England: 49-Year-Old-Grandmother Shoots Home Invader with Crossbow

A 49-Year-old grandmother has defended her house and herself with a crossbow in England. It was about 9 p.m. on 17 April in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, England. Three masked men, armed with a machete and a hammer, burst into Anji Rhys’ home. A man with the machete tried to grab the crossbow after she snatched it off the wall. She was able to turn and fire it into his abdomen.

Link to video of interview

It is not easy to obtain firearms in England. Any firearms obtained are supposed to be locked up. Self defense is not considered a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Crossbows are still legal. They can be ordered through the mail. They are becoming an alternative for people who wish to defend their homes. From dailymail.co.uk:

‘I ran and grabbed my crossbow and had a little tussle with a second man who had a machete. He went to grab it , but I managed to spin and shoot him in the belly with it at close range.

‘He shouted “You f****** bitch, you shot me”.

‘At that point he fell on me, cutting my hand with the machete.

‘I tried to throw the cross bow through the window to raise the alarm but the curtains caught it like a goalie net.’

(snip)

Asked why she kept the Redback Pistol crossbow, she said: ‘It is a home defence weapon. I am a prepper I believe you should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I wish I had another four cross bows. It is a man stopper. It is the most powerful pistol cross bow.

‘I had it loaded. I practice with it in my garden, which is 130 feet long. The bolt I shot him with was dirty because I had been using it. It was six inches long and disappeared into him.

(snip)

She went on: ‘I am still patrolling the house. The police have taken my crossbow. I have got a knife in my pocket now.

‘I am on three courses of medication – for post traumatic stress, sleeping and anti depressants.’

Ms Rhys said: ‘The police said quietly ‘well done.’ Another said: ‘F….good job.’

The Redback Pistol crossbow was taken as evidence, but was not confiscated.  The Armex crossbow pistol show in the picture would deliver about 175 fps with a 104 grain bolt.  That is about 7 foot-pounds or 10 joules of energy.

 The Redback Pistol crossbow is not the one shown in the picture. The Redback is advertised as delivering 235 feet per second velocity. The Redback is advertised at about $63, with three bolts.

If the Redback is delivering 235 fps with a 100 grain bolt, it should deliver 125 fps with a 350 grain bolt.  Both deliver about  12 foot pounds of energy or 17 joules.  Crossbows are very efficient, and transfer  90% of stored energy as kinetic energy in the bolt.  7-12  foot-pounds of energy is weak by firearms standards.  A standard velocity .22 short delivers 52 foot-pounds of energy.

The wounding mechanism is different with a bolt than with a bullet. The target bolts supplied with the Red Back merely have a field point. They only punch a hole in flesh. It can be dangerous, but the point mostly pushes flesh aside while making a small hole.

The most effective points for bolts or arrows are broadheads. They do not simply poke a hole, pushing aside most tissue. They slice their way inside, cutting a broader wound with razor edges. This is how arrows can be efficient killers of big game.

The broadhead tipped bolts available for pistol crossbows weigh about 350 grains, reducing velocity 47% from a 100 grain bolt.

The damage done is likely to be quadrupled, because cutting is a far more efficient use of energy than pushing a point through flesh.

It does not appear that Ms Rhys used a broadhead. She said the bolt was 6 inches long. Bolts with broadheads are typically 9 inches long for the pistol crossbow used.  Broadheads would create a more debilitating wound and would better serve the purpose of home defense.

In the United States, the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that U.S. citizens do not need to rely on such primitive weapons for home defense. Commonly available pistols with magazine capacities of 15-18 rounds can deliver energies of  200-700 foot-pounds with each shot. Modern sporting rifles offer standard magazine capacities of 30 rounds with cartridges delivering energies of 1250 foot-pounds with each shot.  The common 12 gauge shotgun delivers about 1500 foot-pounds per shot. The popular .308 and .30-06 hunting rifles deliver 2500-2900 foot pounds.  The extra energy is sufficient to penetrate flesh, break large bones, and create massive wounds. There is sufficient energy to penetrate heavy clothing and barriers such as automobile windshields, walls, and primitive shields or armor.

If Ms. Rhys had a simple American or British revolver, her shot would likely have had more effect than the pistol cross bow. In addition, she would have had five more shots to deal with the other home invaders.

In Australia, Ms. Rhys would not be allowed the crossbow. Crossbows have been outlawed. They are considered prohibited weapons, and may only be owned with a special permit from the chief of police.  It is easier to obtain a permit for a firearm than for a crossbow. Self defense is not considered a legal reason to apply for a permit for the crossbow or for a firearm.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar ARJAY says:

    “‘He shouted “You f****** bitch, you shot me”.”

    Now THAT’S down right FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “The bolt I shot him with was dirty because I had been using it. It was six inches long and disappeared into him.”

    I hope he gets a VERY serious infection! Maybe he will have a change of “CAREER” now?!?!

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      “Maybe he will have a change of “CAREER” now?!?!”

      Ya; professional victim. He’ll sue her for defending herself. Doesn’t she know that it’s a crime to defend yourself with a weapon in England?

    2. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      “In Australia, Ms. Rhys would not be allowed the crossbow. Crossbows have been outlawed. ”

      So, in Australia she would have been hacked to death, but all the anti-weapons people would be very happy. What a sick and twist world.

      1. avatar a nother bloke says:

        there are pretty severe penalties in the UK for having an ‘unlicensed’ handgun but, i think, not so much for a shot-gun…..there was a recent case where a man’s caravan was ‘invaded’ and he shot the perp’ with an unlicensed shotgun……the courts were wary of imposing any-thing more than a token sentence, prob. fearing a media out-cry;
        IIRC: he got six months (suspended);
        actually: there are other ‘plusses’ for the UK compared to a gun-grabbing gulag like Austrl.
        for instance: you can acquire s/a 22lr rifles like Ruger 10/22s and, also, pump-action shotguns….both of which are VERY hard to get in Austrl.
        in the UK, how-ever, you need a separate license for each fire-arm except for double-brrl/o-u shotties;
        (firearm license as opposed to a shotgun certificate)
        it depends on where you actually live in the UK as to how easy it is to get the firearms license….
        some rural areas and areas near large shooting ranges like, for instance, Bisley make the process easy b’cs there are, usually, sympathetic Chief Constables in those districts;
        other areas: like, for instance, large metro’ cities….not so easy;
        also, its my understanding that you don’t need a license to purchase shotgun cartridges….
        the application process has been made more difficult in recent years with the addition of a ‘psychological test’ but that might well be nothing more than a mere formality like, for instance, yr local GP ‘ticking a box’….which, say, a sympathetic GP in a rural area would oblige….
        of course: its pretty well impossible to get a handgun license in the UK (excpt: Northern Ireland) but, then again, its almost impossible to get one in AUstrl too…..so…..
        all-in-all, the Austrl gun laws only deserve to be shat on and spat on part. seeing as how they’re based on nothing more than a vile and vicious HOAX …. the totally faux Port Arthur “massacre”

    3. avatar CORNELIUS RING II says:

      Are boomerangs banned in Aussie land?

    4. avatar American Patriot says:

      Now if you could only figure out a way to make it an ASSULT BOW…..I mean like FULL SIMI for multiply intruders.

      1. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

        The Chinese built those.

  2. avatar george lortz says:

    Hooboy, here comes the British ban of crossbows. Can’t have grannies shooting home invaders now, can we?

  3. avatar rocketscientist says:

    I have almost the same crossbow (different branding). I consider it a dangerous toy. I wonder how long she had that thing cocked for…not something that is good for them past a few hours. Are swords legal? feel like that may be a better option particularly for multiple attackers…medieval perhaps, but better than a single shot tiny hand xbow with a pencil point.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      There was a man in London who defended himself with a sword against a home invasion. Apparently the police could not establish that it was an illegal or disproportionate use of force (the intruders had firearms). I can assure you that a properly made (real) sword will go through the human body like a hot knife through butter.

    2. avatar john y says:

      Not for long, as pointed knives over a certain length are being targeted now. I am sure that swords will get included.
      I have an exercise routine using a sword great for upper body small muscles. I have gotten to the point where I can cut (not break) through a 2X2 with a single swing. Think forearm if it did not cut, it would definitely shatter the bone. But I would still prefer my XDm, AK or Heritage (45-70 revolver) as you may only get 1 good swing in against multiple attackers.

    3. avatar Art out West says:

      From what I’ve heard, a short spear is a far more effective weapon than a sword. I’m no expert on edged weapons. Fortunately, I have firearms.

  4. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    The bottom ramblings of the article sounded like he was reading something out Massachusetts law….

  5. avatar Bloving says:

    “If Ms. Rhys had a simple American or British revolver, her shot would likely have had more effect than the pistol cross bow. In addition, she would have had five more shots to deal with the other home invaders.”
    True. And she would be in jail today…. we can’t have the peasants equipping themselves with the best tools available can We?
    🤠

  6. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Wow, this is the second one in a very recent past. I’m starting to think that there’s still a couple people left across the pond who are willing to defend themselves and are tired of the garbage their pols shovel.

    1. avatar Wood says:

      “…and are tired of the garbage their pols shovel.”

      Who isn’t?

  7. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    British criminals types seem to regularly employ hammers, screw drivers, machetes, and such based on a few of these recent stories, I guess they don’t expect resistance.

    The story doesn’t really say once she hit the one guy with the crossbow bolt (nicely done!) and then tried to toss it out the window, if the perps continued to struggle with her or decided to leave on their own. It seems one crossbow vs three criminals, at machete/hammer distance doesn’t leave room for reloads. She might need those 4 other crossbows to get the next shots off.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      The guy still attacked her after she shot him, so they aren’t very good for immediate incapacitation either. I suppose if she used a broad head he would have eventually bled out, but now if this guy dies it’ll probably be days from now and he’ll be dead from sepsis or something.

      Swords, hammers, clubs, etc. are all weapons that enhance an already pre-existing advantage (i.e. numbers, size, strength, etc). Projectile weapons like a cross bow don’t mitigate that advantage at all. The only thing a cross bow does is offer you a single bladed thrust at a limited distance. This woman looks and sounds like she was born hard, but that doesn’t make her stronger, younger, faster, or more numerous. Lady is being screwed by her pro-rape government.

  8. avatar Brewski says:

    The Left wants to ban guns yet they don’t realize how much worse / brutal violent encounters are with melee weapons.

    Think machete attacks in Africa. Firearms, by comparison are humane.

    Can’t recall the last time someone committed suicide by hammer…

    1. avatar Capt H says:

      Suicide by hammer that is going to be my band name!

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    Asking why she owned the crossbow after she had used it to stop an intruder. Seriously. <_<
    Now why was she not locked up but the poor old guy with the screwdriver was?

  10. avatar lookandsee says:

    Surprised she isnt going to jail because in the “civilized gun free world” in place like the UK, You can be criminally charged for fighting back against a criminal.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Who says she isn’t? Use of force, even in self-defence, is still an offence across the pond.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Self defense (defence) has not been outlawed, but the force used must be proportionate, i.e., no greater than the force used against the victim. Fair fight and all that.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Maybe I’m hoping against hope, but maybe the political police are starting to realize that the mass of proles get angry when you incarcerate old people for defending their lives. So maybe the police are pulling a “James Comey” and selectively enforcing the law based on polling data.

  11. avatar dpk54 says:

    I applaud this woman!! She would most certainly have been maimed or killed by these thugs!! There is no way someone breaking into MY home, threatening me or my family is going to operate without impunity…..these criminals do not care who they hurt or kill, but I know one thing…they had better think TWICE before bothering me or mine….because I WON’T!! People are fed up with the likes of these idiots and many times the end result will involve the thug or thugs being hurt or killed (not that I would care, mind you). They should think about something called CONSEQUENCES before illegally breaching another’s home!!

  12. avatar TommyG says:

    I guess a weapon is better than no weapon. I got a Crossbow for hunting. Time consuming to load and a pain to unload too. Guess their aren’t many choices in England. I wonder if spears are illegal there.

  13. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Amazing how the English are going backwards in time. I assume they will have only slingshots very soon. They are I think 6000 years old technology.

    Prepared mind 101 is one of my favorite channels. I bought this cross bow after seeing his video. Its a great and very dangerous tool.

    Crossbow Pistol Power Test: This is NOT A TOY! – Preparedmind101

    JoergSprave is another one of my favorite channels

    How To Make+Shoot The Pump Action Repeating Crossbow Pistol

    1. avatar Stephen M. says:

      I would, by far, rather have a shepherd’s sling than a crossbow. Even indoors. Do you have any idea how fast you can move a 3oz egg sinker with a sling?

  14. avatar Francis says:

    Lesson of the day –

    Don’t bring a machete to a crossbow fight!

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Crossbow didn’t end the fight, it initiated it. To be clear: she didn’t instigate the fight; the life-and-death struggle was eminent and she got the first shot in. Bad guy still got on top of her and she still had to physically fight for her life against an attacker armed with a machete. The British have a pro-rape anti-gun culture that disallows small elderly woman to defend themselves effectively. The only reason this is a story, is because it falls outside the bell curve of what normally happens all the time in England. Usually this woman would be gang raped, robbed, and then stabbed/bludgeoned to death. This story, rather than being horrifying to the British people, is something they’ll laugh about.

  15. avatar Old Region Fan says:

    If she’s employed I say bring her here to live and take her to a gun store. She would love an AR in .556 ! Notice I said employed meaning no entitlements !

  16. avatar Mark N. says:

    ahem. 5.56, or .223, but don’t confuse your decimal points!

    1. avatar MG says:

      I would rather have the .556 instead of the .223!

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        But that would be a destructive device. We can’t have civilians owning rifles with bore larger than 1/2″, now can we? Let’s not get carried away with that whole “freedom” thing!

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        .556, How does that compare to the dreaded .9MM?

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Whut’s all this then? I belong to a couple SHTF FB prepper groups. I always chuckle when there’s a dicussion of alternatives to firearms(when there are no more boo-lits)-usually crossbows. Heck the French lost big time using crossbows to English longbows long ago(1346 Crecey). Happy Grandma is OK…

    1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      Crossbows take less strength and less practice than an English longbow. Preppers are probably right in choosing them over a longbow.

      As for the French defeats, some blame needs to be set squarely on French shoulders. They made tactical and operational mistakes leading up to those battles that cost them heavily.

  18. avatar PorridgeWeasel says:

    To bad she couldn’t get a semi-fully automatic crossbow. That would have been an even better ending.

  19. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    She is sooooooo going to jail. How dare she defend herself!

  20. avatar UK ban says:

    Gotta believe the only reason the bad guys didn’t have guns is that the UK ban has made them difficult (but not impossible) to get hold of.

    1. avatar Francis says:

      Believe? What we know is that the UK ban on firearms is directly responsible for an increase and higher percent (greater than the US) of hot (with owners at home during the crime event) armed robberies in private residences, and an increase in victims (the law abiding home owners) who have to suffer as a result of the tyranny celebrated by the government of The UK. But this is nothing new. The UK has a legacy of making their peasants suffer as subjects. The removal of rights you endorse did not stop or prevent the actions of the real criminals, the three thugs who terrorized this lawful individual. Now the same government will find a way to criminalize her rightful actions.

      1. avatar UK ban says:

        Lighten up Francis.
        Didn’t say I agreed with the ban, but in this particular case it seems to have prevented the bad guys from using guns. Sometimes a bad things can have a good result. Life is funny that way.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          It didn’t stop the bad guy at all….. After getting shot, he still attacked her with a machete and she had to PHYSICALLY fight the guy WITHOUT a weapon. If the victim had a gun, she could have shot him until he was no longer a threat. If they both had guns, they would at least be equally armed. If he had a gun and she didn’t, he would still have pretty much the same advantage he had with the machete. HE was his own worst enemy because he bungled the murder, which happens all the time to murderers armed with guns i.e. 95% of shots miss, and 95% of gunshot victims survive.

        2. avatar Joh J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

          UK ban, you’re kidding of course. Right

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      Sure, lets go with that argument (no guns = gun-less criminals)….. It also means gun-less victims. It hands the initiative to the criminals on a silver platter. It guarantees that victims will never have the ability to regain the initiative or offset advantages that the attackers bring to the fight. Here are some basic “life-and-death struggle” math-examples for you:

      physically advantaged disarmed attacker – There is TONS of case law that allows a physically disadvantaged victim (smaller, older, weaker, disabled) to use deadly force to defend themselves. Knives, clubs, etc only ENHANCE physical capabilities (strength, size, speed). A physically disadvantaged victim armed with an edged or blunt weapons is automatically disadvantaged due to the limits of their strength, size, speed, etc where a gun will be effective DESPITE physical capabilities. A gun equalizes the fight.

      disarmed multiple attackers – Supreme Courts has already ruled that armed self defense (to include deadly force) is justifiable against multiple attackers. Absent a firearm you are at a disadvantage based on total muscle mass and available weapons (i.e. arms, hands, legs, and feet). A gun equalizes the fight.

      armed multiple attackers – building on the above examples, multi-shot firearms give the victim the advantage of “creating distance” against attackers armed with edged and blunt weapons and to rapidly address each attacker in turn. A gun equalizes the fight.

      attackers armed with guns – Obviously NO-BODY in a gun-free country has ever never ever been able to get a gun /s/…… but if they did and you had a gun, then you are at least equally armed. A gun equalizes the fight. **The only advantage multiple armed attackers have is the ability to maneuver and concentrate fire against you. They can put you in a cross fire which would mitigate your available cover. That’s called an ambush. If you can find an effective way to offset the advantages of an ambush then you are smarter than all the generals and sergeants who have ever fought all wars ever. Ambushes have been around forever (billions of years before the invention of the firearm’s or even people; look at how animals hunt) and the best counter-measure devised by all the smartest people who have ever pondered the subject for the last 1000 years is…… a gun.

      Criminals can chose how, when, in what strength, and with how many people they will attack you. No government will ever be able control that no matter how many laws are written or how despotic the control measures will be. In the end the only thing that will allow any victim to offset any advantage an attacker may bring to the table (including an attacker armed with a gun) is a gun brought to bear by the victim.

    3. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      Or they’ve figured out they don’t need guns to rob people when they can reasonably expect no one to be armed.

    4. avatar Scoutino says:

      Not having easy access to guns somehow failed to stop these perps from armed home invasion. One good (or just lucky) cut with the machete would mean home owner bleeding out as surely as if shot through her heart.
      Weapons don’t commit crimes. Criminals do.
      Will GB ban hammers after they are done banning knives?

  21. avatar Jross says:

    “OI, YOU AV A LICENSE FOR THAT LIL BUGGA? NO? OFF TO DA NICK WIF YA DEN”

  22. avatar RCC says:

    Dean
    Crossbows are legal in Australia or at least they are in my state in spite of our stupid firearm laws. Treated the same as .22 rifle. Not good laws as I’ve mentioned many times.

    1. My reading of Australian law is that a special permit from the State Police Commissioner is needed for a crossbow, because it is a “prohibited weapon”. The law varies by state, perhaps your state has regularized the process to make obtaining a crossbow about the same as obtaining a .22 rifle. That makes sense. Some Australian states are moving to mitigate the worst and most stupid parts of the 1996 law.

  23. avatar California Richard says:

    Somebody said it in the last post about losing the culture-war on guns, that we need to start framing these “anti-gun” entities as “pro-rape”. It’s a short, thought provoking statement that will stick in people’s heads more effectively and certainly applies in this case. That woman had a cross bow and she looks like she could singlehandedly annihilate a screaming army of David Hoggs, but at the end of the day she is still and elderly woman who lives by herself and has to rely on ancient ineffective weapons to defend herself. After shooting the guy, he still attacked her and the fight degenerated in to a wrestling machete fight on the living room floor. Unacceptable. Grandma should have had a gun, and the tyrannical pro-rape government that denied her that right is at fault.

  24. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Guess they will outlaw crossbows and slingshots now…

  25. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Bet she gets some more crossbows and some zwikle broadheads.

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    Next time head shot. He won t be cursing her then.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    Facing three suspects, she’s very lucky the other two didn’t decide to take her out when her one-and-done weapon was expended. Better than nothing but amazing that it comes down to that.

  28. avatar Newshawk says:

    Talk about getting medieval on his a**!

  29. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Good shot, ma’am.

  30. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    The Brits have essentially consented to the crap they put up with. This is what decades of Socialist control of your government will get you. If the people decided to put an end to this they could do one of two things….vote out the useless politicians and get the laws fixed, or arm themselves and kill every burglar that breaks in.

    If thugs started showing up rolled in carpet dumped in the river, in short order, there would be fewer of them as those thugs would find other things to do for money. The old three S solution would work fairly well.

  31. avatar Kendahl says:

    Female homeowner calls 911 to report that she had just hit a burglar with a mace. 911 operator advises her to leave the house promptly because Mace will only stop him temporarily. Woman replies that she hit him with “a” mace and that his brains were splattered all over.

    Prior to the introduction of firearms, crossbows had the advantage of much shorter training time than longbows.

  32. avatar RyanC says:

    I can think of nothing more horrifying to a germaphobe, than having some crazy British grandmom shoot a 6″ dirty crossbow bolt which “disappeared” inside the intruder’s abdomen.

    Ick.

  33. avatar John J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

    In England the people have the right to defend themselves, as long as they’re not too impolite about it.

    What’s wrong with those people?

  34. avatar Roger D says:

    Ms Rhys, come to Montana. We’ll give you a Glock.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email