Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
We are staring an International Primitive Flight Shooting Federation
WillS:
I can't help thinking that the Welsh class within the various Warbow societies seems to cover all the bases. It suggests a minimum and maximum weight bow, materials to be used, strings to be used and the arrow specification.
With a maximum weight alongside a minimum, it puts more focus onto the archer and bowyer reaching greater distance rather than letting the two or three guys who can shoot 190# bows dominate the entire thing because nobody else can get close.
If you were to use a similar set of guidelines to the Welsh class, it would be something along these lines (I have copied these from the official Welsh class section of the ewbs from memory as its not available currently)
Bow weight - over 80# and under 110#
Bow materials - any indigenous wood species to England (European yew, elm, ash, hazel, plum etc)
Bow construction - single stave, "Warbow cross section" - i.e. any found on the MR (round, square, galleon, D) with minimal heat treatment (perhaps just what is necessary to straighten or balance the natural stave). Cow horn side nocks. Circular or elliptical tiller shape. 30" minimum draw length. 72" minimum length.
String - ideally natural fibres, but for safety modern materials should also be allowed
Arrows - to follow Warbow Society Welsh class arrow spec that can be found on the Warbow Wales / ewbs website.
With some tweaking I'm sure something similar can be worked out that satisfies most Warbow enthusiasts?
As Adam has pointed out, most people interested in shooting warbows for distance are already happily doing so within various different Warbow societies. The specs are set and agreed upon, the records are taken carefully and there's no great desire to change anything from what I can tell.
Del the cat:
Some potential probs there.
I wish people wouldn't write spec' details that aren't actually measurable.
Words like 'minimal heat treating' are meaningless especially as it seems to confuse heat treatment with heat bending...the two are distinct and separate although they can be done together.
Specifying 'cow horn' is a bit stingy... a) how can you tell cow from pale waterbuffalo (DNA test? ::))when even the supplier seems to change the name of what he's supplying! " Horn or Antler" would be fine. (There are vegans who would want to use Nylon or similar)
Personally I'm not a great fan of side nocks. Most people will need second grooves for a bracing string which then raises the question, are second grooves historically accurate.
Specifying tiller shape is again a bit pointless as it is pretty much open to interpretation, but I like it as MR cross section covers pretty much everything from round to rectangular as long as corners are rounded. Adding a 5/8 rule for clarity may be a good idea.
Indigenous UK wood is a bit meane ;) it cuts out Hickory and the like which is handy for US based bowyers.
I think it needs to be as open and inclusive as possible.
The maximum weight is an interesting and valid concept, but I'd think maybe 120# or 130# nearer the mark?
I don't think you mention reflex/deflex... any view on that?
I think your statement "The spec's are set and agreed on" is far from the truth. The people who don't agree with them probably don't join the society.
Del
WillS:
That's exactly why I said with tweaking... :)
I agree on all your points other than side nocks. The MR bows had second grooves for stringers, so there's no reason not to have these with side nocks. If it's a class for warbows, side nocks are the only historically accurate method. Full nocks are Victorian and don't really belong on medieval weapons.
130# is a sensible max I think. Stops the elite domination, while allowing plenty room for improvement amongst archers and bowyers.
As for cow horn and indigenous woods how about a compromise - the materials used should be indigenous to the bowyers country. That means you use materials you can find where you live, which allows for a fascinating comparison between wood types. Or does limiting materials just make it too restrictive?
Del the cat:
Blimey, you replied before I'd finished editing... :o
Not sure I've seen the evidence for the MR nocks having second grooves... I'll need to dig out W of W.
I have no axe to grind, making 'em isn't an issue for me, but maybe a bit un-nerving for anyone who hasn't done 'em before.
Indigenous to the bowyers country... cunning... will be see bamboo Warbows >:D
Still more probs... waterbuffalo were prob in the UK in the middle ages, but are not indigenous.... picky picky pedant
Del (picky picky pedant ;D )
Ian.:
Will, with respect you have to come here without the EWBS baggage
--- Quote from: WillS on February 04, 2015, 09:08:28 am ---
The MR bows had second grooves for stringers, so there's no reason not to have these with side nocks. - That's no true at all
If it's a class for warbows, side nocks are the only historically accurate method. Full nocks are Victorian and don't really belong on medieval weapons. - That's not true at all
As for cow horn and indigenous woods how about a compromise - the materials used should be indigenous to the bowyers country. - the medieval world traded from the east side of Han China right up to Yorkshire, I don't think the medieval man was limited but only what he could forage in his garden.
--- End quote ---
Adam, the benefit for us is unity with equipment where there is no inherent prejudiced or agenda. We have a chance to create a really helpful specification and instructional guide to anyone who wants to shoot warbows flight or not.
Also 130lb isn't a max at all, the max is unlimited to whatever people want to shoot as long as it still comes close to the MR bows in all attributes. Maximum and minimum width and depth are very easy to enforce from MR bows. I'm happy to do the leg work.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version