Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
WillS:
Pfffftttsssh. The "modern lifestyle" argument doesn't fly with me. We as a generation are soft, spoiled, pampered and weedy compared to our medieval ancestors who fought to survive, worked outside every day, had no chemically modified food, tvs, computers etc and yet we can shoot 150+ bows after a couple years of training. The idea that medieval man would have struggled even slightly is daft using that line of debate.
Debate is why we're all here. If the conversation doesn't appeal, there's not a huge amount of point taking the time to post "stop arguing" is there? Just don't read/reply. It's like the YouTube comments such as "this music is crap" - just skip it, not hard.
Atlatlista:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 23, 2013, 04:56:17 pm ---I dunno. I see your point, but in a way it's almost an unfair test. Warbows were designed to inflict big, deadly wounds on people often without much concern on consistency (if we're talking livery issue artillery bows) whereas the bows being used to shoot target today are designed to be consistent, predictable and fast to maximise efficiency and speed. The modern arrows are superfast needles with 2 inch fletchings and very light, compared to the spears that warbows shoot. The modern arrows are ultra stable, and the war arrows are big ungainly things for punching through armour.
I don't think even the best warbow archer would stand a chance against a modern target archer, but then modern archery came from warbows, and has been refined and refined until it's accurate enough to become a sport. It's like racing a Ford Model T against a Lamborghini Sesta Elemento.
Plus of course, after one round of a York there wouldnt be a target... ;-)
--- End quote ---
I don't disagree that they would "lose" but that's hardly the point in my opinion. I'm sure there are some who would love to ridicule warbow shooters' scores, but that's not my game. I'm just interested in seeing what level of consistency and accuracy is achievable by the current crop of warbow shooters as it will better inform my understanding of past military practices. If warbow shooters can't regularly hit a man-sized target at 80 yards, that tells us something important about how they might have been utilized, what the effective range was, and so on and so forth. By contrast, if warbow shooters attain good levels of accuracy compared to Victorian target longbow shooters, that also tells us something important about how accurate these bows are at different ranges.
I don't know if you've heard of the International Practical Shooting Confederation or the International Defensive Pistol Association, but they host tournaments for pistol shooters in which they engage human silhouette targets in creative ways aimed at testing competence in defensive shooting of the style used by military and law enforcement. I would love to create a similar competition for archers, with divisions for target style bows as well as warbows, which test different aspects of "military" style archery at different ranges and from different places, but where the courses and targets are standardized. That way, when you have a friend drilling silhouette targets in the head with his warbow, that will mean something to folks across the pond who are looking for an unambiguous standard of accuracy.
WillS:
Yup I agree - I just meant that compared to a modern archer shooting something like a York, there'd be no contest!
I can say that at 80 yards, with bows between 90 and 120lbs getting headshots is pretty straightforward (provided the archer is not overbowed)
How many headshots compared to a locked in modern target shooter - I don't know! I like your idea of pitting warbows against Victorian longbows using the same targets at the same distance. Would be very interesting!
Del the cat:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 23, 2013, 08:05:13 pm ---...
I can say that at 80 yards, with bows between 90 and 120lbs getting headshots is pretty straightforward (provided the archer is not overbowed)
...
--- End quote ---
Errr, in that case you would have won gold at the last olympics at a measley 70 metres.
Del
WillS:
Didnt say I could do it...
Might have exaggerated a bit I suppose. An exceptional archer, in complete control of his bow could do it. Especially when you consider 100yards is used throughout many target clubs. As long as the bow fits the archer, there's no reason why it should be any harder to hit the target if the bow is heavy, compared to a light 50lb longbow. I think that's the current mindset - too many people seem to think that once you hit about 80lbs, accuracy disappears and it just becomes a bit of fun or a macho thing when really there's no difference provided the bow weight has been carefully worked up to.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version