Bow Lenght

[bow101]

I'am considering building a bow that will be 70" NTN does that make it a Warbow, longbow or otherwise. What is the weight target for a basic Warbow..?    If I only get 55# out of it at 70" does that make it a slow bow because of it's lenght..?

[Dictionary]

You should post this in the "Bows" section. The English Warbow follows other strict rules. 50# definitely isnt near warbow draw weight and i think at least 72 inches is required to qualify as one as well.
 
 
But anyhow, 70 inches with a stiff handle is okay for 50#. It will definitely make a safe design. If it is a bendy handle bow, it is quite overbuilt. Nothing wrong with overbuilding, it just won't be as fast as it would be if shorter and lighter.

[bow101]

"i think at least 72 inches is required to qualify as one as well"...................................now I know.

[outcaste]

I'm not sure where the 72ins comes from, but you will find bows less than this NTN recovered from the Mary Rose.

[adb]

Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.

The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".

[outcaste]

Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.

The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".

Hi adb,

If you have access to the MR Data sheets you will see that there are a few very short bows. Also if you are looking at the overall length of recovered bows you would then have to take off perhaps an inch plus either end for the slots.

Cheers,
Alistair

[CraigMBeckett]

Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.

The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".

In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.

Craig.

[outcaste]

Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.

The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".

In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.

Craig.

Hi Craig,

The length of the bows measured on the MR are taken tip-to-tip. So 80A1298 has a linear length of 71 3/8ins the nock slots will obviously be below this. MR bow 81A850 has a reflex/deflex length of 69 1/8ins and a linear length of 68 5/8ins. This bow has some 'gribble' at the tip so one nock slot is missing, it is recored as 'damaged' rather than 'incomplete'.

Cheers,
Alistair

[CraigMBeckett]

Hi Craig,

The length of the bows measured on the MR are taken tip-to-tip. So 80A1298 has a linear length of 71 3/8ins the nock slots will obviously be below this. MR bow 81A850 has a reflex/deflex length of 69 1/8ins and a linear length of 68 5/8ins. This bow has some 'gribble' at the tip so one nock slot is missing, it is recored as 'damaged' rather than 'incomplete'.

Cheers,
Alistair

Alistair,

With regard to your statement "The length of the bows measured on the MR are taken tip-to-tip." I suggest you re-read the information on the bows. It is not known if the bows suffered from set induced by the conditions of "storage",  therefore both the measurments I quoted were taken and recorded and appear in the information contained on the CD that accompanied Weapons of Warre.

I think you should revisit the information on the bows, both the bows you mention are damaged at one or the other of their ends and the dimensions must be suspect, however:

81A850 is recorded as being extensively gribbled, the gribbling is so extensive that some dimensions are not given, the lengths reported cannot be relied on.

80A1298 is also gribbled but aparently not to the same extent as 81A850, because the location of one bit of data is not reported this bow was not transcribed by me as being complete so does not appear in my list as such, a closer study of the info provided seems to indicate that the bow is indeed complete, however it has quite a curviture on it such that length along curve 73.5 inches, 1867 mm, tip to tip 713/8 inches or 1813mm

Measurment tip to tip on a heavily curved bow cannot be relied on and when measured along the curve the bow is longer than the 72 7/16  inches of 80A763.

Craig

[Yeomanbowman]

In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.

Craig.

In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.

Craig.

Hi Craig,
Are you stating that artefact 80A763 is 72 7/16” long from the tip of the upper limb cone to the tip of the lower, along the convex side, or the nock to nock length, please? 
My understanding is all bow length dimensions given on the CD or otherwise from the MR Trust are from tip to tip and not nock to nock.  This is assuming it complete, of course.  Also I understand that the wooden cone length under the horn was around 2" (and sometimes longer) with the string grove filed in about 1/2 way down.  The one remaining horn nock, so far, would conform to this.  If this is the case, and I take your point about reflex (but as the length is along the convex side this would not distort the matter).  That is if the stated length of 72 7/16”is indeed tip to tip then  the bow would be a little over 70 nock to nock. 
For those following this tread, a great introduction can be found here...
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=alanesque+side+nocks&oq=alanesque+side+nocks&gs_l=hp.3...1295.10858.0.11217.20.20.0.0.0.0.188.2027.14j6.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.NCdZzAjBAbY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=1280&bih=822

You can see a great image of the colour difference where the horn has protected the wood from the water until it was eventually eaten away by microbes being made of a protein called keratin.

[CraigMBeckett]

In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.

Craig.

In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.

Craig.

Hi Craig,
Are you stating that artefact 80A763 is 72 7/16” long from the tip of the upper limb cone to the tip of the lower, along the convex side, or the nock to nock length, please? 
My understanding is all bow length dimensions given on the CD or otherwise from the MR Trust are from tip to tip and not nock to nock.  This is assuming it complete, of course.  Also I understand that the wooden cone length under the horn was around 2" (and sometimes longer) with the string grove filed in about 1/2 way down.  The one remaining horn nock, so far, would conform to this.  If this is the case, and I take your point about reflex (but as the length is along the convex side this would not distort the matter).  That is if the stated length of 72 7/16”is indeed tip to tip then  the bow would be a little over 70 nock to nock. 
For those following this tread, a great introduction can be found here...
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=alanesque+side+nocks&oq=alanesque+side+nocks&gs_l=hp.3...1295.10858.0.11217.20.20.0.0.0.0.188.2027.14j6.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.NCdZzAjBAbY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=1280&bih=822

You can see a great image of the colour difference where the horn has protected the wood from the water until it was eventually eaten away by microbes being made of a protein called keratin.

Hi Yeomanbowman,

You are correct my use of nock to nock was a typo or brain tilt and not intended, I should have written tip to tip. The MR people measured both along the convex side tip to tip and in a straight line tip to tip, so artifact 80A763 was measured at 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long tip to tip. WRT the length nock to nock, it would indeed be something like the length tip to tip along the convex side minus 2 inches so as you say 80A763 is approximately 72 inches or possibly up to 1/2 inch more nock to nock. Its a pity that the location of any remaining nock marks was not also recorded.

And appologies to Alistair, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I thought you were denying that the MR bows were measured along the convex side rather that correcting my typo of nock to nock. I did not properly re-read what I had written even when you provided the quotation.

I still disagree about the use of the two bows you mention.

Craig

[Ian.]

Just remember, Warbows and longbows are the same thing. Don't get confused with the definitions and requirements of various societies. I'm sure many thousands of bows made for warfare in medieval times were less than 72 inches long.
I regard a 'longbow' used for 'war' in the medieval period to be the height of a man and we all know how much that varies!
The 'Mary Rose' bows are a great source of knowledge but they don't come close to representing all that came before them.   

Sorry, you've missed the boat on this one by about 30 years, they are very different things as different as any other type of bow.

[AH]

just my opinion, but I think maybe some of the bows on the MR were overbuilt for the safety of war? at least the ones over 78",

[adb]

just my opinion, but I think maybe some of the bows on the MR were overbuilt for the safety of war? at least the ones over 78",

I don't think they were 'overbuilt' per say. I do think they were made to cast a very heavy (up to 1/4#) armour piercing arrow a long distance (200+ yards). To accomplish this with yew, the bows needed to big and long.

[adb]

Just remember, Warbows and longbows are the same thing. Don't get confused with the definitions and requirements of various societies. I'm sure many thousands of bows made for warfare in medieval times were less than 72 inches long.
I regard a 'longbow' used for 'war' in the medieval period to be the height of a man and we all know how much that varies!
The 'Mary Rose' bows are a great source of knowledge but they don't come close to representing all that came before them.   

Sorry, you've missed the boat on this one by about 30 years, they are very different things as different as any other type of bow.

+1