Compares to a real bow as an olympic target shooting rifle compares to a real rifle.
that is a casual compound hunting bow. they have an input of around 80lbs and an output of around 500lbs so if you can shoot a normal re-curve hunting bow, you can shoot mad powerful using this. the design also makes it much easier to handle than a traditional bow, though it is slower to fire.
They look stupid cause they follow designs getting very far away from the origin, there are some some exceptions, pic related.
Normal modern compound bows make more visual sense if you keep in mind that the arms don't move as much as on classical ones and the pulley system is what gives the string the distance it needs.
Compound crossbows don't look as odd as there is not the expectation of the arms being slender and light.
These were shitty bows, they were meant to be fired up in the air because they were too slow for flat shooting so they used heavy ass arrows and turned them into artillery.
no, not really, they were intended to break armor at 30 yards or less. arching your fire was more or less a tactic used to harass forces on approach, and when you had no armor this became quite deadly.
Composite bows are much better than european longbows, mechanically. The only reasons they weren't used in europe are economics and (possibly) weather conditions.
the penultimate actual war bow was the hunnic-hungarian war bow, as it was much smaller yet still as powerful as the long bow. the down side is the composite material would warp due to humidity, where as a solid bow like a long bow could handle it. thumb rings are also more well regarded because of their ease to rest when at full draw. this would let you lock out your limbs to steady your shot.
most of the economics of fielding archers goes into the years of strength training and the logistics of making and supplying the arrows
compound recurves were used on the arid eastern steppes and not in the humid and rainy west because water damage
>much better than european longbows >but can't be used in some weather conditions >the weather conditions of an entire continent
clown
Romans used composite bows in gaul and britannia. Mughals used them in india. Medieval europeans used composite crossbow prods. It takes more care to protect them from water, but clearly it can be done.
I like bows. Here's a hackberry flatbow I made this spring. I'm still new to making bows but it's been a lot of fun. I will still be hunting with a compound this year but my life goal is to kill a bull elk with a bow I made.
What bows did the other europeans use? As I understand it, practically every bow that is not a composite bow, is a longbow - as it is made out of a single piece of timber. And the english imported yew wood from all over europe, so it wasn't a ressource exclusive to the british isles.
The Welsh built their bows of elm which were apparently quite capable >"In the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal."
Often cited as a precursor to the English longbow though I'm not sure how true that is. It's probably been debated to death already.
They also used them like fucking gremlins hiding in woodlands and ambushing soldiers at point blank range. I imagine that stopped after they were folded into English armies.
It's shite
Been doing Kyudo for like 2 years and the bow itself is highly inaccurate, requires a lot of skill, usually has low draw weight, very weird to carry due to it being 2.1 meters tall, finicky with weather etc
I was thinking about getting a bow to shoot behind my house when I'm bored, on a target about 30-60m (100-200ft) away. What would you guys suggest ? Budget around 100-200€.
The answer to this is always a Sage takedown, although idk how europoor laws work in regards to bows and the shipping costs
>The answer to this is always
A correctly tuned bow and arrows will always be specific to an individual as well. It starts with teh users draw length and weight and along with left or right handedness that will dictate the bow and the spine of the arrow, the weight of its tip and so forth. It is not identical from person to person
>A correctly tuned bow and arrows will always be specific to an individual as well. It starts with the users draw length and weight and along with left or right handedness that will dictate the bow and the spine of the arrow, the weight of its tip and so forth. It is not identical from person to person
"Firstly it’s important to know how long an arrow you will draw/shoot. This is determined by how long your arms are and, as long as you use a bow that is nice and easy to pull, this will give you a good starting point for choosing yourself a bow. A good rule of thumb is to measure the distance from your chin to the base of your thumb and forefinger when your arm is stretched out sideways, inline with your shoulders, and your head turned towards the hand that is held out. ....we hope you can follow that description! (Basically you’re positioned as if holding a bow fully pulled back)."
https://www.quicksarchery.co.uk/beginners
Quicks have a very good reputation and are known internationally as they were always one of the premier English archery supplier pre internet. read their beginners guide and tutorials on draw length etc
Another good and old way of measuring draw was to stand and place the palms of your hands together and hold them out straight ahead at 90 degrees to your body. The measurement from your longest fingertip to your sternum should also be your draw length. DO NOT buy a heavy draw bow. You will learn bad form and it will not be either pleasant or worthwhile in developing good skills. I suggest 28 lbs if you are starting.
>did they shoot from horseback?
Yes. However the Kyudo bow are quite low poundage, comparable to FITA ones, that's made up for by the long draw length. The two archery styles are however virtually identical in core technique, I was struck by that in Zena and teh Art of Archery. Its dressed up in mysticism but it amounts to achieving good exact repetitive form with muscle memory while eliminating any conscious thought that may interfere. It took me a long time to learn that about archery and carry it over to other target sports so there it is for free for anyone that did not know
Historical Japanese bows had a much higher draw weight than is generally known, many of the competition or "test" shots require a draw weight of 100 pounds or more. There was an archery test, once famous, that involved shooting over a long building from a specific place outside it; the shot is completely impossible without a bow of high draw weight.
Possibly, I don;t pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about Japanese archery, its a specialised subject cantered around the Japanese language and I have no interest in it much beyond Zen and teh art of Archery which without looking it up was written by a German in Japan in the early 20th century (1910s???). One titbit is the Japanese 'samurai' were originally distinguished by their ability with bows on horse not katana. I really don't have much interest in Japanese culture though. They use FITA recurve bows in the Olympics like everyone else and they are the best platform to excel in archery with.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I have no interest in it much beyond Zen and teh art of Archery which without looking it up was written by a German in Japan in the early 20th century (1910s???).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
Ok Looked it up now...
"Zen in the Art of Archery (Zen in der Kunst des Bogenschießens) is a book by German philosophy professor Eugen Herrigel, published in 1948, about his experiences studying Kyūdō, a form of Japanese archery, when he lived in Japan in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing Zen to Western audiences in the late 1940s and 1950s."
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>FITA recurve bows
>I have no interest in it much beyond Zen and teh art of Archery which without looking it up was written by a German in Japan in the early 20th century (1910s???).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
Ok Looked it up now...
"Zen in the Art of Archery (Zen in der Kunst des Bogenschießens) is a book by German philosophy professor Eugen Herrigel, published in 1948, about his experiences studying Kyūdō, a form of Japanese archery, when he lived in Japan in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing Zen to Western audiences in the late 1940s and 1950s."
https://www.worldarchery.sport/
There is a huge commonality at the heart of archery and disciplines like precision long range rifle, 3 position, running boar etc etc even sniping. I found using the mental image of a drop of water, condensed about to fall that I could eventually manipulate my heart rate and create the sensation of the target moving towards me and time slowing. This skillset transferred when I began to engage with long range precision shooting later on in life along with the discipline for consciousness repetition applied to everything from check weld and eye relief to Tigger work and position of grip, balance and placement as well as posture and correct joint and skeletal form . Archery is a wonderful sport.
If their bows can punch through shields and two sides of armor and a man, wouldn't every fight involving their "peers" just be them firing one shot and going home?
That comic is ridiculous but Japanese archery was good enough that battlefield combat at one point got so highly ritualized that before the charge, each commander (in armor) would fire a single arrow at the other from 100-200yds, and if struck, was the loser and went home, because he was probably an instant casualty. this happened because the archer corps of samurai armies were so devastating that both sides were guaranteed to lose huge numbers to arrows before achieving a win/loss or strategic gain.
the Mongols cured the Japs of this habit in one battle and they never did it again, but yes, the war bows were massively powerful, easily on par with any of the Western or Manchu war bows
Sure I just meant in the context of the comic, why would their "enemies" even bother attacking them if they could punch straight through them with arrows like that?
World Archery (FITA) recurve bows 28-35lb with tuned draw length and matched correct spine helical fletched arrows, with the correct grain points, a tuner plunger on a plain plastic arrow rest, the whole tuned using the bare fletch along with string twist, a finger tab in leather with a steel back plate with chin touch and one graphite long rod and two side rods with vibration dampening and a bow sling of course. I have to aim deliberately off not to split arrows at 50M.
Extremely. Korean archers were build like little Asian dwarves, they'd have massive competitions just for pulling back the heaviest bow and shooting the heaviest arrow the furthest.
They'd actually get paid differently based on their draw strength and so all of them were autistically working out all the time.
Heavy bows are not necessarily better, how long the arrow is in contact with the string and how much vibration and inconsistency is eliminated and how well the bendyness (spine) of the arrow is matched to the draw length and weight of the bow is more important. A crossbow and an average compound bow deliver the same energy more of less because the bow has a longer draw length and the bows arrow is heavier even though to a novice the crossbow seems to have a much heavier draw weight. the bow will also be better at range due to the momentum of the heavier arrow. I can easily draw 70lb bows however I much prefer 28-35lb bows
Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds absolutely dominated bows with lower draw weights for all of history. The only limitation on their use was the massive amount of training necessary to train archers strong enough to use them, and the expense of producing the bows and arrows. The mightiest crossbows only had similar power on a shot per shot basis, and still had a substantially lower rate of fire, and even THEY were used prolifically throughout Europe.
Bows with lower draw weights were far, far less effective. Many historical accounts talk about bowmen being outranged and far out powered by Slingers, and how such bows were less effective at producing casualties per shot than thrown weapons such as javelins.
Now, obviously in abstract you are correct in that draw weight is not the only factor in total bow strength, length of draw, limb length, and bow efficiency are major factors when comparing bow designs, as is arrow design, but in practice, the self bows with low draw weights were far less useful on the battlefield than the self bows with high, the recurves with low similarly compare with the re-curves of high, etc etc.
If someone were to make a modern compound bow with the draw weight of an old high weight warbow, it would kick the shit out of all our #60 hunting bows on a basis of energy, range, and penetration.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds
I know you are incorrect however I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death and I really can't be bothered. We bot6h know you have done very little or no archery. let's end the exchange there
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
What a lazy and intellectually cowardly thing to say.
The most successful archers in history all used bows with draw weights over 100 pounds.
Bows with lower draw weights struggled tremendously with armor, hell even the heaviest bows struggled with armor at all but the closest ranges.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds >incorrect
Whats your problem? The average draw weight for a medieval longbow was 140 pounds, and they went as high as 185, potentially even higher. The highest draw weight for a historical bow ever found was over 200 pounds.
I love search engine 'experts'
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not an argument, because you are incapable of an argument, and even the most cursory of inspection proves you wrong.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Not an argument,
>Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds
I know you are incorrect however I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death and I really can't be bothered. We bot6h know you have done very little or no archery. let's end the exchange there
>I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death >What a lazy and intellectually cowardly thing to say.
I'll just continue being right, every post, and watch you seethe.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds >incorrect
Whats your problem? The average draw weight for a medieval longbow was 140 pounds, and they went as high as 185, potentially even higher. The highest draw weight for a historical bow ever found was over 200 pounds.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
HAHAHAHA THIS moron DIDNT KNOW BOWS WENT OVER 100 POUNDS
%3D%3D
%3D%3D
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mWrO93DQA98
%3D%3D
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TV5VaCj7mnM
%3D%3D
%3D%3D
%3D%3D
The Mary Rose had a 180 POUND draw longbow on it you FAG
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
But I did. I see you only can search the internet (badly).
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>But I did. I see you only can search the internet (badly).
Samefag. I actually posted a link to THE book on the english longbow in the thread. I suggets that all you sudden experts on archery and the bow in warfare stop slapping yourselves on the back for using search engines and watching five minute youtube videos telling you most used or best bows had heavy draw. What you are telling me when you type that is
1)You know nothing about how bows were used in different contexts in wars, such as naval, volley and point blank
2)You have done no archery
3)You have never even read the most important book on the topic.
This is the problem with zoomer and milennials, they think that bad information found quickly by someone who knows almost nothing on a subject and has no experience in it means that it is 'information'. To the non retarded readers, notice how all the people who want to should about 100-200lb bows and their use know nothing about archery and have never actually done any archery. Without doxing myself I understand the bowyers guild (the oldest association for traditional longbow making in the world) and was FITA instructor qualified back when it was FITA. If you let idiots on YouTube and those that echo them decide what history and historical truth is rather than people who read books and actually practise the subject you are killing civilisation. Did heavy bows exist? Sure. Where they the best bows? No. Accuracy was not their primary aim, or even ease of use. The quality longbow for deer and game hunting was lighter and was far more prolific and higher quality. repeating the same misunderstood information about twisted spines on the Mary rose and 180lb bows does not mean 'you win the internet'. Most people in medieval England were 5 foot 4 to 5 foot seven and had not great nutrition. You'll figure the rest out yourselves.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
By the way, Richard the III also had a deformed spine. He did not get it from archery.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://bowyers.com/bowyery_manufacture.php
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Manchus had "training bows" or "testing bows" that went over 200lbs and routinely used war bows that were over 100lbs
they also fired a 1/2in thick 3.5ft arrow so it was probably effective. too bad the rest of the world had moved on to firearms 200 years beforehand
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I like how your word salad presents no actual arguments besides "I'm very smart and you should just accept what I say at face value because you're dumb!!!"
What a dumb fag.
The current world record holder for bow pulling is five seven by the way, retard.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Accuracy was not their primary aim
Nor is it a significant aim on the battlefield in an age of massed formations and dominance of weight of fire. >or even ease of use.
Largely irrelevant for these purposes. >The quality longbow for deer and game hunting
I'll let you know when we go to war with deer. >was lighter and was far more prolific
And unable to penetrate gambeson at rock throwing distance.
Let me clue you in professor; what matters in the context of this discussion is injuring men at the highest range possible, wearing the most protection possible, as fast as possible. A two or even three times draw weight increase absolutely provides an advantage in this aim, which is the only aim we are talking about. The bow that can penetrate more resilient armor is better, the bow that can penetrate equal armor at greater range is better. The bow that can throw a wider broadhead further is better. This isn't up for debate, this is the metric which we are judging the bows; optimal battlefield performance.
The longbow with a draw of over 100 pounds, such as the British longbow, but also the heavy bows used by the Manchu, the Koreans, the Japanese, and the ottomans, were absolutely superior weapons to bows of substantially lighter draw. Reams of historical evidence supports this across thousands of years: lower draw weight bows were massively inferior casualty producers when even the lightest armor was introduced. Again we hear this tale from the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the chinese, the Slavs, from the wars of the Persians to steppes holdouts long after the proliferation of firearms, when draw weights were low, bows rapidly dropped off in effectiveness because of their difficulty penetrating armor or even significant padding sufficiently to create casualties.
A bow of greater draw weight penetrates mail and gambeson, even the weaker portions of Plate armor, and at greater range where both would penetrate. It is the superior weapon.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you moron? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
They're a massively autistic archery culture that no one remembers as such. Japan, Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, and England were major "heavy warbow" civilizations at one point in their history. The ottomans too, though for a shorter time than the others.
Civilizations with a large scale heavy warbow tradition are always healthier while the practice remains, and degenerate when it's abandoned.
A correctly tuned bow and arrows will always be specific to an individual as well. It starts with teh users draw length and weight and along with left or right handedness that will dictate the bow and the spine of the arrow, the weight of its tip and so forth. It is not identical from person to person
My buddy got way into shooting recurve and then long bow, and he got me into. Super awesome hobby, relatively low cost of entry, and it can be a practical skill if you choose to hunt with a bow.
>understand why women tend to use such a weird stance when shooting long guns but find it annoying regardless >see woman using weird stance in archery >is she an actor or is that a thing? >google search >yeah, that's a thing
I don't know shit about bows, but this can't be proper technique, can it? Unless maybe she is currently in the process of drawing.
Wouldn't you want to lock your right arm so it has to do less work and isn't her left arm diverting a lot of strength by not being horizontal?
There's more than one way to draw a bow and it also depends on the bow you are using. For an ingerlish long bong, the technique sort of involves bending over slightly and sticking your butt out. This helps you recruit more back muscles, which is crucial when using a high draw weight bow.
As this guy says, the stoop and pull was used to get as much work out of both sets of back and shoulder muscles, and the Japanese equivalent was drawn like this
https://i.imgur.com/4AahVvd.gif
Can she hit where she aims?
When I first started, I could not group. A friend's father removed the targets and put bottle caps up. That helped alot. He had a couple of Robin Hoods hanging on the wall.
for the same reason, think of it as a pullup and a reverse fly at the same time and was developed since you might be sitting on a horse at the time, so staying perfectly upright was neccessary.
with bows in the 80-120lb range you just can't do a modern anchor point technique, but if you are consistent you can get good using any kind of draw.
the girl is OP is holding the bow like that because a)she is a model, not an archer and b) that's a lightweight toy English longbow pattern badly fitted to her, but if she did it exactly like that 20 times a day for a month, she'd be on the bull reliably at the end
Can she hit where she aims?
When I first started, I could not group. A friend's father removed the targets and put bottle caps up. That helped alot. He had a couple of Robin Hoods hanging on the wall.
Longbows are awful, you're just talking about an inefficient high poundage bow. The remarkable part was that English archers were phisically aable to draw them, Englishmen are very strong even in comparuson to other European countries and that is evident in archery more than anywhere else.
As you go up in poundage the stress on the limbs increases considerably, so simple bows have some merit, but it was quickly found that crossbows gave the same power to total amateurs and skipped the need for decades of training yeomanry
Crossbows can generate similar power to longbows but the rate of fire is much, much lower. When you can afford to buy in to force concentration, the longbow is superior.
Also, there were plenty of 100+ pound draw weight composite bows used in other parts of the world.
The training required to use a longbow is extreme compared to a crossbow, but far less than is sometimes believed. Through rigorous training, any young man should be able to pull over 100 pounds of draw weight within five years.
My point is that the crossbow skips the 5 years training and opens the field to older men, boys and women. It's not a better weapon perse, the advantage is logistical.
And when you actually want elite bowmen, and you've got the money to invest in that kind of training, there's no reason to use a longbow over another kind of bow.
That image reminds me of that one time when me and my dad nearly managed to hit my mother in the arse with an arrow. Least to say we have an indoor range which uses to be an old chicken stable about 10 meters long the the door leading to the backyard through said stable was kinda flimsy at some points.
>english longbow
Abandon tradition for something that is actually good.
I like all kinds of Bows personally, I have a take-down re-curve so I can shoot it after work. makes it easy to stow in my truck.
>humidity causes steppe-ape bow to unbind itself
what now, barbarian?
Europeans are literally bar bar bars. Retarf
Well said
the best bow of the 21st century
Looks retarded
that is a casual compound hunting bow. they have an input of around 80lbs and an output of around 500lbs so if you can shoot a normal re-curve hunting bow, you can shoot mad powerful using this. the design also makes it much easier to handle than a traditional bow, though it is slower to fire.
Compares to a real bow as an olympic target shooting rifle compares to a real rifle.
more like as an olympic rifle compared compared to a 15th century matchlock
my problem with these bows is that they look gay
>guns get way better
>end up looking badass
>bows get way better
>end up looking stupid
why, bros?
They look stupid cause they follow designs getting very far away from the origin, there are some some exceptions, pic related.
Normal modern compound bows make more visual sense if you keep in mind that the arms don't move as much as on classical ones and the pulley system is what gives the string the distance it needs.
Compound crossbows don't look as odd as there is not the expectation of the arms being slender and light.
These were shitty bows, they were meant to be fired up in the air because they were too slow for flat shooting so they used heavy ass arrows and turned them into artillery.
no, not really, they were intended to break armor at 30 yards or less. arching your fire was more or less a tactic used to harass forces on approach, and when you had no armor this became quite deadly.
Composite bows are much better than european longbows, mechanically. The only reasons they weren't used in europe are economics and (possibly) weather conditions.
the penultimate actual war bow was the hunnic-hungarian war bow, as it was much smaller yet still as powerful as the long bow. the down side is the composite material would warp due to humidity, where as a solid bow like a long bow could handle it. thumb rings are also more well regarded because of their ease to rest when at full draw. this would let you lock out your limbs to steady your shot.
>penultimate
Penultimate means 'second to last'.
Based but "decimate actually means 1 in 10" conversation killer.
most of the economics of fielding archers goes into the years of strength training and the logistics of making and supplying the arrows
compound recurves were used on the arid eastern steppes and not in the humid and rainy west because water damage
>possibly
Absolutely.
Romans used composite bows in gaul and britannia. Mughals used them in india. Medieval europeans used composite crossbow prods. It takes more care to protect them from water, but clearly it can be done.
>composite bows
They used ivory in addition to other materials?
>much better than european longbows
>but can't be used in some weather conditions
>the weather conditions of an entire continent
clown
I like bows. Here's a hackberry flatbow I made this spring. I'm still new to making bows but it's been a lot of fun. I will still be hunting with a compound this year but my life goal is to kill a bull elk with a bow I made.
Flatbows are cool
why is it every time bows are mentioned on PrepHole the room temp IQ retards come crawling out of the woodwork
>PrepHole
>where do the room temp IQ retards come from?
come on man you have the answer
Who were the best military archers in history?
Boobs.
That draw was painful to look at
What bows did the other europeans use? As I understand it, practically every bow that is not a composite bow, is a longbow - as it is made out of a single piece of timber. And the english imported yew wood from all over europe, so it wasn't a ressource exclusive to the british isles.
seggs
>As I understand it, practically every European bow that is not a composite bow, is a longbow
You would be correct.
So the english longbow wasn't a special bow - but the integration of the weapon into the english society was?
Yes.
The Welsh built their bows of elm which were apparently quite capable
>"In the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal."
Often cited as a precursor to the English longbow though I'm not sure how true that is. It's probably been debated to death already.
They also used them like fucking gremlins hiding in woodlands and ambushing soldiers at point blank range. I imagine that stopped after they were folded into English armies.
What a cutie, she seems nice.
My autistic ren fair wife
That will have really hurt her, women can get a chest protector to avoid that.
>brarmor
Hot. Quick, Zena or Gabrielle?
She took it like a champ though.
She did. As anyone who has caught a string on a forearm can tell you, that hurt her far more than the smile shows.
these bazongas are going to be purple soon
nobody there told her that would happen?
They did not know what they were doing obviously, she has no forearm protector either. Former FITA instructor here.
She cute. Where can I find a gf like that?
>She cute. Where can I find a gf like that?
ngl, that's a pretty girl yup
pretty sure that's emily bloom. she does softcore porn
I want to try pic rel.
https://www.3riversarchery.com/yumi-nisun-japanese-traditional-bow.html?msclkid=d83f7de3cada11f959de19130374d8e2
I plan to get one as well sometime. Unfortunately its hard to find information that isn't solely about kyudo.
It's shite
Been doing Kyudo for like 2 years and the bow itself is highly inaccurate, requires a lot of skill, usually has low draw weight, very weird to carry due to it being 2.1 meters tall, finicky with weather etc
Don't know shit about bows but I'd bend her over if you know what I mean
>english didnt use recurve bows
>their scythian ancestors did
explain
Self bows do better in humid climates.
I was thinking about getting a bow to shoot behind my house when I'm bored, on a target about 30-60m (100-200ft) away. What would you guys suggest ? Budget around 100-200€.
The answer to this is always a Sage takedown, although idk how europoor laws work in regards to bows and the shipping costs
>The answer to this is always
>A correctly tuned bow and arrows will always be specific to an individual as well. It starts with the users draw length and weight and along with left or right handedness that will dictate the bow and the spine of the arrow, the weight of its tip and so forth. It is not identical from person to person
"Firstly it’s important to know how long an arrow you will draw/shoot. This is determined by how long your arms are and, as long as you use a bow that is nice and easy to pull, this will give you a good starting point for choosing yourself a bow. A good rule of thumb is to measure the distance from your chin to the base of your thumb and forefinger when your arm is stretched out sideways, inline with your shoulders, and your head turned towards the hand that is held out. ....we hope you can follow that description! (Basically you’re positioned as if holding a bow fully pulled back)."
https://www.quicksarchery.co.uk/beginners
Quicks have a very good reputation and are known internationally as they were always one of the premier English archery supplier pre internet. read their beginners guide and tutorials on draw length etc
Another good and old way of measuring draw was to stand and place the palms of your hands together and hold them out straight ahead at 90 degrees to your body. The measurement from your longest fingertip to your sternum should also be your draw length. DO NOT buy a heavy draw bow. You will learn bad form and it will not be either pleasant or worthwhile in developing good skills. I suggest 28 lbs if you are starting.
What's the reason to why Japanese bow look like this?
easier to shoot from horsies
did they shoot from horseback?
>did they shoot from horseback?
Yes. However the Kyudo bow are quite low poundage, comparable to FITA ones, that's made up for by the long draw length. The two archery styles are however virtually identical in core technique, I was struck by that in Zena and teh Art of Archery. Its dressed up in mysticism but it amounts to achieving good exact repetitive form with muscle memory while eliminating any conscious thought that may interfere. It took me a long time to learn that about archery and carry it over to other target sports so there it is for free for anyone that did not know
Historical Japanese bows had a much higher draw weight than is generally known, many of the competition or "test" shots require a draw weight of 100 pounds or more. There was an archery test, once famous, that involved shooting over a long building from a specific place outside it; the shot is completely impossible without a bow of high draw weight.
Possibly, I don;t pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about Japanese archery, its a specialised subject cantered around the Japanese language and I have no interest in it much beyond Zen and teh art of Archery which without looking it up was written by a German in Japan in the early 20th century (1910s???). One titbit is the Japanese 'samurai' were originally distinguished by their ability with bows on horse not katana. I really don't have much interest in Japanese culture though. They use FITA recurve bows in the Olympics like everyone else and they are the best platform to excel in archery with.
>I have no interest in it much beyond Zen and teh art of Archery which without looking it up was written by a German in Japan in the early 20th century (1910s???).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
Ok Looked it up now...
"Zen in the Art of Archery (Zen in der Kunst des Bogenschießens) is a book by German philosophy professor Eugen Herrigel, published in 1948, about his experiences studying Kyūdō, a form of Japanese archery, when he lived in Japan in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing Zen to Western audiences in the late 1940s and 1950s."
>FITA recurve bows
https://www.worldarchery.sport/
There is a huge commonality at the heart of archery and disciplines like precision long range rifle, 3 position, running boar etc etc even sniping. I found using the mental image of a drop of water, condensed about to fall that I could eventually manipulate my heart rate and create the sensation of the target moving towards me and time slowing. This skillset transferred when I began to engage with long range precision shooting later on in life along with the discipline for consciousness repetition applied to everything from check weld and eye relief to Tigger work and position of grip, balance and placement as well as posture and correct joint and skeletal form . Archery is a wonderful sport.
>conscious less repetition
Sorry typo fixed
Yes
yes, they call it yabusame. all samurai practiced it. more than their swordsmanship, even
Autism.
Well, shooting like that prevents
at least. Seems easier than going the amazon route and cutting your tit off.
The island autists turn everything into art. Can't even tie down criminals worthy turning it into fetish porn.
The blatant superiority of Japanese culture has always been known on PrepHole.
>riding my panhead
Best times.
Sounds like something a knucklehead would say. jk
Harley riders?
If their bows can punch through shields and two sides of armor and a man, wouldn't every fight involving their "peers" just be them firing one shot and going home?
That comic is ridiculous but Japanese archery was good enough that battlefield combat at one point got so highly ritualized that before the charge, each commander (in armor) would fire a single arrow at the other from 100-200yds, and if struck, was the loser and went home, because he was probably an instant casualty. this happened because the archer corps of samurai armies were so devastating that both sides were guaranteed to lose huge numbers to arrows before achieving a win/loss or strategic gain.
the Mongols cured the Japs of this habit in one battle and they never did it again, but yes, the war bows were massively powerful, easily on par with any of the Western or Manchu war bows
Sure I just meant in the context of the comic, why would their "enemies" even bother attacking them if they could punch straight through them with arrows like that?
because honolable enemu does rot know of grorious Nippon seclets of mighty powah folded 6 gorillion times
What longbows like to shoot, both self bows and laminated?
World Archery (FITA) recurve bows 28-35lb with tuned draw length and matched correct spine helical fletched arrows, with the correct grain points, a tuner plunger on a plain plastic arrow rest, the whole tuned using the bare fletch along with string twist, a finger tab in leather with a steel back plate with chin touch and one graphite long rod and two side rods with vibration dampening and a bow sling of course. I have to aim deliberately off not to split arrows at 50M.
Why are Koreans so good at archery?
Its a sport option in secondary school, they start them indoors in gyms as part of PE and its a big deal for the school team.
So why the autistic focus on archery? Were they good at it historically?
I don't know. I used love archery and enjoy the sport for many years and have always been aware the South Koreans are top competitors.
Extremely. Korean archers were build like little Asian dwarves, they'd have massive competitions just for pulling back the heaviest bow and shooting the heaviest arrow the furthest.
They'd actually get paid differently based on their draw strength and so all of them were autistically working out all the time.
Heavy bows are not necessarily better, how long the arrow is in contact with the string and how much vibration and inconsistency is eliminated and how well the bendyness (spine) of the arrow is matched to the draw length and weight of the bow is more important. A crossbow and an average compound bow deliver the same energy more of less because the bow has a longer draw length and the bows arrow is heavier even though to a novice the crossbow seems to have a much heavier draw weight. the bow will also be better at range due to the momentum of the heavier arrow. I can easily draw 70lb bows however I much prefer 28-35lb bows
Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds absolutely dominated bows with lower draw weights for all of history. The only limitation on their use was the massive amount of training necessary to train archers strong enough to use them, and the expense of producing the bows and arrows. The mightiest crossbows only had similar power on a shot per shot basis, and still had a substantially lower rate of fire, and even THEY were used prolifically throughout Europe.
Bows with lower draw weights were far, far less effective. Many historical accounts talk about bowmen being outranged and far out powered by Slingers, and how such bows were less effective at producing casualties per shot than thrown weapons such as javelins.
Now, obviously in abstract you are correct in that draw weight is not the only factor in total bow strength, length of draw, limb length, and bow efficiency are major factors when comparing bow designs, as is arrow design, but in practice, the self bows with low draw weights were far less useful on the battlefield than the self bows with high, the recurves with low similarly compare with the re-curves of high, etc etc.
If someone were to make a modern compound bow with the draw weight of an old high weight warbow, it would kick the shit out of all our #60 hunting bows on a basis of energy, range, and penetration.
>Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds
I know you are incorrect however I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death and I really can't be bothered. We bot6h know you have done very little or no archery. let's end the exchange there
What a lazy and intellectually cowardly thing to say.
The most successful archers in history all used bows with draw weights over 100 pounds.
Bows with lower draw weights struggled tremendously with armor, hell even the heaviest bows struggled with armor at all but the closest ranges.
I love search engine 'experts'
Not an argument, because you are incapable of an argument, and even the most cursory of inspection proves you wrong.
>Not an argument,
>I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death
>I can tell from the tone of your post that you are going to try and argue this to death
>What a lazy and intellectually cowardly thing to say.
I'll just continue being right, every post, and watch you seethe.
>Bows with a draw weight over 100 pounds
>incorrect
Whats your problem? The average draw weight for a medieval longbow was 140 pounds, and they went as high as 185, potentially even higher. The highest draw weight for a historical bow ever found was over 200 pounds.
HAHAHAHA THIS moron DIDNT KNOW BOWS WENT OVER 100 POUNDS
%3D%3D
%3D%3D
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mWrO93DQA98
%3D%3D
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TV5VaCj7mnM
%3D%3D
%3D%3D
%3D%3D
The Mary Rose had a 180 POUND draw longbow on it you FAG
But I did. I see you only can search the internet (badly).
>But I did. I see you only can search the internet (badly).
Samefag. I actually posted a link to THE book on the english longbow in the thread. I suggets that all you sudden experts on archery and the bow in warfare stop slapping yourselves on the back for using search engines and watching five minute youtube videos telling you most used or best bows had heavy draw. What you are telling me when you type that is
1)You know nothing about how bows were used in different contexts in wars, such as naval, volley and point blank
2)You have done no archery
3)You have never even read the most important book on the topic.
This is the problem with zoomer and milennials, they think that bad information found quickly by someone who knows almost nothing on a subject and has no experience in it means that it is 'information'. To the non retarded readers, notice how all the people who want to should about 100-200lb bows and their use know nothing about archery and have never actually done any archery. Without doxing myself I understand the bowyers guild (the oldest association for traditional longbow making in the world) and was FITA instructor qualified back when it was FITA. If you let idiots on YouTube and those that echo them decide what history and historical truth is rather than people who read books and actually practise the subject you are killing civilisation. Did heavy bows exist? Sure. Where they the best bows? No. Accuracy was not their primary aim, or even ease of use. The quality longbow for deer and game hunting was lighter and was far more prolific and higher quality. repeating the same misunderstood information about twisted spines on the Mary rose and 180lb bows does not mean 'you win the internet'. Most people in medieval England were 5 foot 4 to 5 foot seven and had not great nutrition. You'll figure the rest out yourselves.
By the way, Richard the III also had a deformed spine. He did not get it from archery.
https://bowyers.com/bowyery_manufacture.php
The Manchus had "training bows" or "testing bows" that went over 200lbs and routinely used war bows that were over 100lbs
they also fired a 1/2in thick 3.5ft arrow so it was probably effective. too bad the rest of the world had moved on to firearms 200 years beforehand
I like how your word salad presents no actual arguments besides "I'm very smart and you should just accept what I say at face value because you're dumb!!!"
What a dumb fag.
The current world record holder for bow pulling is five seven by the way, retard.
>Accuracy was not their primary aim
Nor is it a significant aim on the battlefield in an age of massed formations and dominance of weight of fire.
>or even ease of use.
Largely irrelevant for these purposes.
>The quality longbow for deer and game hunting
I'll let you know when we go to war with deer.
>was lighter and was far more prolific
And unable to penetrate gambeson at rock throwing distance.
Let me clue you in professor; what matters in the context of this discussion is injuring men at the highest range possible, wearing the most protection possible, as fast as possible. A two or even three times draw weight increase absolutely provides an advantage in this aim, which is the only aim we are talking about. The bow that can penetrate more resilient armor is better, the bow that can penetrate equal armor at greater range is better. The bow that can throw a wider broadhead further is better. This isn't up for debate, this is the metric which we are judging the bows; optimal battlefield performance.
The longbow with a draw of over 100 pounds, such as the British longbow, but also the heavy bows used by the Manchu, the Koreans, the Japanese, and the ottomans, were absolutely superior weapons to bows of substantially lighter draw. Reams of historical evidence supports this across thousands of years: lower draw weight bows were massively inferior casualty producers when even the lightest armor was introduced. Again we hear this tale from the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the chinese, the Slavs, from the wars of the Persians to steppes holdouts long after the proliferation of firearms, when draw weights were low, bows rapidly dropped off in effectiveness because of their difficulty penetrating armor or even significant padding sufficiently to create casualties.
A bow of greater draw weight penetrates mail and gambeson, even the weaker portions of Plate armor, and at greater range where both would penetrate. It is the superior weapon.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you moron? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxophilus
They're a massively autistic archery culture that no one remembers as such. Japan, Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, and England were major "heavy warbow" civilizations at one point in their history. The ottomans too, though for a shorter time than the others.
Civilizations with a large scale heavy warbow tradition are always healthier while the practice remains, and degenerate when it's abandoned.
A correctly tuned bow and arrows will always be specific to an individual as well. It starts with teh users draw length and weight and along with left or right handedness that will dictate the bow and the spine of the arrow, the weight of its tip and so forth. It is not identical from person to person
>no cat ear barrettes
Disappointes.
I used to take kyudo lessons. Became friends some qt weebs that took them with me.
For me, it's the type-16 barbed broadhead. Good luck getting that out, Jacques.
Does PrepHole want Katniss, now that she's of age?
Only the books version. Films were abysmally terrible fanfiction.
The books were a fun read. I'm glad I was in the target age demographic.
>now that she's of age
Interest lost.
This here is an AMERICAN board, and in America, we're all gerontophiles
The age of consent in a lot of states is 16
>alot
>citation required
Do the research and suprise yourself hebephile
What?
My buddy got way into shooting recurve and then long bow, and he got me into. Super awesome hobby, relatively low cost of entry, and it can be a practical skill if you choose to hunt with a bow.
I don't give a shit about archery, but she can give me a bowjob any day.
>bowjobs from bowlegged women
>understand why women tend to use such a weird stance when shooting long guns but find it annoying regardless
>see woman using weird stance in archery
>is she an actor or is that a thing?
>google search
>yeah, that's a thing
Still annoying.
And they pee weird.
I don't know shit about bows, but this can't be proper technique, can it? Unless maybe she is currently in the process of drawing.
Wouldn't you want to lock your right arm so it has to do less work and isn't her left arm diverting a lot of strength by not being horizontal?
There's more than one way to draw a bow and it also depends on the bow you are using. For an ingerlish long bong, the technique sort of involves bending over slightly and sticking your butt out. This helps you recruit more back muscles, which is crucial when using a high draw weight bow.
As this guy says, the stoop and pull was used to get as much work out of both sets of back and shoulder muscles, and the Japanese equivalent was drawn like this
for the same reason, think of it as a pullup and a reverse fly at the same time and was developed since you might be sitting on a horse at the time, so staying perfectly upright was neccessary.
with bows in the 80-120lb range you just can't do a modern anchor point technique, but if you are consistent you can get good using any kind of draw.
the girl is OP is holding the bow like that because a)she is a model, not an archer and b) that's a lightweight toy English longbow pattern badly fitted to her, but if she did it exactly like that 20 times a day for a month, she'd be on the bull reliably at the end
Can she hit where she aims?
When I first started, I could not group. A friend's father removed the targets and put bottle caps up. That helped alot. He had a couple of Robin Hoods hanging on the wall.
Longbows are awful, you're just talking about an inefficient high poundage bow. The remarkable part was that English archers were phisically aable to draw them, Englishmen are very strong even in comparuson to other European countries and that is evident in archery more than anywhere else.
As you go up in poundage the stress on the limbs increases considerably, so simple bows have some merit, but it was quickly found that crossbows gave the same power to total amateurs and skipped the need for decades of training yeomanry
Crossbows can generate similar power to longbows but the rate of fire is much, much lower. When you can afford to buy in to force concentration, the longbow is superior.
Also, there were plenty of 100+ pound draw weight composite bows used in other parts of the world.
The training required to use a longbow is extreme compared to a crossbow, but far less than is sometimes believed. Through rigorous training, any young man should be able to pull over 100 pounds of draw weight within five years.
My point is that the crossbow skips the 5 years training and opens the field to older men, boys and women. It's not a better weapon perse, the advantage is logistical.
And when you actually want elite bowmen, and you've got the money to invest in that kind of training, there's no reason to use a longbow over another kind of bow.
That image reminds me of that one time when me and my dad nearly managed to hit my mother in the arse with an arrow. Least to say we have an indoor range which uses to be an old chicken stable about 10 meters long the the door leading to the backyard through said stable was kinda flimsy at some points.