I've recently gotten back into archery and I was wondering if there were any other bow and arrow enthusiasts on the board?
If so what and where do you shoot?
I've always had a passing interest in it, but never turned it into any kind of hobby. I did a bit at school and some at events where I've done alright (all longbow), so I'm not a bad shot either, pretty consistent overall.
Used to be in Bournemouth archery club as a youngster, tried to get back in to it last year, but time and costs made it a short lived venture.
me
I love my cider & darts
I used to shoot recurve until I went to Uni, was reasonably good at it at one point. I haven't done it for years though
I have my own recurve but not done it in a while. I hate target, flight and field. Prefer people.
Quote from: Eagle on April 28, 2012, 20:28:12 PM
I have my own recurve but not done it in a while. I hate target, flight and field. Prefer people.
Our little informal archery group draws straws. If you get the shortest you have to get padded up in a gambeson, fencing mask, and padded gauntlets and run around like a loon in a field a hundred yards or so away while the rest of the group wails on you with rubber blunted arrows. Moving targets are much more fun, and it makes clout shooting rather interesting. Lighter poundage bows only, of course.
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 02, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Quote from: Eagle on April 28, 2012, 20:28:12 PM
I have my own recurve but not done it in a while. I hate target, flight and field. Prefer people.
Our little informal archery group draws straws. If you get the shortest you have to get padded up in a gambeson, fencing mask, and padded gauntlets and run around like a loon in a field a hundred yards or so away while the rest of the group wails on you with rubber blunted arrows. Moving targets are much more fun, and it makes clout shooting rather interesting. Lighter poundage bows only, of course.
Haha! This sounds amazing. I'd definitely be more keen to have a go if I was shooting at a person.
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 02, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Quote from: Eagle on April 28, 2012, 20:28:12 PM
I have my own recurve but not done it in a while. I hate target, flight and field. Prefer people.
Our little informal archery group draws straws. If you get the shortest you have to get padded up in a gambeson, fencing mask, and padded gauntlets and run around like a loon in a field a hundred yards or so away while the rest of the group wails on you with rubber blunted arrows. Moving targets are much more fun, and it makes clout shooting rather interesting. Lighter poundage bows only, of course.
I'd love to see the A&E report when something goes wrong :D Makes me think of that Magic missile Cops spoof :D
Quote from: addictweb on May 02, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
Haha! This sounds amazing. I'd definitely be more keen to have a go if I was shooting at a person.
Try airsoft skirmishing if you like to hunt people. :thumbup:
Globally this is on the increase thanks to the Hunger Games movie. Lots of people wanting to give it a go.
Quote from: neXus on May 07, 2012, 01:53:04 AM
Globally this is on the increase thanks to the Hunger Games movie. Lots of people wanting to give it a go.
My local club has seen a huge boost in membership thanks to the Hunger Games but sadly most of the joiners have already fallen by the wayside and aren't sticking with it. Such is the way of things, it always happens when there's something archery related going on in Hollywood.
That will happen too sadly.
People need to learn and practise to get good but everyone sees something and thinks its easy or or think, if she trained to do that for the movie it must be easy etc.
Like playing a guitar your fingers and hands need to harden up for Archery and you got to fight through the pain for a while. And if you got no arm muscles to build that up etc.
To hard for most.
The main reason that archery lost out against guns was the amount of training required, a professional had to go out every day and shoot from being a child in order to build up the body strength and aim required. Unfortunately a lot of new pastimes appeared and people started to find using a bow repeatedly no longer held their attention.
Guns, although they had a much shorter range, were easier to fire and had better armour penetration that wasn't affected by strength of the user's arms. They might not have been as accurate as a bow over a longer distance but they could make up for that with simple numbers firing.
Quote from: Serious on May 08, 2012, 04:17:52 AM
The main reason that archery lost out against guns was the amount of training required, a professional had to go out every day and shoot from being a child in order to build up the body strength and aim required.
This is a fairly common misconception. People did practice archery from a young age but more because it was a fun and entertaining thing to do that had practical value that was actively encouraged by the crown, this ensured that there was a large amount of skilled bowmen should the situation arise in the future.
You don't need to train all day every day from a child to pull a fairly heavy bow. Most modern target longbows are in the 35-40lb range, anyone of reasonable health should be able to pull them, and any healthy adult should be able to pick up a 60lb bow and draw and loose that with no worries as long as they have reasonable technique and have been practising on a lighter bow for a month or two. I've only just gotten back into archery (six months) and I'm already up to a 100lb warbow, and I've just placed a deposit on a 150lb self yew warbow that I'm fairly confident I'll be pulling in another six months time. This is a fairly good approximation of the estimated draw weight of the majority of medieval war bows. So from a cold start and practising twice a week for a couple of hours, and having the odd all-day session when the weather was good in just over a year I'll have gone from 35lbs to pulling 150lbs, and I'm in no way shape or form fit, healthy or in any kind of shape. And bear in mind your average medieval gent was far healthier and stronger than the vast majority of modern people because life simply demanded it.
I don't deny that it took training and practice to become skilled with the bow, much more than the often inferior firearms that initially replaced them, but it certainly wasn't required to start from being a child to build up strength.
There are a lot of urban legends about medieval archery (having to train all day every day to become strong enough, the obligatory "V" sign coming from archers having their fingers cut off if captured by the enemy, skeletons of bowmen being disturbingly deformed because they'd been pulling heavy draw weights all day every day, etc) and most of them are just that; legends.
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 08, 2012, 16:21:21 PM
Quote from: Serious on May 08, 2012, 04:17:52 AM
The main reason that archery lost out against guns was the amount of training required, a professional had to go out every day and shoot from being a child in order to build up the body strength and aim required.
This is a fairly common misconception. People did practice archery from a young age but more because it was a fun and entertaining thing to do that had practical value that was actively encouraged by the crown, this ensured that there was a large amount of skilled bowmen should the situation arise in the future.
This is bang on. Same reason in more recent times the home office would approve and fund local rifle clubs, post world war the government wanted to ensure that if the draft was ever required again more young men would already be trained in firearms and marksmanship.
Same reason funding for scout troops too.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 08, 2012, 16:21:21 PM
There are a lot of urban legends about medieval archery (having to train all day every day to become strong enough, the obligatory "V" sign coming from archers having their fingers cut off if captured by the enemy, skeletons of bowmen being disturbingly deformed because they'd been pulling heavy draw weights all day every day, etc) and most of them are just that; legends.
I didn't say all day, which would be ridiculous. Many people would be hunters or protect their land with the bow and that use would certainly add to the total. There is also quite a lot of law that has been devoted to trying to make sure that people did practice archery on Sundays.
The English archers using the V sign is well documented, not a myth. Unless you know better than a lot of historians?
There is quite a lot of evidence that archers were adapted physically The different use of the arms resulting in bone density variations.
QuoteI'm also a very keen student of history and a wannabee warbow shooter. I heard some years ago that Pip had these opinions about warbow poundage and obviously he's still denying all the evidence to the contrary. Why I don't know? There are a lot of warbow shooters in England now drawing 150lb and up. Stretton & Stratton I believe are getting near the 200lb. As for then, there's been exhaustive studies of the Mary Rose stock of bows. See Hardy's 'Warbow.' Most of those bows average over 130lb. Henry VIII himself pulled a bow of around 180lb. Examination of medieval archers' skeletons shows massive bone spurs on the right shoulder, massive bone density/ forearm growth and twisted spines, almost deformed. Training 'in the bowe' was compulsory from the age of 8 so their bodies grew with the bow and their musculature accordingly. The huge heavy poundage was necessary to keep up penetrative power to keep pace with the development of armour. The heavy bodkin head was part of this process, designed for punching through steel. Pip's figures for arrow speeds are correct. Everyone knows that even today it is hard to get over 180 fps out of a longbow. What he neglects to mention however is weight and trajectory of the arrow. A heavy bow will cast a heavy arrow at that same 180 fps. The medieval battle arrow weighed a quarter of a pound. The kinetic energy of that, particularly on the down travel of the trajectory's arc (gravity assisted) was devastating. There have been tests carried out on the penetrative power of these heavy arrows on sheet steel. I have also heard claims made by Pip and others that bows of such a heavy poundage would be shot out within a dozen arrows. Again, don't know how he makes these assumptions. Might be based on low ring Pacific Yew. Not true of high altitude Italian Yew, used by most keen warbow shooters today, who don't front up 800 quid just to sling it after 5 minutes. So don't be misled by an 'amateur' posing as an expert. Pip's a fine bowyer by all accounts, but not a trained historian. All the evidence of the day says emphatically that he is wrong. He is denying the evidence of the Mary Rose. Cheers
http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f13/medieval-draw-weight-29273/
If you want to argue with someone go argue with him ;)
Quote from: Serious on May 09, 2012, 15:17:28 PM
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 08, 2012, 16:21:21 PM
There are a lot of urban legends about medieval archery (having to train all day every day to become strong enough, the obligatory "V" sign coming from archers having their fingers cut off if captured by the enemy, skeletons of bowmen being disturbingly deformed because they'd been pulling heavy draw weights all day every day, etc) and most of them are just that; legends.
I didn't say all day, which would be ridiculous. Many people would be hunters or protect their land with the bow and that use would certainly add to the total. There is also quite a lot of law that has been devoted to trying to make sure that people did practice archery on Sundays.
The English archers using the V sign is well documented, not a myth. Unless you know better than a lot of historians?
There is quite a lot of evidence that archers were adapted physically The different use of the arms resulting in bone density variations.
QuoteI'm also a very keen student of history and a wannabee warbow shooter. I heard some years ago that Pip had these opinions about warbow poundage and obviously he's still denying all the evidence to the contrary. Why I don't know? There are a lot of warbow shooters in England now drawing 150lb and up. Stretton & Stratton I believe are getting near the 200lb. As for then, there's been exhaustive studies of the Mary Rose stock of bows. See Hardy's 'Warbow.' Most of those bows average over 130lb. Henry VIII himself pulled a bow of around 180lb. Examination of medieval archers' skeletons shows massive bone spurs on the right shoulder, massive bone density/ forearm growth and twisted spines, almost deformed. Training 'in the bowe' was compulsory from the age of 8 so their bodies grew with the bow and their musculature accordingly. The huge heavy poundage was necessary to keep up penetrative power to keep pace with the development of armour. The heavy bodkin head was part of this process, designed for punching through steel. Pip's figures for arrow speeds are correct. Everyone knows that even today it is hard to get over 180 fps out of a longbow. What he neglects to mention however is weight and trajectory of the arrow. A heavy bow will cast a heavy arrow at that same 180 fps. The medieval battle arrow weighed a quarter of a pound. The kinetic energy of that, particularly on the down travel of the trajectory's arc (gravity assisted) was devastating. There have been tests carried out on the penetrative power of these heavy arrows on sheet steel. I have also heard claims made by Pip and others that bows of such a heavy poundage would be shot out within a dozen arrows. Again, don't know how he makes these assumptions. Might be based on low ring Pacific Yew. Not true of high altitude Italian Yew, used by most keen warbow shooters today, who don't front up 800 quid just to sling it after 5 minutes. So don't be misled by an 'amateur' posing as an expert. Pip's a fine bowyer by all accounts, but not a trained historian. All the evidence of the day says emphatically that he is wrong. He is denying the evidence of the Mary Rose. Cheers
http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f13/medieval-draw-weight-29273/ (http://www.archeryinterchange.com/f13/medieval-draw-weight-29273/)
If you want to argue with someone go argue with him ;)
I knew you'd be along to "correct" me. I'm not prepared to alter what I've said though.
I have knowledge that I've worked hard to acquire; I've examined the evidence coming from all quarters, have first hand practical experience, and have made up my own mind.
You Googled it.
This is why I will not be engaging you in any further discussion on the subject.
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 09, 2012, 16:33:58 PM
I knew you'd be along to "correct" me. I'm not prepared to alter what I've said though.
No mate, YOU TRIED TO CORRECT ME, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Your post was in response to mine.
Quote
I have knowledge that I've worked hard to acquire; I've examined the evidence coming from all quarters, have first hand practical experience, and have made up my own mind.
You Googled it.
So you are a fully qualified historian? We all have a thing called a brain and can look at the evidence presented and decide which side we think is right. That is not the same as being right.
The usual 'you googled it' claim. If the google or yahoo stuff is right and you're wrong then there is no issue. I only used yahoo AFTER you contradicted me. Then again, you have never presented any real evidence of anything. If you do find some then I and everyone else will listen.
Quote
This is why I will not be engaging you in any further discussion on the subject.
Wow, and putting your head in a hole like a proverbial ostrich makes you right? I say proverbial because no real ostrich has ever been pictured like that. Perhaps you should do some real research or leave it to the experts.
Note that while I said the use of the V sign was well documented and not a myth there are a couple of issues with that. The V sign as we know it today came from much later. The actual claim made at the time was that Henry V said that the fingers would be removed, not that it had. The action might have been 'waved the two fingers at the French' and shouts to 'come and get them'. A more likely outcome of the French capturing an English archer would have been a quick death than the removal of two fingers. The reliability of the documentation is therefore debatable. The reality of this is that it can now never be proven either way.
(http://www.veryicon.com/icon/png/Movie%20%26%20TV/Curtains/PopCorn.png)
*whips out his wang and looks around...*
"Sorry I thought this was a cock fight?"
:ptu:
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: zpyder on May 10, 2012, 07:51:12 AM
(http://www.veryicon.com/icon/png/Movie%20%26%20TV/Curtains/PopCorn.png)
ROFL
Sorry guys, I think that went a bit drastic from both of us.
I just have problems with peeps who claim intrinsic knowledge of some subject but won't provide any evidence of their claims.
Unfortunately I've had some bad experiences from people like that, one of whom cost me at least four months work.
I certainly don't expect anyone else to believe everything I say either. Which is why I try to provide evidence where at all possible.
Then again that nick reminds me of Don Quixote, althouhg I doubt there is any real connection, I might be wrong though.
Quote from: Serious on May 11, 2012, 00:27:42 AM
I just have problems with peeps who claim intrinsic knowledge of some subject but won't provide any evidence of their claims.
That is rather ironic...
Just an aside (and I've noticed it in another thread in SC where you picked an argument with me) - using CAPITOL LETTERS within a body of text on TEH INTERNETS in an attempt to PROVIDE EMPHASIS just ends up looking REALLY SILLY.
You're not using an old type writer to post - you'd be better off, if you really feel the need,
to simply make the words bold as it makes for much easier reading and DOESN'T COME ACROSS AS SHOUTING or look like a cheap marketing e-mail.
:thumbup:
(http://www.chasethedevil.co.uk/img/tiebusiness.jpg)
?
Quote from: matt5cott on May 17, 2012, 10:25:53 AM
(http://www.chasethedevil.co.uk/img/tiebusiness.jpg)
?
Are you insinuating that Dave is a muppet and a spammer? :dunno:
Next he'll be claiming that I'm a spammer too! :panic: :worried:
Quote from: Serious on May 19, 2012, 01:08:59 AM
Quote from: matt5cott on May 17, 2012, 10:25:53 AM
(http://www.chasethedevil.co.uk/img/tiebusiness.jpg)
?
Are you insinuating that Dave is a muppet and a spammer? :dunno:
Next he'll be claiming that I'm a spammer too! :panic: :worried:
How on gods green earth did you manage to come to that conclusion from a picture of Commando?
Are you sure you're cut out to be a moderator?
Quote from: Serious on May 19, 2012, 01:08:59 AM
Are you insinuating that Dave is a muppet and a spammer? :dunno:
Next he'll be claiming that I'm a spammer too! :panic: :worried:
So personal insults are fair game on here if posed as a question?
I'm not sure what my post count is on here over the last year but I'm not sure it would be sufficiently high to count as spam. No doubt, since you're on benefits and with nothing to really do with your life you could probably google something irrelevant to contradict that.
I can't for the life of me work out what is going on over the past few posts, but this is looking very childish.
Serious you know perfectly well matt5cott was not insinuating anything of the sort, I think you should be offering Dave an apology. And Dave, you're baiting Serious to wind him up, please stop.
We've all been on here long enough to know how to get along and play nice, there's no need for snide digs from anyone. Just think about what you post next.
The picture is from Predator, the line is,
'what is this f****** tie business?'
I used it in the Tie spammer thread, and bumped a cable tie thread, but that wasn't enough, so am now going to use it regularly when I'm at a loss as to wtf is going on, as I did here ;D
lol, I'd noticed you were using it all over the place, but assumed here you were suggesting the argument (like ALL arguments on the internet) was a tie
Quote from: Mongoose on May 21, 2012, 19:33:05 PM
lol, I'd noticed you were using it all over the place, but assumed here you were suggesting the argument (like ALL arguments on the internet) was a tie
What a picture, it works on so many levels :yarr:
Everything is better with added arnie :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
(http://www.danielrisi.net/mediac/400_0/media/ArnoldwithBow.jpg)
That's a step too far. Lol like a hoff photo.
Banana hammocks look good on no one.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
I take solace from the fact that he's about to twang his impressively large bicep, and that's going to sting no matter how tough you are.
Quote from: Dave on May 19, 2012, 14:17:50 PM
Quote from: Serious on May 19, 2012, 01:08:59 AM
Are you insinuating that Dave is a muppet and a spammer? :dunno:
Next he'll be claiming that I'm a spammer too! :panic: :worried:
So personal insults are fair game on here if posed as a question?
I'm not sure what my post count is on here over the last year but I'm not sure it would be sufficiently high to count as spam. No doubt, since you're on benefits and with nothing to really do with your life you could probably google something irrelevant to contradict that.
Please note the time of posting, it was just before 9am and I'd been unable to sleep, the tie at that point looked like a bit of square metal tube. Recognising which film it was from was beyond me.
I was confused over why it was being posted, especially as Matt had posted it several times, effectively spamming it. I therefore responded in what I hoped would be taken as a joke.
So it wasn't intended as an insult. Clock'd correctly identified who it was aimed at.
Obviously a lot of people on here don't understand humour. OK, it was my humour and indeed obscure, but I'm sure I found it hilarious when I posted it.
Quote from: Quixoticish on May 22, 2012, 21:39:46 PM
(http://www.danielrisi.net/mediac/400_0/media/ArnoldwithBow.jpg)
Quote from: matt5cott on May 17, 2012, 10:25:53 AM
(http://www.chasethedevil.co.uk/img/tiebusiness.jpg)
?
I am sure that there is a message there somewhere... And I don't mean Arnie's physique either.