Given how fiddly that rear sight is I don't think that it would be used like a modern sight for windage. It seems to me that it would be for zeroing the weapon. Because human faces aren't all the same size you either need to make custom sights for every weapon or adjustable sights. That sight can be adjusted left or right to account for the distance between the eyes and up or down to account for the distance between cheekbone and eye. It is a clever little system, if a bit crude by modern standards.
When that's your job from a military perspective or even an avid hunter, you start to not even need sights especially at those distances. Point shooting becomes second nature. Not everyone has the time to put into getting good shooting that way so that's probably when sights became something needed and wanted
Even some modern sights aren't much different than that. Biggest difference would be in a modern rear blade design you would have graduations on the leaf so that you can make consistent and repeatable adjustments. On an unrelated note where the first stirrups on crossbows first introduced on military or hunting bows?
I would guess stirrup were first developed for military crossbows, since a higher draw weight is more important in a military context where you might want to penetrate armour. Whereas against most animals, you're fine with a lower strength bow. It doesn't hurt to have a stirrup though, for ease of drawing if nothing else. So presumably they were quickly fitted to hunting crossbows as well.
Fascinating. TBH, that v-notch rear sight looks like much better quality than many firearms sights until not that long ago. Many WW2 wartime carbines and SMG had unadjustable crappy sights. I think I'd take these over those of a BAR M1918A2 for instance.
The last time I saw the bead and cord foresight, both the cords went through the centre of the bead.... The slight parting of the posts kept the bead where it was placed
I suggest the reason why crossbows did not have sights was for the same reason that warbows of that period did not; the users were trained for many years and were able to put the projectile on target by practice and experience (perhaps using the head as a reference point). I do not think it was simply a case of them being volley weapons, as there was always a premium on marksmen bowmen. Hunters, and especially sports hunters, would not have had that time spent on the weapon and thus needed aids to use it for the purpose.
Good evening, my friend, I'm a big fan of your work, as I said in another comment I do some crossbow in this style, and I would like to know about the crossbow type sight system
Tod, I have a different interpretation of why the military sight was adopted. The mil-sight came in when the crossbow became the "cheap" weapon (relative to the arquebus) issued to the less well trained. Your thoughts?
As an American I was confused. Until I realized the history of Agincourt and the two fingers. I was wondering why you were apologizing. 😁 This is why I love history.
I know people in the Renaissance were the same as us. But I find it fascinating to think some bespoke gentleman correcting windage on his crossbow
Given how fiddly that rear sight is I don't think that it would be used like a modern sight for windage. It seems to me that it would be for zeroing the weapon. Because human faces aren't all the same size you either need to make custom sights for every weapon or adjustable sights. That sight can be adjusted left or right to account for the distance between the eyes and up or down to account for the distance between cheekbone and eye. It is a clever little system, if a bit crude by modern standards.
Because - Tacticool has been with us forever
Great vid!
Knuckle sight, that's some medieval magic
When that's your job from a military perspective or even an avid hunter, you start to not even need sights especially at those distances. Point shooting becomes second nature. Not everyone has the time to put into getting good shooting that way so that's probably when sights became something needed and wanted
Tod's Workshop With enough practice, do you not need even thumb hole aim assist?
your work is amazing. i've learned a lot from you. thank you :)
Even some modern sights aren't much different than that. Biggest difference would be in a modern rear blade design you would have graduations on the leaf so that you can make consistent and repeatable adjustments.
On an unrelated note where the first stirrups on crossbows first introduced on military or hunting bows?
I would guess stirrup were first developed for military crossbows, since a higher draw weight is more important in a military context where you might want to penetrate armour. Whereas against most animals, you're fine with a lower strength bow. It doesn't hurt to have a stirrup though, for ease of drawing if nothing else. So presumably they were quickly fitted to hunting crossbows as well.
So sights on a crossbow is the oldschool way of being tacticool? :)
Well, the left-right aiming is no problem on a crossbow but the up-down is tricky.
@@tods_workshop I forgot to mention what a beauty the Schnäpper one is! 😍
I did the thumb thing with 8 years intuitively. Absolutly workes fine. With ten i was able to hit things in quite a distance out of my hip.
Excellent information and demonstration. I'd always wondered about this. Thank you. BUI on a crossbow, who knew?
Fascinating.
TBH, that v-notch rear sight looks like much better quality than many firearms sights until not that long ago. Many WW2 wartime carbines and SMG had unadjustable crappy sights. I think I'd take these over those of a BAR M1918A2 for instance.
The last time I saw the bead and cord foresight, both the cords went through the centre of the bead.... The slight parting of the posts kept the bead where it was placed
I always wondored how to aim with medevil crosbows
What is your process for painting a shield?
We use the knuckle trick in paintball 🥳
I suggest the reason why crossbows did not have sights was for the same reason that warbows of that period did not; the users were trained for many years and were able to put the projectile on target by practice and experience (perhaps using the head as a reference point). I do not think it was simply a case of them being volley weapons, as there was always a premium on marksmen bowmen.
Hunters, and especially sports hunters, would not have had that time spent on the weapon and thus needed aids to use it for the purpose.
Good evening, my friend, I'm a big fan of your work, as I said in another comment I do some crossbow in this style, and I would like to know about the crossbow type sight system
For military purposes, I think you would not need a sight on a crossbow, given its relatively short range and the size of your targets.
Tacticool since 1500
If occurs to me that stone boys came to have sights first because there is no bolt-tip to serve as a front sight.
Tod, I have a different interpretation of why the military sight was adopted. The mil-sight came in when the crossbow became the "cheap" weapon (relative to the arquebus) issued to the less well trained. Your thoughts?
@@tods_workshop I defer to your MUCH superior knowledge. I am in awe of your craftmanship.
Holy molo thats a bow
@@tods_workshop no thank you for showing us
Parabéns muito bem feita essas crossbow. Eu uma artesanal olha la no canal Alex Rocha Ramos deixe seu comentario e deixa também suas dicas um abraço
How thick was the hoop in front of the schnepper crossbow?
@@tods_workshop how far away from the front of the crossbow did you drill the hole to pin the hoop in place?
As an American I was confused. Until I realized the history of Agincourt and the two fingers.
I was wondering why you were apologizing. 😁 This is why I love history.
Han crossbows had sights
You can call that a crude sight but it's not that different than some rifle sights from the 19th century.