Bow Lenght

[Peter-t123]

I did write a long post but I'll just leave with this, your ideas are fallacy and you facts are about as water tight as the current state of the Mary Rose.

Hi Ian

I didn't want to continue this discussion but you have not told me exactly what you disagree with.
So let me clarify, I'm talking about bows used for warfare in medieval England, like the ones found on the 'Mary Rose' and illustrated on the cover of Robert Harvey's book 'Longbow', not anything else! If you want to refer to these as Warbows that's fine.

Now I expressed the view that I'm sure many of these 'Warbows' were probably made shorter than 72 inches long, do you disagree with this?

I also tried to make the point that if you make two of these bows, same style, profile and length and one has a draw weight of 69lbs and the other 71lbs , it does not mean they are different to the point you need to call one a 'Longbow' and the other a 'Warbow'. Do you disagree with this?

Now I'm not assosiated with the BLBS or the EWBS, so if there is any 'bagagge' being hauled around this discussion, it's not by me!

Stuart

this 70lb thing is annoying me, people see a single sentence on the ewbs site saying they prefer people to shoot bows over 70lb and you interpret it to say that we think 70lb is some sort of magical line between a 'longbow' and a 'warbow', there is no where it says that.

I love it when you warbow guys get in these "discusions" and everyone gets all huffy

lol what warbow guys

[adb]

I would agree with the "70# thing". A warbow can be a warbow below 70#, depending on how it's made, how it's tillered, and how it's shot. On the flip side, I've made plenty of longbows over 70#, and I call them longbows because of the way they're tillered and shot.
However, institutions like the EWBS have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Their specs on what they consider a 'warbow' are listed on their site... 70# (for men 16-60), >74", circular tiller to 32", and shot off the fist.

I included a pic of a longbow I finished recently. It's 74" ntn, 75#@28", and has a leather grip and arrow shelf. To me, it's a longbow, not a warbow.

[Ian.]

That's a very pretty bow, is it one piece of Maple or a tri-lam?

[Yeomanbowman]

Very pretty, indeed.  I love the 'creamy' backing against the 'honey' yew!

To find the origin of the 71lb 'delineation' one must look to the BL-BS as that is their cut off point for allowable draw-weight.   

[Peter-t123]

I would agree with the "70# thing". A warbow can be a warbow below 70#, depending on how it's made, how it's tillered, and how it's shot.

how?

[adb]

A 68#@32'' bow, 76" ntn, tillered full compass and shot to a full draw of 32" would be a low poundage warbow in my book.

Does this bow look like a warbow?

[adb]

That's a very pretty bow, is it one piece of Maple or a tri-lam?

It's maple backed yew.

[Peter-t123]

A 68#@32'' bow, 76" ntn, tillered full compass and shot to a full draw of 32" would be a low poundage warbow in my book.

what? how would that be any use, and yes that bow has a round tiller but im not sure what you are trying to prove by that

[adb]

Answer the question. Does it look like a warbow or not?

[Peter-t123]

Answer the question. Does it look like a warbow or not?

im not sure what 'looks' has to do with anything. its 68lb lol its a lightweight laminate, why are you associating the word warbow with it? you seem to think that round tiller+ no handle automatically equals warbow, if i make a 15 pound bow with those characteristics is it a warbow? no because if i shoot a standard or livery arrow off it it will go a couple of yards

[adb]

Well, the above bow is 78" ntn, 70#@30", is tillered full compass, has no grip, and is shot off the fist. It has a cast of nearly 200 yards with a EWBS standard arrow. So, in my book, it's a warbow. I made it as one, tillered it as one, and sold it as one. It was made for a new warbow shooter, who wanted 'legal' weight, but the ability to draw it properly. IMHO, learning proper form is much more important than jumping into a bow you can't shoot or even bring to full draw.

The 75#@28" maple backed yew bow posted earlier is NOT a warbow. If it was pulled to 30", it would likely break. Even though it meets EWBS minimum draw weight, it's still not a warbow.

If you can't understand the difference, you're missing the point. Do you shoot warbows?

[Peter-t123]

Well, the above bow is 78" ntn, 70#@30", is tillered full compass, has no grip, and is shot off the fist. It has a cast of nearly 200 yards with a EWBS standard arrow. So, in my book, it's a warbow. I made it as one, tillered it as one, and sold it as one. It was made for a new warbow shooter, who wanted 'legal' weight, but the ability to draw it properly. IMHO, learning proper form is much more important than jumping into a bow you can't shoot or even bring to full draw.

The 75#@28" maple backed yew bow posted earlier is NOT a warbow. If it was pulled to 30", it would likely break. Even though it meets EWBS minimum draw weight, doesn't make it a warbow.

If you can't understand the difference, you're missing the point. Do you shoot warbows?

yes i do, and i dont know why you keep mentioning 'legal weight' '70lb' etc, i think you are taking that sentence completely out of context, considering you havent even mentioned the next line which i find strange 'allowance will be made in a new members first year'. you are trying to use that line to claim that the ewbs has said that 70lb is a weight for a bow to be considered a warbow and that isnt what it says at all.

[adb]

OK, well if you're not a new member anymore (past your first year) and you're a male between 16 and 60, to shoot in an EWBS event, you need a 70#@32" bow, which is >74", has no grip, is shot off the fist, and which is tillered in a circular fashion. This is, in fact, what the EWBS calls a warbow. I believe the EWBS is trying to recreate martial archery activities associated with the time of the Mary Rose bows, and has decided to call a warbow a warbow according to the criteria they've picked. I agree... I think 70# is a good minimum draw weight. It's just heavy enough to provide decent cast of standard and livery arrows, but not so heavy that it can't be shot with good form. The criteria for an EWBS warbow is there, in plain black & white, for all to see.

But, all you seem to want to do is argue, so you have yourself a great Easter weekend! You don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make, so I'll stop.

[Newindian]

I didn't know ewbs was around in the medieval times telling everyone what was and was not a war bow,long bow, etc. Doubtless if we had every bow from that time and area that was used in warfare it would be nearly impossible to classify them biased on anything but their purpose. And I'm sure that if a 40# bow could kill a deer than it could kill a human so why couldn't that be a war bow.

[WillS]

Oddly enough, EWBS would allow both of adb's beautiful bows into the "non historical" category.  They wouldn't be allowed into the usual warbow category shoots as both are laminated.  However the non historical category allows for laminations AND handle grips. 

This is why you can't really use EWBS requirements to say "thats a warbow" and "that isn't".  Its just one society with one set of rules.  I think that as long as the bow is tillered to 32" (in order to give maximum penetrative force to the only war arrows ever found) and its heavy enough to do that then you can call it a warbow. 

Just because one ship was found with bows that didn't have handles (at the very end of the warbow's military life) does not mean that's how they were made throughout the whole of history.  Yes, certain bows wouldn't be allowed at EWBS shoots today, but nobody can say whether the EWBS would have been laughed off the battlefield if they turned up with what they think are "warbows" only to find that they had completely missed something that the medieval bowyers considered crucial to the construction of the weapon.