stronges bow on the world

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Thanks for responding to my questions.  I can see that I have some building and training ahead of me.  Others would likely label me a target archer, because that is most of the shooting that I do.  My hunting weight is 61# and my target weight is 54#.  I shoot up to three nights per week in the winter in an indoor club, and take part in every 3D match I can afford to travel to.  About fifteen years ago, I shot a 30 arrow round with a 96# longbow.  It played me out and my score dropped some from my average, but I survived it.

But a war bow!  That's a different thing altogether.  I believe I shall aim for 100 # for my first one, and work up to the 32" draw length.

I thank all of you for this inspiration.

[Yeomanbowman]

According to archaeological evidence most medieval and Tudor war arrows, that have been uncovered, are about 30" or just over.  So anything from there up is OK if your stave is too short to accommodate 32" (or you have short arms).  I think a 100lb draw-weight is a legitimate warbow weight, but at the very bottom end of the scale.  I'd agree with Alan that about 140lbs, or so, seem more representative for the period.
However, something that has not been mentioned is the bows material.  If you want authenticity then you really only have 2 options, yew and wych elm.  I'm sure other woods were occasionally used but only as the exception (or as a recreational bow).
Only 8 Mary Rose bows had flat bellies, so a shallow crown is desireable with yew as is working through the handle tiller.
Hope this helps
   

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I have quite a quantity of what I hope is good yew in eight foot lengths, as well as a good number os sister billets.  I've accumulated a good library and have had success building yew longbows of much less weight.  This will be fun.

Can anyone suggest how much weight per inch a bow increases in weight as one nears full draw? My scale only goes to 100 pounds.

[Marc St Louis]

Bows of around 150# draw weight increase about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw

[ratty]

Bows of around 150# draw weight increase about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw

?

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Thanks for the reply Mark.  That's not as severe as I had thought it might be.  I will definitely need a better anchor on my tillering wall.

Taylor

[Marc St Louis]

Perhaps I should clarify that statement. Bows of around 150# @ 30" increase by about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw

[Rod]

Jaroslav, Nick, Chris et al.,

I agree that recording hits on a board of an acceptable standard size is probably the way to go, but for the purposes of discussion, this is what I would propose upon recording scores:

Whilst it is encouragibng the record a personal best of 5 or six hits, this would less accurately demonstrate the consistent level of ability than a running average.

On the face of it, this is a harder road to travel, but being less of a flatterer it is IMO a more useful tool in monitoring ones progress.

Say you were to shoot 16 "ends" of attempts at this target and scored, for the sake of argument, 0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 5, 1 & 4.
When these are shot does not matter so long as they are a true record of all ends shot.

This would be a running total of 43 divided by 16 sets which gives an average of 2.687  which would be more representative of your consistent level of ability than a claim of your personal best score of 6.

In this way, by keeping a simple card of all your attempts showing A. hits, B. total score/total sets, C. product of total score divided by total sets, you would be able to monitor any progress more truthfully.

If it was considered worthwhile as a motivating factor to publish scores for comparison, the running average and PB could be stated, since the object is to increase the average and to bring it closer to the PB, not to pretend that the PB repesents your consistent level of ability unless this can be supported by the running average.

I doubt that there would be an interest in ranking at the present time, but if this was of interest, I would suggest this:

First Class:  Running average of 4.51 to 6.00
Second Class: Running average of 2.51 to 4.50
Third Class: Running average of 0.10 to 2.50

This makes Third Class readily achievable, Second Class not impossible and retains First Class as requiring some considerable effort, as it should be if it were to be meaningful as a distinction.

I would make no distinction in draw weight except to post a minimum acceptable. Beyond this you choose the draw weight you think that you can command.
If time and experience shows otherwise, you have a choice to make.

This might seem daunting, but it is a useful tool in helping to form a true picture of your own level of consistent ability in this particular area of shooting.

At the end of the day, you will know your draw weight, how far you can shoot and your rate of fire.
The premise is that it is helpful to also know your standard of accuracy.

Knowing it, you can then if you choose, work upon improvement.
Not knowing it, what can you honestly do?

If you can hold a group at 100, you will be the more accurate at your longest distance.
Rod.

[nick1346]

Rod,

I appreciate your thoughts on trying to catergorise, standardise and compare the abilities of warbow archers but basing that on one single aspect of shooting runs the risk of turning it a mere off shoot of target archery. Warbow shooting is about being able to shoot well at distances from a few yards to as far as you can get an authentic arrow. Remember that an English archer had to be able to shoot well to 'minimum maximum' of 240 yards distance to be even considered for indentured service. To get a true overall apprecaition of an archers ability any 'tests' should take consideration of the overall stlye of warbow shooting. The draw weight of the bows would vary from archer to archer based upon the bow he required to shoot a militiary arrow that set minimum distance of 240 yards or by Henry VIII standards 220yds. An archer who cannot achieve this cannot be considered to be shooting well enough to have any bearing on a series of tests designed to test the abilities of modern heavy archers agianst those of our forebears. That does not mean that people who cannot achieve this distance should not undergo a test as you put foward but it must be remebered that no matter how well they did at 100yds they would not make a good all round archer as the style dictates.

To expand upon your idea an archer should be tested in a number of fields, accuracy at mid range (as you suggest), armour penetration at shorter range say 20 to 50 yards, accurate speed shooting of the required 10 arrows a minute and various ranges, the abitilty to rove well (the really hard one) and be able to shoot that big arrow a very long way. Trying to classify someone on the basis of just one of those fields doesn't really give much insight into there abilities other than being good a t that one thing. As an example if an archer did well at the 100 yds test but his arrow bounced of plate steel at 30yds it would show that he dosen't shoot very strongly but is stable. Bieng able to lob a military arrow 240yds and not being able to hit the man 100yds ever would show the opposite. Warbow shooting is about overall abitilies with a bow.

[Rod]

Of course. This is just something that came up in conversation about the apparent lack of interest in accuracy, which is understandable where some folks are still struggling to achieve control of a draw weight.

It is only one component, as has been said quite often.

I will only point out that measuring accuracy at a realistic but demanding distance can have the effect of improving all round accuracy and as such has as much value as the other necessary components.

If the choice were between a man who could make his distance and hold to a rate of fire but unable to hit a man at 100 yards, and a man who could match him AND hit a man at 100 yards, who would you recruit?
All else being equal, I would pick the men who could shoot more accurately first, then make up the numbers with the rest.

This is the value of assessing accuracy.
Rod.

[nick1346]

Valid points Rod but as with most things its a case of is the glass half empty or half full. The fact is they would have taken accurate, strong archers after all they had plenty to choose from.

I don't think there is a disregard for accuracy with heavy archers although there is a definite perception amongst the wider archer world that that is the case. True a lot of people struggle as they move up in weight as they do in any discipline and it does take much more work to become competent. I was discussing this on the phone this morning with Glenn,in say compound archery you can get reasonably good in about 6 months or at least have a good idea if your going to be able to shoot at any level. In warbow archery it takes about four years to reach an equivalent, the bows are simply far more difficult to handle. Anyone observing that archer in that period could easily believe that he disregards accuracy, which would be pretty pointless afterall. The interesting comparison is with top end warbow archers, they are not only very accurate but shoot the heaviest of bows and it is men like these that would have been selected for warfare. It'll certainly be interesting to see if the current interest in warbows produces a good crop of archers in three or four years time, maybe shooting tests like this will help. In fact I'm off shooting in minute so I'll probably put a stake out at 100yds and see what happens, if I can my hands on something to actualy use as a target I will.

[Rod]

Agreed in all respects. It is not about target archery.
It is about addressing all aspects, which includes achieving distance, a sustainable rate of shooting, penetration, intuitive ability and accuracy.

I think it is fair comment to say that a test of accuracy may point up how far some are from achieving control of their chosen bow, but this is NOT a criticism.
I think it constructive to address ALL aspects as soon as one feels able.

Comparison with modern target archers is both un-necessary and risible.
I'm always reminded of the anecdote about Dick Galway when this crops up.

I have every respect for those who make a serious effort to master the heavy bow and a "can do" attitude to a reasonable challenge.

I fully recognise that quite a few may not yet feel ready in their control of the draw weights that they have undertaken to attempt, but I qualify this by saying that there is no disgrace in starting off with a low "score".
It is something that can in time be built upon and I have always seen trying to shoot better as being more interesting and "fun" than not making the effort, but I also recognise that this is a personal preference not shared by everyone.

Nonetheless, I think the proposition has value, but as you say, in the context of also addressing the other fundamental components of shooting in the war bow.
But there is value in addressing individual components in the way of practice, as well as subsequently bringing then together.
This is a useful way of advancing individual ability.

Rod.

[Rod]

BTW I have had a response from Mr. Selby.
He stands by his figures for bow draw weights, but has noted that at least one of his published figures for arrow weights (which always seemed far too light) is off by one decimal place, so for the shaft matching the 167 lb draw weight Tang dynasty bow read 3000 grains instead of 300 grains for a heavy war shaft.

I would also add the comment that you will find references to weak bows if you look at the wrong historical period.
At the height of their powers the Chinese infantry archers were shooting serious war bow weights.

Whereas the Qing (Manchu) bows of weak draw weight at the top of p. 283 where the matching shafts are in the 300 grain range are an example of weak bows in a situation where the general examination standards no longer represented effective war bow usage.

In later times and out of the practical war bow context, weights went down.
Just as here, in the post Tudor period.

Rod.

[alanesq]

just  thought, but would it be acceptable to measure accuracy shooting 100yards shooting at a mark in the ground (e.g. flag, arrow etc.) rather than boss or large target?

I think people would be much more willing to give this a try as its much more in keeping with roving type shooting and more importantly it requires no special equipment so it can be tried any time you shoot your bow

[Rod]

The object is to test accuracy shooting at a mark the size of a standing man at 100 yards, as distinct from a close distance clout shoot which is more useful for testing grouping at an extreme distance.
Rod.