Static vs Dynamic Release

Joseph,
There were different circumstances and different techniques for them. In target archery, a pause for aiming is not a significant impediment to the arrow since the distances are not that great and are well within the power of the bow. In flight shooting, every bit of velocity is valuable since winning might be by as little as a foot.

In warfare, circumstances become more complex. At one end of the scale, an expert might be aiming at a particular person like an enemy commander while at the other end of scale a large group of soldiers might be shooting at another large group of soldiers at the maximum range of their bows just to irritate them. In the former case, the archer would draw deliberately and aim, while in the latter he would draw and shoot quickly to put maximum energy into the arrow.

Hunting is usually done at shorter range because the object is a certain hit on a particular part of the animal. At this range, the variation in velocity caused by a pause to aim would not have much effect with an efficient bow.

Korean targets are well within the range of a Korean bow, though the distance seems long to Westerners. The pause to settle the body and to aim is not a serious problem.

The Ming writer, Gao Ying, also noted the distinction between these two releases. He was rather dismissive of the 'dynamic release', which he equated with 'wild shots'. Basically he felt that it was more important to take the time to ensure a consistent draw-length. On the other hand another Ming author, Li Chengfen, implicitly supported the dynamic release in his comments on horseback archery and his admonitions not to come to full draw when shooting on horseback. I think that when we get away from rigid, static archery, both approaches have their role to play.

Thank you Bede and Stephen for the logical insights.

I do have to respectfully disagree in regards to accuracy being diminished with a dynamic release. And please, if you see some flaw in my logic don't hesitate to bring it up.

Here is why I say this. When it comes to hand, eye coordination, many things can be likened to shooting an arrow. When you simply see a target and want to hit the mark, shooting a basketball, throwing a baseball, or even kicking a soccerball can be likened to shooting an arrow.

And even more so, the western style of shooting, placing the arrow on the wrong side of the bow, and using fingers to shoot.

Many a trick shooter, can shoot an aspirin out of the air using a dynamic release, but find it much harder to duplicate that feat after coming to full anchor and hold for a moment, aiming at a stationary object.

And in regards to hunting or during war, of what use is an arrow if it cannot reach the vitals? Or if it cannot breach armour?

A dynamic release provides better penetration, good for warding off enemies, and for putting meat on the table.

Most western bowyers will test there bows using a drawing machine that is made to release the arrow at the very moment it reaches full draw length. The reason for this is to be able to advertise the fastest arrow possible from there bow.

Once again, I am new at all of this, and just looking to find some clarity in regards to the things that I have observed especially as it pertains to use of the thumb ring.

I think in some ways you have answered your own questions.

When you simply see a target and want to hit the mark, shooting a basketball, throwing a baseball, or even kicking a soccerball can be likened to shooting an arrow.

What is common to all these actions is that the target is either close or large. Precision is not required nor is repeatability.

Many a trick shooter, can shoot an aspirin out of the air using a dynamic release, but find it much harder to duplicate that feat after coming to full anchor and hold for a moment, aiming at a stationary object.

This is something that everyone has probably seen. If you analyse it, there are some important points. Shooting at small moving object requires different skills than shooting at small stationary ones. If they are done at the same short distance, the corrections for aiming at close range have to be practised in the same way since a precision target shooter cannot immediately switch their skills to shooting at moving targets either. The archer is using different aspects of the brain for the two skills.

And in regards to hunting or during war, of what use is an arrow if it cannot reach the vitals? Or if it cannot breach armour?
A dynamic release provides better penetration, good for warding off enemies, and for putting meat on the table.

The antidote to this comment is what use is it to shoot an arrow if you do not hit what you are aiming at? An arrow in the dirt is a wasted arrow. Getting back to an earlier part of the discussion, there are different approaches for different types of archery. Warfare and hunting are not equivalent since in most warfare situations the soldier was not shooting at individuals but at groups. Hunting with the bow is always focussed on individual targets. Occasionally in warfare a soldier would find an individual target and therefore would be duplicating a hunting situation.

The result is that in battle, facing a mass of the enemy at a distance, a fast draw and release would be very efficient getting the most out of the bow. In hunting, careful aiming and concentration pay off better. In all forms of mounted archery, the pressure is on the archer to shoot quickly since either the target or the archer is moving instinctive aiming is more effective for dealing with moving targets. Penetration would be assured in all cases by using a sufficiently powerful bow.

Foot archers on the other hand, in sieges in particular, would concentrate of careful deliberate aiming. I am not suggesting that people would stand at full draw as they do in the movies waiting for an opportunity to shoot or a command. This is an image based on five hundred years of fire arms and is not relevant to archery. The sakin release mentioned in the Arabic manuals involved holding and aiming for only a few seconds (like the count to three).

Shooting from behind a shield also required a very fast draw and release since any time exposed was risking being shot yourself.

Most western bowyers will test there bows using a drawing machine that is made to release the arrow at the very moment it reaches full draw length. The reason for this is to be able to advertise the fastest arrow possible from there bow.

I believe they do think that, but modern materials are nowhere as sensitive to holding time as natural materials. The few tests of this with modern bows I have made using a chronograph suggested the variation was in the region of a foot per second.

To summarise, I think that rapid drawing and releasing is good for maximum distance and hitting moving targets. Holding and aiming are appropriate for static targets like standing game or large static groups of enemies. Since I think the effectiveness of arrows at maximum range is not that impressive, I feel that maximum distance would be more important in flight shooting than in warfare. Maximum range shooting in warfare was probably only used for harassment. Excessively slow aiming was condemned by all the old authorities.

I am only discussing composite bows here. Rapid drawing and shooting is mandatory for such bows as New Guinea self bows. Some Olympic archers spend an inordinate amount of time at full draw and I think this has more reasons from psychology than it does in archery.

This is exactly the reason that I come here, over any other site in which to discuss such things.
A more comprehensive and thoughtful response is the norm, and appreciated.

Thank you Stephen for allowing us such a location, and thank you Bede for the analytical comments.

First, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a farther shooting arrow equate into a better penetrating arrow? That being said, arrow spine and weight do have an effect, but when all variables are the same, an arrow that travels farther will penetrate deeper.

Second, I do not necessarily believe that a quick and dynamic release has to be less accurate. That being said, fatigue is undoubtedly going to have a greater effect on a dynamic release than a more static stance and shooting.
A dynamic release will require more practice(which I have personally experienced) and that could be argued as being less accurate.

I use a quick release in certain situations myself, so I don't argue against it at all. Like many things where instinctive responses have to be groomed, it would take a long period of practice to bring real accuracy to quick-release shooting; but I am sure it can be done. Perhaps the reason why traditional military manuals argue against it has more to do with the limited resources that could be put into training people for military archery.

S

The Arabic texts is described several different release
where one is dynamic release, there are several schools.

So maybe it's mostly a matter of what works for one self,
personally I think it's more fun to shoot quick-release shooting
and I work hard at learning how to shoot more accurately

The manuscripts do go into the manner of drawing and releasing in great detail as well as aiming. There is a degree of disagreement about what is best and a recognition of the best solution for one person is not the best for another. There is much discussion of the physical shape and features of the archer.

They all agree that a "snatched" release is highly effective. In that technique, you draw an arrow until a hand's width of the arrow is beyond the bow and then suddenly pull it back to full draw and release in a rapid motion. It is recommended for expert archers and requires much practice. In my experience it works well but requires great concentration. It seems a good compromise between a fast draw and release and a careful aimed draw and release.

First, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a farther shooting arrow equate into a better penetrating arrow? That being said, arrow spine and weight do have an effect, but when all variables are the same, an arrow that travels farther will penetrate deeper.

In the first part of your suggestion the answer is no. The greatest distance is achieved with a light arrow, which by its nature has less kinetic energy at the end of its flight. However, continuing with your comment, when all things are equal, two arrows of the same weight and stiffness shot from bows that matched them would have different penetrations if one went farther than the other. The one travelling farther would have more kinetic energy and hence momentum. With the same shaped head, the one with the greatest energy would penetrate the most in the same target at the same distance.

I have not seen any analysis of penetration verses final velocity before impact, but it should be simple to test. The point I am trying to make is that it is not a simple relationship: effectiveness equals velocity. Deep penetration would be maximised at close range. At close range, you would have less time to draw and shoot, so rapid drawing and shooting would be a real advantage when your enemy is close to you. However, precision should also be useful at close range. Visors in the Orient were designed to stop arrows not lances. There are many accounts of people being shot in the face and as early as the Diez manuscript from Mongol Iran there is a painting of a warrior shot in the eye.

To maximise your effect at long range, you would have to use lighter arrows to reach the distance. Their penetration at long range would not be great so their purpose was probably twofold. On one hand a lucky shot in the face or some other exposed part of the body would be very discouraging. On the other hand, random hits on the enemies' horses could disrupt their lines and in large enough numbers cause chaos.

In the latter part of the history of horse archery, both the Manchu and the Crimean Tatars moved towards long, heavy arrows to maximise impact. They gave up range to in order to increase the knock-down effect of their arrows. Closer range allowed greater precision and as a result even more effectiveness.

Worth remembering in horseback military engagements: the first priority is to hit the horse in the neck, quarters or breast, where it can't be properly protected by armour. You deal with the better-protected rider once he's down. You only need enough penetration to persuade a horse it's time to give up. Not much, in effect.

In less organised societies, the order might be the reversed. Incapacitating the rider and stealing the horse might be more important.

Reading some early histories, you can be struck by the sheer numbers of livestock carried off in successful campaigns. Not all wars were fought as simple battlefield events. When fighting nomads, often the best way to defeat them was to strike at the domestic economy by driving off their armies while you stole their primary means of production. Chinese and Islamic historians write about hundreds of thousands of head of livestock being carried off by the victors.

This does not invalidate Stephen's point. Most instructions in states with organised armies recommend hitting the horses. I have seen it in both Arabic and Greek manuals. One states "aim at the horse's forehead. If the arrows goes high it will hit the rider. If it goes low it will strike the horse in the chest." It was tough being a horse.