Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: sagitarius boemoru on May 05, 2007, 04:37:17 am
-
This is something Rod brought up while ago.
Altough I think a sporting bow accuracy should not be used as comparative discipline a heavy bow shooter, apart of being able to pull his bow should be able to comand his bow safely, he also should be able to actually hit something.
Too often we see a big boy with 120# bow annoying other archers whillst hes got something like 40 degrees wide spread.
A medieval standard would be something like shooting a single man between 70-100 yards or less and a group of men or a horses at your maximum range, means 200-240 and more.
Now Assuming our man is in armour hell be like 70 cm wide and lets say 180 cm high.
I m proposing a 3X as wide target for maximum distance shooting. Or a target which will eqal fromt profile of a single mid sized horse.
Now this would be probably absolute minimum required to shoot with any reasonable repeatability, though there is enough sniper shots in the record from which we might assume that some medieval archer were much better shot.
Also you are likelly to have succes on low edge of warbow spectrum and in the case you understand how to make an excellent arrow.
(Again I think that some of medieval archers understood well how to sellect components for arrows and how to tune their bows to perform well, whillst others have been handling just military issue equipment.)
Anybody can say "I sho this and that", but unless we set a benchmark target and distance and record accuracy, we cant tell how this side of heavy bow shooting really looks like.
Jaro
-
Very interesting Jaro. It is easy to concentrate only on gaining poundage and distance but the accuracy side is important as well. With the time, materials, and care that go into creating a good war arrow (felling a tree, splitting, milling by hand, planing and tapering, splining and shaping nocks, fletching, wrapping, gluing, sealing, and smithing a bodkin) it seems unlikely that archers would just shoot at random unless they were firing into a mass of people.
I'll post a little more when I have a chance to shoot a few arrows at those ranges for accuracy.
J. D. Duff
-
Wish I could find somewhere to shoot that far. My accuracy at 50 yards still sucks so I would be one of those guys that would not be able to hit the broad side of the barn at 200 yards. Any of you ever notice how hard it is to hit something close to the ground as apposed to man height? Trying to get ready to hunt with my bow for wild hogs sometime in the future but have a hard time hitting anything lower than man height. I'm putting out some old stuffed burlap bags and shooting at them. Its tough!
I have heard the old story of archers putting arrows througn visor slits at 200 yards but thing this might be an exageration. How about you guys, you getting this type of accuracy? ;D
David T
-
I could not agree more. What use is being able to pull a big bow if you cannot hit anything with it? My area of interest it way before the the golden age of the Warbow....meaning the 100 Years War and the War of the Roses.....my interests lie with the hunting applications, pre-Conquest.
As I am a hunter, not a target (although I do shoot target, just not in competition) shooter, I have no interest in pulling anything over 60#.....with this weight I can pull it back at a deer after sitting for 3 hours in 30 degree weather....or make a snap shot at a rabbit or hare as well....
As far as military archery and pulling the "big bows".....archers in the army of Edward III for example.....it was mass fire power.....putting as much steel into the air as possible......and shooting at a huge mass of men, horse and armor.....
Now I am not saying that these yeomen could not hit a small target...they could....they shot at a bracelet size target at varying distances....upward sto 100 yards (I believe).....but archers then were started out young.....until it became second nature....
-
It is obvious that they were reasonable shot. It was certainly not "mass firepower" only. There is plenty of record of decent sniper shot.
This is warbow forum, so we speak warbows. I m not interested in hersay or "who shot what where".
My intention is to set a benchmark for accuracy very much like english "Standart arrow" is a benchmark for judgement of bow´s cast.
If youre heavy bow archer first thing you get asked is "how far you shoot standart".
I want a set of target within military requirements and also a chart in which the results be ready availble.
I think that most so said "heavy bow archers" wont be able to get any decent success.
J.
-
Hi,
The Longbow should be seen as the 'machine gun' of its age. With maximum effectiveness when used with massed ranks against massed ranks. It is impossible to hit an individual at its max range of 200-300 yards (unless you are very lucky!). It is my understanding and please someone correct me if I am mistaken that training to meet the statutory 220 yards would also involve placing ones arrows on a target 20 yards wide. This is very achievable. When a target is at say point blank (20/50 yards) its not that hard to hit a man-sized target.
Back in England I have 'roved' with archers with 'heavy' and other types of bows that involed reaching marks over varing distances/terrain and I would certainly not want to take my chances by standing too close to these marks!
There are also guys out there who can hit a squirrels 'nuts' off at 30 yards with 120lb+ bows!
Cheers, Outcaste
-
OK, here's my take. While it's true that there are records of sniper style shooting with a warbow I think the major application of the warbow is to delivery a heavy arrow at long ranges mostly via plunging fire. Especially if we are talking 14-15 century standards. As Jaro says the first question for a heavy bow shooter is how far can you shoot a standard arrow? In the same vein I think the measure of accuracy should not be measured in terms of target archery but in terms of clout shooting. How close can you regularly come to the flag at a distance of at least 150 yards, and if you can throw a standard arrow over 200 yards then 200 should be the distance. Once you master that then start working on target or hunting type shooting. Just my opinion. So now get the flame throwers out;-)...
Lloyd
-
One other thing I think is that there was a steady increase in the draw weight over time. I bet early warbows where only pulling in the 80 - 90 pound range or less and steadly increased in weight as armor improved over time. I believe, and someone correct me here if I'm wrong, that at the battle of Crecy that the standard armor of knights was still chain mail. A bow in the 80 - 90 pound range or a bit less can easily punch through this with bodkin points as test have proven. Arrows might also have been in the 3/8ths inch thick range then also instead of the 1/2 inch range. This is just speculation on my part but seems logical. Now to build my next warbow at 80#'s!!! ;D
David T
-
I agree with Lloyd and David T . The romance and and legend surrounding the warbows of medievil england do tend to cloud peoples expectations of what is acheivable accuracy wise . There will always be exceptional individuals that are capable of truely incredible feats of accuracy -masters of the warbow , as there will always be incredibly lucky shots , we all have them occasionally . As a medievil knight or soldier I would be very nervous inside 250 yards , just the thought of one ,hundreds or thousands of arrows dropping around me would tend to make one question there mortality .
-
A 1000 grain arrow can hit maximum range in a couple seconds. Imagine how poorly you would fight if you had to visually scan the sky every three seconds. :P
J. D. Duff
-
The Longbow should be seen as the 'machine gun' of its age. With maximum effectiveness when used with massed ranks against massed ranks. It is impossible to hit an individual at its max range of 200-300 yards (unless you are very lucky!). It is my understanding and please someone correct me if I am mistaken that training to meet the statutory 220 yards would also involve placing ones arrows on a target 20 yards wide. This is very achievable. When a target is at say point blank (20/50 yards) its not that hard to hit a man-sized target.
- That is again a popular book blable.Think again before producing something like this.
There was nothing like 20 yards wide target for long marks. Traditional target involves a 6´ tall white board set up on green pasture which is shot at.
A remnant of true medieval shooting si clout. This is exactly the type of discipline we are talking about. While to hit a single man at these distances its unlikely, to hit a small group or horse is very much doable and it does not involves a 20 yards wide spread.
Shooting a dozen of arrows with heavy bow to the 5 yrds circle at maximum range, with one or two deviantshould be just about normal.
Again this is the way I did not want to moderate this thread. I wrote clearly we should not heed any hersay.
If you do the thing and have something to say about it, write, if you only heard something or read in books, dont.
E.G. an input from an experienced clout archer is welcomed, input from somebody who describes accuracy at 30 yrds with target arrowheads is in relation to this equipment and type of archery very much worthless.
Jaro
-
As I said purpose of this thread was not a discussion about "who can hit what with something".
If you cannot do something you always find somebody who can.
But as stated I would very much like to have a set of benchmark targets which would test heavy archers also in accuracy apart from the ability to draw heavy weight.
A single man sized target between 70 and 100 yrds and a 3/4 man group sized target at maximum range (200 yrds+) is my proposition.
To be shot with an arrow at least 3 oz (75 gram).
Jaro
-
Jaro
If you are refering to myself then I can asure you that I very much do this. Now as I said in my 'blabble' that I may be mistaken with regards to hitting a target 20 yards wide. I was trying to remember some comtemporary text that I had read a while ago!
I am a practising archer who makes his own kit (maybe not the best read!) but have a practical knowledge of doing this for real (Military/Standatd arrow, Roving and Clout). I do feel that your tone is a little harsh to say the least and not what I would expect from the forum
Outcaste
-
Look. I write things once, then twice, then my tone gets harsh. Yes people complain. Some.
I m just not patient to write all the time the same thing again.
Here we go with your remark about target 20 yards wide - you dont know where you read it, the credibility of such an information is basicaly zero, yet its presented as if it actually had some.
We know both through contemporary record and also by testing that heavy bow kit and archer should be quite capable of much better accuracy even in terms of individual aimed hits, so sanity check says its just off.
Hence "blable".
When I start dispute anything, I attempt for a simple and logic definition. Sudenly a whole lots of people appear who basically dont bring information of any value or a logic insight. They just sloganeer.
I hate it and get pissed off, so expect me to be harsh.
What I expected as discussion to the thema was whatever is viable to set up a set of targets of known dimensions and distance, which everybody could use, chart our progress on internet and evalute what is or what is not possible in terms of heavy bow shooting. Now check the discussion, how many people are actually reffering to the point.
Not interested in hersay, urban legends or squirell shooting.
J.
-
I do love all these warm and fuzzy moments.
-
discussion to the thema was whatever is viable to set up a set of targets of known dimensions and distance, which everybody could use, chart our progress on internet and evalute what is or what is not possible in terms of heavy bow shooting.
I like the sound of the man or horse sized targets,if the heavy bow shooters could agree on the dimensions and have a few test shots we'd have a better idea of what the Bows are capable of,but it still wont put them in the hands of a 14CE Archer,who i think its fair to say,was head and shoulders above todays standards.
Personnaly i'm not a a very good shot with my Bow but i'm confident enough to hit targets at 70mts,nothing bracelet size mind you,i'm just happy if i hit the bail :D.
However,Mark Stretton won the Herstmonceaux tournament three years on the trot with his 160lb WarBow,so he's pretty accurate with his,the rest of us need to catch up to his and Simon's standards :o.
-
Hello All,
I just wanted to say that I’ve known Outcaste for longer than I care to remember and can vouch for the fact that he’s passionate about English warbows. He also makes beautiful bows drawing well over 100Lbs out of what I’d use for kindling. They are all from period woods and he shoots them to their capacity. He’s a hardcore English warbow archer without doubt.
I think some people need to be slower to judge and less dogmatic in regards to their own opinion, however a frank and BS free exchange of view is always welcome. Jaro, I’d love to see some of the warbows you’ve made and a clip of your shooting. Josh has said it was very helpful with his own style.
Cheers,
Jeremy
-
I was doing some practical testing the other day and thought that some of you guys might be interested.
I made up six arrows to initially test performance from a self-yew bow I had just made together with species performance of shaft wood.
Arrow Specs:,
2 X ½ in Pop 75 grams Bobtail last 12in
2 X ½ in Ash 75/77grams Full Bobtail
1 X ½ in Birch 80 grams Full Bobtail
1 X ½ in Beech 84 grams Full Bobtail
All fletched with 71/2 X ¾ in Goose (apart from one Ash that used Swan).
All 31½ inch long from head
Heads all long type10 and 20grams (approx) apart from a 25gram on one of the Pop shafts
With regards to distance the Pop shaft out performed the others (though this was arguably the wood I was using as I was unable to work the others down to the desired weights for the spec and It is something I shall be pursuing). What was interesting was regards to accuracy a mark was set at around 220 yards and all the arrows consistently fell with ten or so yards either side of this mark. Which I feel is not too bad considering the distance. When compared to the 3/8 shafts I was also testing I found that there was a much wider spread. This I feel was due to the various elastic moduli of the woods at that diameter being affected by head weight (or perhaps a poor loose!). From my standpoint the larger shaft diameter allowed for a more consistent, straighter and accurate shot over that distance.
For the record the bow I used was 741/2 in between the nocks and 112@32 and constructed from Welsh yew.
Regards, Outcaste
-
That's very impressive from British yew Outcaste. Do you think the quality of wood in that particular bow was above average?
It's also interesting about the accuracy. I wonder if the heavy front end of the 1/2 inch arrow acts like a heavy arrowhead, reducing the dynamic spine.
-
Hi Simon,
Yes I am pleased with the results! At some point I must take some photos and post them. But just to say that the growth rings are very tight for the the first 6mm or so then they open up, it looks like a lamination of sorts. I also took the sapwood down to a single growth ring. The bow also has quite a lot of string follow, but shoots really smooth.
Cheers, Outcaste
-
Altough I think a sporting bow accuracy should not be used as comparative discipline a heavy bow shooter, apart of being able to pull his bow should be able to comand his bow safely, he also should be able to actually hit something.
It has been my goal since getting into warbows (around 4 months ago) to see how accurate I can get with one rather than how heavy a bow I can pull (although having said that I have just jumped up 30 pounds)
it's early days yet. I was beginning to doubt it was possible myself but then last weekend I suddenly started hitting a group at 30 yards of around 2" (which is very good for me anyway) but then I lost it again
This has proved to myself that these bows can be as accurate as a Victorian type bow given enough practise / skill, and my quest continues ;-)
One day I would love to enter a target competition with my warbow, it would be great to get a decent score with a 120lb bow against Victorian bows (and I have a great excuse if I don't do well ;-)
-
I hope everyone sees that we can do something positive in the progress of modern warbow shooting by using the benchmark that Jaro is talking about to judge our accuracy. This is a great idea.
Here is what I would say Jaro's suggested benchmark boils down to:
With what consistency can you shoot a very heavy arrow [75 gram (1,157.4 grains give or take)]:
1. A target 6' tall by 2' wide at 100 yards.
2. A target 6' by 6' at 200+ yards.
I'll wait for Jaro to chime in on the target dimensions listed above--if they're good enough for him we'll call it standard.
Accepting such a standard as a means of proving accuracy from one warbow shooter to the next would be very helpful. This is similar to the standardization of the 4' bulls-eye target that all Victorian longbow competitions use. Horace Ford was able to prove his ability by this standard. He would never have impressed us as much by telling us about great shots he had made at flying targets or running squirrels.
I'll do some tests with my own equipment soon. Great idea Jaro.
J. D. Duff
-
As at longer distances we will probably normally be aiming for a flag or similar marker would it be an idea to have a set distance and rate our accuracy by the average size grouping we are acheiving around this marker ?
e.g. You could have a rating of 5 foot at 220 yards
this would mean that all you need to test yourself is a tape measure
-
J.D. That is about what I thought. Anyway - off course we can use flag as this is clout shooting (which as discipline is remnant of medieval and renaissance shooting), but it would be nice to actually use something which resembles the original target.
If you hit it just counts. I reckon such target can be made from cardboard easy.
3´ wide target at 100 yrds is more likelly like armored man.
Jaro
-
Then 3' by 6' tall at 100 yards (representing an armored night) and 9' by 6' tall at 200 yards (representing 3+ nights together or two mounted nights, etc).
What percentage would you guess at being suitable accuracy? 10 of 12 arrows on target? 8 of 12?
J. D. Duff
-
I think with a bow which does have decent armour piercing capability if half of the shots hit its acceptable.
(Se how cleverly I avoided specification of weight)
Jaro
-
We should not forget, that medieval archers have to be able to judge distance well, when they shot sucessfully at advancing enemy. And judging the distance is the harder part.
Jaro
-
At 100 yards i would be impressed to see an archer hit a hay bale with some consistency say 3 out of 5, at 200 yards if one could place the arrows in a 6 meter square that i would consider pretty good also. Steve
-
Chaps,
I'm not sure this really advances the issue of acceptable accuracy but even a mediocre archer is more accurate than a man armed with a musket, circa 17th century. Yet these were effective enough in massed a volley at close range and with a slow rate of fire.
-
You mean low individual rate of fire, not total. Musketry routine is based on the rows of people reloading while others discharge. The main advantage of arquibuis or musket is a fact you can take a person which is not very physically fit and make out of him a musketeer in relativelly short time. On the other hand to have a good archer you need to start him early and train at least couple of years.
Musket accuracy in 17. century was based on hiting barn door at prescribed distance. (I provide exact distance, my friend has a musket, hell know it.)
:)
But this is comparing apples and oranges.
Jaro
-
I've come in a bit late on this topic I know but the comment was made that maille (chain-mail ) was the main form of armour at Crecy when in fact by the 1340's plate armour was well established, though not anywhere as advanced as seen by the end of the 14th C. A typical well off man-at-arms at Crecy would have worn maille from head to foot and over this he would wear a coat-of-plates and plate made of iron or hardened leather on his legs and arms. The armour worn from the 1340's to 1370 was probably the heaviest (for wieght) worn at any stage in the middle ages and would have taken a decent shot from a arrow to penatrate.By 1400 the plate was so advanced that the maille had shrunk to T-shirt size.
-
That is off course a rig of a wealthy noble. And plate by 1340 where its really only aditionall protection over chainmail and by 1420´ where its more or less main armour is somehow different.
Though I would not like this to be debate of armour piercing.
You cannot pierce what you cannot hit.
J.
-
When I first suggested this to Jaro it was so that standards of accuracy could be assessed without bias. This means recording a score and finding out your actual average in hard numbers.
Anything else is open to question and reorts tend to be anecdotal.
BTW we have the site of some butts just down the road here at Silk Willoughby hard by the old moot ground, and they are not all that big, considering that they would most likely have been shot from around 12 score paces.
Trouble is the heavy bow guys go all defensive and not interested when you talk of keeping scores.
Don't be faint hearted, shoot 6 dozen on a 48" face at 100 and report your scores.
They can only get better if you practice.
Where do you think target archery came from in the first place...?
Rod.
-
I somehow tend to think these bows are easier to shoot in some sort of clout shooting - but as I wrote at begining of the thread and Rod clears it up - we should record our scores and post a chart so we can keep a track what is possible with these bows and what not.
Jaro
-
That kinds of leads onto an interesting question about shooting style and aiming. The fact is that with a long shaft and especially with a very high draw weight your chances of getting the shaft beneath your eye are very limited which makes very accurate alignment more problematic.
True there are enough images of menshooting with what we might call more of a bowhunters anchor, but that would tend to cut down on your maximum cast.
Given that, so far as I am aware, none of the heavy bow shooters are what I might call competitive in open competition at either instinctive field , clout or target shooting, I reckon any of the present heavy bow shooters would be doing well to make more than 50% hits on a 48" target face at 100 yards.
Before anyone gets up in arms about this statement, it is based upon knowledge of target shooting performance and if you haven't done this, it might be usefulto go out and record some scores before voicing an opinion.
True enough, Mark has won at Herstmonceaux often enough, but the shoot at Herstmonceaux has not until recently been shot by anyone who would be considered a contender at national levels in any discipline, until Dennis Alston turned out in costume. This is not to belittle Mark's achievements, we are acquainted and I like the man, but I have only seen him in open competition once, back in November 200 at Long Eaton and all I can say is that he would probably shoot better scores with a lighter bow, but then that is usually true of anyone who is pushing their comfortable draw weight.
To be honest I only know one heavy bow shooter who is considered competitive in NFAS competition and he shoots about 70lb for such events.
At the end of the day, you have to start somewhere, and I don't think it matters that scores will be relatively low at first.
You need to set a standard to build upon with the heavy bow.
But how many can shoot 60 consecutive arrows with control? This is how you will find out I guess.
I do not think that anecdotal reports of what so and so did are sufficient. These can always be called into question, but an honestly recorded score shot in public gives you an average figure that does not decieve.
Heaven knows, there are enough competitive who will tell you what scoes they can shoot, but never seem to do so in open competition.
So come on heavy bow men, swallow your pride and lets see some recorded scores.
I will be pleasantly surprised if any of you break 50% hits at 100 yards, which is pretty much the yardstick of success for a run of the mill longbow target shooter.
Rod.
-
Rod,
I think there is a very real difference between your style of target shooting, and the kind of shooting that warbows were designed for. You simply are not compairing like for like.
In target shooting a light bow is needed so the "machine" that is the archer can line up his arrow point on his marker in the grass or on the target or perhaps above the target often with the use of a rubber band on the bow to give elevation. Often the archer will have a different bow and arrow set for each distance to allow him to be point on. Once the bow is set in place and the the anchor achieved, the archer holds and gives a very controlled loose. By this type of method and only this type of method (as far as I am aware) do target longbow archers pulling light bows achieve this accuracy at 100 yards. In terms of style they are very fixed and upright, use foot marks and are identical to a high tech archer apart from the fact that they shoot a wooden bow and wooden arrows and not carbon recurved limbs with carbon arrows.
A heavy bow archer cannot use these same methods, and by default cannot be so repetively accurate at a fixed distance. This heavy bow archer can be accurate though in a way the target archer can't. I have shot alongside Mark Stretton on a number of occassions and have seen his accuracy both at Herstmonciuex and in field archery. He pulls a heavy bow, he can shoot very well at unknown distances short and long using instinct. He may not be as accurate on a GNAS shoot, but who cares, he doesn't do that kind of shooting!
I have seen archers being very accurate on roving shoots at long unknown distances. Getting three arrows within three feet of the mark is very good, expecially when shot in wind and over obstacles.
Basically each type of archer can do stuff the other can't. Both may be good, but there is no real point comparing the accuracy of one by asking them to shoot like the other. You may just as well bung one of your GNAS longbow archers in a wood or on a roving field, take all his sightijg aids off him and see if he can be as accurate as the heavy bow shooter!
-
I've allways had a long draw,even when i was a nipper i used to drag the arrow back to my ear,broke loads of bows like that ;D.I stopped frequenting archery clubs because the instructers were allways trying to change my style and been quite bullyish about it,its a bit intimadating when your only ten and some hairy arsed man with a tash is shouting and balling at you "your doing it wrong!!",bollocks i'm doing it right,its you who's doing it wrong!Allways trying to get you on the wheelies too!I hate archery clubs!! ;D.
You dont need to anchor at the face to be a good shot,instinctice shooting can be just as accurate,you dont aim a stone when you throw it do you?
-
Loki,
I was on a roving marks shoot with some friends on Sunday. The marks were gallon metal cans on poles. At one point we were in the right position to shoot at one of these cans from about 40 yards away. Downhill shot with a bank behind and about 40 yards or so away. I really wanted to hear that clang so shot trying to "aim" with a "proper" stance. My first five arrows missed. I decided to do just what came naturally, concentrated soley on the can, shot instinctively and clang, clang, clang my last three arrows all hit and pierced the can. Great feeling and all done without conscious aiming, "proper" anchor, "proper" style etc.
I know I couldn't have done that shot after shot, dozen after dozen, but when the shot needs to count instinct does work just fine!
Mark in England
-
Mark,
I understand quite well the difference in shooting morer than one style, having been involved in shooting clout, target at a competitive standard in both GNAS and BLBS as well as unmarked distance field in NFAS.
Also I shot small game as a child when it was still legal and in later years shot a 90lb bow with somewhat less accuracy than I could achieve with a bow in the 50lb to 70lb range of draw weight.
Your comments reflect the fact that there are two levels of archery at present.
There are those who seem to have some expertise in a narrow field of archery, and there are those who can make a showing in every discipline, though not necessarily be the top man in all or indeed in any one of them.
Rod.
-
To continue from my last post. Without intending a pun, I think Mark misses the point.
It is not about who can shoot the highest score and how they do it and with what draw weight.
It is about establishing a base for future reference that can provide an initial measure on consistent accuracy.
What would one of todays heavy bow shooters say is his captain were to post him some 100 paces out and said " stay here all day and shoot anyone whosticks their head out of that sally porte".
Would his reply have been that he was not accustomed to shooting repetitively at the same mark at a fixed distance? I don't think so..
He would be, like the two men who were sent home before Azincourt when they could not shoot 10 in a minute, on the next boat home.
Rod.
-
Rod,
Sorry you think I miss the point, but you later on say exactly what I was trying to point out.
You no doubt are well aware that there was a basic but good standard expected of the English longbow archers (and even the Welsh too!). these were all good archers , were often hand picked and proved themselves capable of pulling the weight, reaching the needed distances and having the required accuracy. A few archers from the very best were picked as the equivalent of todays snipers. These especialy accurate archers were given the tasks such as picking off the noblemen (with permission) and acting as person bodyguards etc.
Anyway to get back to your point the archer who has to stand there all day at 100 yards waiting for someone to stick their head out would have only a moment to draw, aim and loose. He would be using a heavy bow and a heavy armour piercing arrow at at maximum distance, though [perhaps behind a pavisse for protection. He would have no option but to use a heavy bow stance, the draw length was long and to the chest or ear and the aiming method used must have been instinctive. This archer would have been good enough that only a very brave or foolish person stuck their head out! My point (which I hope you won't miss) is that this same archer could probably not have done this consistently at a target for adozens of arrows. The human concentration is simply not that good.
Howard Hill was a phenominal instinctive snap shooter, but a failry poor target archer. By all accounts Ishi was a very good shot in a hunting environment, but poor at a target, he said the target was to big!
My point, which does not miss yours I hope is that a target archer uses various shooting aids to help a mechanical repetative shooting method, because that is what will get results for dozens of arrows at a known distance. A heavy longbow archer cannot do this, but this heavy bow archer can do stuff the target archer cannot. The target archer is the equivalent of the prone target rifle shooter, the warbow archer the equivalent of a skeet shooter. They use completely differetn methods and instincts. To say that the heavy bow archer has to shoot and record his scores like a target archer to prove his accuracy defeats the object.
-
Continuing with the theme of 'standards of accuracy'.
I was shooting clout (BLBS shoot in Wales) this weekend and it was interesting to notice out of the 15 or so archers on the line with me the target was only hit 3 or 4 times during the whole day.
Statistically if we were to look at the Welsh Championships of 2006 out of the 3096 arrows shot over 180 yards only 13 hit the 30 inch target. This is suprising as the draw weights were all under 70lbs with archers using bands to assist with aiming. Not great accuracy I would argue?
I feel the same difficulties present themselves to both the 'brass piles' as well as the bodkins over distance.
Outcaste
-
Well, the talkng is over for the time being. I spoke to Mark Stretton last night and not only is he aware of this thread, but he is happy to meet and set a benchmark score.
I like Mark's attitude, instead of coming up with reasons why he can't do it, he is interesting in discovering what can be done.
We won't be doing this immediately, but perhaps in the next month or so when we can get together at a mutually convenient time.
If anyone else wants to do it, we will use a 48" (122cm) target face at 100 yards.
All arrows will count, no sighters or practice arrows.
30 or 60 arrows to be shot in ends of 3 or 6.
Scoring 9 for gold, 7 for red, 5 for blue, 3 for black, 1 for white.
Line cutters count for the higher score.
Record number of hits, total score and number of golds.
This should be independently witnessed since accounts from private practice can be called into question.
Rod.
-
Once the meadows under my window gets cutI try this and post results.
Jaro
-
Well Jaro,
If your feeling bold you can go straight in and record a score, but I'm thinking you might want to practice first...
(It is interesting to note that in the Tang dynasty the military archery examination required a one stone (167lb) bow to be shot at a straw mannequin at 105 paces and to qualiofy for the first class grade, ALL your arrows had to hit).
Rod.
-
Well well....Since I was not able to walk around christmas I might need some excersise, but other than observing arrows flight, what good it would be if I train for the attempt?
I mean, off course that practice is good and everyone improves with it, but if I want unbiased result........
The benchmark is definitelly a good thing.
Jaro
-
Thought you guys would like to see this....
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa82/Outcastebowman/Dscn7276.jpg
Yeomanbowman and myself have made a man sized knight to test our accuracy and others at Batsford this weekend. Thought it was a bit more fun than a regular target ;D
It should give us an insight in to "standards of accuracy".
Cheers, Outcaste
-
How far away was that and what was the recorded % of hits?
Rod.
-
They havent shot him yet Rod;D.
Nice target Outcaste,it will be interesting to see/hear the results,it does make it fun shooting at targets like that,i had a Scotsman who was made from a stuffed WetSuit with a football for a head and one of those daft ginger wigs ;D.
-
Howard Hill was a phenominal instinctive snap shooter, but a failry poor target archer.
When Hill still toured the target tournaments before concentrating on his hunting endeavours, he won a consecutive 196 target shoots, in a time when every archer shot what we now call primitive bows. There allegedly were target archers who refused to participate in events where Hill was present, due to his phenomenal success.
Hill's personal best in the American Round stands at 684 points. Quite a feat with a bare wood bow and wood arrows, as anyone who's shot the American Round with similar gear can attest. A fairly poor target archer? No way.
Tuukka
-
Thought you guys would like to see this....
Very nice, guys :)! Have fun+success, I'm curious about the outcome.
Heiner
-
I've read a lot about Hill and he wasn't an instinctive shooter or a snap shooter either. He used the split-vision reference style and anchored carefully to the same tooth each time.
I have heard rumors that Keasy beat Hill in a tournament in California once but everything else says he won every event he entered. ???
J. D. Duff
-
I dont like the guy >:(
Wonder how the lads got on at Batsford,hope they have some pics.
-
Hi,
Just out of interest the knight was shot at twice (am@130yards and pm@150yards) with one arrow per archer unfortunately he wasn't hit except by the juniors at very close range. Intersting really when all the heavy bow shooters that come to mind were gathered together in one place.
One good thing though at least we don't have to print out another target face so soon!
Cheers, Outcaste
-
It was a really good target too, it looked 3D from a distance. I was right on distance, but a foot to the right, which I weren't too unhappy with. How did you get on with the field shoot mate? I'm affraid I wasn't prepared to go out in the pissin' rain again as I got soaked watchin' the bird of prey display the evenin' before.
-
Hi jb.68
Only my second time on a 3D shoot. Went around with Jeremy, Steve and his son. Got soaked, broke a bow and scored 296 from the 32 targets.
Cheers, Outcaste
-
LOL. Getting soaked is par for the course in field shooting, especially if you shoot on the Welsh borders. I recall one time getting so wet and cold that I took off my waterproofs and put on wet woollens to get warm and the only part of me that wasn't soaked was the inside of the pouch on my quiver set and only then because I had not opened it all day.
Another time we shot in sleet and were held up behind a group with an incompetent crossbow archer who had to look in the dead leaves and snow for his bolt on almost every target. FRF wanted us to jump his group, but I said that no way was I going to be anywhere on that field course where I could not clearly see this idiot in front of me....
BTW FRF has a three clout end badge that was given him by Bert Smith when he put three consecutive arrows in the clout (36" diameter) at 180 yards, so with a little practice you might be able to hit a man sized figure at 100 or so...
Keep trying...
Rod.
-
I note with interest that no-one has yet done this.....
Rod.