The Bow
hcannon18
was the bow. The English ( orginally Welsh ) longbow had a pull that ranged
from 100 to 172lbs.
Bows of the African tribes Kamba and Liangulu pulled over 100 to 132lbs. ( "
Longbow" by Robert Hardy).
The Mongol recurve ( a laminated bow of animal horn and sniew) supposedly
had a pull weight of 190lbs ( " What If " Edited by Robert Crowly, "
Warriors of the Steppes"). The Huns also had a very powerful bow.
What was the pull weight of the Japanese bow??
Don Wagner
>I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
>was the bow.
Shouldn't that be the crossbow?
--Don--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
eric neale
"hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Uj%Pb.9890$Se.9547@lakeread05...
No idea but have you seen their arrow heads? They had names like "Belly
ripper".
Fraser Johnston
> was the bow. The English ( orginally Welsh ) longbow had a pull that
ranged
> from 100 to 172lbs.
Not at grappling ranges. Some of the seige catapults were pretty cool to.
Fraser
Batman
From what i know, there are no records of that. I think they measured thier
bow strength in terms of how many men it took to string them. Or am i
thinking of the mongolian bow?
-jeff (IH)
Chas
> From what i know, there are no records of that. I think they measured
thier
> bow strength in terms of how many men it took to string them. Or am i
> thinking of the mongolian bow?
The Greeks speak of bows so stiff it took three men to string them.
The Turks had bows of over 200 lbs. pull that were shot from a prone
position, on the back- bracing the bow with their feet and pulling with two
hands. Shooting for distance is a thing for them, and they really worked out
the skill of getting the precise angle for the longest shot using those
bows- don't know how they were in combat or anything.
The Mongolian bows weren't all that 'powerful', it was just that they were
powerful for their length. The Huns were the ones who developed the most
powerful of the recurve bows for horsemen- if History Channel be our guide
<g>
Chas
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
>>was the bow.
>
> Shouldn't that be the crossbow?
IIRC the cross-bow was certainly more powerful at penetration -- AT
shorter distances. As range increased the short heavy bolt lost
accuracy and the longbow was preferable. Small cross-bows served
similar duties to derringers or handguns (or even smoothbores), while
the longbow was the rifle of the time. That said, the cross-bow was
great for defensive use or in crowded spaces, but could not be
reloaded rapidly, unlike the longbow.
\start{soapbox}
Moral of the story: don't stick to one weapon, choose what is
appropriate. Reading up on Tsukahara Bokuden, he was quite happy to
use the wakizashi when the situation demanded it, and the Zulus of my
country were feared fighters with the assegai, again for close-in
fighting. In Japan I carry a knife, not a katana. Never had a reason
to use it, but that's no reason to not carry.
\end{soapbox}
--
G Hassenpflug * Takemusu Aikido Juku Dojo Osaka
Robert Low
Don Wagner <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
>>was the bow.
>Shouldn't that be the crossbow?
Took a long time to reload, and you couldn't take the string
off to protect it if it rained. But if it didn't get wet,
it had more penetration and was easier to aim.
Actually, I suspect that it took a while before guns were
better than either.
Richard Lancashire
There are always exaggerations in bowstrength figures, most notably
for longbows. For instance, a bow of 190lbs draw weight is a siege
weapon, not a light cavalry weapon. :) It was powerful for its small
size, though.
While a reasonably strong man can draw over 100lbs, it's not generally
so practical for long-range aiming and/or repeated fire. The benefit
of the crossbow was not just that you had a mechanical draw (giving
higher strength), but a latch to hold the bolt for as long as it took
to point it somewhere useful. The drawbacks were rate of fire and long
range accuracy.
For personal defence in the rough part of town, I'd take a hand
weapon.
Cheers
Rich
hcannon18
"Robert Low" <mtx...@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:buqmvu$2ra$1...@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
Took about 100 years for guns to eclipse the bow.
Kirk Lawson
>
> I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
> was the bow. The English ( orginally Welsh ) longbow had a pull that ranged
> from 100 to 172lbs.
Some estimates range it higher then that. The highest estimates (from
the Mary Rose, iirc) had them at between 180 and 200 lb. draw weights
(or more!).
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
hcannon18
"Richard Lancashire" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ad6f59.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<Uj%Pb.9890$Se.9547@lakeread05>...
> > I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon
invented
> > was the bow. The English ( orginally Welsh ) longbow had a pull that
ranged
> > from 100 to 172lbs.
> > Bows of the African tribes Kamba and Liangulu pulled over 100 to 132lbs.
( "
> > Longbow" by Robert Hardy).
> > The Mongol recurve ( a laminated bow of animal horn and sniew)
supposedly
> > had a pull weight of 190lbs ( " What If " Edited by Robert Crowly, "
> > Warriors of the Steppes"). The Huns also had a very powerful bow.
> > What was the pull weight of the Japanese bow??
>
> There are always exaggerations in bowstrength figures, most notably
> for longbows. For instance, a bow of 190lbs draw weight is a siege
> weapon, not a light cavalry weapon. :) It was powerful for its small
> size, though.
>
> While a reasonably strong man can draw over 100lbs, it's not generally
> so practical for long-range aiming and/or repeated fire.
English archers were known to fire 12 arrows a minute from their longbows.
They did not seem to have any problem with sustained fire at the battle
Agincourt. They were trained from an early age.
They had a far greater rate than later musket fire ( three shots a minute
accurate to only 70 yards).
The benefit
> of the crossbow was not just that you had a mechanical draw (giving
> higher strength), but a latch to hold the bolt for as long as it took
> to point it somewhere useful. The drawbacks were rate of fire and long
> range accuracy.
Primarily rateof fire.
>
> For personal defence in the rough part of town, I'd take a hand
> weapon.
Modern traditonal recurve bow.
hcannon18
"Andrew Maddox" <mads...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:101129l...@corp.supernews.com...
> Also sprach hcannon18:
> : I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon
invented
> : was the bow.
>
> No, it wasn't. It was the green negative-energy chi bolt. Ask Ordo, he
> apparently knows all about it.
>
> --
> Andrew Maddox, madsox2k, my spamtrap is y a h o o d o t c o m
> Martial artist? Have a Washington, DC-area connection?
> check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DCMartialArts
Earth to Ordo. Earth to Ordo. Spacey.
hcannon18
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <g...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vc9fze7...@nospam.com...
The assegai was much like the Roman galdius. It is always a mystery to me
why the Romans eschewed the bow. Not powerful enough at that time I suspect.
Also it did not fit in with their tactics.
hcannon18
"Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote in message
news:buq63p$kh3if$1...@ID-201168.news.uni-berlin.de...
that pulled over 100lbs. Grappling ranges were never encountered.
hcannon18
"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vqednZdt4ss...@comcast.com...
Confusing. The book " What If " gives the power of the Mongol bow at 190lbs.
Sounds excessive to me. While the book " Warriors of the Steppes" says that
Mongols discharged their bows at very short range 10 to 15 yards. It also
says that a Mongol could hit a standing man every time at 65 yards. Pretty
good accuracy and suggestive of a pretty powerful bow.
I read somehwere that the Turks had a bow that shot 900 yards. They were
certainly the distance champions!!
hcannon18
"Kirk Lawson" <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:401122F1...@heapy.com...
98 to 185 for the Mary Rose. I used the more conservative estimate thy gave
for the Mary Rose. It is really a shame that none of the bows survived
except those on the Mary Rose.
Dan Winsor
> Also sprach hcannon18:
> : I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
> : was the bow.
>
> apparently knows all about it.
Ordo's a frigging nut. Everyone knows that the red negative-energy
chi bolts pack double the punch of the green. Pfft...
--
Dan Winsor
"Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale
to krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed
against its giant tongue until every last drop of money is
released." - Rupert Goodwins, ZDNet(UK)
zxcv
> why the Romans eschewed the bow. Not powerful enough at that time I
suspect.
> Also it did not fit in with their tactics.
>
>
allies. The basis of their army though was the infantryman with a sword.
It takes a hand weapon to hold ground.
zxcv
> was the bow.
Even after gunpowder for a while. The problem was it took a lot more
strength and skill to use a bow than a musket.
Kirk Lawson
> From what i know, there are no records of that. I think they measured thier
> bow strength in terms of how many men it took to string them. Or am i
> thinking of the mongolian bow?
Sounds like the Greek myth of Odysseus. His bow was so strong that no
one but he can even string it.
Kirk Lawson
> That said, the cross-bow was
> great for defensive use or in crowded spaces, but could not be
> reloaded rapidly, unlike the longbow.
How fast it is to reload depends on the crossbow. Some you'd brace the
butt against your stomach and pull the string then load the quarrel.
Some had a stirrup that you looped your food through then pull the
string and load the quarrel. Some were so powerful that you had a
special ratcheting crank.
But all of them took longer to load then a bow. Of course, once drawn,
you didn't have to expend any energy to keep it drawn until you needed
to shoot it.
Robert Low
Kirk Lawson <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Sounds like the Greek myth of Odysseus. His bow was so strong that no
>one but he can even string it.
Still, it kept the suitors out of Penelope's bed.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
Kirk Lawson
> The assegai was much like the Roman galdius. It is always a mystery to me
> why the Romans eschewed the bow. Not powerful enough at that time I suspect.
They didn't exactly. Their Calvary would sometimes use the bow. But
they only used Calvary for harrying and skirmishing, mostly. Also,
Calvary was where the rich boys bought their way into so they could say
they did their duty without as much danger as the standard foot.
> Also it did not fit in with their tactics.
Pretty much.
Kirk Lawson
> It is really a shame that none of the bows survived
> except those on the Mary Rose.
They have found a few others. 2 or 3. But none of them are in
shootable condition. IIRC, they found one that was hanging on a Pub
Wall and another that was half finished in the deep recesses of one of
the armories.
Kirk Lawson
>
> Kirk Lawson <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote:
> >Sounds like the Greek myth of Odysseus. His bow was so strong that no
> >one but he can even string it.
>
> Still, it kept the suitors out of Penelope's bed.
Until Odysseus showed up, strung the bow, and shot them all.
Good on 'im!
Tod Kohl
I shoot an 85 lb. longbow, and have pulled up to 120# bows........those
medieval archers must have
been amazingly strong and bigger than the average peasant to handle bows of
that magnitude...
"hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8J9Qb.11239$Se.4190@lakeread05...
Neil Gendzwill
> I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
> was the bow.
It's true - politeness always counts.
Neil
Don Wagner
>The assegai was much like the Roman galdius. It is always a mystery to me
>why the Romans eschewed the bow. Not powerful enough at that time I suspect.
>Also it did not fit in with their tactics.
They used irregulars as missile troops. This included the bow and the
sling.
--Don--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Don Wagner
>The Romans had auxilliaries that used bows, usually drawn from barbarian
>allies. The basis of their army though was the infantryman with a sword.
Spear. The sword was a backup weapon for the foot soldier.
Don Wagner
>hcannon18 wrote:
>> The assegai was much like the Roman galdius.
Pilum is a type of Roman spear. Gladius is the short, double edged
sword.
Don Wagner
>From what i know, there are no records of that. I think they measured thier
>bow strength in terms of how many men it took to string them. Or am i
>thinking of the mongolian bow?
In all but siege weapon bows, an individual man strung and unstrung
his bow.
There are about half a dozen variations on doing this with and without
tools and from horseback.
Don Wagner
>The Greeks speak of bows so stiff it took three men to string them.
I beleive those were siege bows, not field combat weapons.
The Greeks were also liars.
;-)
Don Wagner
>I read somehwere that the Turks had a bow that shot 900 yards. They were
>certainly the distance champions!!
Thats pretty extreme. Syrian archers served as Roman aux. units and
were said to have an effective (read as "wound or kill a man") range
of 400m.
Dan Winsor
> Robert Low wrote:
>
>>Kirk Lawson <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Sounds like the Greek myth of Odysseus. His bow was so strong that no
>>>one but he can even string it.
>>
>>Still, it kept the suitors out of Penelope's bed.
>
> Until Odysseus showed up, strung the bow, and shot them all.
And *then* they went into Penelope's bed?
> Good on 'im!
Nah, at that point, I'd've gone and got me a trophy wife. She
was pretty old by then.
Kirk Lawson
>
> Kirk Lawson wrote:
> > Robert Low wrote:
> >
> >>Kirk Lawson <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sounds like the Greek myth of Odysseus. His bow was so strong that no
> >>>one but he can even string it.
> >>
> >>Still, it kept the suitors out of Penelope's bed.
> >
> > Until Odysseus showed up, strung the bow, and shot them all.
>
> And *then* they went into Penelope's bed?
Gotta store the corpses *somewhere* prior to the BBQ.
> > Good on 'im!
>
> Nah, at that point, I'd've gone and got me a trophy wife. She
> was pretty old by then.
If you're a Classical Greek, who cares? The good part is about killing
the dudes stepping on his turf. IIRC, wasn't Odie one of the guys
grumbling about not getting his share of the women at Troy? (I know
Achilles was torqued about losing his "prize".)
Grappler240
>
>Pilum is a type of Roman spear. Gladius is the short, double edged
>sword.
i think he means "like" in that it could be used for close in fighting/slashing
as the assegai had a longer, wider blade than a standard spear.
that was one of its strengths, IMO.
-g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke, Jan. 21, 2002
Chas
> i think he means "like" in that it could be used for close in
fighting/slashing
> as the assegai had a longer, wider blade than a standard spear.
Exactly the same blade is often carried as a sword.
I have a good one- it's a fearsome weapon; double edged, forward loaded-
long grip (ebony/blackwood) with a twisted rawhide (used to be) wristloop.
Chas
"v" here]downing@charter.net Mark Downing
news:40114231...@news-server.optonline.net...
400 meters?
I'm not questioning your word, but do you realize that the "maximum
effective range" of an M-16 in the hands of a trained Marine is 500 meters?
I'm a 3rd award expert Marine rifleman. The 500 meter target is 6'x6'
square with a man sized sillouette as the bullseye, and I can tell you
hitting the target, much less the bullseye is very difficult.
I'm sure you read this somewhere, but aiming at and hitting a man sized
target with a bow at 400 meters seems rather far fetched. You might shoot
an arrow that far, but hitting what you're aiming at... well that's a
different story.
"v" here]downing@charter.net Mark Downing
> Robert Low wrote:
> >
> > Kirk Lawson <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote:
> > >Sounds like the Greek myth of Odysseus. His bow was so strong that no
> > >one but he can even string it.
> >
> > Still, it kept the suitors out of Penelope's bed.
>
> Until Odysseus showed up, strung the bow, and shot them all.
>
> Good on 'im!
That is a great scene in the movie, when Kirk Douglas comes in dressed as a
beggar, strings the bow, shoots it through the axe handles, and proceeds to
kick all of those guys asses. :-)
Vladimir Kutuzov
> "zxcv" <zx...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >The Romans had auxilliaries that used bows, usually drawn from barbarian
> >allies. The basis of their army though was the infantryman with a sword.
>
> Spear. The sword was a backup weapon for the foot soldier.
Sword. The pilum was a throwing weapon intended to create gaps and
weaknesses in the enemy phalanx, which were then to be exploited by
the more independent Roman subunits. Two volleys of pila, and then it
was swords all the way.
And yes, I am aware of the Triarii, which formed the reserve of early
republican legions, and which used the spear as primary weapon, phalanx
style. And that the pilum on occasion has been used as a close combat
weapon. But as a rule, late republican and imperial Roman legionaires
used the gladius as their main weapon.
C.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Vladimir Kutuzov
> Kirk Lawson <lklawson_...@heapy.com> wrote:
> >hcannon18 wrote:
>
> >> The assegai was much like the Roman galdius.
>
> Pilum is a type of Roman spear. Gladius is the short, double edged
> sword.
The assegai was used as a short range close combat weapon in
combination with a large shield, similarly to the way the gladius
was used by the Romans.
Karim Rashad
>> Thats pretty extreme. Syrian archers served as Roman aux. units and
>> were said to have an effective (read as "wound or kill a man") range of
>> 400m.
>
>
> I'm sure you read this somewhere, but aiming at and hitting a man sized
> target with a bow at 400 meters seems rather far fetched. You might
> shoot an arrow that far, but hitting what you're aiming at... well
> that's a different story.
Maybe in this case "effective (read as wound or kill a man) range" doesn't
mean the archer aimed at individual targets at this extreme range, but
rather that a flight of arrows aimed at a congregation of enemies (err,
frequently known as an 'army' :-) would do sufficient damage to be called
effective.
--
Karim Rashad <remove SPAMFREE: krashad at SPAMorbisFREEuk dot com>
Don Wagner
>400 meters?
Thats what the books said. I was pretty surprised myself.
"Effective" meaning that the arrow is still capable of doing damage.
When fired en mass, probably not actually aiming for and hitting a
specific target.
Chas
> effective range" of an M-16 in the hands of a trained Marine is 500
meters?
not for massed volley fire- the comparison that would have to be made to
combat archery.
> I'm a 3rd award expert Marine rifleman. The 500 meter target is 6'x6'
> square with a man sized sillouette as the bullseye, and I can tell you
> hitting the target, much less the bullseye is very difficult.
Only with a poodle-shooter <g>
Ask'em if they'll let you use Grampa's M-14 one of these days.
If that doesn't startle you, they'll let you shoot the Remington with the
glass on top of it.
> I'm sure you read this somewhere, but aiming at and hitting a man sized
> target with a bow at 400 meters seems rather far fetched. You might shoot
> an arrow that far, but hitting what you're aiming at... well that's a
> different story.
That's not the only scenario in combat archery.
Chas
Don Wagner
> And yes, I am aware of the Triarii, which formed the reserve of early
>republican legions, and which used the spear as primary weapon, phalanx
>style. And that the pilum on occasion has been used as a close combat
>weapon. But as a rule, late republican and imperial Roman legionaires
>used the gladius as their main weapon.
True, should have specified the time.
Dan Winsor
>
> 400 meters?
Talking about 2 different "effectives." You're talking about sighting
a target, firing, and hitting that target. Don's talking about taking a
bow, calculating how far away that big group of guys is, and firing an
arrow up at such an angle that it'll land somewhere in that mass and
hopefully injure or kill someone. I can't imagine someone being able
to take wind, elevation, etc. into account and hit a specific moving
target at 400 meters out with a bow.
story
"Tod Kohl" <to...@fishergroup.com> wrote in message
news:1012eg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I shoot an 85 lb. longbow, and have pulled up to 120# bows........those
> medieval archers must have
> been amazingly strong and bigger than the average peasant to handle bows
of
> that magnitude...
>
No. It's just a matter of how you spend your day. For them ( the archers )
it was a matter from childood that if they wanted to eat they had better be
accurate with their bow. Thus you get young boys doing as much practicing as
they can get in every day. This breeds strength. then they get stronger &
stronger bows to compensate & soon you have grown men of 20 with 16 or more
years experience pulling bows. Of course they get strong. There would be
something wrong if they didn't.
..........Tom.........................
"v" here]downing@charter.net Mark Downing
news:deCdncrz-9H...@comcast.com...
> "Mark Downing" <mark[add "v" here]dow...@charter.net> wrote
> > I'm not questioning your word, but do you realize that the "maximum
> > effective range" of an M-16 in the hands of a trained Marine is 500
> meters?
>
> not for massed volley fire- the comparison that would have to be made to
> combat archery.
>
> > I'm a 3rd award expert Marine rifleman. The 500 meter target is 6'x6'
> > square with a man sized sillouette as the bullseye, and I can tell you
> > hitting the target, much less the bullseye is very difficult.
>
> Only with a poodle-shooter <g>
> Ask'em if they'll let you use Grampa's M-14 one of these days.
> If that doesn't startle you, they'll let you shoot the Remington with the
> glass on top of it.
I served about 20+ years ago and I was fortunate enough to shoot some match
grade M-14's during tryouts for the shooting team. Arguably the finest
semi-automatic rifle ever made in my opinion. Although the later versions
of the M-16 are pretty decent too. I believe today's shooting teams use the
M-16.
By the way, back in the day of the M-14 and M-1 Garand, my understanding is
that the Marine's "maximum effective range" was 1000 meters. Meaning - aim
at and hit a man. Actually, at one time, when the M-16's were giving lots
of trouble, the Marine brass was seriously considering bringing back the
M-14's and outfitting them with poly stocks with pistol grips, etc... I
think the Pentagon shot that down, because of interservice round
interchangability.
PS: A good read is... "Marine Sniper". It's the story of Carlos Hathcock
in VIetnam.
Karim Rashad
> This breeds strength. then they get stronger & stronger bows to
> compensate & soon you have grown men of 20 with 16 or more years
> experience pulling bows.
Leading to the distorted skeletons (which I'm sure someone was soon
going to bring up in this thread), i.e. assymmetrical/thickened skeletons
consistent with shoulder/arm bones being under tension from a bow with a
heavy pull, for a goodly percentage of their lifetime.
Chas
is
> that the Marine's "maximum effective range" was 1000 meters. Meaning -
aim
> at and hit a man.
I suppose there are people in the world that could take a 30-06/.308 and hit
a man at a thousand meters- if those are close to 'yards'- not sure I could
point to one of them.
You sure could dump some rounds into a massed group of men and cause some
damage.
Aimed shots at that distance are generally done with the larger .30's in
bolt-action, and larger calibers. Gunny Hathcock's long shot was done with a
.50BMG, as an example- out to 1500 yds. or so, ims.
The long shot prior to that one was a civil war Sharpshooter with a .45
loaded from the muzzle for the shot- mighta been the .50, but I don't think
so. He sat 18 ft. up in a tree, with the furthest extension of a Creedmore
Long-Distance sight to compensate for the bullet drop. Killed two of three
sitting at a table, if I remember the story correctly.
> PS: A good read is... "Marine Sniper". It's the story of Carlos Hathcock
> in VIetnam.
Yeah; I was sorry to hear of his illness and death.
Chas
Ken Vale
Chas wrote:
>"Mark Downing" <mark[add "v" here]dow...@charter.net> wrote
>
>
>>By the way, back in the day of the M-14 and M-1 Garand, my understanding
>>
>>
>is
>
>
>>that the Marine's "maximum effective range" was 1000 meters. Meaning -
>>
>>
>aim
>
>
>>at and hit a man.
>>
>>
>
>I suppose there are people in the world that could take a 30-06/.308 and hit
>a man at a thousand meters- if those are close to 'yards'- not sure I could
>point to one of them.
>
1000m is roughly 1196 yards.
Ken
Chas
Ken Vale
*s* oh yeah thats pretty rough. Especially when I hit the wrong
button on the calculator... Should be just under 1100 yards...
Ken
(when you make things to a +/- 0.001" anything over an inch is fricken huge)
Dan Winsor
I get it as 1093.6133 yards (I'm assuming the 2nd '1' above is a typo).
That's 0.62137119 miles or 4.9709695 furlongs. 3.2407788x10^-14 parsecs.
Roughly.
Grappler240
>I have a good one- it's a fearsome weapon; double edged, forward loaded-
>long grip (ebony/blackwood) with a twisted rawhide (used to be) wristloop.
cold steel sells a good assegai, don't they chas? i think i remember seeing
pictures of guys with em on an african safari wherein they killed a 250 pound
wild african boar.
Grappler240
>target with a bow at 400 meters seems rather far fetched. You might shoot
>an arrow that far, but hitting what you're aiming at... well that's a
>different story.
what if you just shot about 2000 of em every 15 seconds in a parabolic arch and
rained them down on the enemies' heads at a range of 400 meters? recon that'd
be effective??
Grappler240
>> > I'm not questioning your word, but do you realize that the "maximum
>> > effective range" of an M-16 in the hands of a trained Marine is 500
>> meters?
that's for point targets, not area targets.
900 meters for area targets.
the same round in a saw is good til 1100 meters.
Grappler240
>a man at a thousand meters- if those are close to 'yards'-
one meter = 39.36 inches, or one yard and 3.36 inches.
Kirk Lawson
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:16:01 -0500, story wrote:
> > This breeds strength. then they get stronger & stronger bows to
> > compensate & soon you have grown men of 20 with 16 or more years
> > experience pulling bows.
>
> Leading to the distorted skeletons (which I'm sure someone was soon
> going to bring up in this thread), i.e. assymmetrical/thickened skeletons
> consistent with shoulder/arm bones being under tension from a bow with a
> heavy pull, for a goodly percentage of their lifetime.
Actually, yes. I've read of such.
hcannon18
"zxcv" <zx...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40112d4c$0$2860$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> > It is always a mystery to me
> > why the Romans eschewed the bow. Not powerful enough at that time I
> suspect.
> > Also it did not fit in with their tactics.
> >
> >
> The Romans had auxilliaries that used bows, usually drawn from barbarian
> allies. The basis of their army though was the infantryman with a sword.
>
Hogwash tell that to the English longbowman at Agincourt and the Mongols
and the Huns. You cannot hold anything if you are unable to take it and you
are dead.
hcannon18
> "Mark Downing" <mark[add "v" here]dow...@charter.net> wrote
> > By the way, back in the day of the M-14 and M-1 Garand, my understanding
> is
> > that the Marine's "maximum effective range" was 1000 meters. Meaning -
> aim
> > at and hit a man.
>
> I suppose there are people in the world that could take a 30-06/.308 and
hit
> a man at a thousand meters- if those are close to 'yards'- not sure I
could
> point to one of them.
Easily. Standard service rifle matches are shot at 600 yards. Add in a 300
Winchester magnum and you have it.
hcannon18
"hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Uj%Pb.9890$Se.9547@lakeread05...
> I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
> was the bow. The English ( orginally Welsh ) longbow had a pull that
ranged
> from 100 to 172lbs.
> Bows of the African tribes Kamba and Liangulu pulled over 100 to 132lbs.
( "
> Longbow" by Robert Hardy).
> The Mongol recurve ( a laminated bow of animal horn and sniew) supposedly
> had a pull weight of 190lbs ( " What If " Edited by Robert Crowly, "
> Warriors of the Steppes"). The Huns also had a very powerful bow.
> What was the pull weight of the Japanese bow??
>
I appreciate all the commnets but what did the Japanese bow pull??
Dan Winsor
> I appreciate all the commnets
Liar.
> but what did the Japanese bow pull??
By itself? Nothing. It needed an archer to work.
Kirk Lawson
> I appreciate all the commnets but what did the Japanese bow pull??
This website sells them with between 35-50 lb draw weights
http://www.archeryworld.co.uk/acatalog/Mongolian___Japanese_Bows.html
This Kyudo page *estimates* a draw weight for traditional bows of over
42 Kg (and mentiones a "7 man bow" for the "stringing" requirements).
http://www.beast.pp.se/history/Japanese.html
Most of the links are exactly the same FAQ and say that it was custom to
the archer.
Chas
> cold steel sells a good assegai, don't they chas?
No idea, although CS is generally a good product.
Mine is an original- smith made in Africa.
Chas
Chas
> >I suppose there are people in the world that could take a 30-06/.308 and
hit
> >a man at a thousand meters- if those are close to 'yards'-
> one meter = 39.36 inches, or one yard and 3.36 inches.
Yeah; 'geezer' joke gone bad.
I'm old enough to remember distances in yards and the Marine Corps with a
grown-up's rifle.
Chas
Chas
> > > By the way, back in the day of the M-14 and M-1 Garand,
> hit
> > a man at a thousand meters
> Winchester magnum and you have it.
That wasn't the scenario-
The scenario was a 30-06 or a .308. The larger .30's are used for 1000 yd.
matches.
You might be able to load up either one to hit useful velocity, but not for
a semi-automatic- only a single-shot or bolt-action.
c.
Dan Winsor
> hcannon18 wrote:
>
>
>>I appreciate all the commnets but what did the Japanese bow pull??
>
>
> This website sells them with between 35-50 lb draw weights
> http://www.archeryworld.co.uk/acatalog/Mongolian___Japanese_Bows.html
>
> This Kyudo page *estimates* a draw weight for traditional bows of over
> 42 Kg (and mentiones a "7 man bow" for the "stringing" requirements).
> http://www.beast.pp.se/history/Japanese.html
>
> Most of the links are exactly the same FAQ and say that it was custom to
> the archer.
Yeah, I also did a little research around and found everything from
utter crap to stuff that *sounded* sensible but with no hard figures.
The stuff that sounded sensible talked about the asymmetry and the
materials at hand (laminated bamboo) indicating a rather low draw
weight which would jibe with the 35-50 lb cite above. The crap sites
would talk about bamboo not being an optimal material (sensible) but
would then go on to saying they were measured in how many men it took
to bend 'em for stringing (not only crap but doesn't jibe with the
bamboo idea). Anyway, I didn't find any real concrete data, but
the 35-50 sounds pretty reasonable considering usage (accuracy from
horseback, not power from standing at a distance) and materials at
hand. YMMV.
Batman
>
>Chas wrote:
>> "Ken Vale" <Chees...@fishfarm.org> wrote
>>
>>> 1000m is roughly 1196 yards.
>>
>> 'roughly'?
>> <g>
>
>I get it as 1093.6133 yards (I'm assuming the 2nd '1' above is a typo).
>That's 0.62137119 miles or 4.9709695 furlongs. 3.2407788x10^-14 parsecs.
>Roughly.
What is it in nautical miles and leagues? (I'm used to shooting guns off of
pirate vessels, the ranges are all marked differently.)
-jeff (IH)
zxcv
> > allies. The basis of their army though was the infantryman with a
sword.
> > It takes a hand weapon to hold ground.
> >
> Hogwash tell that to the English longbowman at Agincourt and the Mongols
> and the Huns. You cannot hold anything if you are unable to take it and
you
> are dead.
>
>
beat the French infrantry hand to hand (after the cavalry charges failed)
parrtly because the French were packed too tightly and could not maneuver.
Even with their short swords the Roman legoinairies gave themsevles three
feet of lateral space unlike a tight phalanx.
The Mongols and huns did not hold ground with their mounted archers. They
would destroy their enemies through hit and run and attrition of picking
them off and then getting out of range of the lances and swords. The Huns
never formed a cohesive empire (ala Rome) but instead maintained loose
confederation united through fear. The mongols had infantry along with
their cavalry. The are just not as famous.
It is a maxim of military science that cavalry do not hold ground. Only a
mass of men can hold ground. Cavalry is used for attack.
Batman
>>
>>>I appreciate all the commnets but what did the Japanese bow pull??
>>
>>
>> This website sells them with between 35-50 lb draw weights
>> http://www.archeryworld.co.uk/acatalog/Mongolian___Japanese_Bows.html
>>
>> This Kyudo page *estimates* a draw weight for traditional bows of over
>> 42 Kg (and mentiones a "7 man bow" for the "stringing" requirements).
>> http://www.beast.pp.se/history/Japanese.html
Hrmmm where have we heard this before? Somewhere elese in this thread. And
who was it that replied saying it sounded like i was falling for a greek myth?
Ah buggar it, my memory is failing, i guess we'll never know.
>Yeah, I also did a little research around and found everything from
>utter crap to stuff that *sounded* sensible but with no hard figures.
>The stuff that sounded sensible talked about the asymmetry and the
>materials at hand (laminated bamboo) indicating a rather low draw
>weight which would jibe with the 35-50 lb cite above. The crap sites
You evidently are not too familair with bow construction or the lamination
process. Its true that a stick of bamboo itself would make a pretty weak bow,
but laminated .... thats a different story.
I have a longbow that has bamboo for most of its layers. The guy who made it
makes many bows out of purely bamboo, its probably his favorite wood. I asked
him how heavy of a pull he could put on a bamboo bow (assuming like you did
that it would be limited). He said that with lamination (which BTW, modern
day lamination processes are not much better than what the japanese used, just
quicker) he could easily make a bow that I'd have to use my feet to shoot.
And the bow would outlast me. There is no theoretical top end limit to how
heavy any laminated bow of any material can pull. Just throw another layer on
it. There are only practical limits in what the archer would be able to use.
As to the original question, I've always wondered that myself. I wish someone
would try to reconstruct a '7-man yumi' so we could measure the pull on it.
-jeff (IH)
zxcv
Those pull weight seem pretty high to me. I do not fire bows but I am a
fairly good 242 pound powerlifter and I could not imagine doing one arm
rows or dumbell presses with 172 pounds. Especially if you are expected to
do this 10 times a minute for a half an hour or so.
And before someone says that by drawing a bow with two hands the force is
cut in half (ie. only a 86 pound "dumbell") they would be wrong. The force
required by each arm would still be 172 pounds. The distance would just be
less.
What would the strenght curve look like for a longbow or Hunnic recurve?
Does it start out fairly low and then just peak at 172 a full extension? Or
is it more uniform?
T
Bolt-action is fast enough for me.
hcannon18
> > > The Romans had auxilliaries that used bows, usually drawn from
barbarian
> > > allies. The basis of their army though was the infantryman with a
> sword.
> > > It takes a hand weapon to hold ground.
> > >
> > Hogwash tell that to the English longbowman at Agincourt and the
Mongols
> > and the Huns. You cannot hold anything if you are unable to take it and
> you
> > are dead.
> >
> >
> The English longbowmen had hand weapons at Agincourt.
Yup but that is not what won the day.
They were able to
> beat the French infrantry hand to hand (after the cavalry charges failed)
> parrtly because the French were packed too tightly and could not maneuver.
You mean after the English longbowmen destroyed the flower of France ( the
mounted Knights) and demoralised the French.
> Even with their short swords the Roman legoinairies gave themsevles three
> feet of lateral space unlike a tight phalanx.
The Romans and their opponents never made good use of the bow.
>
> The Mongols and huns did not hold ground with their mounted archers. They
> would destroy their enemies through hit and run and attrition of picking
> them off and then getting out of range of the lances and swords.
Yup that is what I said - you hold nothing if you are dead.
The Huns
> never formed a cohesive empire (ala Rome) but instead maintained loose
> confederation united through fear.
No argument there.
The mongols had infantry along with
> their cavalry. The are just not as famous.
That is cause the Mongols were primarily horse archers.
>
> It is a maxim of military science that cavalry do not hold ground.
You do not have to if your enemy is dead or surrendered.
Only a
> mass of men can hold ground. Cavalry is used for attack.
Well the Mongols ruled a vast empire through fear not mass.
>
>
hcannon18
with a match grade M1A1 ( 308 caliber semi automatic civilian version of the
M-14). I am quite sure it would go a 1000 yards easily. I also remember
easily hitting train fire targets at 400 yards with a standard M-1 ( damn
fine rifle that one).
The Jan Feb issue of Rifle Shooter has an article on getting started in
1,000 yard long range tactical shooting. The rifle selected was a .308 (
bolt).
300 Win Mags are often loaded down to 30 - 06. The rifle allows a broader
range of selction of cartridges.
Also remember the standard service rifle 600 yard matches are shot with iron
sights.
The bolts are more accurate but the semi autos can be considrably enchanced
with match barrels, bedded stocks, match trigger and match sights. The
difference then becomes very little.
>
>
T Nichols
> "hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
> >I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
> >was the bow.
>
> --Don--
> The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Got 2 words for you:
1. Agincourt
2. Crecy
-TimN
hcannon18
"Mark Downing" <mark[add "v" here]dow...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1012ios...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don Wagner" <dawa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:40114231...@news-server.optonline.net...
> > "hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >I read somehwere that the Turks had a bow that shot 900 yards. They
were
> > >certainly the distance champions!!
> >
> > Thats pretty extreme. Syrian archers served as Roman aux. units and
> > were said to have an effective (read as "wound or kill a man") range
> > of 400m.
> > --Don--
> > The beatings will continue until morale improves.
>
>
> I'm not questioning your word, but do you realize that the "maximum
> effective range" of an M-16 in the hands of a trained Marine is 500
meters?
> square with a man sized sillouette as the bullseye, and I can tell you
> hitting the target, much less the bullseye is very difficult.
>
> I'm sure you read this somewhere, but aiming at and hitting a man sized
> target with a bow at 400 meters seems rather far fetched. You might shoot
> an arrow that far, but hitting what you're aiming at... well that's a
> different story.
>
lived with their bow from and early age. Marines are not trained this way.
It is much easier to train one to shoot a rifle than a bow. We often sell
our ancestors short.
There is a game called "clout" where an archer fires into the are attempting
to hit a long range target layed out on the ground ( mainly known as a
medieval English archers game) but it deomastrate some of the archery
excercises that the archers used to train.
hcannon18
> Mark Downing wrote:
> >
> > 400 meters?
>
> Talking about 2 different "effectives." You're talking about sighting
> a target, firing, and hitting that target. Don's talking about taking a
> bow, calculating how far away that big group of guys is, and firing an
> arrow up at such an angle that it'll land somewhere in that mass and
> hopefully injure or kill someone. I can't imagine someone being able
> to take wind, elevation, etc. into account and hit a specific moving
> target at 400 meters out with a bow.
>
> --
> Dan Winsor
>
> "Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale
> to krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed
> against its giant tongue until every last drop of money is
> released." - Rupert Goodwins, ZDNet(UK)
Have you forgotten the game of clout??
Gernot Hassenpflug
> Andrew Maddox wrote:
>> Also sprach hcannon18:
>> : I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon invented
>> : was the bow. No, it wasn't. It was the green negative-energy chi
>> bolt. Ask Ordo, he
>> apparently knows all about it.
>
> Ordo's a frigging nut. Everyone knows that the red negative-energy
> chi bolts pack double the punch of the green. Pfft...
And without the `kamehameha' kiai you don't get half the result either.
--
G Hassenpflug * Takemusu Aikido Juku Dojo Osaka
T
This particular argument tickles me, here we go:
Conceded: An archer with an English longbow, who is good at his job, is
deadlier than a crossbowman.
Argued: any shmuck can pick up a crossbow and be deadly. Longbow proficiency
is a lot of damn work.
Ergo, a crossbow is deadlier than a longbow, even though an archer is deadlier
than a crossbow-armed peasant.
hcannon18
bow was the primary weapon of the Samurai?
hcannon18
>
> "hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Uj%Pb.9890$Se.9547@lakeread05...
> > I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon
invented
> > was the bow. The English ( orginally Welsh ) longbow had a pull that
> ranged
> > from 100 to 172lbs.
> > Bows of the African tribes Kamba and Liangulu pulled over 100 to 132lbs.
> ( "
> > Longbow" by Robert Hardy).
> > The Mongol recurve ( a laminated bow of animal horn and sniew)
supposedly
> > had a pull weight of 190lbs ( " What If " Edited by Robert Crowly, "
> > Warriors of the Steppes"). The Huns also had a very powerful bow.
> > What was the pull weight of the Japanese bow??
> >
>
> Those pull weight seem pretty high to me. I do not fire bows but I am a
> fairly good 242 pound powerlifter and I could not imagine doing one arm
> rows or dumbell presses with 172 pounds. Especially if you are expected
to
> do this 10 times a minute for a half an hour or so.
The archers were trained form a very young age and their skeletons even show
they were deformed from pulling heavy bows. The bow was pulled to their
chest not to their jaw ( al la Howard Hill). A more famed modern archer
named Howard Hill regularly used 100 lb bows without trouble.
>
> And before someone says that by drawing a bow with two hands the force is
> cut in half (ie. only a 86 pound "dumbell") they would be wrong. The
force
> required by each arm would still be 172 pounds. The distance would just
be
> less.
It is a push pull motion in drawing a bow. I am an old geezer and have
absolutely no trouble with a 50lb bow. Trick shot artist Byron Ferguson
easily shoots a 72 lb bow for trick shots. It is not all that hard.
>
> What would the strenght curve look like for a longbow or Hunnic recurve?
> Does it start out fairly low and then just peak at 172 a full extension?
Or
> is it more uniform?
If they had very good bowyers (bow makers) it would be a uniform pull. But
since they lived with a bow from early childhood on they could probably
shoot any bow well.
>
>
hcannon18
"Tod Kohl" <to...@fishergroup.com> wrote in message
news:1012eg4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I shoot an 85 lb. longbow, and have pulled up to 120# bows........those
> medieval archers must have
> been amazingly strong and bigger than the average peasant to handle bows
of
> that magnitude...
Why such a heavy bow? A 55 lb bow will kill any game on the North American
continent.
The old bow hunters back in the 30s regularly used 70lb bows.
hcannon18
> hcannon18 wrote:
> > I appreciate all the commnets
>
> Liar.
Pants on fire.
> > but what did the Japanese bow pull??
>
> By itself? Nothing. It needed an archer to work.
>
No shit.
kitznegari thinks it has wings
i was gonna say "african or european?" but that doesn't make any sense now.
damned japs. they ruin everything.
;)
- k i t z -
i will take you to the oracle, but first i must aporogize.
bite me at: http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?biter=kitznegari
GreenDistantStar
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <g...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vc9fze7...@nospam.com...
> dawa...@ix.netcom.com (Don Wagner) writes:
>
> > "hcannon18" <hcan...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>I am convinced that, before gunpowder, the most formidable weapon
invented
> >>was the bow.
> >
>
> shorter distances. As range increased the short heavy bolt lost
> accuracy and the longbow was preferable. Small cross-bows served
> similar duties to derringers or handguns (or even smoothbores), while
> the longbow was the rifle of the time. That said, the cross-bow was
> great for defensive use or in crowded spaces, but could not be
> reloaded rapidly, unlike the longbow.
You guys might find this interesting...
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/flight.html
and from there...
"The furthest distance shot with any bow is 2,047 yards (1,871.84m) . This
was shot by the late Harry Drake in 1988 using a crossbow. The furthest with
a hand-held - and pulled - bow is 1,336 yds 1' 3" (1,222.01m) , shot by Don
Brown with an unlimited conventional Flight bow in 1987."
GDS
Junkyard Willie
> great for defensive use or in crowded spaces, but could not be
> reloaded rapidly, unlike the longbow.
One of its greatest advantages was that it required less training and
physical strength than the long bow, enabling a greater number of effective
crossbow archers to be fielded in a shorter amount of time versus longbow
archers. This would seem to (at least partially) offset the slower rate of
fire.
Grappler240
>continent.
tha'ts because of the broadheads as much as the bow.
modern bows are surgically precise in the hands of someone with FAR less
training than their medieval counterparts.
-g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke, Jan. 21, 2002
hcannon18
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040124021251...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Ah but then I have read Medieval English hunting bows were far lighter than
the war bow.
Most guys over bow themselves when shooting traditional bows. But some do
like real heavy bows too. Byron Ferguson a trick shot artist uses a 72 lb
longbow. The bows used in the thirties were hunting bows and weighed in at
70lb. The shots were short too -15yards ( " The Den of The Old Bowhunter" is
a great book). Now the average bow shot on a deer is 18 yards including
compounds. The compounds have probably pushed the shot out.
The lighter bows became popular here after target archery became popular ( I
am referring to traditonal bows and not compounds).
You may be thinking of compound bows?
hcannon18
"kitznegari thinks it has wings" <kitzn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040123225845...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Australian.
hcannon18
"T" <T...@canttouchthis.org> wrote in message
news:1013ong...@corp.supernews.com...
Like the man said:
1. Agincourt
2. Crecy
story
>
> I suppose there are people in the world that could take a 30-06/.308 and
hit
could
> point to one of them.
A meter is just over three inches longer than a yard ( using the standard of
each ) A thousand meters is exactly one Kilometer ( definition ) and a
Kilometer is about 5/8 of a mile.
...............Tom...................
Chas
> A meter is just over three inches longer than a yard ( using the standard
of
> each ) A thousand meters is exactly one Kilometer ( definition ) and a
> Kilometer is about 5/8 of a mile.
And the chances of an expert rifleman being able to hit a man-sized target
at 1000 yds- *or* 1000* meters, with either an '06, or a .308, is between
veryfuckingslim and nonethefuckatall.
Here in Colorado, they have the 'One Shot Antelope Hunt'; shoot at a
thousand yards with most any high powered rifle- one shot. It's on open
plains- consistent windspeed; virtually perfect conditions.
They don't hit any antelope- even with 7mags or wildcats or whatever- they
just don't hit them. I don't believe I've ever heard of a successful shot.
Chas
George
> I'm not questioning your word, but do you realize that the "maximum
> effective range" of an M-16 in the hands of a trained Marine is 500
> meters?
> I'm a 3rd award expert Marine rifleman. The 500 meter target is 6'x6'
> square with a man sized sillouette as the bullseye, and I can tell you
> hitting the target, much less the bullseye is very difficult.
Of course you realize in the way back days when the US military used 30 cal
rifles qualifications ran out to 500 with open sights?
George
> That wasn't the scenario-
> The scenario was a 30-06 or a .308. The larger .30's are used for 1000 yd.
> matches.
> You might be able to load up either one to hit useful velocity, but not
> for a semi-automatic- only a single-shot or bolt-action.
Consistancy beats velocity. More mass beats faster lighter bullets. IOW,
try a 200ish grain boattail.
George
> And the chances of an expert rifleman being able to hit a man-sized target
> at 1000 yds- *or* 1000* meters, with either an '06, or a .308, is between
> veryfuckingslim and nonethefuckatall.
Chas,
If you ever come see Jerry I'll see if I can get some of the local guys to
shoot for you at 1000yds. It's like everything else - the right equipment
and practice. Hunting rifles aren't exactly the right equipment.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
George - lives across the street from a 1000yd range
George
> I have read both on the Mongol bow. They were powerful and they were not.
> Confusing. The book " What If " gives the power of the Mongol bow at
> 190lbs. Sounds excessive to me. While the book " Warriors of the Steppes"
> says that Mongols discharged their bows at very short range 10 to 15
> yards. It also says that a Mongol could hit a standing man every time at
> 65 yards. Pretty good accuracy and suggestive of a pretty powerful bow.
What does the shooting range have to do with bow power? I prefer to shoot
deer at 10 - 15 FEET with any strength bow. You do realize hitting a man
sized target at 65 yards isn't that much of a problem with any bow over
45lbs?
Don Wagner
>tha'ts because of the broadheads as much as the bow.
>
>modern bows are surgically precise in the hands of someone with FAR less
>training than their medieval counterparts.
Agreed. Especially with overdraw shelfs and some of the gearing on
the newer comounds.
By comparison, I need to use a 75# longbow (Old Ben) in order to match
the penetration power of my compund bow. The accuracy is much better
too.
George
>> For personal defence in the rough part of town, I'd take a hand
>> weapon.
>
> Modern traditonal recurve bow.
If you are wanting to keep it a bow, why not a short flat bow?