Accuracy in traditional bows of the world
JakeD
Hello,
1st post...
I am a reasonably proficient compound archer (1st class bowman) here
in the UK), but my current interest is in the bow as a survival
weapon. In particular, long-term survival situations even where one
has to make ones's own bows and arrows from natural materials
available in most extensive woodlands. During my stint at the local
archery clubs, it was very apparent that the traditional English
longbow archers (even the experienced ones, shooting 80lb bows, I
think) had a major handicap, when pitted against recurves, and
especially compound bows, in terms of velocity and accuracy. However,
I've seen videos of traditional Korean archers shooting great
distances with accuracy that totally amazed me. This leads me to
conclude that the bows those traditional Korean archers used, must
have been superior to the traditional English longbow. Anyone confirm
that? And what about the Mongolian traditional recurve bows? Were they
also similarly superior?
Which of the traditional bows, world-wide, were the most advanced and
formidable? Can anyone advise where I can get detailed instruction on
making one (as opposed to just buying a ready-made example)?
Many thanks,
Jake D
William Black
"JakeD" <Ja...@vfccvfv.com> wrote in message
news:jh2og3h07ih6pr9ck...@4ax.com...
The oriental composite bow was made of layers of horn and sinew laid down
over a long period and stored in a special case.
It was a very expensive item.
The English artillery bow is a highly specialised weapon, probably
unsuitable even for hunting. It was designed to drive an arrow through an
armoured man at ranges of up to 100 yards and an unarmoured man at ranges of
up to 220 yards.
It is a very cheap item.
The major problem with trying to introduce oriental composite bows into
Northern Europe is that they're liable to come apart if stored in a cold
damp place and they cost too much to dish out to anyone who can't afford a
horse. Just about the furthest north they are found is in antiquity in
Italy.
Many modern bows that look like oriental composite bows are actually modern
fibreglass practice bows inside a pretty horn cover. I was at an Italian
traditional archery competition once where someone was disqualified for
shooting one like that
In answer to your question.
If you're facing a Frenchman in a mail shirt on a horse charging towards you
then the English longbow is an excellent choice.
If you're an Asiatic horse nomad then the composite bow is probably a better
bet, although the Japanese used a longish bamboo bow from horseback...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
JakeD
Thank you for clarifying the subject. It looks as though I'm stuck
with the longbow and its shortcomings then. I don't suppose there's
much point in me trying to reinvent the wheel; if it were possible to
make an high-performance english bow out of sinew and bone and natural
glues (yet held together in our climate) it would probably have been
done already.
Jake D
William Black
> Thank you for clarifying the subject. It looks as though I'm stuck
> with the longbow and its shortcomings then. I don't suppose there's
> much point in me trying to reinvent the wheel; if it were possible to
> make an high-performance english bow out of sinew and bone and natural
> glues (yet held together in our climate) it would probably have been
> done already.
Almost certainly.
The English knew all about oriental composite bows, a unit of archers
(probably crossbowmen)went on Crusade with Richard I, so did plenty of
other Englishmen.
This being the case it's reasonable to assume that they both brought the
things back and also tried to reproduce them in a way that would work in
their environment.
That nothing emerged is a reasonable indication that all they got was
expensive and uneatable soup.
You could probably do it today if you wanted. We have central heating ...
As far as I know there's one Hungarian company building a long straight
composite bow. It's made out of Oryx horn. If you're feeling very rich it
could be a starting point...
616
Hi!
The Japanese Yumi is interesting in many respects. It is about 2.25m in
length, light (45lb is a heavy bow) and asymmetrical (the grip is placed
about one third up from the lower tip, and the bowstring lies slightly
to the right).
It is a composite/laminated bow (bamboo hull with wooden core), although
the earlier specimens (300AD?) were made of one piece of wood.
A handcrafted traditional bow is priced at perhaps £2000 and up, while a
carbon- or glassfiber version costs in the vicinity of £200 and up (I
believe).
Whether they were more accurate than other traditional bows, I don't know =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyudo has some general information about
the sport of Kyudo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi concerns the bow itself.
And hopefully these will have some further links with useful information =)
--
Barney
Roger Ramjet
The "Final Cut" DVD due at the end of the year should be interesting.
JakeD
>Whether they were more accurate than other traditional bows, I don't know =)
Nor me! No doubt someone will correct me if they think I am wrong, but
as far as I can tell, there was no reason why having the handgrip so
far off centre could have contributed to performance or accuracy. I
presume it was just one of those things that was presumed to be
beneficial, but actually wansn't (like drinking mercury to cure
syphilis, etc.)!
Of course, there's no doubt that some of the Japanese archers who used
them were extremely skilled.
JD
William Black
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:47:04 +0200, 616 <bra...@trolley.net> wrote:
>
>>Whether they were more accurate than other traditional bows, I don't know
>>=)
>
> Nor me! No doubt someone will correct me if they think I am wrong, but
> as far as I can tell, there was no reason why having the handgrip so
> far off centre could have contributed to performance or accuracy. I
> presume it was just one of those things that was presumed to be
> beneficial, but actually wansn't (like drinking mercury to cure
> syphilis, etc.)!
Not quite.
The Samurai evolved from foot archers into horsed archers before
transmogrifying once again into footmen.
This took place over a very long period indeed.
Japanese military tradition was incredibly conservative when it came to
weapons. There are many other examples of this, for example their swords
are very sharp, but completely useless against the armoured footmen the
Samurai had evolved into by the Edo period.
When they got onto horses instead of (logically) cutting some wood off each
end of the bow (in simple terms) they moved the nocking point down to about
the 'two thirds point'.
This was adequate for their purposes, although not terribly efficient.
616
> "JakeD" <Ja...@vfccvfv.com> wrote in message
> news:do3tg3pab8k4ke5ef...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:47:04 +0200, 616 <bra...@trolley.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Whether they were more accurate than other traditional bows, I don't know
>>> =)
>> Nor me! No doubt someone will correct me if they think I am wrong, but
>> as far as I can tell, there was no reason why having the handgrip so
>> far off centre could have contributed to performance or accuracy. I
>> presume it was just one of those things that was presumed to be
>> beneficial, but actually wansn't (like drinking mercury to cure
>> syphilis, etc.)!
>
> Not quite.
>
> The Samurai evolved from foot archers into horsed archers before
> transmogrifying once again into footmen.
>
> This took place over a very long period indeed.
>
> Japanese military tradition was incredibly conservative when it came to
> weapons. There are many other examples of this, for example their swords
> are very sharp, but completely useless against the armoured footmen the
> Samurai had evolved into by the Edo period.
>
> When they got onto horses instead of (logically) cutting some wood off each
> end of the bow (in simple terms) they moved the nocking point down to about
> the 'two thirds point'.
>
> This was adequate for their purposes, although not terribly efficient.
>
>
the bow was present before the horse was!
And this asymmetrical placement of grip gives the a natural pistol-grip
shape (making the hand in anatomical base-position). So there seems to
be a definite performancee-enhancement (why else are all modern bows
pistol-grip shaped?).
--
Barney
William Black
"616" <bra...@trolley.net> wrote in message
news:470f9521$1...@news.broadpark.no...
I stand corrected.
> And this asymmetrical placement of grip gives the a natural pistol-grip
> shape (making the hand in anatomical base-position). So there seems to be
> a definite performancee-enhancement (why else are all modern bows
> pistol-grip shaped?).
You're saying a bow nocked a third of the way along is a more efficient
shape than one nocked in the centre?
The reason modern bows are pistol gripped is the same reasons pistols have
that grip. It's comfortable...
David Stites
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:feo5s2$oqe$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
And my longbow doesn't have one.
William Black
"David Stites" <da...@dstites.net> wrote in message
news:OPGdnY0XjaJbII3a...@comcast.com...
Well neither do mine, but I don't pretend I can compete with someone using
a modern plastic/composite bow in anything but speed of shooting.
David Stites
William Black
Well that reflects on a comment I made earlier that you may be able to throw
some light on.
It has been said by a number of commentators on historical archery that the
traditional English longbow that is the 'height of the archer, plus his
span' was probably too long to use in dense woodland.
Any comments?
616
Sorry for the previous inprecise post (written in a hurry ;) ).
The nocking point is perhaps not the most efficient, not getting the
maximum draw and resulting in different speeds at the bowtips.
But the grip puts the hand in an anatomically correct position (without
having to carve the bowgrip) with the least strain put on the wrist (in
contrast with a bow gripped where the bow is basically vertical and the
nock is centered on the string). More comfortable indeed :)
In addition (not confirmed though, so if someone has more information
please share =) ) the placement of the grip is supposedly such that
'shock' (resulting from the vibrations in the bow after firing) is
significantly lessened. This because there's a low-amplitude node in the
standing waves vibrating the bow (similar to hitting a baseball with the
bat about a third from the tip...)
And of course, with the japanese (not meant to offend anyone), the
aesthetics are very important. So when a bow with pleasing appearance is
in the artillery, you just have to develop the correct techniques to use
the bow properly instead of redesigning the bow to be efficient =)
But perhaps my statement "definite performance-enhancement" is a bit rash ;)
--
Cheers!=)
Barney
David Stites
Pacific yew and is only 60'' long instead of the 72" to 74" it would need to
be for my height. That length was to keep the bow from breaking at full
draw. The taller a man the longer his draw. That being said, I have never
taken a shot at a moving animal. I have never taken a snap shot. I have
always taken my time and if brush was in the way I moved, or missed getting
a shot. I don't believe a bow 6" longer on each end would have made much
difference. I don't hold my bow vertical, I cant it slightly or sometimes
much more depending on the circumstances. When the woods are so dense I
couldn't pull my bow I call it spear country and move elsewhere.
Good shooting,
David
BK
used a thumbring release. This may have helped accuracy.