Yuku free message boards

This discussion always destiles to one point at which turkish bows are called to testify, because they are only group for which hard data has been collected (thanks to glorious effort of Adam Karpowitz). There is off course a problem with fact tha there is many other types of hornbows, some of which, particulary long eared bows as magyr, proto-magyar, manchu and some other chinese bows do not appear to be even designed to shoot light and short arrows fast, but heavy and long arrows with big arrowheads at moderate speeds - something which a keen observer attributes directly to presence of hard armour on battlefields said cultures once had engaged.
I do not believe that some of the "spear thrower" designs such as magyar will exceed the performance of the wooden bows of comparable weight and drawlenght since they carry huge syiahs, which with increasing drawweight have to be made reasonably robust and the limbs and handle wide enough for warbow designation to be stable and reliable in field. There is mind you an offset at which light bows perform just horrid, because they cannot be made with reasonably better mass/performance ratio. This seems to be somewhere between 65-80# for some fo the long eared bows and less for short eared, but long eared bows do not get rid of this problem entirely even if made much stronger due to engeneering problems which arise once you start to design really heavy reliable bow.

It also makes sense since horsearchers typically do not need to engage enemy at long distance, that is what the horse is for and skirmishing tactitcs "close, engage, withdrawn" is well documented in most of these cultures.

Nick, I think that you will be well pushing it with 46" of hronbow and 32" long arrow, I understand that both turkish and korean, being on short side are not well suited for this kind of drawlenght - (rather than 28"). And consequently I m not aware of long eared bows which work reasonably well so short and drawn that far, since e.g. magyar bows do seem to be as long as 60-68" and suited for shooting long and heavy arrows as well as many other asiatic designs, save some short eared bows, which appear to be few in type and family. Think of the fact that some of magyar and hunnic bows had syiahs in vicinity of 8-10" only 46" will not make the bow as we think they looked like.

The calculation Redhorse gave above does not make any sense at all, and he is conveniently pulling numbers "out of turban" to justify his position, which is that of rabid horse archer. He cannot though make and shoot bows as heavy as in question as it was demonstrated in rather shamefull thread while ago.

I advise to keep common sense - function justifies construction and when you reverese engeneer it is usefull to asumme also the reverse postulate is true = that the functionality will never exceeds construction limits of the item.

Hence if a horsebow with wide, stable limbs and rather massive syiahs, which accumulates lots of energy, but which´s recovery rate of limbs is slow shoots normal arrows with rather mediocre results and not very far, then it is reasonable to assume that it was MEANT to shoot very heavy arrows over short distance during rushing horse attack, particulary when some of the arrowheads which appear to belong to same set of equipment are huge by any standart.
(I m still having a picture of Rod´s indian skull crusher arrowhead, which might make nice 3000 grain arrow).

Mind you, if you were capable to follow this tangled chain of thoughts up until here, you can probably make qualified guess on what is correct.

Jaro

1. No that is not correct. Largelly depends on type of bow. Some hornbow designs are clearly not intended to shoot light arrows and wont shoot them well
2. Unless you are horserider I cant see it as advantage. It is a inherent property of the design that it can be done, but it is not an advantage
3. Proper wording of this one would probably be "hornbows can be made in areas in which there is scarcity of wood" - that is how they actually emerged . not as something superior in shooing qualities, but as a means of making bows at places where is no wood. On the other hand, when it comes to wooden bows words "mass production" have entirelly different meaning.
4. Not entirelly sure what you mean? If it concerns the subjective archers fatique, then you probably havent had correctly made wooden bow. I have shot a shooting session with my late 100# osage/hickory bow which consisted of shooting over 100 arrows in series of 10 or 12
5. No we "must not agree". Citation is needed. That means you shall not provide generalisations or statements unless you support them with data. It is clear that some hornbows will be shooting roughly on par or worse than wooden bows due to high syiah mass and overbuild factor with high "law of dimnishing effect" problems
6. No that depends largely on the quality of workmanship. Well made wooden bows have smooth draw too
7. At least second half of this is not correct, or the data for it is not presented. There is no data availble that will proove that horsebows, generally regardless of type shoot better distances than wooden bows. That means all types through the spectrum. The only availble data there are are turkish bows by Adam Karpowitz and non experimental observations from korean archery which is very heavyly sporterised and has nothing to do with shooting "war arrows".

Frankly if you want to discus, learn to discuss, otherwise I will be very unpleasant to you. There are some standarts when it comes to presenting discussing points such as logicall consistency and citation of facts, when necessary. [Note from Ken: Those standards should also preclude being rude or using antagonistic language. Your excellent point is completely diluted by your threat and subsequent vitriol]

Untill some of you boys starts to shoot 50 gram arrows at 300 meters and 250 with 75 gram, with any hornbow type chosen (aside of turk and korean) this discussion is fairly pointless.
I also fail to see any evidence that long eared high draw bows like magyar and protomagyar (e.g. Moschewaja Balka) will outshoot well made wooden bow pound per pound with the same arow for distance - mind you 400 yards with lb is nothing unheard of.

J.

"You talk about , like you have any experience vith high range composite bows made vith old technique ?!?"

- And you talk like you have any experience with high draw wooden bows made by respectable maker

"I have MINE PERSONALY experiences .Not of all what i say , but some , yes."

- Which is useles as we dont have any details, or at least "what you have or not have" Anecdotical evidence at best. (Anecdote here is "jedna paní povídala" type of argumentation, not "joke".

"We talking about best representats of historical composites bows." - No we do not. That is what you do and it is a type of strawman. You claim that turkish or korean are typical representative of hornbows, which clearly they are not. They are cherry picked group.


"Yes , i havent this tipe of bow in mi hand. But i try made miself and some of mi bows have interesting results." - Which does not tells us a squat until you post them.

"If you have a time , you can read book from Adam Karpowitz. Here is some real facts/no citation/ for you." - I actually have the book. Hovever, you are acting like if all the hornbows had performance of high end otoman turkish bows, which is frankly laughable claim. ( In this context "citation" mean that you should present some data) - Improve your english.


"For me is stil this 7 points right ."
Which makes you either dishonest or daft. I m trying to present my points to actually make sense, whereas you did not provided any facts at all until now. All you do is to present claims as if they were universal truths. Understand that "It is true because I say so" is not an argument at all. I m still awaiting clearly worded logical aguments.


"(sorry but 100 arrows in 10-12 series is not what i mean "long time shooting""

With a bow of 105# at 31" it is "long time shooting", but obviously you have no idea what I m talking about. Explain me why all the hornbow makers and shooters keep making them and shoot them at weights we usually refer as "target or recreationall" - (generally though there are exceptions like yokhua )

"wood bow smooth draw is very lóóóng distance from this point"

That is subjective to any archer and will varry between the bows respective of type. I have actually shot grozers horn turk and I liked his TRH version made of modern materials better - which again proves my point - that craftsmanship and bow type will determine what is "smooth" and what is not.


" 60 or more days strung bow is not advantege ?"

It is not, unless something prevents you to string or unstring bow for 60 days. Imagine if I wrote (a perfectly valid) : "Hornbows are dificult to brace as it requires in many cases wooden former, carefull heating and excersising to achieve good braced and drawn shape, hence they aren suitable for field use at all."

- See using the same logic you have no problems at all to use, I just have turned general property you are speaking of in reverence, from advantage to disadvantage.
Understand this - a long wooden bow used usually by infantryman is so easy to brace, in seconds of time, that this point is rendered completelly irellevant.

"For me is stil this 7 points right"

" Ok your opinion...)"

- Stop being ass. I m so fed up with czech hornbow wankers. People who are unable to make wooden bows, much less hornbows, who shoot carbon korean "replicas" in target bow weights and carbon arrows.
I dont recall discussing you, just Mysa, who is above all tall teller. I dont even go to that server anymore, I m fed up with sunny people, who demand respect as it was universal right, yet behave in most assinine manner in terms on what grounds DISCUSSION shall be led.