Composite/ wood bow comparisons

I don not think any one belives that this is a new issue :)
Last time at Paleo I spent hours searching for data on ELB and find nothing, exept about 180 fps shoots. They were more interested in hitting a trafficsign from 200 yards then give the data.
My stickbows had been more on the 50% then 60%. I guess it is normal till you get instructions by some who have done thousands of them.
I made some copys of M?llgard bows and thy come out 60-65 lb and just over 40J. And still 40J count as enough for hunting so I guess that is what they needed.

This is the Menzies reference.

"Redhorse's bow: As reported, not finely finished, but well put together, with narrow 1" limbs with flat horn belly and crowned sinew. Wood siyahs for mass reduction. 46" long. 47lbs at 26", 51lb at 28". Braced 7.5". Instructions were to shoot it at 26", then 28" if it held together. About 8" of unbraced reflex, this bow has about the largest reflex of any bow I've tested so far.
My bow: Redoak board stave. 60" - 46lbs at 26". A good pyramid design with narrow outer limbs, slight handle bend. 14.5-ounces. A five-dollar, one-hour, bow made with a block plane only, sides and belly a mosaic of plane blade marks.
A wooden wedge stop was taped in place at 26", arrow mass adjusted to exactly 10-grains/lb with tape mass, eyes insuring the arrow stopped at the stop.
Results: The composite bow = 166fps. The redoak bow = 167fps,
Tim Baker at Paleoplanet"

I took a bow that was an experiment with wood, it was Ash biascut, It was drying a week or two, don't remember, befor the last layer of sinew. Made the tips and brace it and shot few arrows and send it to US.
I send Steve the sinew so hi could put it on the bow, if survives the test. Don't know if hi did that or if the bow is still alive.

My conclusions is that a hornbow is much better then a stickbow even if it was beaten in this test :) But you need to do the test within the bows performance limits, not other bows limit. Everything points that hornbow starts performance at a higher draw weight.
So make the fd-curve, crono the arrow, light mass and high mass. And you got all you need to know.

Last summer we conducted a bow and arrow test. Unfortunately the tested bows' draw weights were not really within war-bow category but it might give some info. Additionally, due to the very hot temperature performance was lover than in a normal conditions.

Should someone want to compare the result (mainly speed and some distances) of horn bows with others pls. see this link:
http://www.botondbow.com/bow-and-arrow-test---2011

Patrick Menzies wrote:

I think Kviljio used the same arrow to test his Ipe/boo flight bow and his Turkish bow. Have you seen his results from those shots?
Please let me know what you have seen before I do all the research that you should have at least dabbled in before you became so sure of your stance.

The arrow was not the same. I used the same arrow for my two functional "turkish" bows, which both ended up shooting about the same 271 and 269 I think. The first bow was much heavier than the second, but both bows are far from correctly designed and do not represent any good source of comparison against my rather highly optimized Ipe/bamboo-ready-to-break-any-moment wood bow.

Some of Adam K.'s high-end turkish flightbows would be a more valid comparison, and there is no doubt in my mind that those bows would out-shoot any wooden bow any day. Ever heard someone shooting 357FPS with a wooden bow?

To me it is really quite clear. Some horn bow designs might not be more efficient than a wooden bow, but a tradition does not change that easily. If you grew up as a mongolian archer, you would want a typical mongolian bow even if there hypothetically could exist a better shooting wooden bow. There was of course a lot more than efficiency in the mind of the ancient bowyer.

This boils the discussion down to "my dad is stronger than yours" :wink: It would certainly be interesting to see a well documented comparison of the two technologies, but it would have close to zero historical implications.

My basic point is that it appears that all composite armed warriors were not actually shooting weapons where every guy had a bow that would shoot 500 yards.
Adam's bow which shot 357 and would have theoretically reached over 700 yards has obviously bbeen duplicated by wood vbecause the wooden footbow record is well over 800 yards.
Simple math, right?

Kviljo, what is making me such upset about hornbowyers is all theirs "ifs" and "buts", but no real outstanding results. Even Adam?s 357f/s has never been proved beside his machine- tests, I?m still waiting since years for that.
Since decades the results at the Salt Flats are speaking for themselves, please leave the maybe- mode right now.
Michael

What's the problem with that?
If he did that, he did that.
Salt lake, what do they shoot there, 50 lb? 150lb? or what?

"..It would certainly be interesting to see a well documented comparison of the two technologies, but it would have close to zero historical implications..." - words of wisdom.

I am reluctant to post in this thread since I believe I have done my work and better let others move forward. It seems to me everyone wants to compare best with the best, not the average bows.

If you go into the subject of average bows, then look at the historical types. The Mollegabet bow (actually a one and only example of a childs bow?), so much reproduced, represents a tiny fraction of the selfbows in the world. Any other selfbow would be hard pressed to show something better that 160fps/10gr/lb, if that. Remember 150fps was considered average performance before Steve Gardner mass experiments, tip-narrowed laminates and belly-baked bows by Marc StLouis? Not all historical styles of hornbows are equal as well, but I do not see anything to tell me the hornbows were inferor to the selfbows before that time.

If we now move on to the best bows, and look into the flight bows shot in Utah, what do we see? Highly developed self and laminated bows against a handful of hornbows: Jaap's light weight bows and Bede's bows. One of them a 51+in ntn overbuilt Turkish target bow never intended to be shot for flight, with wide limbs which was supposed to be drawn to 30 inches minimum (I know, I made it). And both guys struggling to shoot with a siper. Hardly the best combinaton for the competition are they?

Lets make more bows and see what happens. There is also a problem with the "standard" test of 10gr/lb. Most bows of all kinds, selfbows and the hornbows, show very similar arrow velocity at more than about 9-10gr/lb and practically the same at over 12gr/lb. On the other hand, the short bows begin to get better at less than 5gr/lb. Since hornbows are short, then how about a new standard of, say 4gr/lb, at least in comparing flight bows?

Adam

What period was 150 considered average for?
The records from the 30's show that selfbows wwre shooting even better back then.
It seems that right now that average hornbow speed is only hovering around the 170 mark, if that.

Q for Adam, I have my bow indoor and its winter time. Would it be safe to brace and shoot? Hum under 30% indoor for months. I think it will be zero or warmer tomorow, maybe I shot my 300+m arrow trough crono just for fun :)

The glue gets brittle at low RHs (hide glue more than fish). Horn and sinew as well, but both still remain tough, although harder to bend. If the glue cracks, the horn may delaminate.

But, if there is little or no reflex in the sals, I would not worry too much, provided the bow has been shot before. If it is a new bow, I'd wait till spring.

Some reflex, I hear cracks when I draw it, not full draw. Put it in bathroom over night? Or outdoor, heavy rain tonight.

Sounds like a reliable war weapon to me. Didn't you just joke that the Khan wasn't likely to call a halt to the battle to rest the bows? :lol:

Kviljo wrote:

To me it is really quite clear. Some horn bow designs might not be more efficient than a wooden bow, but a tradition does not change that easily. If you grew up as a mongolian archer, you would want a typical mongolian bow even if there hypothetically could exist a better shooting wooden bow. There was of course a lot more than efficiency in the mind of the ancient bowyer.

Agreed, Kviljo. It all depends on circumstance.

Mao Yuanyi's Wu Bei Zhi (a military treatise from 1621) has a chapter about military bows. He notes the resilience of self bows and wooden or bamboo laminates in humid climates, which is why they were preferred for Southern engagements. However, these military self and laminate bows were not known for their cast, which is why they preferred horn bows in Northern battles. Stephen's translation of the chapter is here: http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=17103#17103

As I guessed: Quite a few hits within a short time :).
Anyway, to make a reasonable comparison between the both types you should define the test conditions. I think that the tests in Adams book can be taken as a good example:
- take a certain bow (Holmegaard)
- take a certain draw length (28")
- calculate the potential energy as given from the F-D-curve of the bow at 28"
- shoot the bow through a chrono an calc. the kin. energy of the arrow
- put both in relation and you got the efficiency
- now you can vary the arrow weight or the draw length (only once at a time) and put it all together in a diagram (that would be 3 D).
You can get the efficiency related to the arrow weight, maybe further on to the draw lenght and so on. That would be a great overview about the topic. I think as a result of numerous tests there will be no simple conclusion anyway: composite or selfbow!? As it's been already posted by others, the decission always depends on the preferences/possibilities of the archer himself.

Kevin

Why standardize?
Efficiency does not match at all the qualities of a bow. Best drawlength for flightshots seems to be 23", the high-speed of short bows shot with light arrows is somehow ignored in the efficiency- term. F.e. the short bow casts an arrow(190grs.) with 210f/s, efficiency is about 40- 50%. What?s that?? I know why it is like that. In this case efficiency is not telling the truth.
I guess we need additional criteria for to really rate a bow.

Patrick, I was always wondering how an army equipped with hornbows has ever won any battle. You know, a bit of humidity, a small rain, increasing temperature, tiny airflows, insects, even mice and dogs like hornbows, I know guys chewing sinew, bracing a hornbow seems to be a the ultimate near- death- experience...........I better stop now, cause I think I?m the first candidate to be banned here.

Please hornbowyers, I really appreciate your work, but don?t be so vain, hornbows are just bows..........
Michael

Of course they are just bows :)
"the short bow casts an arrow(190grs.) with 210f/s, efficiency is about 40- 50%. What?s that?"
Low :) but normal. Suppose it was 70%, guess how fast the arrow would go? Maybe 280 fps, not bad :)
Same bow but with a stored energy 1.2x shoots the same arrow faster. Thats why a hornbow :) you got more energy stored.
Efficiency is what make a bow shot fast. Till the limit were the limbs can't go faster, but we are not there yet :)

Yep, I did put the boe outdoor over night, it's have 10 gram more mass today, should bee water :)
Now I must make a point and a nock for the arrow, the old is somwere in the bush.
A 5mm Beman carbon arrow did split last time I shout it :( can't take the power of 70 lb bow :)
A wood arrow will be 350 grains but I want go down to 200 grains with my draw 26 " 350 may do 230fps. But I like to know what 200 gives.

Done :(
Started with few inch draw 250 grains cedar, 134, few inch more, 161, few inch more, 218. And the arrow did break in 3 pieces.
Well, a night outdoor and no crack sounds :)
How do I make an arrow for 26" draw 200 grains? Not a 23" with siper.

Just to add something to what Adam said about Jaap and I shooting in Utah: we were shooting as well as we could on the day and none of the composite bows we have been shooting are not optimised for flight. Shooting with a siper requires complete mastery of the bow for it to be effective. I have only ever shot one really effective arrow with a siper at Bonneville and that was with a 60 lb bow made by Edward McEwen and it wasn't in the contest. The bow of Adam's I recently used is now outside my capacity these days and as he pointed out it is not a flight bow. Plus it has an alarming habit of getting even stronger in the Utah climate. Jaap's bows were all experiments not intended for flight. In my case, I only have two shootable composite bows and I don't want to break them by pushing them to the limit yet. Only one is suitable to use with a siper and it is not designed for flight. We haven't tried a lot of different bows so it is a slow process, but we are out there trying.

I shot one of Jaap's bows last year and it was not one I had ever shot before and, when we weighed it, it was stronger than usual. (It was a good year for bows jumping up ten to fifteen pounds.) I admit I worry with composite bows I am not used to since I have had several string breakages and twists that resulted in the string coming off the bow on my bows so I don't want to break someone else's. I stood next to Marlon Torres when a 135 lb American longbow exploded after a slight over draw. I have had a Turkish bow break into three pieces at full draw in my hand and draw blood on me and a bystander. (It wasn't my bow so it was even worse than breaking one of my own.)

The attitude and the skill of the archer have an effect on how much they can get out off any given bow. I believe that the bows Adam has been recently making could, in the hands of a stronger archer than me, replicate some of the Turkish flight shots of the past. I am sure that his war bows would also prove very effective. One of the things that I do wrong is use much heavier arrows than the original arrows I have owned and others I have tested. I do this because I am scared of what will happen when an arrow breaks just as it leaves the bow since I have had that happen with a siper and part of the arrow shot the buckle off my wristwatch.

Flight shooting breaks bows and arrows. I have dozens of pictures of arrows and bowstrings breaking at flight shooting meets. People like Steve Gardner can be both good bowyers and excellent flight shooters. I have watched him destroy many strings and a few bows. He pushed his bows to the limit as many flight shooters do. And he carefully analysed what was happening. This is not something that you can compare to shooting in battle. The requirements are different, the constraints are different and the mindset of the archer is different.

Wooden bow makers definitely have an advantage in the modern world. We understand the concept of prototypes. We know how to analyse performance. Wooden bows can be made rapidly compared to composite bows so it is natural that in the modern world greater progress is being made in wooden bow design than composite bow design. The point in time we are in is the one were great progress has been made with wooden bows, but it is a mistake to think the performance of composite bows today is as good as it gets. People like Adam and other bowyers have solved many of the technical problems of making effective composite bows, but with such a small pool of bowyers and archers in the field it is hard to get the right bow and the right archer in the right place. There is still research to do. Arrows and bowstrings are one area. Siper design and technique is another.

I think that the bowyers of today and the archers will eventually equal and probably exceed the old records. With our different viewpoints to the archers of the past we will find out what the limits of old designs were. I think that has already been done with long bows and flat bows even if the ultimate bows have not been built yet. But that knowledge will only gives us the constraints which limit performance; it will tell us what people might have done. It cannot tell us what they did. People, the weather and motivation would have more effect than whether an arrow goes another fifty metres.

I think the bowyers are leading the way. It is up to the archers to catch up, build up their strength and improve their technique.

"I think the bowyers are leading the way. It is up to the archers to catch up, build up their strength and improve their technique."
Tru, I can only shot in meters the speed of arrow. 200fps and I shot 200 meter.
Ones I did a 300+ shot but did not find the arrow. My boy find it after a year in the bush so it did maybe 330m. 280 is longest distance that I could verify.

I agree with all this but it merely confirms my thoughts on present day comparisons.
I just tire of the rather blunt statement often heard that a composite is superior merely because it "has" to be because of all its perceived advantages.
I understand that the bows by Adam and Jaap were not optimised for flight but neither are self bows I have made that well exceeded 300 with no tweaks of bow or arrow.
Even if they are not optimised for flight should those bows made by our present master composite bowmakers be quite superior to bow made by guys that have just done their woodbow homework?

Fair to say the sub-optimal comparison is partly a result of the composite-shooting community (and the corresponding Asiatic archery community) being small. It hasn't reached the level of development that the wood bow shooting community has.

I'm doing my part to develop my strength and technique, but most people in mainland China consider pulling 60# to be "godly" strength. Lack of strength training regimen is one problem. Another problem is technique: I see some people in mainland China advocating having their bow shoulder/arm joint bent, or bending their bow elbows, all of which isn't conducive to using your skeleton to support the weight of the draw. Since it's a developing community, there's a ways to go in terms of getting a group of people capable of pulling military-weight bows.

Given the problems we are facing (well said Bede), I believe there are three options I am presently pursuing:

1. Shoot bows for distance with a machine. I have one nearly made and hopefully ready by spring. It will shoot any bow up to 200lb.

2. Send bows to non-thumbring shooters, which will give us the cast of a bow. I have talked to Marlon about this. The problem I see is that an archer, who is not familiar with hornbows, will not have the skill to string and adjust the bow before competition.

3. Make a good bow and send it to someone who should have the dedication to train with the siper. I have done it, but there have been problems on the way (still do not know what will come out of this).

Adam

''3. Make a good bow and send it to someone who should have the dedication to train with the siper. I have done it, but there have been problems on the way (still do not know what will come out of this)''

well I guess I am one of these guys, or maybe 'the' guy.
-I continue practicing like crazy for strength which takes up an enormous part of my week.
-I also practice with siper, however it is not easy at all because the whole technique is too much different. E.g. just recently I had a new insight: in the old archery treatise they say to put your chin on your shoulder firmly. I couldnt figure out why and didnt follow it. Now I found out why, it is to put your bow arm and arrow in nearly one line so the arrow is the same angle as the siper. But in this technique combined with the cenk-baz grip the use of muscles and the pressure on limbs is much different/more difficult and I have to adapt. No English warbow archer could do that, and I slowly get used to it.

I still didnt get a chance to try Adam's bow as I moved to Ireland in the meantime and the bow was sent to Turkey. I will fly over and try it though as soon as the temperature gets warmer there, at the moment it is freezing. I will still have to learn how to string and look after it and a flight bow is not easy thing.

btw, I really feel that some comments are ridiculous. I recommend everybody to learn Turkish and Ottoman Turkish and read the old original treatises and e.g. the archery pillars at the Okmeydan in Istanbul. Some guys did still not grasp what the Ottomans achieved centuries ago. Read e.g. Kavsname, or Telhis or T?rk Kemankeşleri and please see the original equipment in the military museum Istanbul. Flight shooting is far more sophisticated than some people think.

http://www.atli-okculuk.com/p/literatur.html

G?kmen

Gokmen wrote:

But in this technique combined with the cenk-baz grip the use of muscles and the pressure on limbs is much different/more difficult and I have to adapt.

"cenk-baz" is the wrist-forward grip? (same as falcon's talon / oblique grip / FITA high grip?) if so, then yeah, that's hard to do with very high poundage bows. it would be a tremendous adjustment for anyone who's used to shooting with the square grip / full grip / FITA low grip (with the wrist up).

I do not understand the fixation with what bow was best, try as we might we will never make these bows in the same manner ... and who really cares?
Historically, both self and horn bows have made their name, we should wonder at that, it is far less stressful.

Michael,
The fact still remains, hornbow armies from various cultures certainly left their mark. Was it the bow? It was either that ... or witchcraft ... or some other excuse to explain crushing defeats.

Crushing defeats are usually the result of tactical skill and strategy and I'd argue it was this rather than any super weapon that accounts for successes like Agincourt, Crecy, Kalka River and Leignitz.

What draw weights are you talking about?

I care. I like competition. The more lopsideed it is perceived to be, the more I like it.
Keep in mind the legendary records were supposedly set before the advent of the sipur so I wouldn't think mastery of the sipur is going to work too much magic.
If we are going to use sipur aided composites for a benchmark, then the overdraw will have to go on the selfbows or all wood composites.

It is unfortunate that my skill with the the siper stops at 60 lbs otherwise I might be one of the fortunate ones who gets to shoot one of Adam's flight bows.

One of the problems with the hawk's grasp (changal-i baz) with a siper is that it requires a grip of quite slender profile and the use of the mushamma. The brace height has to be just over 6.5 inches so that the angle of the wrist can keep it out of the way of the string. However, without the siper, it can be practised without too much difficulty and the grip is less critical. You can even do it with a Korean bow, but the follow through turns into an exaggerated khatrah and you risk hitting yourself in the chin with the lower bow tip as the bow rotates. According to the Persian manuscripts that Dr Khorasani and I are examining, the hawk's grasp was the most popular in Iran for several hundred years as the standard grasp with a normal arrow. Therefore I think practising with it could be done as a part of the usual archery training. It is remarkably accurate in target shooting.

The Hungarians brought some modified siper designs to Utah last year that could be used without much training and could be modified for shooting left or right of the grip so a Western archer could use them without much trouble. The necessary smoothness of release for flight shooting is the same for three fingers and the thumb. Though the designs by which they were held were not traditional, they had the same effect as a traditional siper.

Gokmen made an important point. There is documentary proof that the Turks shot the distances they claimed. In Egypt, there were similar shots in the Mamluk period. In Iran, 1200 gaz was considered the maximum cast for a flight bow with long arrows in the 16th century. There are ancient Greek and Mongolian record stones in existence. To assume that any event recorded by a Western European is somehow more true than one recorded in another culture is naive. In Turkish literature and Persian literature, it is clear that accurate recording of distances was at a premium. The surviving stones are witness to the seriousness that flight archery was taken at the time. There is a published study of the real distance between a matched foot stone and its record stone in Istanbul that confirmed the record shot there.

You only have to read the English comments on seeing Turks shoot in person to realise that they were stunned by the distances that they saw and recorded themselves. Klopsteg has a whole chapter on the subject and, with an analysis of the texts in English, proves that they were no more reliable than anyone else in reporting distances accurately. People like Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey and Ingo Simon achieved flight records in their times with original old Turkish bows. Considering their lack of training in the thumb draw (Payne-Gallwey advised using the thumb ring upside down like a Korean male ring), the bows performed very well.

Of course there is no reason to doubt those records since they have been well exceeded by modern bows and overdraw devices.
The current drive should be to get back to those performances and tow the wood bow crowd along.
Or vice versa. :lol:
I find it remarkable that the English were not somewhat more cognizant of the composite bow.
Hadn't they learned anything during the Crusades?

Patrick Menzies wrote:

I find it remarkable that the English were not somewhat more cognizant of the composite bow.
Hadn't they learned anything during the Crusades?

Mike Loades (whom I occasionally see at the range since his move to northern California) has the hypothesis that after seeing the composite bows during the crusades, the English put a recurve on the tips of their longbows. http://youtu.be/VnPcyGjYZmc?t=4m followed by http://youtu.be/7-jsvBt2HI0

Not sure of the humidity in England, but the humidity in places like Japan and southern India make it pretty impossible to use horn bows there.

Knowing about composite bows and mass producing them are two different things. The people who went on Crusade and eventually got back to Europe were either rich or lucky. The attrition rate from travel accidents and disease was very high. Upper class English people did not use bows themselves in battle very often. There are some notable exceptions.

It is important to understand how resistant to change medieval societies were. If you read the European accounts of the Crusades you will see that aside from noting high rates of fire and commenting on the presence of archery, there was very little understanding of the differences between the cultures. Bertrandon de la Brocquiere in the 1430s learned how to shoot with a thumb ring and brought a bow and arrows back from the Holy Land to the Duchy of Burgundy, but in order to encourage the Duke to launch another Crusade he minimized the effect of Turkish archery. It has been noted that yew longbows did not perform well in the Mediterranean because of the heat so there might have been few chances to directly compare performances.

Commanders like the Black Prince did go and return from Palestine and he did know how to use archers in battle in the English manner, but he did not have to fight people with composite bows in England and France so why would he bother to start a new industry when his opponents were either marginally equal or outclassed?

Mike Loades' conjecture is interesting, but, judging from the Marty Rose bows, recurvature did not enter into war bow construction in England, when they were in everyday use. On the continent, in Burgundy and France, this might have been different.

Justin Ma wrote:

Not sure of the humidity in England, but the humidity in places like Japan and southern India make it pretty impossible to use horn bows there.

Well, during the late Roman period, composite bows were in use almost as far north as the the Scottish border! I forget the exact sites where the siyah laths were found though ...

Whether these bows were as refined as the ones used in Asia at the time is unknown. They may have been constructed with more emphasis on durability and waterproofing. If that makes any sense.

It's thought that composite bows died out in Britain by around 400 - 450 AD. This is all second-hand information, so I may be mistaken.

I'm not sure how different the climate would be on the Scottish borders relative to places where Novgorod type bows were used.
The finding of bone laths doesn't necessarily indicate classic style composites were used.

The excavated laths had cross hatching where the sinew was glued over the antler. Since the bowyers were probably from the east Mediterranean coast, the most likely construction is contemporary composite. For a description of the finds in England you can see it in J. C. N. Coulston's Roman Archery. Some of the laths were in production when they were discarded and it is clear that some of the legionaries were only amateur bowyers.

When the Roman infrastructure was removed the composite bows fell into disuse. The native peoples would have been using self bows for hunting because they were cheaper and easier to make and when the Romans left they continued using them. Undoubtedly, Saxon and Norse invasions reinforced this pattern.

I think what this proves is the spread of the composite bow in Europe was not limited by climate, but more linked to culture and need. Why go to all that trouble if you don't need to? After the Romans left plumbing and composite bows were forgotten. One disappeared because the large buildings and towns were not being used and the other because the skill in manufacture and the need for the weapon had departed with the Roman army.

"not limited by climate, but more linked to culture and need"
And still is :)
But, Bede use 60lb on the flightshooting, what weight are the other bows?

Gokmen wrote:

''3. Make a good bow and send it to someone who should have the dedication to train with the siper. I have done it, but there have been problems on the way (still do not know what will come out of this)''

well I guess I am one of these guys, or maybe 'the' guy.

G?kmen

Well this is seriously great :)! When reading about the efficiency Adam achieved with his bows, I was always thinking: Why doesn't he go to Utah and break the record!? This question popped into my mind last time when I read about the record Csaba Grozer achieved with his version of a composite bow. I was thinking: "Guys bring the record back home:)." The limitations in doing so were discussed in this thread. Even if one can pull 120 lbs with his thumb it requires a lot of skill for launching the arrow out of the siper properly. Anyway, since I am following the "turkish archery movement" for quite a while, I was aware that there are people within that may have the skill and power. So I am really glad to see that two of the best in turkish archery came together to reestablish the old records. I am looking forward to this!

Kevin

P.S.: Besides that I still think a reasonable comparison of bows relies on the calculated efficiencies at a certain draw length, arrow weight.

While I have an eighty pound bow from Adam, the last few years I was only strong enough to pull it to about 65 lbs. The sixty pound bow I have has developed a crack in the core at the handle which I will attempt to repair but I don't think it will ever return to its original efficiency. Neither bow is a flight bow, but someone said they would make me one this year, but who knows if it will be ready in time.

It is worthwhile to train to build up your muscular control because it also affects your mental steadiness. If the strength of the bow does not overstress you it is easier to concentrate on shooting well.

One other thing is you only have to shoot the bow six times in a round so that it can be near the limit of your strength.

I have a slow internet connection right now but I did find this http://www.usaarcheryrecords.org/Flight ... ecords.pdf
One turkis record 285 m.

I already linked to that on the other thread.
Bede mentions that Jaap's bow wasn't optimised for flight nor was his sipur technique refined. Still you can see that all the primitive wood bows are in the same range or better.
If I wre trying to bring back the composite glory days I wouldn't even show up until I was at least half way to the old record.

I shoot longer then 285m with a 26" Secura arrow but I guess it don't counts :) without siper.
Some day maybe we have a competion here in Sweden also. So distance will be official.
Is thumbdraw a must?

I put sinew on a twowoodbow and gave it to a hunting buddy. He started to shot with thumbring from begining. Now he complines it's to light. 60+lb :) It took a month.

Kevin,

"the record Csaba Grozer achieved with his version of a composite bow"

Was that a "biocomposite"? Do you have a link?

Adam

It is mentioned here http://www.hungarianarchery.com/History ... &Itemid=70
and likely on Grozer's site too .

I have an article here from "Traditionell Bogenschie?en" from 2010 where Grozer and Jozsef Monus gave an interview bout their record, following information:
-the bow was a biocomposite, build with materials not used in the series production (Grozer)
-bow with a draw weight of 102 lbs on 31", according to the pictures it is braced very low (maybe 10 cm)
-used a short arrow (52-56 cm, 16 g with a guide rail, not connected to the grip of the bow, it is held in the hand
-no feathers but scales (fish)
-String was Fastflight 4 (4 threads; 0,7 mm diameter???)
-maximum speed: 383 fps
Further on they say that the bow would not break, even with arrwos that light.
What anoyed me at the time, was the fact that this was widely claimed as a world record. With all respect to the achievements of the two (Grozer and Monus), within the interview they did not even mention the okmeydan and the menzil stones. Maybe this was due to the reglement of the shooting, where nothing should be fixed to the grip. But actually the siper is not fixed to the grip but to the archers hand... Anyway I am over it now :), especially since I know there are people work on it.

Kevin

P.S.: How long/often do traditional turkish flight bows survive the shooting with 3gr/lbs?

It also ignores the Osage/Sinew bows that shot that far and Do n Brown's American record of over 600 with a composite.
Very odd that they would claim it as a record under any circumstances since that has been surpassed many times with equally "rule bending" enhancements.

Not a record but myself and another both shot a Korean semi-horn bow as set up for Korean archery over 300 yds, #56, standard target arrows 6.5X6.5 carbon (375 grains, 31") all standard out of the box, no practice, three finger tab.

Some people claim the biocomposite is a fiberglass laminate with sinew and horn facings. See here: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/reply/ ... ply-425874

Can someone confirm this?

Adam

Adam Karpowicz wrote:

Can someone confirm this?

I can confirm this. I have seen an uncovered Chinese Biocomposite model that belonged to a friend. It had the horn plate / glass / wood / glass / sinew plate construction as described in the link.

Fenris wrote:

I have an article here from "Traditionell Bogenschie?en" from 2010 where Grozer and Jozsef Monus gave an interview bout their record, following information:
-the bow was a biocomposite, build with materials not used in the series production (Grozer)
-bow with a draw weight of 102 lbs on 31", according to the pictures it is braced very low (maybe 10 cm)
-used a short arrow (52-56 cm, 16 g with a guide rail, not connected to the grip of the bow, it is held in the hand
-no feathers but scales (fish)
-String was Fastflight 4 (4 threads; 0,7 mm diameter???)
-maximum speed: 383 fps
Further on they say that the bow would not break, even with arrwos that light.
What anoyed me at the time, was the fact that this was widely claimed as a world record. With all respect to the achievements of the two (Grozer and Monus), within the interview they did not even mention the okmeydan and the menzil stones. Maybe this was due to the reglement of the shooting, where nothing should be fixed to the grip. But actually the siper is not fixed to the grip but to the archers hand... Anyway I am over it now :), especially since I know there are people work on it.

Kevin

P.S.: How long/often do traditional turkish flight bows survive the shooting with 3gr/lbs?

Good distance. But so long they don't say it's a record for traditional bows it's fine. One gram epoxy and it's no more a traditional bow :)

The point is that in his Forum (Grozer homepage http://www.grozerarchery.com/index_m.htm "Flight sooting Record") he claims that it's a traditional bow. Maybe according to design :).
This pressed sinew and horn realy kept me wondering. I think it is maybe horn/sinew waste from his true composite production that he reuses. A potential way is etching the horn/sinew in some acid to some degree, then adding crosslinking chemicals like EDC/NHS to reform the protein matrix pressed in a certain shape. In the end you get a substance like reformed meat in a well defined form. The problem will be that the properties of these materials will be different from the originals. There will be a tendency to split into layers again. Maybe not so much for the sinew but for the horn. This may also be the reason for the need of fiberglass between the wooden laminates and the "bio". If this is true, the horn and sinew are just decoration, a kind of marketing gag, that may contribute to some extend to the draw weight.
Anyway I am really wondering how this bow may profit from the pressed sinew and pressed horn!? Since I believe it may not take up compression and tension like horn or sinew in a horn bow, it may lead to heavier arms of the bow, making the bow less efficient. Therefore I think the layers have to be very thin <-- decoration. I think the material not used in his series production may be carbon.

Kevin

P.S.: In the interview they refer to the shoot by Don Brown, as another record with a composite bow (implying that their bow is a composite!!!). They state that this record was done with fixed (!) rail to the grip and a center shoot. Both methods, that stand outside the rules for the hungarian tournament (which I think were made for Grozer ;)). Furthermore it is said, that Don Browns bow broke after shooting and their bow doesn't.

Yep, it's a traditional design :)
Sinew can be put on as a package.

Patrick,
You can spend you whole life waiting for the perfect moment, but I think it is better to get some experience in actual competition. For Jaap and I, the Utah shoot is both a competition and a test bed for seeing how bows and technique perform. Due to the rules limiting the types of equipment that can compete in certain contests, we have been forced sometimes to enter traditional bows in regular contests. As well, due to the length requirements, I have been unable to enter modern Korean bows in the modern broad head competitions (they are too short, despite their being used in hunting in the US).

In regard to the Hungarians shooting at Bonneville Flats, I supplied some of the silk for their strings and saw the bows they used, which appeared to be traditional. Their sipers were held against the grip between the hand and the belly of the bow and as such resemble no ancient device, but then the wooden bow users take advantage of riser designs and overdraws that were unknown to any traditional user before the mid twentieth century. The Hungarian bows I saw in the traditional competitions appeared to be standard sinew wood horn composites.

Regarding Jack's comment about regular Korean bows and target arrows, it is consistent with my experience. I shot target darts with a majra in Utah several years ago. The arrow guide was short, 28 inches, and the darts had three inch target feathers and 125 grain points so there was no chance of optimising them for flight, but they still went more than 330 yards. The bow was about 53 lbs.

What our shooting in Utah has shown us is that there are more factors than just pulling the bow back and letting go. There are subtleties in technique that you do not appreciate when you are on a target range or in a random field. Archers always overestimate how far their arrows have gone in unmeasured environments, especially in irregular topography. shooting at Bonneville Flats has revealed several important facts.

• 1. Arrow weight is critical as is balance. In calm conditions on long ranges, the angle and manner of landing of the arrow contain information about how it flies.
  2. It is really easy to built a heavy but slow bow. Even in the broadhead competitions this is a disadvantage.
  3. Bowstrings will break. If you do not occasionally break a bowstring, you are making them too heavy because stronger is heavier. It is fine and recommended to practise with heavier strings for safety and durability, but in competition you have to be more efficient.
  4. Received wisdom about materials has to be tested. My experiences with gut, linen and silk are not what I expected based on my reading of technical articles and anthropological reports. They performed differently. gut was less stretchy than I had been informed, linen was more brittle (on composites) and silk, while it performed well and was stronger than I expected, had a natural tendency to knot to itself that makes me think most of the serving on silk strings was to prevent this at the expense of weight.

I could go on. There is only so much one can anticipate of problems and performance. You have to test in the real world and where better than a properly run competition? And it's fun.

My main question about flight shooting is how to accurately calculate the shooting angle. Is there a device? Is prompting acceptable?

I made a 100 yd sisal string winder with markers sewn on for accuracy in distance measuring.

I always appreciate Bede?s comments, he knows what?s the point here.......no myths, no legends, facts, that?s what we need.
I?ve just begun with flight- archery about 2 years ago. I was very proud when I?ve succeded the first 50-lbs- selfbow breaking the 200f/s. When dreams come true, the real problems are coming up: to find the right arrow took me much more effort than the bow. In the meanwhile I know how to make light and extremely stiff arrows( hex-shaft, enforced shafts). Next and most delicious problem is the shooting itself. How to shoot a flight- bow( angle, grip, release...........)? That?s a real challenge, but a lot of fun.

Jack seems to become infected by the flight- bow fever too, be careful, it?s a drug!

Michael

Jack,
In the competition, it is permitted to have a coach to advise you on the angle. The coach can hold a simple device like a triangle (90/45/45) to help you, but honestly it is not much of an advantage. It is really just a minor help since only you know whether the draw is right and if you are fast which is good you shoot before they can get a chance to say anything. The real way to guarantee it is to practice like the Turks.

The advantage of Bonneville Flats is you can clearly see the horizon. What I found is that you often underestimate the angle. I have looked at a lot of photographs we have taken and quite a few times the angle is too small.

Facts is fine but nobody will believe it any way so why post?
200fps can be made with most bow, just go light enough with the arrow, if that is the goal.
But if you like to improve the bow, go for efficiency. Because that is what makes the arrow fly fast.
I don't think 300fps should be any problem for a bow, it' more depending on the arrow. You can make it short, but thats not a weapon anymore. I have shoot 255fps with 400 grains but cant make a 200 grains arrow that takes the abuse. I did try carbon but they explode.
The speed of dryfiring is the fastest the limbs can move. But I have no idea of what speed it is.
Redhawk, Read more carefully what Badger answers you.

Bede wrote:

Jack,
In the competition, it is permitted to have a coach to advise you on the angle. The coach can hold a simple device like a triangle (90/45/45) to help you, but honestly it is not much of an advantage. It is really just a minor help since only you know whether the draw is right and if you are fast which is good you shoot before they can get a chance to say anything. The real way to guarantee it is to practice like the Turks.

The advantage of Bonneville Flats is you can clearly see the horizon. What I found is that you often underestimate the angle. I have looked at a lot of photographs we have taken and quite a few times the angle is too small.

Could a post be used? In front of archer at a distance and height that gives correct angle when you shoot over it?

Bede wrote:

Patrick,

Archers always overestimate how far their arrows have gone in unmeasured environments, especially in irregular topography. shooting at Bonneville Flats has revealed several important facts.

Reading this I remembered a historical picture of okmeydani I saw over here http://www.turkisharchery.info/?p=competitions. That implies that okmeydani is a quite hilly area. Unfortunately there is no exact information where the menzil stones are (for checking at Google Earth) in the internet. Neither is for the old ramp where they shot the arrows from (this was a bit naive hoping, I know:)).
Anyway moving the mouse over the historical area at google earth I noticed that there is quite a difference in elevation (95 to 45 m)from west to east) over a distance of ca. 400 m.
I assume the old ottomans knew about this an choose to shoot in directions were there was not such a difference.
So can anyone here, give the gps coord. of a range stone and the belonging foot stone with the range, to crosscheck that issue!?

Kevin

Redhorse wrote:

I did try carbon but they explode.

In my experience, Beman shafts have poor durability. Gold Tip brand carbon shafts fare better in the durability department.

I don't think there is any doubt that those shots were made. Sure some of them may have been somewhat wind aided.
We can clearly see from modern records what is attainable by tweaking arrow length, profile and overdraw but it still comes down to the fact that bows can push an object out there at remarkable speeds.
I should add that all of my own flight shots are measured multiple times with increasingly accurate measurements depending on how remarkable the shot was.

As a lifelong track runner I have developed a very good internal gps that gauges distance very accurately before even measuring "properly".

I also do not doubt the records, since they are well documented! Actually I used them a lot in discussing flight shooting issues in another forum :). Just I was wondering if anyone can give GPS data of corresponding range and foot stones to check the elevation issue. Maybe at least the outline (boarders) of the historical okmeydani!?

Kevin

Redhorse wrote:

Redhawk, Read more carefully what Badger answers you.

Talking about this thread? http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... rate-a-bow When the conversation gets into a "us vs. them" mode, it's easy to treat the other side as idiots who don't know any better. Things seem to have cooled down here, for which I am glad.

And I'm happy to acknowledge the benefits of self bows, all-wood laminates, and composite bows. In the end, it ends up being a tradeoff between better leverage vs. the low virtual mass. Different people came up with different solutions given the resources and engineering know-how they had available.

Adam Karpowicz wrote:

1. Shoot bows for distance with a machine. I have one nearly made and hopefully ready by spring. It will shoot any bow up to 200lb.


Adam

Hallo Adam,

I just wanted to bring up this thread again to hear maybe what happened to the shooting machine. It's spring now, at least in Germany ... :)

regards Kevin

Kevin, the machine still needs a bit of a touch up and btw, the spring has just barely arrived here.

Adam