Warbow FPS?

[llkinak]

IMO I would rather stop someone by literally knocking them back with an arrow than killing, b/c the kill is not instant.
I wonder if you could hunt with a warbow? use some big arse broadheads, maybe 2 inches wide or so?

Hi, squirrelslinger
I doubt you'll be knocking anybody back with an arrow, it simply doesn't happen that way.  Neither does it happen with bullets, for that matter.  With light weight projectiles such as arrows and bullets, if they don't penetrate they tend to bounce off in whatever direction the various factors acting on them dictate.  You might very well knock over a steel plate or something similar, but people wearing armor who are shot with projectiles much more powerful than arrows aren't knocked back...they're just bruised and sore as all get out.

Regarding hunting with a warbow, I agree with adb.  It could be done but it shouldn't be.  Warbows are very inaccurate compared to modern compounds, or even recurves, to the point where for 99% of us hunting with one would almost certainly be unethical. 
Just my two cents. 
Lance.

[adb]

I totally agree. These Hollywood images of people being flung backwards after they're shot, like they've been jerked by a rope are pure rubbish. Being shot with a handgun, having a projectile weight of maybe 300 grains is not going to move a 200 pound man anywhere. It will more than likely pass through and kill anyone standing behind them. Anyone who hunts deer with a rifle will know this.

[Lukasz Nawalny]

It was very light warbow but I have few results http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWrBfJyBCwQ

[adb]

Why don't you pull it to 30" and see what it'll really do?

[Lukasz Nawalny]

It was maybe max 29 ". I dont shoot usually strong bows, I have trouble with my arm and I had problems pull this bow.

[adb]

Send it to me... I could wring it out for yah!! I'll even pay for the shipping!! 

[kevinsmith5]

Some of you may be interested in reading this http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

It's actually the most comprehensive test I've seen of longbow vs armor that seems to scientically done.

[Del the cat]

Some of you may be interested in reading this http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

It's actually the most comprehensive test I've seen of longbow vs armor that seems to scientically done.

Good comprehensive test.
Unfortunately the bow used is under poundage and under draw length IMO, and probably represents only the very weakest of the Mary Rose bows.
Mind even with that it does demonstrate lethality.
Del

[cool_98_555]

Thanks guys for all your replies!  There was one post in here that showed a light warbow through a chrono, and that is what I was looking for.  I realize it is not as ethical to hunt with a a warbow.  I also realize it is not as important for a war arrow to travel faster (hence a chrono test), but I was curious!  Nice to see at least one test on here.  Would like to see at least 100# at 32" through a chrono with 1/2" war arrows eventually! Thanks again for your replies!

[kevinsmith5]

Some of you may be interested in reading this http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

It's actually the most comprehensive test I've seen of longbow vs armor that seems to scientically done.

Good comprehensive test.
Unfortunately the bow used is under poundage and under draw length IMO, and probably represents only the very weakest of the Mary Rose bows.
Mind even with that it does demonstrate lethality.
Del

He made it pretty clear (and did some headache inducing math to back it up) that he was accounting for the difference in power by shooting from closer.

[WillS]

Here you go.  Skip on to 5min51seconds.  Mark Stretton, using a 150# warbow shooting half inch arrows, being recorded for speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTDHOcWbVLQ

52 metres per second equates to 170fps.  The video goes on to show what it does to armour.  Not the most exacting tests, but gives you a good idea.

[Del the cat]

I watched the rest of it.
Pretty good, he does 'dress up' the odd theory and the illustrations don't always support his theories.
There are as many illustrations of whip ended bows as reflexed tips.
His theory about mounted archers going through the ford to protect the crossing is bonkers! If the water was chest deep, then a horse couldn't gallop through it and you couldn't shoot a bow from the horse. It's glaringly obvious that the archers on your side of the river would be shooting to protect those wading over to establish a bridgehead.
Del

[Atlatlista]

I watched the rest of it.
Pretty good, he does 'dress up' the odd theory and the illustrations don't always support his theories.
There are as many illustrations of whip ended bows as reflexed tips.
His theory about mounted archers going through the ford to protect the crossing is bonkers! If the water was chest deep, then a horse couldn't gallop through it and you couldn't shoot a bow from the horse. It's glaringly obvious that the archers on your side of the river would be shooting to protect those wading over to establish a bridgehead.
Del

I totally agree with your interpretation, though I disagree that you can't shoot a longbow from horseback.

[Del the cat]

I watched the rest of it.
Pretty good, he does 'dress up' the odd theory and the illustrations don't always support his theories.
There are as many illustrations of whip ended bows as reflexed tips.
His theory about mounted archers going through the ford to protect the crossing is bonkers! If the water was chest deep, then a horse couldn't gallop through it and you couldn't shoot a bow from the horse. It's glaringly obvious that the archers on your side of the river would be shooting to protect those wading over to establish a bridgehead.
Del

I totally agree with your interpretation, though I disagree that you can't shoot a longbow from horseback.

I didn't say you can't shoot a longbow from horseback...
I said you can't shoot a longbow from the back of the horse in the situation we were discussing (in chest deep water)...
... do pay attention 
A horse in water upto a man's chest wouldn't be galloping, it would be wading or swimming. And the lower limb of the bow would be in the water!
In the video he gallops his horse through water 6" deep through a stream! Not chest deep to a man through a river!
Del

[Atlatlista]

I didn't say you can't shoot a longbow from horseback...
I said you can't shoot a longbow from the back of the horse in the situation we were discussing (in chest deep water)...
... do pay attention 
A horse in water upto a man's chest wouldn't be galloping, it would be wading or swimming. And the lower limb of the bow would be in the water!
In the video he gallops his horse through water 6" deep through a stream! Not chest deep to a man through a river!
Del

Fair point.  I'm personally in favor of an interpretation of mounted longbowmen in the hundred years' war as dragoons anyway - i.e. Poitiers.