Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow
AD:
I'd have to say that 'gospel truth' problem applies equally to all writing ...and only hope my summary of Bickerstaffe's book was as accurate as it was concise ;).
I take it there's a long standing difference of opinion and some falling out between two factions of bowyers/archers up in the midlands. Shame really when you have such an enjoyable hobby in common which you could all share. I don't want to feed the fire with questions so I'll shut up, only saying thanks to those who have explained the heavier war bow view.
Mind you the internet can also do funny things to people; a few years ago I remember being given a link to an aquarium/fish forum where a contentious argument that went on for 40 pages eventually split the forum into two. Having no interest in either side of the argument, it was a rather sad thread to read through.
Regards and have a good weekend - Sunday promises to be good shooting weather :)
TheWildCat:
Well this is pretty cool readin thats fer sure. Y'all make some good points. I still don't see too many archers sportin 160# bows. I know theres people who could shoot em. But I don't think their an average fer a archer though. I would really like ta see some good hard facts on these bows. I don't mind eattin a little crow.I done that plenty in my life. Another thing I guess I stumble with, is that I think of shootin as Drawin, Aiming, and shootin. I ferget there ain't too much aimin with that type a bow. Just elevation. Still I see y'alls interest in them fer sure.
triton:
Just to reiterate and add a tiny bit:
Dr Kooi was employed to calculate the draw weights of the Mary Rose bows when they were still under secure storage. He came up with a computer programme which worked out what the draw would be. I can't remember at the moment but I'm sure it was Dick Galloway or Ron Palmer, made bows to the same dimensions as those bows, the computer programme predictions were within a pound or two of the replicas.
IMO anyone that says the MR bows were no more than about 100LB either lacks experience or has an agenda. If you make bows upto 100LB you're going to sell more ;)
davecrocket:
Hello everyone.
I am new and have really enjoyed reading all this. It is highly debatable and is sometimes very frustrating trying to explain what you believe is true. It`s a bit like debating religion. The above is good because nobody has been rude.
Anyway, I have tillered my own pair of longbows pulling at 100 and 110lb @ 32". I really think I know the answer to this question. Here it is;
Given you have as many war arrows as you want and you go to battle with your longbow, kiss the kids and wife goodbye. After about ten minutes, if you have filled your pants, then what you have in your hand is a longbow and not a warbow.
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: Rod on March 27, 2009, 09:55:43 am ---Just an aside on converting paces into yards.
Back in the 19thC there was some contention about the ranges shot accurately with large calibre rifles and at the Creedmore range there was a study of distances accounted in paces.
The conclusion was that the average for a normal walking "pace" was from 27" to 30".
Rod.
--- End quote ---
That is true for the 19th century military pace. The 'Roman' or 'geometric' pace of Tudor times, measured between footfalls of the same foot, was five feet.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version