Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Badger on June 27, 2007, 02:48:31 pm
-
I really admire the perfect tillers I have seen on many of these elbs posted here. They are tougher than they look. I was thinking about that today, on a flatbow I may only tiller about 16" on each limb, on an elb you have to tiller and ballance then entire bow! 80" in some cases. Not sure where I am going with this but hats off to the great work I have been seeing on here. Steve
-
Not to mention keeping to center is so critical and not so simple. Some of these super heavy bows from character staves are really inspiring. It ain't as easy it they make it look!
-
They really are quite the works or skill. They look so simple and easy compared to composite bows and other European/Asian designs, but looks can be deceiveing!
-
My first attempt became a nice set of extra-long yew drumsticks. So I concur.
-
Thanks Steve. Finally a small concession to those of us who slave away for days on these 'simple, beginner bows.' The more I know about the English designs, the more convinced I am that they are some of the hardest to tiller. Did you read the comments to this effect on the 'simple D bows thread?' Almost no one agreed with me over there.
You really nailed the essence of it--controlling 16" of working wood is just easier than controlling 72" of working wood.
J. D. Duff
-
I finished one today, great little shooter, held profile nicely, performance is right up there, and best of all I finaly got the handshock out of my elbs, BUT!!! The tiller, I am embarrassed to post it! I keep hitting target draw weight on these things before I am done tillering! I will try and post it tomorrow morning anyway. Steve
-
JD, not necessarily disagreeing with you on the D bows thread, just saying that the vast majority of D bows are not English longbows, nor are/were they neccessarily tillered like one, nor do they have to be to be efficient and effective weapons. If you want to make a true replica English longbow, that's one thing. If you are trying to follow the spirit of an Eastern Woodlands Indian flatbow (or South American, or African, or Papuan, or any number of other D bow styles) why should you try to tiller it like an ELB when it ain't one? Most of these styles of D bows were in use and keeping people fed and defended long before the ELB ever came along. The people of Northern and central Europe also used D bows that weren't ELB's for thousands of years. Oetzi the ice man was carrying one. What I disagree with is the attitude that English Long Bows are somehow inherently superior to other types of bows, and that everyone else should look to the ELB as the shining pinnacle of bowyership, as if it's the only real and true bow design in the world (plus it probably needs to pull at least a couple hundred pounds or more to be a real bow lol). Not saying that you yourself said or implied this, but it's a common attitude found in archery literature for the last century and a half. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with ELBs, either-I like them and hope to make a couple more in the future, but variety is the spice of life.
-
It's funny, I got into this bow making thing because I wanted an ELB, but the prices were crazy expensive. And I quickly found out there are so many other designs and way not enough time. I also would want to shoot my bows, so 110 pounds seems counter productive except to see if I can make one that powerful. The war bow guys do some splendid work (that includes JD of course), but the Asiatic composite seems the ultimate bow to me at the moment (and my core is just about ready finally so I can begin work on the horn!). I doubt I will ever get tired of the prehistoric bows, also.
-
Yes, ELB's are a difficult tiller. Not all ELB's are D bows and not all D bows are ELB's though. I like my bows 62-66 in so I don't like the length needed for an ELB. :) Jawge
-
JD, not necessarily disagreeing with you on the D bows thread, just saying that the vast majority of D bows are not English longbows, nor are/were they necessarily tillered like one, nor do they have to be to be efficient and effective weapons. If you want to make a true replica English longbow, that's one thing. If you are trying to follow the spirit of an Eastern Woodlands Indian flatbow (or South American, or African, or Papuan, or any number of other D bow styles) why should you try to tiller it like an ELB when it ain't one? Most of these styles of D bows were in use and keeping people fed and defended long before the ELB ever came along. The people of Northern and central Europe also used D bows that weren't ELB's for thousands of years. Oetzi the ice man was carrying one. What I disagree with is the attitude that English Long Bows are somehow inherently superior to other types of bows, and that everyone else should look to the ELB as the shining pinnacle of bowyership, as if it's the only real and true bow design in the world (plus it probably needs to pull at least a couple hundred pounds or more to be a real bow lol). Not saying that you yourself said or implied this, but it's a common attitude found in archery literature for the last century and a half. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with ELBs, either-I like them and hope to make a couple more in the future, but variety is the spice of life.
I understand you there Hillbilly. I certianly wasn't taking offense at any of your comments. I over-complicated my argument by introducing the topic of English designs. I used them as an example because I know more about them than other 'D' designs. I had two basic arguments for why it's hard to tiller 'D' bows; they are:
First, seeing, judging and controlling the bend on a long piece of wood is harder than on a short piece of wood. Elliptical bows have 12"+ of stiff handle and another 12-20" of stiff tips. That leaves you with much less bending wood to focus your attention on.
Second, a bow that has perfectly circular tiller at 24" will be round in the handle at 28." With a circular tiller the bend progresses into the handle so those who are trying to get their bows looking/acting a certain way will need predict how this tiller will evolve through the draw. That's just a confusing way of saying the biggest mistake bowyers will make while trying to achieve circular tiller is getting a bow that bends too much in the handle.
As far as your comments about the English designs, I understand that there was a historic preoccupation with English styles during the golden age of American archery, but I don't I really see it so much anymore. Osage and hickory flatbows dominate the scene and most of the English styled bows posted on this site follow the English recipe rather casually. I'll admit that I have a bit of 'the English disease' that Saxton Pope and others had. I need to educate myself more on Native American archery for sure so I can compare these two worlds of archery more evenhandedly. But, I am perplexed with the short-bow obsession of some people in light of sacrifices one has to make in cast and accuracy to shoot such weapons. In terms of power and accuracy, English longbows are pretty brilliant. They can send 1,400 grain arrows out at 190 fps, they can stack arrow after arrow into a 9" gold at 100 yards, and they can down lots of the king's deer for the merry men. ;D The English designs developed out of heavily-funded, organized military development and the result is something simple, refined and rather special.
J. D. Duff
-
I know where Hillbilly is coming from with his comments on D bows and the English "mystique".I made a post about Timucuans and Caloosa Indians penetrating mail with common cane arrows with sharpened wooden points and was totally ignored.Even though the thread was on penetration of heavy poundage bows.I just chalked it up to everybody wasn't really discussing heavy bows ,really English heavy bows.
JD,There really is not a disavantage with a short bow as far as cast and power.If you are hunting targets or circles in the dirt,maybe so.But after an arrow makes a complete pass through shot and the animal falls down it doesn't really matter how far the arrow goes.I also think there are a few Flight shooters that might disagree also.
You said,"In terms of power and accuracy,English longbows are pretty brilliant"Well, Like you said you might need to explore and try some new things. :)
-
I know where Hillbilly is coming from with his comments on D bows and the English "mystique".I made a post about Timucuans and Caloosa Indians penetrating mail with common cane arrows with sharpened wooden points and was totally ignored.Even though the thread was on penetration of heavy poundage bows.I just chalked it up to everybody wasn't really discussing heavy bows ,really English heavy bows.
JD,There really is not a disavantage with a short bow as far as cast and power.If you are hunting targets or circles in the dirt,maybe so.But after an arrow makes a complete pass through shot and the animal falls down it doesn't really matter how far the arrow goes.I also think there are a few Flight shooters that might disagree also.
You said,"In terms of power and accuracy,English longbows are pretty brilliant"Well, Like you said you might need to explore and try some new things. :)
Hey Eddie,
I am not completely ignorant on other designs. I've made a lot of flatbows and I really like them. I read just about everything I can get my hands on about all different styles. But, even if I were completely ignorant on all other designs, it wouldn't make everything I said above wrong would it? Here's a little more:
1. A basic axiom of target archery is that length equates to stability. Ishi was probably an excellent shot within his method of shooting but he excelled at short ranges where almost any bow would suffice. Steve Allelly has an English longbow in his personal collection and told me not long ago that he had to ditch his Ishi-style bow for his English longbow in the middle of hunting season because the little bow was hurting his elbow and he was having accuracy problems. He prefers hunting with a Native American design but says an English longbow is more accurate and it obviously adapts to his style of hunting.
2. Generally speaking, there is a cast and power advantage with longer bows. Less stack equates to higher early draw weight and more working length allows for longer draws and fat fd curves. "Short bows perform almost unbelievably slower than longer bows," Tim Baker. Read the 'West Coast' chapter of TBB1 and look at the pictures of the little bows the native Americans in my area shot. Compare that with Lewis and Clark's comments that every elk they killed while they wintered here (5 miles from my house) had broken-off Indian arrows in it. By today's standards, they were guilty of egregious, unethical hunting.
I am sorry that your post on mail penetration was ignored but that just happens here. Half of what I say is ignored. Make that everthing. Anyway, I have no doubt that a sharp stick would penetrate mail. A long bodkin arrow shot out of a EWB will hardly slow down going through chain mail. Mail doesn't stop sharp projectiles as well as it does other things. A cane/chain mail penetration test would be very interesting to see and I hope you do one and post the results.
As far as your comment about hunting targets and circles in the dirt let me just say--I get slightly miffed at the implication of so many members of the primitive archery world that pass-through shots and dead animals are the only thing that matters. As if primitive archery is so pathetically narrow in its scope. For thousands of years bow cultures have been engaging in flight shooting, warfare, target competitions, using bows as musical instruments, entertaining with tricky shots, and so on. I'm an avid hunter but I don't make the mistake of thinking that hunting is the only thing a bow is supposed to do. Hunting is illeagle in many parts of the world and it may one day be illeagle here. What am I going to do, abandon my love for archery and take up tennis? Not hardly.
You assume that I need to educate myself and try new things because I would say something so foolish as "In terms of power and accuracy, English longbows are pretty brilliant." I'm sure you could teach me a great deal about native American bows, but could it be that you don't understand the English design well enough to see why I said they were 'brilliant'? If you don't care about them enough to study the design, why would you be upset when someone like me does study them and finds them to be something special?
J. D. Duff
-
I have a real nice horn beam stav about 72" long, I think this morning I will go out and try to turn it into about a 120# flatbow to see how it will stack against the elbs as far as cast. Probably wont have to take off all that much wood LOL. Steve
-
Sounds like a good project. How wide do you suspect it will be for 120#s? My most heavy flatbow draws about 100#s at 30".
J. D. Duff
-
JD, the stave is 2 1/8 wide, Will have to play the design by feel I think, leaving it wide down to 12" before tip right now and center 10" of handle and fades will be stiff, I think I will be lucky to get it to 28", Curious how it will perform against an elb of equal weight. Steve
-
I think my heavy flatbow is 69" ntn and 1 1/2" wide. It's the crabapple bow which I suppose has a similar density to horn beam. I've drawn it 30" or so. Pretty amazing wood--no set. I'm just finishing another crabapple bow I've been working on for a long time. I'll post it soon. I wish I could get more of that wood. :P
J. D.
-
Hey J D,I wasn't trieing to pick a fight with you.I was just commenting on the same attitude that Hillbilly has seen also.I don't have a problem with ELB's.I like making them myself.The comment about learning new things was your quote.
As far as short bows or bows that are not ELB's which seems to be the issue.There are lot's of different ones.Re curve,RF/DF,and so on.I wouldn't hunt anything here with one of those West coast bows myself.But the Indigenous people probally had to do what was needed to eat.
I know it's illeagle to hunt in alot of foreign countries,the people living there let that happen but that's another issue.If that attitude catches on here I'm sure we could look forward to the same thing.I target shoot also.I'm going to a shoot Sunday as I do every other Sunday when it's not hunting season.I guess I am narrow minded,I build bows to hunt with,I go to 3-D shoots for the camaraderie and to hone my shooting skills for hunting.I don't care about trophies and plaques.Like I said, I wasn't trieing to pick a fight,But it always seems like If somebody doesn't agree about how brilliant the ELB is then the ELB community gets real defensive.
-
Steve Allelly has an English longbow in his personal collection and told me not long ago that he had to ditch his Ishi-style bow for his English longbow in the middle of hunting season because the little bow was hurting his elbow and he was having accuracy problems. He prefers hunting with a Native American design but says an English longbow is more accurate and it obviously adapts to his style of hunting.
Generally speaking, there is a cast and power advantage with longer bows. Less stack equates to higher early draw weight and more working length allows for longer draws and fat fd curves. "Short bows perform almost unbelievably slower than longer bows," Tim Baker.
Because it does not fit Steve Allelly's (whomever that is) hunting style, don't mean anything. You would never get a shot off with that long of a bow when hunting around here. You have to get to dang high off the ground to draw and will be seen.
While length does add to stability, it does not necessarily add to performance. The additional weight of the long limbs can in fact rob more energy than it gives. Short bows shoot with equal draw length shoot faster, until the string angle becomes an issue. This can be solved with re curves. If we were to compare range and energy, I would be packing a Asiatic Hornbow. Short with high draw weight and no fretting.
Ironically Baker states that Ishi style bows, wide limb narrow handle, D-bows, are the hardest to tiller. I would think the shorter and heavier the less forgiving. But I hate to even compare bows. What is next? Comparing compounds? Justin
-
I'm going to stay out of this one but to say I met Steve at the Black Butes Knappinn. (Nice guy to boot!) He was showing the bow and arrow he just used to take a nice little buck. I believe it was a Maidu style bow but not to sure about it. These short bows do make meat but they are meant for ambush hunting and close in shots. Steve also mentioned he liked bows arround 45# for hunting in this style since they allowed you to hold draw for a while untill the deer was in just the right position for the shot to be taken. He also said that most of the originals were even lighter in weight.
But the cool thing is that the 50# short Modoc bows a few friends I made there, Yep Billy and Dave thats you guys! ;D , had 50# bows arround 50-56" long that were shooting just as fast if not faster and just as accurate as some of the ELB's I've come across in simmilar weight range. Personaly I think you need to judge bows used by past societies not against eachother but against the environments and sittuations they were being used in.
Just my personal two cents on the subject!
David T
-
I think there has been a mixup on what you all are talking about some say a dbow and I was thinking All english longbows do have a d cross section, thats because they could turn out alot of bows fast, not haveing the big flat surface to scrape made tillering the elb alot faster, by being able to take off narrower strips on the rounded belly, Right? Well I can still make a ALB shoot harder and farther than a english tillered bow, because I have done the testing, and the english were lucky to have yew to do it with because it can stand the compression on the round belly.D crosssection isnt the same as a D tiller. Trappe Or am I just blowing SMOKE
-
Personaly I think you need to judge bows used by past societies not against eachother but against the environments and sittuations they were being used in.
Exactly. The purpose of the english longbow was to launch a very heavy arrow to punch through armour. To launch such an arrow a respectable distance you need a long draw length, hence the long bow. It's pointless comparing it with a bow designed for sneaking up on a deer.
For many of us, its not just the design of the longbow that makes it attractive, its all the history surrounding it.
-
Apples and oranges... Seems like all tillering is tough... tillering is where you" put the cards on the table".. the single most important part of all bowmaking , especially if you're looking for performance, as we all are ... Traditional D section elb's seem much easier to tiller with the right wood ...good yew... even cedar
Flat bows seem so much less "wood critical"..you can tiller a shovel handle if you're good enough...
I'm sure there was a long apprenticeship for the English bowyer... same old story ...Practice...Practice...Practice
Just for Fun and practice we regularly make 18" -24"test bows of all shapes which shoot nail tipped bamboo skewers (2 fletch) through the chronograph >200fps.. that gets their attention...
-
D crosssection isnt the same as a D tiller. Trappe Or am I just blowing SMOKE
Nope, not blowing smoke. What I refer to as a D-bow is a bow with a D tiller (no relation to D. Tiller with a period after the D-the notorius world-renowned maker and purveyer of fine soaps :) ) Having a D-shaped cross section sets the ELB apart from most other D-bows, which are usually flat or semi-flat bellied designs with the exception of a few round cross-sectioned ones.
-
Justin,
Steve A. is one of the TBB authors and coauthored the Encyclopedias of Native American bows and arrows with Jim Ham. He also draws most of the illustrations for the work in the Bowyer's Bibles. I used him as an example because he knows what he's talking about and even though he is an ambush hunter, he can use and elb in his blinds and tree stands.
As far as performance goes, a lot of people seem to think that a 45 degree string-angle stack is the only thing you are trying to avoid. A 72" bow stores more energy in ten inches of draw than a 69" bow. I know there are obvious limits to lengthening due to limb mass/string mass etc. With heavy arrows, the performance advantage is nearly always with the longer bow.
Mullet,
I was just reacting to what I perceive to be a general 'Native Americans never made a mistake' attitude.
I still wish to ask short bow advocates how Howard Hill managed to kill anything with a 72" bow if its too long to hunt with. The Thompson brothers hunted Mullet's neck of the woods with bows up to 84".
Good discussion. I hope no one is going to assume that I think the ELB is the only good design. In my reading, I have found that they tend to be treated as markedly inferior to American designs and I do disagree with that.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, I normaly try to avoid using fps numbers here because it has more to do with the shooter sometimes than the bows they are testing, but just speaking for my own bows tested side by side I have gotten the normal hunting weight elbs into the same speed range as the albs, the albs do seem to average out a bit faster but not by that much. The design has to match the wood regardless of the style you are building. Whern building a heavy bow, especially a longer draw heavy bow the design almost begs to be an elb. When using a heavy wood like osage say in the 60# or less class you have to kind of fudge the tiller and leave the center stiff to get any kind of performance out of them most of the time so the alb seems to make more sense for them. A 60" elb style with osage can perform very well even bending through the handle. I don't think there is a best style just a best style for what you are making and what you have to make it with. If you were to make a fiberglass elb say 140# and 80" long that bent through the handle I imagine you could run as fast as the arrow. Steve
-
Trapper, I usually assume that people are referring to a D-tiller, unless the say Profile.
JD, A longer bow may or may not store more energy. But it is putting more back into the arrow that counts. A longer bow has more wood. This increases the mass, possibility for hysteresis, and possibility of string stretch. You just have to many variables. A 50" recurve with a low brace will without doubt store more energy than a straight bow of 70" if drawn to 10". But at a long draw may not put the energy back into the arrow because of stacking. It could in fact store more energy, but be less efficient. I think it would be way to broad of a statement to say that any design is more efficient without discussing a million other factors.
You have to be carefull not to believe everything when reading about Native American bows. Some of the information is taken from bows they have seen, already finished. A lot is fill in the blank with your best guess. I am quite sure that some people have legitemate info, but there are a lot more that are going on hearsay. Go ask the local NA to teach you about making bows and to teach you their secrets. You will get very little info. You cant really blame the NA. Look at how they have been treated. Look at the Lewis and Clark statement about finding arrowheads in every elk they shot. I think we can all agree that the statement is somewhat bias. Even today traditional bowyers have a higher recovery rate than rifle hunters. And most of us cannot compete with the NA for accuracy in our wildest hallucinations.
It said in TBB that they needed lots of bows and the narrow design allowed them to get more bows per tree. It almost made it sound like the design was achieved by hap-hazard coincidence. I would suspect it was a little more than an accident.
Justin
-
I made the argument years ago that an elb limb shape is the most efficient use of material, not just from the obvious pov, but also in terms of mass to energy storage. This based just on the superficial aspect, hooke's law. Whether the extra lenght required offets the gains in width was the core of the question. I resolved it would depend a lot upon the working qualities of the wood in question and the environment it would be used in, essentially the criteria for any bow. I think it not an accident the elb shape evolved the way it did. I think it would be difficult to demonstrate a broad generalization of whether it is "better" in any particular aspect, as it would for any bow, because context is the most critical consideration.
I like D bows, and elbs, but for different reasons.
-
Dave, I think once a bowyer gets some experience behind him the wood starts telling him what is best suited to a certain extent. Some woods and draw weight combinations can be effectively done in a wide variety of ways. Right now I am working on a 120# 72" alb, stiff narrow handled and fade. It really feels odd and my instinct is telling me it would have been much better suited as an elb. I am going to try and finish it up just to see how it works out but am not real confident at this point it will work. I may just have to go for one of those
"as much as I can get out of it " type bows. Around 90# seems like it would be more feasable. Steve
-
Justin,
I am aware of the multitude of factors at play. I assume that when I am talking to you, Badger, Mullet, Marc, Hillbilly, and other experienced bowyers that we are taking those factors into consideration before we present our perspectives. I also assume that you know the advantage lies with high energy storage when shooting heavy arrows.
I don't know if you've ever seen this, but there is video footage of an actual Mary Rose bow being pulled on a tillering tree. They tested a number of them. What they found was that they had perfect tiller and--despite a variety of bowyer's marks and sections--the draws progressed the same way with the handle bending in the last 3" inches of draw. These were not mass-produced, short-lived junk bows. They were masterfully tillered. What impressed me as I studied them was that they were more complicated than I thought. Every Mary Rose bow is unique as they were built by a lots of bowyers but they all follow a prescribed pattern that reveals a thorough knowledge of energy storage and mass placement. For example, they could have used self nocks if they were willing to have 3/4" wide tips, but instead they added horn tips and scraped every extra grain of wood off that they could. The result was a bow that outperforms $1,200 Blackwidow recurves with arrows @ 9 gr. per pound of draw weight.
Free Speculation: If the bow would have performed better with rectangular sections, it's hard to imagine the King of England saying, 'well, let's just build them the fast way anyhow.' For my money, producing oval-D section limbs like the MR bows is way harder than building flatbows any day of the week.
On the hunting bow subject:
Being the successful hunter that you are, and taking into consideration that you say you group arrows out to 30+ yards--you have obviously developed a system that works very well. I'm seriously jealous.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, the more I look at the english longbow the more I can appreciate the science behind them. As you were saying they require a thourough knowledge of all the factors involved, it goes way beyond just good tillering. The money and research that we put into military weaponry was undoubtedly considered just as inportant at the time of the Mary rose bows. I feel certain they had their best minds and best craftsman developing the most effective weaponry they could come up with. When you look at the growth rings on the belly of the mary rose bows it reveals exactly how they expected them to bend. That was interesting that you said the handle only flexed in the last 3 inches of draw, it makes perfect sense. Their limb timing was carefully planned. The limbs probably lay out like a flyline if examined under slow motion. I am really excited that we have some individuals that have taken this back up and are willing to put in the time and effort to rediscover these bows. Steve
-
You bet your bippy war bows were well designed and crafted. What bowyer wants to deal with an irate, if still living, archer after his bow breaks in combat. :) Jawge
-
JD-as you said, taking the factors and context into consideration makes it hard to compare different types of bows. I'd say the ELB is the premier design for it's intended use- accurately slinging heavy arrows long distances. That's why I probably gravitate to the designs I usually make- my context is hunting and 3D shooting at fairly close ranges, and I make bows that perform well and feel right to me for those uses. I also usually shoot with the bow canted almost horizontally-not the best form with a longbow. I couldn't hit a barn at 200 yards, much less a mounted Frenchman :)
-
You hit the nail on the head Hillbilly - totally different bows for different uses. You can't compare them. The warbow is goliath and the hunting flatbow is david. One is a man's bow and the other is ...well, a toy.
-
Steve,
I had a little time to look in on this site. I want to get back to your topic for a minute. I had an aspiring bowyer over here a while back to teach him how to build a wood bow. I worked with him from 10 in the morning, to 10 at night. He started shooting the bow about dark. I let the wood and his long draw determine the design. I pointed out to him that even though a 72" bend in the handle bow seems like an easy design, it was really a better design after you have had a few bows under your belt. Add to that, I narrowd the bend in the handle bow at the handle to help with paradox! That really makes it tricky.
I notice you bite your toung pretty well. ;-) You have talked about the design elements and what they do I am sure. We just need to make flight archers out of everyone! ;D
I love all bows! I haven't made many ELB's. Doubt if I have made a dozen. Too cheap to buy the wood that can handle the cross section mostly. I will say that I have enjoyed them very much. Yes, tiller takes a while until you get use to them.
My favorite bows, for the most part, are long bows. English, American, my own design, doesn't matter. I only draw 27" stretched out! but I often shoot bows 70" long or longer. They perform well if built right.
I have to admit, I wasn't shooting a yew longbow well at the archery competition of the State mountain man rondezvoo one year.
I pulled out a 65# bend in the handle hickory plains style bow, sinew backed, 54" nock to nock, and was shooting it better. I used it to edge out my Buddy Don Burge for first place! He was using a yew ALB. But over all, I usually do much better with a long bow.
I repeat, They are all good, we shoot what we like and what fits out preferences. I am just happy that every wood bow is someones favorite. Last week I asked my back yard neighbor if he was ready to give up his training wheels yet! LOL. (I was building those bows in the early 70's)
Dan
-
Dan, that little 50# elb you had at the flight shoots last year was no slouch, putting arrows out over 300 yards!. That would be a nice bow to post here with full draw pics, I think you gave it to Charlie allready if I am not mistaken. I have been trying to come up with an idea for some kind of flight kit that could be mailed around the country for flight shoots. Maybe just a hansen spring scale, digital grain scale and a 100 yard tape. The whole thing would have to rely on well trained officials, this would be the toughest part and possibly the deal breaker. One or two questionable shoots and the whole thing would loose all credibility. Steve
-
..........................................Well Simon Uk since yer think a huntin' flatbow is "Well....a toy" to quote you why not stand out 25 yards and let a hunting archer with a 55 lb huntin' flatbow shoot at you. When he drives an arrow through you see if you still think its a toy? Iam sure you didn't really mean what you said!.......bob
-
I am not sure but I think he was reffering to the heavyweight elbs as being man toys. They obviously have the potencial to be much more than toys but how we use them today the term might qualify in it's broader sense. Steve
-
No offence to anyone, I was just kidding ;)
-
Twang-thwack! ;D
-
Ouch! :o