Standarts of accuracy

[Len]

I've come in a bit late on this topic I know but the comment was made that maille (chain-mail ) was the main form of armour at Crecy when in fact by the 1340's plate armour was well established, though not anywhere as advanced as seen by the end of the 14th C. A typical well off man-at-arms at Crecy would have worn maille from head to foot and over this he would wear a coat-of-plates and plate made of iron or hardened leather on his legs and arms. The armour worn from the 1340's to 1370 was probably the heaviest (for wieght) worn at any stage in the middle ages and would have taken a decent shot from a arrow to penatrate.By 1400 the plate was so advanced that the maille had shrunk to T-shirt size.

[sagitarius boemoru]

That is off course a rig of a wealthy noble. And plate by 1340 where its really only aditionall protection over chainmail and by 1420´ where its more or less main armour is somehow different.

Though I would not like this to be debate of armour piercing.
You cannot pierce what you cannot hit.

J.

[Rod]

When I first suggested this to Jaro it was so that standards of accuracy could be assessed without bias. This means recording a score and finding out your actual average in hard numbers.
Anything else is open to question and reorts tend to be anecdotal.
BTW we have the site of some butts just down the road here at Silk Willoughby hard by the old moot ground, and they are not all that big, considering that they would most likely have been shot from around 12 score  paces.
Trouble is the heavy bow guys go all defensive and not interested when you talk of keeping scores.
Don't be faint hearted, shoot 6 dozen on a 48" face at 100 and report your scores.
They can only get better if you practice.
Where do you think target archery came from in the first place...?
Rod.

[sagitarius boemoru]

I somehow tend to think these bows are easier to shoot in some sort of clout shooting - but as I wrote at begining of the thread and Rod clears it up - we should record our scores and post a chart so we can keep a track what is possible with these bows and what not.

Jaro

[Rod]

That kinds of leads onto an interesting question about shooting style and aiming. The fact is that with a long shaft and especially with a very high draw weight your chances of getting the shaft beneath your eye are very limited which makes very accurate alignment more problematic.
True there are enough images of menshooting with what we might call more of a bowhunters anchor, but that would tend to cut down on your maximum cast.
Given that, so far as I am aware, none of the heavy bow shooters are what I might call competitive in open competition at either instinctive field , clout or target shooting, I reckon any of the present heavy bow shooters would be doing well to make more than 50% hits on a 48" target face at 100 yards.
Before anyone gets up in arms about this statement, it is based upon knowledge of target shooting performance and if you haven't done this, it might be usefulto go out and record some scores before voicing an opinion.
True enough, Mark has won at Herstmonceaux often enough, but the shoot at Herstmonceaux has not until recently been shot by anyone who would be considered a contender at national levels in any discipline, until Dennis Alston turned out in costume. This is not to belittle Mark's achievements, we are acquainted and I like the man, but I have only seen him in open competition once, back in November 200 at Long Eaton and all I can say is that he would probably shoot better scores with a lighter bow, but then that is usually true of anyone who is pushing their comfortable draw weight.
To be honest I only know one heavy bow shooter who is considered competitive in NFAS competition and he shoots about 70lb for such events.
At the end of the day, you have to start somewhere, and I don't think it matters that scores will be relatively low at first.
You need to set a standard to build upon with the heavy bow.
But how many can shoot 60 consecutive arrows with control? This is how you will find out I guess.
I do not think that anecdotal reports of what so and so did are sufficient. These can always be called into question, but an honestly recorded score shot in public gives you an average figure that does not decieve.
Heaven knows, there are enough competitive who will tell you what scoes they can shoot, but never seem to do so in open competition.
So come on heavy bow men, swallow your pride and lets see some recorded scores.
I will be pleasantly surprised if any of you break 50% hits at 100 yards, which is pretty much the yardstick of success for a run of the mill longbow target shooter.
Rod.

[markinengland]

Rod,
I think there is a very real difference between your style of target shooting, and the kind of shooting that warbows were designed for. You simply are not compairing like for like.
In target shooting a light bow is needed so the "machine" that is the archer can line up his arrow point on his marker in the grass or on the target or perhaps above the target often with the use of a rubber band on the bow to give elevation. Often the archer will have a different bow and arrow set for each distance to allow him to be point on. Once the bow is set in place and the the anchor achieved, the archer holds and gives a very controlled loose. By this type of method and only this type of method (as far as I am aware) do target longbow archers pulling light bows achieve this accuracy at 100 yards. In terms of style they are very fixed and upright, use foot marks and are identical to a high tech archer apart from the fact that they shoot a wooden bow and wooden arrows and not carbon recurved limbs with carbon arrows.
A heavy bow archer cannot use these same methods, and by default cannot be so repetively accurate at a fixed distance. This heavy bow archer can be accurate though in a way the target archer can't. I have shot alongside Mark Stretton on a number of occassions and have seen his accuracy both at Herstmonciuex and in field archery. He pulls a heavy bow, he can shoot very well at unknown distances short and long using instinct. He may not be as accurate on a GNAS shoot, but who cares, he doesn't do that kind of shooting!
I have seen archers being very accurate on roving shoots at long unknown distances. Getting three arrows within three feet of the mark is very good, expecially when shot in wind and over obstacles.
Basically each type of archer can do stuff the other can't. Both may be good, but there is no real point comparing the accuracy of one by asking them to shoot like the other. You may just as well bung one of your GNAS longbow archers in a wood or on a roving field, take all his sightijg aids off him and see if he can be as accurate as the heavy bow shooter!

[Loki]

I've allways had a long draw,even when i was a nipper i used to drag the arrow back to my ear,broke loads of bows like that  .I stopped frequenting archery clubs because the instructers were allways trying to change my style and been quite bullyish about it,its a bit intimadating when your only ten and some hairy arsed man with a tash is shouting and balling at you "your doing it wrong!!",bollocks i'm doing it right,its you who's doing it wrong!Allways trying to get you on the wheelies too!I hate archery clubs!! .
You dont need to anchor at the face to be a good shot,instinctice shooting can be just as accurate,you dont aim a stone when you throw it do you?

[markinengland]

Loki,
I was on a roving marks shoot with some friends on Sunday. The marks were gallon metal cans on poles. At one point we were in the right position to shoot at one of these cans from about 40 yards away. Downhill shot with a bank behind and about 40 yards or so away. I really wanted to hear that clang so shot trying to "aim" with a "proper" stance. My first five arrows missed. I decided to do just what came naturally, concentrated soley on the can, shot instinctively and clang, clang, clang my last three arrows all hit and pierced the can. Great feeling and all done without conscious aiming, "proper" anchor, "proper" style etc.
I know I couldn't have done that shot after shot, dozen after dozen, but when the shot needs to count instinct does work just fine!
Mark in England

[Rod]

Mark,
I understand quite well the difference in shooting morer than one style, having been involved in shooting clout, target at a competitive standard in both GNAS and BLBS as well as unmarked distance field in NFAS.
Also I shot small game as a child when it was still legal and in later years shot a 90lb bow with somewhat less accuracy than I could achieve with a bow in the 50lb to 70lb range of draw weight.
Your comments reflect the fact that there are two levels of archery at present.
There are those who seem to have some expertise in a narrow field of archery, and there are those who can make a showing in every discipline, though not necessarily be the top man in all or indeed in any one of them.
Rod.

[Rod]

To continue from my last post. Without intending a pun, I think Mark misses the point.
It is not about who can shoot the highest score and how they do it and with what draw weight.
It is about establishing a base for future reference that can provide an initial measure on consistent accuracy.
What would one of todays heavy bow shooters say is his captain were to post him some 100 paces out and said " stay here all day and shoot anyone whosticks their head out of that sally porte".
Would his reply have been that he was not accustomed to shooting repetitively at the same mark at a fixed distance? I don't think so..
He would be, like the two men who were sent home before Azincourt when they could not shoot 10 in a minute, on the next boat home.
Rod.

[markinengland]

Rod,
Sorry you think I miss the point, but you later on say exactly what I was trying to point out.
You no doubt are well aware that there was a basic but good standard expected of the English longbow archers (and even the Welsh too!). these were all good archers , were often hand picked and proved themselves capable of pulling the weight, reaching the needed distances and having the required accuracy. A few archers from the very best were picked as the equivalent of todays snipers. These especialy accurate archers were given the tasks such as picking off the noblemen (with permission) and acting as person bodyguards etc.
Anyway to get back to your point the archer who has to stand there all day at 100 yards waiting for someone to stick their head out would have only a moment to draw, aim and loose. He would be using a heavy bow and a heavy armour piercing arrow at at maximum distance, though [perhaps behind a pavisse for protection. He would have no option but to use a heavy bow stance, the draw length was long and to the chest or ear and the aiming method used must have been instinctive. This archer would have been good enough that only a very brave or foolish person stuck their head out! My point (which I hope you won't miss) is that this same archer could probably not have done this consistently at a target for adozens of arrows. The human concentration is simply not that good.
Howard Hill was a phenominal instinctive snap shooter, but a failry poor target archer. By all accounts Ishi was a very good shot in a hunting environment, but poor at a target, he said the target was to big!
My point, which does not miss yours I hope is that a target archer uses various shooting aids to help a mechanical repetative shooting method, because that is what will get results for dozens of arrows at a known distance. A heavy longbow archer cannot do this, but this heavy bow archer can do stuff the target archer cannot. The target archer is the equivalent of the prone target rifle shooter, the warbow archer the equivalent of a skeet shooter. They use completely differetn methods and instincts. To say that the heavy bow archer has to shoot and record his scores like a target archer to prove his accuracy defeats the object.

[outcaste]

Continuing with the theme of 'standards of accuracy'.

I was shooting clout (BLBS shoot in Wales) this weekend and it was interesting to notice out of the 15 or so archers on the line with me the target was only hit 3 or 4 times during the whole day. 

Statistically if we were to look at the Welsh Championships of 2006 out of the 3096 arrows shot over 180 yards only 13 hit the 30 inch target. This is suprising as the draw weights were all under 70lbs with archers using bands to assist with aiming.  Not great accuracy I would argue? 

I feel the same difficulties present themselves to both the 'brass piles' as well as the bodkins over distance.

Outcaste 

[Rod]

Well, the talkng is over for the time being. I spoke to Mark Stretton last night and not only is he aware of this thread, but he is happy to meet and set a benchmark score.
I like Mark's attitude, instead of coming up with reasons why he can't do it, he is interesting in discovering what can be done.
We won't be doing this immediately, but perhaps in the next month or so when we can get together at a mutually convenient time.
If anyone else wants to do it, we will use a 48" (122cm) target face at 100 yards.
All arrows will count, no sighters or practice arrows.
30 or 60 arrows to be shot in ends of 3 or 6.
Scoring 9 for gold, 7 for red, 5 for blue, 3 for black, 1 for white.
Line cutters count for the higher score.
Record number of hits, total score and number of golds.
This should be independently witnessed since accounts from private practice can be called into question.
Rod.

[sagitarius boemoru]

Once the meadows under my window gets cutI try this and post results.


Jaro

[Rod]

Well Jaro,
If your feeling bold you can go straight in and record a score, but I'm thinking you might want to practice first...
(It is interesting to note that in the Tang dynasty the military archery examination  required a one stone (167lb) bow to be shot at a straw mannequin at 105 paces and to qualiofy for the first class grade, ALL your arrows had to hit).

Rod.