Archery: Thumbring? - Printable Version +- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat) +-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5) +--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26) +--- Thread: Archery: Thumbring? (/showthread.php?tid=3237) |
Re: Archery: Thumbring? - Et tu brute - 12-12-2007 Just a little side note on the draw weights of the mary rose... Steve Stratton ( www.diyarchery.co.uk ) who makes bows from high altitude Italian Yew recently made a number of bows to (I think) the mary rose specs, the heaviest came out at 202# @32" quite an astonishing draw weight, it's currently an sale on e-bay. The other bows he made were also of very high draw weights (in excess of 140#). Anyway, off-topic again, sorry :oops: Re: Archery: Thumbring? - ratty - 12-12-2007 Quote:Back on thumb rings. There is some discussion among Asian archery scholars that more than a few Steppe cultures used a split two finger draw. Two may have been the Huns and the Sassanids. Quote:The hand shock on those D class bows must have loosened the shooters teeth.not true im afraid i shoot one at 110# and i pick up my stopgap bow on friday that is 135# hand shock realy isnt an issue unless the bow is badly made. Re: Archery: Thumbring? - ratty - 12-12-2007 Quote:Hi guys, english warbow was designed to shoot a very heavy projectile long distance. composit bows are made to be smaller with larger draw lengths for there size. they are very different bows but are both designed with hunting and warfare in mind. Quote:Referring to the self bow, every bowyer will tell you that it is more difficult to make a 100# bow than to make a 50# bow. Firstly due to the availability of proper raw material, secondly due to the skill of the manufacturer, since stronger bows have less tolerance for flaws in craftsmanship.im a bowyer although not commercial one and i wouldnt agree with this. Re: Archery: Thumbring? - Sean Manning - 12-13-2007 Quote:Hi guys,Yeah, composite bows are very different things from self bows and we know designs changed over time and place. I don't know enough about Roman ones to get involved in the main thread of this discussion. People talk about improvements in composite bow design over time, but I'd bet the archer still made the difference. And I expect most Roman archers were very good at what they did (whether that was shooting far, or fast, or accurately, or whatever). Archery: Thumbring? - jonwr - 12-13-2007 Ratty Thanks for cluing me in on the hand shock thing My only experience with long bows has been the American flat versions like the Howard Hill style or self bows of various designs I have pick up here and there. I had just assumed (Bad thing :oops: ) that a heavy bow tillered to bend though the handle would have some "kick" to it. Jon R |