Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 28th, 2017, 11:15 AM   #161
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 1,303

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
I have a serious archery question. In my younger days I used too shoot a recurve bow quite a bit, but haven't used one now in a couple of decades. I'm 6'5" & draw a 32" arrow. I've thought of having a custom recurve bow made with a longer than normal length, say about the same as my height. I'm not into all of the pulleys & such that compond bows have, nor do I want a traditional longbow. I think I can draw about 75lbs comfortably. My question is what advantage does a longer than normal custom bow give me over a ready made shorter bow? I don't plan on hunting or on formal competition just a bow for recreation shooting. I've always thought a longer bow is smoother & will give me more velocity, but I'm no archery expert? Also is there an advantage too it being one piece versus a takedown bow?
Well, I know more about longbows (having made a lot) than I do about recurves but some of the basic principles apply to both.
By the way you're the first person I've talked to who draws a longer arrow than I do. (Me 6'4", 31" arrow)
Basically you are right - the longer bow will be smoother. The effect is not so marked as with a wooden bow, but is still there. However the shorter bow would actually be faster - the long one has to move greater limb mass.
I've known people who shot very short (for their draw length) recurves, and they could be fast but were difficult to control, with a harsh, vibratory release, and also were less smooth to draw. Also the long draw/short bow combination means that the string makes a sharper angle at the fingers, and can pinch them against the arrow, which makes a smooth release harder.
Basically, other things being equal, you should find a longer bow more pleasant to shoot and more accurate, but a little slower (no great disadvantage really for the sort of shooting you intend).
Take-down is easier to carry around, and you can usually buy replacement limbs if one should be damaged. No great advantage to a one-piece (until you lose a limb-bolt from your take-down).
I'm open, of course, to correction by any recurve specialists out there.

Last edited by johnminnitt; October 28th, 2017 at 11:21 AM.
johnminnitt is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 28th, 2017, 11:25 AM   #162
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 3,859

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnminnitt View Post
Well, I know more about longbows than recurves but some of the basic principles apply to both.
By the way you're the first person I've talked to who draws a longer arrow than I do. (Me 6'4", 31" arrow)
Basically you are right - the longer bow will be smoother. The effect is not so marked as with a wooden bow, but is still there. However the shorter bow would actually be faster - the long one has to move greater limb mass.
I've known people who shot very short (for their draw length) recurves, and they could be fast but were difficult to control, with a harsh, vibratory release, and also were less smooth to draw. Also the long draw/short bow combination means that te string makes a sharper angle at the fingers, and can pinch them against the arrow, which makes a smooth release harder.
Basically, other things being equal, you should find a longer bow more pleasant to shoot and more accurate, but a little slower (no great disadvantage really for the sort of shooting you intend).
Take-down is easier to carry around, and you can usually buy replacement limbs if one should be damaged. No great advantage to a one-piece (until you lose a limb-bolt from your take-down).
I'm open, of course, to correction by any recurve specialists out there.
Thank you very much, I've looked at a lot of recurve bows, mostly hunting bows from the 1960s & 70s before the compounds mostly took over & haven't seen any over about 70" & longer than 62" seems rare. Very few over 55#s also. Not much longer draw than you, probably about 31 & a 1\2 actually. I make do with 31" as that's all I can find, but would like just a bit more. I'm surprised that length doesn't give more speed.

Last edited by M9Powell; October 28th, 2017 at 11:30 AM.
M9Powell is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 11:27 AM   #163

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,048
Blog Entries: 3

The pinching of the fingers due to the short bow and long draw also explains why cultures that used these types of bows developed the thumb draw+ thumb ring.
HackneyedScribe is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 11:42 AM   #164
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 3,859

I always just used the std 3 fingers, I tried a mechanical release once & just never liked it. Back in the day I used a Bear recurve about 64" if memory serves 55 # & always thought a bigger bow would suit me better. If length is not so much of an advantage why were long bows so long?

Last edited by M9Powell; October 28th, 2017 at 11:50 AM.
M9Powell is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 11:43 AM   #165
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: England, 200 yards from Wales
Posts: 1,303

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
The pinching of the fingers due to the short bow and long draw also explains why cultures that used these types of bows developed the thumb draw+ thumb ring.
I was about to add that, thanks for saving me the trouble.
johnminnitt is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 12:51 PM   #166

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,242

What did I say about calling other names? That includes accusations that the other person is lying or being dishonest.

HackneyedScribe and Bart Dale - do not post any further in this thread until I allow you to do so. There are other people participating, and I have no desire for them to be disadvantaged.

I will review what you have posted, and then I will decide who, and for how long.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2017, 01:27 PM   #167
Suspended until May 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,457

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
^I did not get confused. Each time I calculate the energy for one crossbow, he INSISTS I am calculating energy for another crossbow. Each time I say one crossbow has X amount of joules, he INSISTS that I am talking about another crossbow with some other amount of joules. Hence, because the crossbow I actually calculated do not match the different crossbow that he INSISTS that I am calculating, he calls me a liar. This is just an attempt to confuse the issue. He is doing the same thing in the above, in which the video I gave is of a cranequin crossbow of 200 J, but he INSISTS I am speaking of the Great horn crossbow of >400 J.

For example,
On post 142 I told him: For the N-th time, I was talking about ANOTHER crossbow which had 80% efficiency, which is Bichler's Great Horn crossbow, not the cranequin crossbow.
On post 135 I told him:
Because I as talking about ANOTHER crossbow. Seriously, you get these confused all the time, and I never once claimed to you are dishonest or lying. You THINK I got confused once and you blow a casket.
In post 126 I told him:
That's not the crossbow I was talking about, as it's not a cranequin crossbow and the size is way bigger. The crossbow I was talking about is shown in bichler's video that I already provided. It is clearly of a smaller size. You are watching another of his videos about a bigger crossbow. The crossbow I am taking about only shot an ~80 gram quarrel to 200 joules. The crossbow you are mentioning shoots to roughly twice that many joules, partially due to higher powerstroke and partially due to a heavier projectile.

That is a major reason why I made this chart, so he won't commonly confuse which crossbow I am talking about.

It's these types of confusions that made me made the following chart, for in post 127 I told him:

Chart above should make it very clear which crossbow I am talking about. When I say I am talking about Bichler's 1,200 lbs draw weight crossbow, common sense dictates I am talking about Bichler's 1,200 lbs crossbow. Common sense dictates I am talking about neither his 617 lb crossbow nor his 1,277 lbs crossbow.

Click the image to open in full size.

From top to bottom, matching the chart above to show that I posted correct information
1. Info on Tod's 1000 lb draw weight crossbow came from third video of post 143
2. Info on Tod's 1200 lb draw weight crossbow came from the fourth video of post 143
3. Info for Bichler's 289 lb crossbow came from Andreas Bichler's link provided in post 143
4. Info for Bichler's 617 lb crossbow came from Andreas Bichler's link provided in post 143
5. Info for Bichler's 1200 lb cranequin crossbow came from first video of post 143
6. Info for Bichler's 1277 lb Great Horn crossbow came from Andreas Bichler's video here:


Video title says the crossbow is 1270 lbs draw weight, but the description in the video puts it at 579 kg which is 1277 lbs. Such a small difference doesn't matter much.

So you understand why I get frustrated, because even a chart as clear as that still gets him confused on which crossbow I am talking about.

I already gave the equation before: projectile energy = (draw weight in lbs)(powerstroke in inches)(efficiency)/2

From the video you can see that powerstroke is along the lines of 5 inches for the smaller ones and 9 inches for the biggest one (Great Horn crossbow).


No Bart, YOU estimated the cranequin crossbow at 9 inches. I said this is too high, I merely told you I will play along. This is to show you that your calculation results with as low as 15-16% efficiency is way too low, even with 9 inches of powerstroke. Playing along does not mean I agree.

In post 132 I said: Let's use your number for powerstroke of 9 inches, even though it's a bit high

The powerstroke of the crossbow we were talking of is from the 1st video in post 143. Powerstroke means the distance from string at rest to string at full draw (distance to trigger). It looks shorter than 9.



Keep in mind the picture is with a loose string (0 brace height), which wouldn't be how the crossbow is when shot. So even 5 inches is on the generous side.

For Bichler's cranequin crossbow, Bart somehow calculated its efficiency at 16% -post 131
For the Great Hornbow, Bart somehow calculated its efficiency at 15% -post 131

But those numbers aren't correct, he got his units of conversion wrong. From the chart above, Bichler's cranequin crossbow has a draw weight of 1200 lbs. Now, ASSUMING that crossbow has a powerstroke of 9 inches as Bart claims, we can plug it into the equation I gave and proven with sources:

Equation used:
Projectile Joules = (Draw weight)(Powerstroke)(Efficiency)/2

For Bichler's cranequin crossbow,
200 Joules = 1770 inch lbs = 1200 lbs*9 inch powerstroke * efficiency/2
Efficiency = 32.7%, which is bigger than his 16%, but using a powerstroke that would be more akin to that shown in the video (5 inches), then efficiency would be higher at 59%. I made a typo and said it was 70%, so I was off by 11%(every step but the last one was right), I don't know why he is fixating on that when his own calculation is off by magnitudes more.

For the Great Horn Crossbow
488 Joules = 4318.8 inch lbs = 1277 lbs * 9 inch powerstroke * efficiency/2
Efficiency = 75.2%, which is different from his 15%. He later accused me of being off by 5% because I rounded up to 80%, even though his own calculation puts it at 15%

Anyone can check the numbers I plugged in for the variables matches with the chart shown above, and anyone can check that the chart shown above is correct by the videos I posted from professional crossbow makers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
What did I say about calling other names? That includes accusations that the other person is lying or being dishonest.

HackneyedScribe and Bart Dale - do not post any further in this thread until I allow you to do so. There are other people participating, and I have no desire for them to be disadvantaged.

I will review what you have posted, and then I will decide who, and for how long.

I sincerely aapologize for the things I said, I was wrong. HackneyScribe no doubt honestly believes in what he says, with all the different crossbows examples it was easy to get confused. I thought I did my best to make it clear which I was talking about, but it is easy to see how confusion could arise on both sides.

I should not be posting on this if I can't contain temper. I won't be reading this thread anymore, ssince if I do, I am sure to lose my temper. So could you send me a message of you need me to know something? I am very sorry you had to get invovled.

HackneyScribe, I applogize for my comments, we obviously rub each other the wrong way, and whenever we get into a discussion I always seem to lose my temper and say a lot of things I regret and am embarrassed about later. Feel free to send me private messages if you need to continue this discussion, it might be best that we don't have these discussions in public. It might be better to air out our differences between ourselves.I w
Bart Dale is offline  
Old November 10th, 2017, 06:27 AM   #168
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Goa
Posts: 1

MOD Edit: Multi-accounting nonsense removed

Albert Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of idiocy. If nothng else, you give the moderators some amusement. We have a little game to see who bans you the most often, and I'm winning.
Hannibal Lecturer is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 03:49 AM   #169
Academician
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: australia
Posts: 76

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
If what you say is true, then it sounds like the crossbow would have the ggreatest effective range, so I wonder why people say the longbow had greater range?

Could it be that the crossbow was harder to raise to a 45 degree to fire? Crossbows looked like they wanted the butt to be braced on the shoulder, and firing at 45 degree or whatever the optimal angle for range was, would be harder to do with a crossbow. Also, aiming would be harder, and with the higher rate of fire, being as accurate would not be as big an issue for regular bows. But for crossbows, with a lower rate of fire, you would want every boltg to count.
Crossbows with their short prods had a much lower power stroke than a longbow. A 350lb crossbow was in reality no more powerful than a 70lb longbow. Furthermore the shorter bolts of the crossbow lost momentum quicker than longbow shafts and were much less effective at distance than a longbow.it was at point blank range that the crossbow had better penetration than a bow. It was also the later 15 th century that crossbows began to out range the longbow .
typhoon57 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
advantages, crossbows, english, longbows



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On English longbows timtimwowo European History 46 July 10th, 2017 04:34 AM
Longbows in the Revolutionary War Menshevik Speculative History 42 February 7th, 2015 10:02 AM
'Recurved' longbows Phoenix Rising War and Military History 9 November 17th, 2013 08:19 AM
Horses and Crossbows - Teutonic Advantages HeirofAlexander Medieval and Byzantine History 4 May 8th, 2012 06:43 AM
Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order HeirofAlexander War and Military History 0 May 5th, 2012 12:23 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.