[Closed] Talk to me about Archery.

Yes and no.

I would suggest, in the first instance, approaching a local club before you buy anything. They should be able to advise on equipment, let you try different disciplines, and actually show you how you shoot.

There's two distinct strains of archery, field and target, loosely analogous to MTB and road riding. Target archery is what you see on TV; concentric circles for targets, measured distances, indoors or out. Field archery usually takes place in a woods, targets are pictures of animals, natural hazards such as tree branches.

I could wax lyrical at length the pros and cons of each, if you like?

(I should add; I used to teach field archery, in a past life.)

Where are you geographically?

Borrow my medieval-style longbow?

Only a lightwieght bow at circa 60lbs but enough to sort your neighbour out!

I know it's not a popular view, but i can't see the point of modern bows with all that pulley gubbins - get a proper longbow made to suit you and learn to shoot properly (that should occupy the next 15yrs!)

i tried it a few years ago, i was really surprised how quickly my accuracy improved over a 1hr lesson.
frankly, i thought it was brilliant.

One of my mates (in my former medieval re-enactment group) shoots at his local club, but obviously uses his longbow.
It seems some clubs aren't too fond of people using these things so may be worth checking. Certainly, my local archery club were extremely sniffy when i rang up to enquire about joining so i had somewhere to practise.

Having done both I really like Cougar's analogy to MTB; but I'd like to add that field archery involved a lot of drinking real ale... maybe that was just the club I was in!

Have a 60lb compound bow you can have for little more than postage..?

+1 for cougar. even then if you're serious about it i wouldn't go near a club that didn't have a decent level of coaching going on. unless you're going to be content with bad technique and poor performance!

which may sound a bit sniffy (as an ex national target champion i think i get to be!) but it a great sport and the more you put in the more you get out

which may sound a bit sniffy (as an ex national target champion i think i get to be!) but...

I can be sniffy too then; I was Scottish U15 Indoor Champion many years ago... and then I moved to England and discovered field archery - and real ale...

Swiss - as an ex-champ, how do you feel about the longbow being used in a modern archery club?
I ask 'cos i had some real resistance to me joining my local one, very sniffy and seemed somewhat 'class-based' as i think a golf club would be!
It wasn't as if i was turning up with bodkin-points or broadheads...

i went the same way hh! trouble was i loved target but not field so have left it alone for some years. met someone at work tho who shoots for money in europe so when i get some form of regular work hours sorted you never know i might go back to it!

as for longbows, there was a woman at the last club i was in and she had one and nobody was that bothered. she couldn't shoot for toffee tho, but then neither could anyone else. my dad had one and his shooting was fairly dire also. they're good for a laugh but there's a reason they're niche - like singlespeed! lol

archery folk? much the same as bike folk. in broad terms i'd say target is a bit more focused (like track cycling) while field is much more informal - at least if you're winning!

Our local club is happily devoid of people using compound bows. I don't if that's just because they're not allowed or what, but the vast majority have recurves.

Having owned both a recurve and a compound, I definitely think it is time for a long bow. I quite fancy [url= http://www.yewtreearchery.co.uk/ ]this guy's work[/url], for example.

Coyote, where in the country are you? I would love to get my kids outside shooting, instead of the local community centre.

hmmm good thread this,something oneself has come to admire and consider taking up on a regular basis.

There's another way in which archery is similar to cycling; at any event there will be 2 competitions going on, one for the best score and one for the flashiest/newest/most expensive kit. I used to shoot with a member of the British Olympic team, he usually won both.

If you go down the back garden route (which I wouldn't advise) check your public liability insurance carefully, arrows go astray very easily.

I got the compound when I got into field; haven't shot either seriously in a long time so target archery may have moved on.

I loved the fact that it was such a 'technical' sport in terms of equipment, bow tuning, making your own arrows, technique, etc. Have sometimes been tempted back for that, and the mental discipline.

What about [url= http://www.borderbows.com/index.html ]Border Bows[/url]..?

Saxonrider - i've looked at some of that chaps work at various re-enactment events over the years, seem like decent bows but if you like i can ask around my mates etc who they think the best bowyer is - (they all shoot proper bows).

Not always the best choice for a beginner though as the draw wieght can be offputting for some. Personally i dislike the modern things, but thats because i see a bow as a weapon not a piece of sporting equipment.

When i was in school one of the kid took the top of his finger off when he put it over the bit where the arow flew from.

muddydwarf,

I think my recurve had a fairly low draw weight, while my compound was entirely adjustable. I've shot a good number of bows, though, so wouldn't be scared of drawing something challenging.

And while I am certainly happy shooting for sport, I would like to think that any bow I owned could be used for hunting - yes, even a long bow.

EDIT: I should add that I would love to know what people thought of that guy's work.

I personally would not invest in that kit for a 20yd back garden and would go with Cougar on advice to try an archery club first as they will be able to run you through a beginners course and you can try club gear before deciding what to get (and whether you actually enjoy it enough to take it up).

I can do you a deal on a Hoyt Gold Medallist with all the carbon bits and two dozen Easton Aces if you need 8) 20 year old now but all good stuff.

The main reason some (but not many I don't think) clubs are sniffy about long bow archers is that some home made arrows have a habbit of leaving the pile (point) in the boss (target) which buggers up everyone elses arrows if not removed. Also you get wannabee bow hunter types turning up with broadhead arrows which slashes the boss to ribbons. And finally, some clubs just don't like medieval re-enactment weirdos who won't toe the green and white uniform line 😉

I got a 20lb recurve bow for my son. He never learnt to fire it properly. The actions and patience are like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. He was a bit young though. After my kids broke two of the replaceable notches on my alu arrows, I found cheap rawlplugs fit just nicely 🙂

A 37lb+ bow for an adult can be quite fun for a bit though and I was thinking about getting something decent since we never know when we'll catch an armed Scotsman within our city walls after dusk.

Ive just pulled a 75lb bow, similar to ones used at Agincourt. Hard work and didn't even get it to my ear.

any pictures or videos to study?

Ive just pulled a 75lb bow, similar to ones used at Agincourt. Hard work and didn't even get it to my ear.

I think it's been decided that war bows were well over 100lbs in draw weight and some 150lbs plus 😯

how do you feel about the longbow being used in a modern archery club?

Any field archery club would welcome you with open arms.

He never learnt to fire it properly.

One does not 'fire' a bow. *looks at you*

Always remember reading an article in 'The Glade' (still going..?) circa 25+yrs ago about the archer involved in the 'Robin Hood' TV series with Jason Connery; he was asked to loose an arrow toward the camera for a stunt shot. The BBC armorer promised him that the glass secured in front of the camera was more than robust - he put a cedar shaft from a longbow right through it.

Evening
Got another link for saxonrider [url= http://www.bakewellbows.co.uk/ ]Bakewell bows[/url] this chap was absolutely brilliant when I bought my longbow (bakewell elite and matched arrows). Listened to what I wanted and had constructive stuff to say. It shoots as sweet.now as it did when I first drew it and that was nearly 10 yrs ago. Have used it for field, clout and target. This chap [url= http://www.earthwoodbows.co.uk/ ]Earthwood bows[/url] also makes some absolute stunners too, so wanted to get one.... Hope its usefull
Cheers

An English warbow of the later medieval period was a pretty tough proposition - the bows found on the Mary Rose have been rated to around 160lb draw-weight although that is reckoned to be on the somewhat extreme side.
Most warbows were reckoned to be over 100lbs, i've drawn an 80lb bow and it hurt. I doubt there is more than a handful of archers in England that could draw a full strength bow.

I do agree about homemade arrows though, i've seen some shocking ones in my time. We only use 'mod-bods' for target shooting and reserve repro heads for displays - i.e. a side of pork hung up with a maille coat over the top to show how useless maille is against a bodkin point 🙂

I'm not really interested in archery but this is the best STW thread in ages...!

This is bringing back some memories - I was into toxophily before mtb. Still got a Marksman Portland 2000 kicking about in the loft iirc; I can file the serial numbers off and loan it to the op if that helps?

I was into it when carbon arrows were first coming in, and I remember a guy shooting the indoor 20yd round (portsmouth?) putting one down the back of another - caused a hell of a mess and then he was a bit too quick picking up the remnants and managed to get a large carbon splinter down his fingernail :bloick:

History/slaughtering Frenchmen-wise, there is a story about Wellington preparing for Waterloo and asking if we were still capable of fielding archers! Sadly the art had died out by then...

http://www.grozerarchery.com/index_b.htm

this is where i would spend my money, on a hungarian bow

Most warbows were reckoned to be over 100lbs, i've drawn an 80lb bow and it hurt

Point there though is, it was all about range. The English longbowmen weren't snipers, the idea was to rain down arrows on your enemies from as far away as possible.

I do agree about homemade arrows though, i've seen some shocking ones in my time.

I make my own arrows. Works out (or did) a lot more cost-effective than buying pre-made ones. I was taught how to do it properly though.

Massed archery is a very effective area-suppression weapon but i would disagree that English (and Welsh) archers weren't capable of snap shooting. Earl Rivers on Crusade in Spain in the C15th used archers very effectively in just this manner, advancing down narrow Moorish streets with the heavy armoured boys up front and archers ducked down behind them. As the bow is so much quicker to reload than the crossbow it was very effective.
Also lots of accounts of men-at-arms and knights etc getting the good news when they were daft enough to take their sallets off at the rear!
My mate can loose 15/16 arrows in a minute into a pretty small grouping on the target, and he is just an enthusiast not a pro specialist soldier.

skiboy, that has to be my link of the year so far! i've always wanted to try a recurve of that general type and now you may just have encouraged me right into it!

muddydwarf - Member

Most warbows were reckoned to be over 100lbs, i've drawn an 80lb bow and it hurt. I doubt there is more than a handful of archers in England that could draw a full strength bow.

I seem to remember Brian Blessed was a useful archer years ago and was one of the few people in the UK who got close to drawing a medieval warbow. (I may be wrong - it was a long time ago...)

[i]He never learnt to fire it properly.[/i]

One does not 'fire' a bow. *looks at you*

Sorry about the terminology, I'm more the marksman with things that go 'bang'.

Ive just pulled a 75lb bow, similar to ones used at Agincourt. Hard work and didn't even get it to my ear.

But then, I was trained to fire from the ear with a recurve, pushing the bow forwards to the release point.

i would disagree that English (and Welsh) archers weren't capable of snap shooting

Fair comment. I was really trying to explain why you'd have such heavyweight bows; I don't know offhand but I'd guess that the shooting you're describing would use lighter bows that you can shoot all day.

Incidentally,

Has the OP been back since, or have we frightened him off? (-:

But then, I was trained to fire from the ear with a recurve, pushing the bow forwards to the release point.

I think what you're describing there is what we call a T-draw. I always favoured a V-draw, which starts with the bow low and horizontal; the act of raising the bow to shot height equates to your 'pushing' the bow (which TBH sounds a bit odd to me, but it's been a while).

They used to laugh at me back at the club, cos I was a scrawny slip of a teenager and could draw bows that the huge rugby-player guys couldn't. It's maybe 80% technique and 20% having the muscles in the right place. The T-draw is arguably smoother and more consistent (I'd wager it's the only one you'll see in the Olympics), but more tiring to shoot all day.

It's personal preference of course, though the V-draw tends to be more popular in field archery than target, or a mixture of both, as you don't tend to have to avoid overhanging branches in target archery.

I seem to remember Brian Blessed was a useful archer years ago and was one of the few people in the UK who got close to drawing a medieval warbow. (I may be wrong - it was a long time ago...)

I don't think you are wrong - I can remember seeing that on telly many moons ago...

Cougar - from the various C15th sources i've seen it would appear that bows were drawn to the nose for a snap shot and to the ear (full draw) for the distance/power shot.
We must remember that the C14th/C15th archers were a breed apart. By law they trained from the age of 8 til they were eligible for military service aged 16. People worked manually back then so would have been pretty strong anyway and a man who's practised his archery 3/4 times a week for 8yrs is going to be good. Not all archers were 'pro' class of course, but a good archer who could bring his own bow/equipment plus horse could command a payscale of around 6d a week - a ploughman earned around 2d a week for a comparison. The skeletal fragments on the Mary Rose point towards archers who's bodies had deformed due to the stresses placed upon them. Shortened, thickened and heavily-reinforced left arm bones massively muscled right shoulders, elongated fingers on the right hand, fused lower vertebrae etc.

It is strange why no other Nation produced such men, but it required a huge investment in time to produce an army based around the archer.

On the draw technique - what cougar is calling the V-draw seems to be the trad way of drawing a warbow. The bows were that powerful that i doubt many people could hold the bow at full draw for any meaningful length of time.

I once had a bloke tell me that no-one could pull a 100lb bow unless they were using their feet on the shaft of the bow - all whilst a 5'2" 9.5 stone dwarf was happily drawing a 70lb bow in front of him!

I seem to remember Brian Blessed was a useful archer years ago and was one of the few people in the UK who got close to drawing a medieval warbow. (I may be wrong - it was a long time ago...)

Sure it wasn't Robert Hardy? He was a recognised expert in the field of medieval archery and could draw a full strength bow i believe.

It is strange why no other Nation produced such men, but it required a huge investment in time to produce an army based around the archer.

The Mongols?

Supposedly the mongol bows had a higher draw weight and better range/penetration than an English longbow, despite being much shorter (and hence usable from horseback) and coming significantly earlier.

Their bows were heavily laminated with horn on the inside and tendons on the outside.

As with the medieval archers, they trained pretty much from birth.

There's a lot of information in [url= http://http://www.amazon.co.uk/Attila-The-Hun-Barbarian-King/dp/0553816586/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335004090&sr=1-1 ]this book[/url] about the mounted armies of Attila the Hun, including (if I remember correctly) a Hungarian guy who's spent 20+ years practicing to shoot 6 shots into the same target at a full gallop. It also has plenty of interesting accounts of how they were used to great effect in battle.

I would dispute that the Mongol bows were of a far heavier draw weight - i've read Conn Iggulden make that claim but TBH i haven't seen it backed up anywhere else as yet.
The Mongol bow - being a laminated recurve was capable of high power and would penetrate the armour of the enemy. However, that armour was often either maille or laminate sections. Put a Mongol or English warbow against steel plate and the results are very different.

The mechanics of drawing a heavyweight bow from a seated position would make a 150lb+ bow very difficult to draw - reduce the actual draw weight to 70lb and multiply it by the mechanical properties of the bow and you have a winner.

In fact, having just googled the subject, i came across a proponent of the Mongol recurve claiming that the average English warbow draw weight was around 60-70lbs. Complete rubbish so i didn't read any further!

It might be that a Mongol bow achieves a higher arrow velocity than a longbow, as a result of a composite construction and recurve, which is more efficient for a given draw weight. I agree that it seems unlikely that they would be a heavier draw overall.

This has all been incredibly helpful and simplified what I was initially concerned would become complex. 😕

Cougar - from the various C15th sources i've seen it would appear that bows were drawn to the nose for a snap shot and to the ear (full draw) for the distance/power shot.
...etc

Didn't know that. Interesting reading, thanks. Outside of Agincourt, my knowledge of archery history is pretty thin TBH.

This has all been incredibly helpful and simplified what I was initially concerned would become complex.

I think your query was addressed by Cougar's first post 🙂

It might be that a Mongol bow achieves a higher arrow velocity than a longbow, as a result of a composite construction and recurve, which is more efficient for a given draw weight. I agree that it seems unlikely that they would be a heavier draw overall.

Interesting, I hadn't appreciated that the bow could give a mechanical advantage that way.

in which case check this out
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=283955

interesting the discussion that the longbow as found in the british isles seems to have proliferated more to do with environmental factors

Just had a look at that Physics thread. hmmm.

I don't know enough about the laminated Mongol bow to say whether the weapon was unstrung when not in use as a warbow is (longbow is a Victorian term).
If that weapon was not unstrung then yes, the predominantly wet weather would have been a factor as at the Battle of Crecy when the French advanced their crossbowmen during a rain squall, the crossbows got wet and the strings stretched causing a massive loss of range/power. The English archers kept their bows unstrung and their strings dry (which is where you get the term 'keep it under your hat) until they needed them and shot the Genoese crossbowmen down by running forward, loosing a short series of shots then legging it back before the Genoese could reload. The French command thought the Genoese had been paid off by the English and charged over the top of their own crossbowmen, killing those that had survived the failed attack.

The two types of bow evolved (in my view) not because of the weather, but because of the type of warfare being utilised. In England the concept of heavy cavalry had been somewhat nullified by the use of massed archery added to the fact that England is a place not given to huge grassy plains beloved of cavalry. Add to that the increase in armour technology and you have a style of warfare more suited to massed foot troops with large missile units and a relatively small core of heavily armoured professional fighters wearing high cost but very effective armour that rendered the wearer near invincible to projectile and thrusting weapons - whish is why weapons like the bill/halberd/warhammer/poll-axe were developed.

In Asia, less metal available meant less plate harness and more maille, which is incredibly vunlerable to arrows and slim thrusting weapons as well as being bloody heavy for its protection value. On the steppes there aren't that many trees so laminated construction bows made of bone etc developed. The difference is, the English archer often made his own weapon, i don't know if the Mongol warriors all made theirs.
Because of the vastness of the terrain, warfare developed into primarily cavalry use so a bow that could be drawn and shot from horseback was essential.
The Mongols defeated European heavy cavaly in Eastern Europe, but that was the old style of European warfare, a war of massed lances against massed archery will only end one way.
It never happened, but it would have been interesting to see how a Mongol Tuman or two would fare against an English army that was pre-disposed (because of limited numbers) to fight a defensive battle that forced the enemy to advance on a defended position. It is interesting to note that during the Wars of the Roses - the only conflict were both sides had access to massed archery - that the bow as a decisive battle winner became nullified and the battles were decided when the troops came to close quarters and hand strokes.

Ooops, sorry got a bit carried away there... 😳

Didn't know that. Interesting reading, thanks. Outside of Agincourt, my knowledge of archery history is pretty thin TBH.

From my experience, that final six inches from nose to ear is the most difficult part of the draw. Before that you can put your hips/ back and shoulders into the draw (as you stated about the low/horizontal style of draw). When it gets to the nose it's just your arm and shoulder muscles which makes it a lot harder plus the bow is under it's maximum tension at that point.

Also, noted in that physics thread someone claimed a warbow wasn't under tension when at rest, bolloxs to that, a warbow has to be tensioned to be strung - watching me dance around the field with my legs wrapped around the bow as i attempt to string it is apparently hilarious!

that final six inches from nose to ear is the most difficult part of the draw.

The rule of thumb I was always taught is two pounds per inch of draw. So that last six inches is another twelve pounds of draw weight to hold.

That's why a bow weight is always expressed as (weight) at (inches). My recurve is 36@28", so if I were to have a draw length of 30" then I'd be pulling 40lbs rather than the indicated 36.

(Obviously, this doesn't apply to compounds)

Does anyone know what sort of bow the average English forester (or hunter) would have used if what we now call the 'longbow' was limited to military use?

@saxonrider
a shorter one.

I've just moved over to wooded arrows after another club memeber gave me a stack of arrows. Anything was better than my Armex Ali's...but they served well 🙂

Gave me an excuse to make a new arrow rack from a old standard lamp.

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/6956233748_a5541e9559_o.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/6956233748_a5541e9559_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/58162507@N07/6956233748/ ]Arrow rack[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/58162507@N07/ ]SGMTB[/url], on Flickr

PS White will be rounded off or find a nice piece of oak.

@40 yards.

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/6956254040_b59267d22a_o.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/6956254040_b59267d22a_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/58162507@N07/6956254040/ ]Nailed![/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/58162507@N07/ ]SGMTB[/url], on Flickr

@saxonrider.... There is a short section in bikerstaffes book about the history of longbows. Dosnt go into much detail but it seems that there have been flat bows and s few D shaped bows. Flat bows are by their nature shorter and therefore easier to use in woodland, look for the meare heath bow. There was one found that dated to around 6000 years old that is a classic D shaped(rotten bottom bow) .Hunting bows would have been around 60lb. I reckon that the length wouldnt have been much different to modern self (non laminated wood) bows.
Plus a decent 60lb bow capable of bringing down a deer wouldnt be much of a leap to use it in battle.....
Cheers

An English warbow of the later medieval period was a pretty tough proposition - the bows found on the Mary Rose have been rated to around 160lb draw-weight although that is reckoned to be on the somewhat extreme side.
Most warbows were reckoned to be over 100lbs, i've drawn an 80lb bow and it hurt. I doubt there is more than a handful of archers in England that could draw a full strength bow.

We like to think that we are the best examples of modern humans that have ever lived in these isles, the reality is somewhat different!
The medieval archer was a specialist soldier hired for his strength and skills. An archer bringing his own weapon could command a higher wage than the ordinary billman (usually semi-armoured heavy foot soldier armed with a 7ft pole weapon).
Those men practised regularly and developed the stature required to operate those weapons. Drawing a bow isn't 'just' about brute strength although it certainly helps, but also about the technique of using your whole body as the 'cocking lever'. I never spent enough time practising the bow as i preferred the using the bill and sword 'cos i liked hitting people! 😳

You defo need at 100lb bow to kill a bit of hessian 😉

I wonder what happened the original OP ?

this thread has certainly given me the information i need if i do so wish to take this pastime up.

thankyou