just looking for a solution, not for something else to argue about. I understand you disagree with what I've proposed. I'll have to agree to disagree with you as to whether or not what I wanted was a good solution.

Richard

I'm not gonna agree to disagree. I'm just gonna disagree.

By the way, I received two Emails saying the injury at N.O.W. was probably the one previously published on the AA where a fighter removed his helm before clearing the battlefield and no man's land, not a spectator in a designated 'safe' area. If that is the case, then it isn't a CA problem and should be removed from my list. When I get the actual report, I'll clarify that here.

I do not feel Count Jonno's solutions to be generally unreasonable. The 1a1b suggestion of Sir Richard's I actually like and endorse. I can live with more though. I have never known Jonno to be insincere, so am just as amazed that I agree with him on many points as I was his father.

On to Master Ivan's questions:
1. Do you feel that you are obliged to fight in war scenarios that include force multipliers?

-As a Squire (yours), I have been obligated to be on the field. As a Commander, Ditto. I personally love to fight in them.

2. Do you still participate in scenarios where force multipliers are being used even though you feel they are unfair, prone to equipment failure, dangerous or potentially lethal?

-I have Marshaled a few battles in which I thought the Siege weapons were dangerous, instead of fighting, but this was almost 16 years ago. Current rules are much safer. We don't allow the 'Chinese Repeating Crossbows' for instance (unfair).

3. Do you believe that it is up to the individual to ascertain and for himself, except or reject the level of risk that he is willing to assume?

-Yes. However, those of us who have been around a loong time often are vocal of how we feel about some 'Risks'. We should be. Should we tell other fighters whether or not they Can or Cannot fight in a particular battle due to our concerns? NO. Though it is our duty make certain others know and understand our concerns. If everyone of 5 wars experience decide to leave the field because Cannons are being used, neglect to inform those of limited experience, then disaster results. This is an extreme, but it conveys the meaning and intent of my answer.

Master Ivan wrote:---Yes, but then again, (and Cain is going to be slapping his forehead at this point) I don’t mind if it is unfair, that’s why they are called “force multipliersâ€

Cain wrote:

"We have a gentleman here in Atenveldt who was injured on the field by a wooden shaft, I have spoken with him and seen the scar. At the time the SOCIETY allowed gleaning on the field, so long as the archer inspected it before use. The arrow in question was never a war arrow. Seems the field had been used several years before as a target range. More than ten years after the incident, I found about a dozen more arrows on that field, and banned CA from it. "

Hi Cain.

This type of thing is part of the reason some of us will always be leery about thin shafted ammunition, even if it seems a bit paranoid (understandably) to others.

The SCA often has mixed field use. The use might have been months or years before as you noted. And good, well intentioned people can walk a large battlefield area and not see things that are there. Especially if the area has not been mowed down to suburban lawn levels. I've been out with a mower in fields with grass 4" to several feet tall, just to have the mower find quite a few arrows that were lost in the grass/weeds, etc.

Granted the newer ammo with required APD's & tips/heads/blunts makes is less likely to happen, far less likely (I guess except in Lochac where they still have wooden shafted arrows) as the SCA shafted ammo should look significantly different than a real arrow (wood or otherwise). But this is part of the reason I was concerned about Duke Logan's new realistic wood grain fiberglass arrow shafts. Despite my applauding it initially as looking great, after I thought about it I realized it increased the chances that improper ammo on the field might not be noticed, as from a few feet away, a Duke Logan arrow shaft looks great, just like a real arrow, though having the tip & APD + tape should make it clear that it isn't. However it makes it trickier to notice bad ammo some idiot brings on the field, potentially until it is too late. Or something someone picks up off the ground, while tired, hot, in a hurry and not thinking clearly.

I do think the chances of it happening are very low, at the same time due to the 'potential lethality' or 'potential blindness', the thin shafted ammo gives me serious pause for concern.

It is also the reason I favor a no gleaning ever, not just for shafted. So that no one can even accidentially glean shafted or heaven forbid a real arrow that was laying unnoticed in the grass, brush, whatever.

Archers are not stupid, so once again, this is a low level likelyhood of injury. It is simply that if it does happen, the results given so much crap SCA minimum armour (T-shirts or tunics in some cases being the only protection for parts of the abdomen, ribcage, underarms and back) that a headless thin shaft or worse a real arrow, could easily be fatal or serious.

Richard Blackmoore

Cain wrote:I do not feel Count Jonno's solutions to be generally unreasonable. The 1a1b suggestion of Sir Richard's I actually like and endorse. I can live with more though. I have never known Jonno to be insincere, so am just as amazed that I agree with him on many points as I was his father....

Cain

Thanks Cain. Hopefully people will take note of that coming from someone like yourself who endorses, practices and supports CA.

I'm not terribly surprised you agree with some of what I have said though. It seems to me my vision of compromise is plain and simple. I would think that most people would realize that and accept it. So far no others have tried to suggest true compromise only "if you don't like it don't play" and "only use it sometimes" other than that I haven't seen any true compromises suggested.

It appears that some folks might not understand what the word compromise means. It means everybody gets something they want yet nobody gets exactly what they want. I would rather see it go completely but if it's made safe using tube ammo I can live with that. Many CAers want to continue using thin shafted ammo but if they can continue to participate using tube ammo instead of fiberglass they should be OK with that also.

That is the very definition of compromise. I am trying but many resist.

I cannot accept a compromise that disregards the safety of the fighters.
We are fighters not targets. We do this for us not for them.

Eventually if people cannot accept compromise for what it is I will have no other option but to join back up with Balins desire for the complete annihilation of CA.

Richard Blackmoore wrote:By the way, I received two Emails saying the injury at N.O.W. was probably the one previously published on the AA where a fighter removed his helm before clearing the battlefield and no man's land, not a spectator in a designated 'safe' area. If that is the case, then it isn't a CA problem and should be removed from my list. When I get the actual report, I'll clarify that here.

I believe you are correct on this. I know the person (fairly well) who was injured. This is NOT the same incident I cite on page 5.

Broadway, it is the foaming at the mouth posts that Balin does WHENEVER CA is mentioned that is getting somewhat weary, even to those who are not "overly excited" about CA. The constant bitching gets real old, just like a CAers "I hit you dance". Two sides of the same coin.