Veteran Arms' crossbow

Anybody own any of these crossbows? They look intriguing, and the prices are decent:

http://www.veteranarms.com/ReproductionMuzzleloadersandFlintlocks/Crossbows.html

Paul

I got a look at an Indian made crossbow some years ago. The execution was poor overall, from one end to the other. The bow I saw was fitted with a cranequin... it was poorly made as well. As I say, that was years ago, and perhaps these bows are made by someone else. Perhaps the quality has improved, but the example I saw was... problematic. Caveat Emptor... buyer beware. Geezer

Okay, maybe I oughta be a little more forthcoming about what made the ONE Indian-made crossbow a bad deal. From end to end.
The prod looked pretty okay... bright steel, probably hand-forged, but the ends were not hammered flat and rolled-up in the common medieval fashion. The prod was mounted with quite decently made bow-irons, very similar to those shown by Payne-Gallwey's "The Crossbow"
The bolt-groove was inlet cow-horn, rather nice work. So far, so good.
Then the problems start. The stock was based on Payne-Gallwey's "Flemish Arbalest" pattern. Unfortunately, the stock was substantially taller and thicker than Payne-Gallwey's stock, and poorly finished, with lots of chip tear-out, not well sanded, but finished with some sort of clear varnish or laquer.
The roller-nut was made of black ox-horn, rather than antler. Ox-horn is not a good choice for roller-nuts. Unlike antler, which is very hard and resilient, ox-horn flakes at the edges, eventually resulting in an unuseable roller. What's worth, the nut had no sear-plug or plate. There was a key-way for the end of the tickler, but it was simply cut in the horn... oughta last about twenty shots. The trigger was hand-forged, badly. Both distal and terminal ends were rough and unfinished. The terminal end is ugly, but no problem. The distal end fits into the nut, and without a sear plug or plate, it's pretty much guaranteed to tear the nut to pieces.
Overall, the bow was workable for perhaps 20 shots.
The cranequin was marinally workable. The toothed rack that draws back the string was cut with triangular teeth, rather than round-ended rectangular teeth common with authentic cranequins. The gear box and handle actually worked, and drew back the rack... rather sloppily, but it worked. The cord-loop that should hold the cranequin in place was a cheap piece of close-line cord tied in an overhand knot. The fork at the end of the rack, that hooks onto the string was made of @ 1/8 - 3/16 inch thick stock, bent over tightly, and left with sharp edges that would cut the serving and then the bowstring in a few shots. In fact, the serving was already cut.
In short, the thing looked like somebody got Payne-Gallwey's pattern and followed the plan without reference to measurements. The resulting device made a pretty nice wall-hanger, that would probably shoot a few times before failing. Given a low enough price, it might do well enough for decoration or a movie prop, but I cannot recommend buying such a machine for everyday use, or even with the intention of fixing the flaws... I actually considered that, but decided it would be quicker and easier to start from scratch. This is NOT to say that THIS particular manufacturer is selling garbage. Their bows may be great, just beware. Geezer.