draw weights on horseback

[Angela]

? Most interestingly, the bow with the lowest draw weight, nr. 203, had the highest arrow speed and showed the highest effectivity in target shooting.

Are these the results from Table 1 (p. 40)? I can't read German, but it looks like the arrow speed for nr. 203 (188.8 N -> 42#) is 41.3 m/s (135.5 fps). However, the entry for nr. 103 (235.6 N -> 53#) seems to have the highest arrow speed at 44.6 m/s (146.3 fps), though the nr. 102 bow (219.6 N --> 49#) isn't far behind at 44.5 m/s (146.0 fps). Maybe I'm misreading it.

Not sure myself - the conclusion about the lighter bow being faster was the author's conclusion (page 50 right hand side), not mine. His exact words (my translation): "Surprisingly for us, thet composite bow nr. 203, which had the lowest draw weight according to figure 12, often showed higher "throw speeds" (not sure how to translate wurfgeschwindigkeit, that would be arrow speed measured very close to the bow) with all arrows as compared to the somewhat stronger bow nr. 101, while the two othr composite bows 201 and 202 were lower than the comparable but sinew-backed bows 101 and 102. Respectively, bow nr. 203 shows the highest effectivity (table 15). The shape of the bow is similar to nr. 204, showwn in figures 8, 9 lower and 10, while bows 201 and 202 (figs 8-9 upper and middle) have a shorter handle with more angular curves above and below. Whether this or the greater mass (and therefore inertia) of bows 201 and 202 accounted for the relatively higher effectivity of bow 203 cannot be ascertained, as the bow broke during the first stringing after the winter season." Natch.

As far as I know Adam is building very strong composite bows for flight shooting. The statement above also contradicts these tests: http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performanc ... h_bows.htm

The author quotes Karpowicz and his Turkish bow reconstructions several times. Possibly they mean some kind of draw weight-effectivity radio, or the most effective draw weight for a specific range? To be honest, I am absolutely clueless about bow building, physics etc, there are several such graphs in the article and there is much talk of physical properties, but I have no idea what they all mean... I don't have the origical publication by Karpowicz which Godehard is referring to, but it will be in the references list, perhaps someone has it?

Also, do you have any information on the shaft diameter (if any) found in Scythian graves? Maybe the arrow tip can provide some information here.

I am pretty sure I have something on that, will check it later. I remember the diameter was surprisingly low, but I will get back to you with figures. But here again we have the problem of not knowing whether they were really used that way or just for grave goods. I think the Olon Kurin Gol arrows didn't even have metal tips.

[jbl]

This is interesting because on another forum I just was reading the "virtues" of heavy bows. One thing I can tell you from hunting experience with a a 45# bow is here in North America with the right arrows it will go through game like a knife through butter. Granted there are no armor coated animals here but a 45# bow with the right arrow combination will kill any animal in NA. I know a little different then horse back archery but I think we in general under estimate the power of a "light weight" bow.

I am not saying that, that our ancestors used 45# I believe they used bows in the 80+# range. These were people born and breed to the bow their lives depended on their ability with that weapon not only in warfare but on the hunt. It stands to reason they shoot the heaviest draw weight possible.

Now as far as armor penetration I would be very interested in seeing some studies. I think the one thing we forget is much of the knowledge our ancestors had in building a composite bow figurtively and literally went to the grave with them; so are bows we make today as efficient as those who depended on the bow for their lives? I am not talking down anyone's work just making a statement about what we have today vs what our ancestors relied upon for the lives.

I think it is interesting the bowyers today making these bows are always evolving as the technology of these weapons is "rediscovered." I was just having a disscussion with a friend about how Grozer and Kassai bows have come light years ahead in the last few years in regards to pleasntness to shoot and efficiency. Maybe someday we will have a Magyar or Hun bow that is as good as the "real deal." Again I am not knocking anybody's work I think Adam showed us with his Scythian Bow we can come close if not an actual bow by the careful study of the archelogical and historical data.

[Angela]

I am not saying that, that our ancestors used 45# I believe they used bows in the 80+# range. These were people born and breed to the bow their lives depended on their ability with that weapon not only in warfare but on the hunt. It stands to reason they shoot the heaviest draw weight possible.

In my opinion it stands to reason that they should shoot the most effective draw weight, not the heaviest, and when shooting from horseback the two are not necessarily the same. The most effective one is the strongest you can shoot from horseback without compromising the other advantages (and the mobility and flexibility you need to profit from those advantages). Most people seem to forget that horseback archery is not just archery from a moving platform. The bow is only part of the weapon.

I think we in general under estimate the power of a "light weight" bow.

I agree with you on that one.

[Dusan]

You talked about 45lb wood bow vith wood arrows , JBL - or..? I am litlle tired from this "lightweghits " bla,bla...

Its very sad that one of "profesionals" archeologist or historician (In global very rare Atarnos here ) have this conviction. I think we dont need discusion vith "profesional"or "unprofesional" arguements shots. I think - like in most questions -please use common sence !

People in practise real life was not stupid 5000 years ago like today (or same )When hunting was only "game " today- in old times its -like war- life or death question!
If soldiers -mi live was in dangerous situation (if i was in Afganistan -for ex.) i dont use litlle berreta revolver but seriouz machine gun - or if situation is very bad - maibe Phantoms vith rockets -its more better !

In another point if i hunt small bird or rabbits i dont use big arrowheads, more -no iron heads- only wod blunt.
Stop this no logical arguements blabla. Once you fight , Angela- real fight, or stai aginst bear orl lion, thats no matter if you hunt antilop, you meet him,- good haewy bow was your adwantage.
Any argumennts dont broke this - very common logic.

And Kassais or not Kassai, sports or not or what you doing ...Thats every person reason why making what he makeng Thats no mi problem.
But please dont tell us nothing more about your 38lb or lowest war or hunting bows...

[Storm]

Another point on 315N hornbow. It has been stated over the years that a hornbow has no efficiency advantage over a selfbow at low pondages, but it improves greatly after a certain poundage. I cannot remember the source or the exact "threshold" , but it was somewhere around 60lbs I believe. Can anyone confirm this?

Even by the data in this book, these low poundage hornbows are not even a match to modern selfbows of the same poundage (which are probably comparable to ancient ones). If that is the case, why would someone go the trouble of building a hornbow, instead of a much easier to make selfbow?Good wood was not an issue for scythians. It looks like size was an important aspect but the hornbow has a lot of disadvantages too.

[jbl]

Dusan two things please read my entire post I talked about my belief that our ancestors used heavier bows then that, and yes it was with wooden arrows. When you go out into the woods and hunt tell me how the heavy bows work for you you will kill with a million pound pull bow and I will kill with a 45# bow and we will both come home with dinner. Dead is dead it is not like you blow your game up with a larger poundage bow the animal is killed by a puncture wound, if the arrow passes through vitals the animal will die whether it is 100# or in the case of the deer my daughter got two years ago 35# with wooden arrows, guess what it is about shoot placement. I was offering "real" world application.

For some reason in your eyes you are less than a man if you aren't drawing some gorrila weight. My point is in the REAL world of hunting 45# will kill. I have an idea I will use my hunting set up anyone who doesn't believe the power of the bow can stand in front of me at 35 yds and we will experiment on penetration. I bet I get a pass through like I have done with a deer since I was 10.

There is no doubt in my mind two things in regards to our ancestors: they shot heavy bows and, the bows we make today are no where near as good as what they made. If we can't replicate a proper English war bow a relatively simple bow to make how do we expect to make a proper Composite war bow?

[Dusan]

JBL i believe you. If you are lucky you can kill only vith hand
I dont stay in haevy bows"gorilas" position because i think its "cool" and macho look Like i say- common logic. Nothimg more or less.
I think here is nothing to discuss...

[Angela]

Jeeez, I give up. What a waste of time. Obviously Dusan is too busy in his daily "shooting antilope and lion from horseback" practice to read the discussion points carefully.

But please dont tell us nothing more about your 38lb or lowest war or hunting bows...

Don't worry, I won't tell you anything any more, as rational and substantiated arguments are wasted on you. Instead, I will go and blow up some rabbits with the nuclear warhead I purchased yesterday.

Any argumennts dont broke this - very common logic. Like i say- common logic. Nothimg more or less. logic logic logic

[Dusan]

Thank you , Angela. Better jump on horseback and shoot all theeem...

[ginni]

Speaking about logic, Angela said once that shooting with a light bow is more difficult than shooting a heavier one. "If somebody shoot good with a 25 lbs bow, he will shoot great with a 40 lbs" or something like this, I replicated from my memory.
So, the conclusion is very simple, you must to choose a light bow because is a challenge. Shooting heavy bows on horseback is easier, the bow is doing your job and nobody likes to take the easy way.

i like the way how Angela show Adam work, but only what he likes, I wonder why he knows nothing about the Scythian reproduction of Yanghai bow made by Adam.

Yes, there is a logical mechanism. If you believe something, you can use your brain to demonstrate it with upstanding arguments.
And if you are pushed to the wall, you have the supreme argument: "you are not a rider".

As Dusan said, if you are on the horseback and you fight for your life, you will get the strongest bow. And the longest arrow. That because the enemy can shoot you back. Is common sense.

Only Kassai imagination show us the fighting between huns and stupid orangutans, like indians running in circles and hunting buffaloes in north America.
Yes JBL, for hunting buffaloes is enough 40 lbs. For fighting with warriors a 40 lbs bow is an useless tool.

But I am not a rider. So...

[jbl]

Ginni please read both my posts and what I have said about heavier draw weights. In neither one of them did I say anything about fighting a battle with a 45# bow. I did talk about the ability of a 45# bow to kill in a hunting situation. I have never shot at an animal or person wearing armor so it is an argument that I can not make. For the record I am not a horse archer nor have I shot a human.

Again I am confident if you grew up with the bow as the ancients did an 80-100# draw weight for the battle field on ANY platform was not a problem and you probably shot it well. Of course if you were in battle you would want the heaviest draw weight that is out there. If you didn't you probably died well.

I think we are arguing three diferent things at once on this thread. The first is what the draw weights of the ancients used, the second what draw weight to use on horse back today and thirdly which bow is harder to shoot a light bow vs heavy. I can only argure with experience on the later.

In target archery (non horse archery) it is a proven FACT by Olympic coaches and World Class archers that a lighter bow is harder to shoot not physically but from a point of view of putting the arrow on the target. I will say that again not from a physical stand point but from an accuracy stand point. The reason for this is when you shot with a lighter bow any change in form will be transmitted through the bow to the arrow. There just is not enough power in a light weight bow to overcome bad form, poor loose or poor grip.

I have been told by an NFAA champion to beware of the archer who can shoot a 25# bow well because when he/she moves up in weight if he/she can physically handle the weight of a heavier bow they will be unbeatable. Point being the mechnaics (not the muscle) it takes to shoot a light weight bow well have to be finer tuned because a 25# bow does not have the "muscle" behind it to overcome a mistake in mechanics. It is simple physics. That is why many TARGET not BATTLE FIELD archers train with light weight bows when they have form problems.

[ginni]

Excellent point JBL!
I had that feeling when shooting olimpic style, a 45 lbs is too heavy for me.
Is another style and if you want to get the up level of performance, well, you need a light bow, that means 40-45 lbs.

Hunting is another issue, for small game is enough a sling shot, for a hog you need a bow, for a ground shooting ... let say a big boar, is required a stronger bow.... let say 60 lbs.

But if you want to kill men? Tough, even with light armour and some skill in fighting... with 40 lbs bow you can rest in history as fell dealer but not as warrior.

[jbl]

Ginni I agree on all points with fingers I never shot as well as with the thumb lock (that is why I don't shoot that style anymore)and it maybe just because of the weight issue. In NA 45-50# will kill all game animals. I still like around 60# for hogs but for white tail deer as I stated before my daughter got a clear pass through with a 35# Osage Orange sinew backed bow and a wooden arrow. She just had a good shot.

[Stephen Selby]

Just chanced on this thread after being away.

Horseback archery has been with us for thousands of years and hundreds of thousands have been involved. They will have pulled every-which draw weight of bows.

My personal (quite extensive) experience of horseback archery is that the speed of the arrow counts. You don't want to think so much for compensating for converging trajectories. While speed is a product of the efficiency of the bow; by and large, heavier bows shoot faster. Some Ming instructors also advise against a very full draw on horseback (fear of over-drawing?) so that the bows may have been heavy; but they were not always used at full potential.

And of course, the real challenge of horseback archery is in training and riding the horse. Details of the bow become rather secondary.

[WarBow]

A 45# bow with the right arrow will harvest mostly deers in NA. For big and wild boar, you will need at least 60# plus quarter shot placement. Boars' vitals are further to the front, encased by shoulder bones. A perpendicular shot with a 45# into a big boar will do zip and makes the animal come after the hunter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfpzDYogmnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHO6Tsx ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OZmOPxV ... ure=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ1Mg0a7 ... re=related

This is interesting because on another forum I just was reading the "virtues" of heavy bows. One thing I can tell you from hunting experience with a a 45# bow is here in North America with the right arrows it will go through game like a knife through butter. Granted there are no armor coated animals here but a 45# bow with the right arrow combination will kill any animal in NA. I know a little different then horse back archery but I think we in general under estimate the power of a "light weight" bow.

I am not saying that, that our ancestors used 45# I believe they used bows in the 80+# range. These were people born and breed to the bow their lives depended on their ability with that weapon not only in warfare but on the hunt. It stands to reason they shoot the heaviest draw weight possible.

Now as far as armor penetration I would be very interested in seeing some studies. I think the one thing we forget is much of the knowledge our ancestors had in building a composite bow figurtively and literally went to the grave with them; so are bows we make today as efficient as those who depended on the bow for their lives? I am not talking down anyone's work just making a statement about what we have today vs what our ancestors relied upon for the lives.

I think it is interesting the bowyers today making these bows are always evolving as the technology of these weapons is "rediscovered." I was just having a disscussion with a friend about how Grozer and Kassai bows have come light years ahead in the last few years in regards to pleasntness to shoot and efficiency. Maybe someday we will have a Magyar or Hun bow that is as good as the "real deal." Again I am not knocking anybody's work I think Adam showed us with his Scythian Bow we can come close if not an actual bow by the careful study of the archelogical and historical data.