Author Topic: Injury and draw length  (Read 5041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dustinhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 101
Re: Injury and draw length
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2016, 10:16:32 pm »
Just had a follow up question as I was checking out the encyclopedia of Native American bows arrows and quivers. All of the long bows in it (above 60in) with the exception of the Sudbury bow, are about 1in wide with little taper to the tips which are usually about 3/4. I know that this is typical of their bows, most in the encyclopedia are like that, but their design seems like it would not be very efficient unless it was a high draw weight based on the information I've learned from you guys. im assuming that there wouldn't be so many if they didn't work but do you guys have any ideas on why they built them like that/how the bow could perform well enough?
Thanks,
Dustin

Offline Dustinhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 101
Re: Injury and draw length
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2016, 10:19:41 pm »
Here's an example of what im talking about, this is a bow on p38 next to the Penobscot one.

Offline bradsmith2010

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,187
Re: Injury and draw length
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2016, 09:42:54 pm »
yes it would perform well,, the narrow limb would have less mass,, if it did not follow the string much ,, it would have nice cast,, you need to make some and see for yourself,,, the little wider tip,, would not effect it that much,, especially in a white wood,, the wider tip was probaly better suited for a sinew or rawhide sting anyway,,,, if you shot a bow every day for a living,, if you wanted more cast,, going up in weight was probably not an issue,,at all,, if the bow was for hunting, and you were close to your game, the cast was probably not an issue anyway,, ,,, course I am just guessing,,  the reason there are so many of them,, is it was an effective bow, that was fairly easy to make,, and didnt take that much wood,,