Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Lloyd on June 10, 2007, 06:09:01 pm
-
here is the arrow made from the type 16 head I rec'd from John Marshall. 1/2" ash shaft, tapered to 3/8 at the nock. 32.25" to base of socket. 8.5" turkey feathers silk binding. 1610 grains, 104.35 grams, 3.68 ounces. The head was about 630 grains or so by itself
here is a pic of the head
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t46/lloydwwinter/Archery/JohnMarshalltype16A1.jpg)
here are some pics of the whole arrow
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t46/lloydwwinter/Archery/type162.jpg)
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t46/lloydwwinter/Archery/type161.jpg)
-
That's the kind of arrow you could hunt an elephant with.
-
Look's great! i'll have one of those 16's next.
-
Hey Lloyd,did you put the edge on the blade yourself? it looks bloody lethal ;D.
-
Hey, Lloyd
Who is John Marshall? Does he sell these heads, and if so, does he have a contact email, or ph #?
Thanks!
-
Well, it is a very nice looking arrow - but that head looks like it contains an awful lot of metal and maybe wouldn't look out of place on a gatepost.
Enclosed are a couple of replica type 16s. The one on the left is about 10 years old, and is made of 3/8 inch ash, the other is more recent and is made of 1/2 inch Poplar with a Hector Cole head. Weights are 62.8 grams and 57.7 grams respectively, fletches are 6.5 inches long and total arrow length is of the order of 35 inches (one just over, the other just under).
Now I know that they are not exact MR replicas - but the lighter one is close and the heavier one wouldn't gain that much extra weight if it were so. Replace the head with a short type 10 and you get 2oz or so, which, interestingly enough is what appears as the lightest arrow in the test series at the end of the Hardy and Strickland book and which Simon Stanley shoots 357yds, thereby (in my humble view) indicating that 150lb bows were not the order of the day .
C
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Simon Stanley shoots 357yds, thereby (in my humble view) indicating that 150lb bows were not the order of the day .
I thought Medieval target ranges were out to just over 400 yards. Perhaps I heard wrong.
J. D. Duff
Very nice arrows all.
-
I m frankly tired of another thread hijacked with "Ooo they did not have 150 lbs bows" and another blatlant non sequitur. When both experiments with copies of the artifacts in correct wood, measurements of arrows and preserved record of distances shows contrary.
J.
-
Well, it is a very nice looking arrow - but that head looks like it contains an awful lot of metal and maybe wouldn't look out of place on a gatepost.
Enclosed are a couple of replica type 16s. The one on the left is about 10 years old, and is made of 3/8 inch ash, the other is more recent and is made of 1/2 inch Poplar with a Hector Cole head. Weights are 62.8 grams and 57.7 grams respectively, fletches are 6.5 inches long and total arrow length is of the order of 35 inches (one just over, the other just under).
Now I know that they are not exact MR replicas - but the lighter one is close and the heavier one wouldn't gain that much extra weight if it were so. Replace the head with a short type 10 and you get 2oz or so, which, interestingly enough is what appears as the lightest arrow in the test series at the end of the Hardy and Strickland book and which Simon Stanley shoots 357yds, thereby (in my humble view) indicating that 150lb bows were not the order of the day .
C
I'm not even going to address 150 pound argument.
Addressing only the arrow mechanics my 1/2" ash shaft weighs almost 1000 grains by itself, and it far from the heaviest I've ever made. As for the weight of historical war arrows there is a quote in the Great Warbow, that is I believe attributed to Charles I lamenting that no one can shoot "an quarter pound arrow" any more.
I think war arrows have a large weight range. I've had arrows of the same general pattern and the same batch of wood come out between 65 and 120 grams. I've had poplar shafts that ended up weighing more than similar ash shafts. Wood also varies a lot from one region to another. I have a set of 3/8" ash I'm working on that the bare shaft with horn insert and nock finished weigh around 50 grams. If I put 160 grain field points on those they would weigh more than your lightest type 16 does. With hand forged heads the weight variations can get very extreme. I seem to recall Hugh Soar commenting in Secrets of the English Warbow that he at one time received type 16s from several different smiths and how surprised he was by the variation in the weight and size of the heads.
Additionally, arrow #5 in the back of the Great Warbow is listed at 86 grams, and the point is a target blunt. Put a proper bodkin on that and you will be easily over 100 grams. So between the lightest and heaviest examples in the Great Warbow we pretty much have a range defined for us. I've made arrows that cover the entire range, this one just happens to be at one extreme end.
-
That Marshall head is beautiful. John should be very proud.
J. D. Duff
-
Loki, I had John put theedge on it. It's not really that sharp, but at least the bevel is already there f I ever decide to touch the edge up.
adb3112; I sent you a PM
-
J.D - I also have heard 400yds quoted - but I've never met anyone who believed it. I tend to think that 240 paces was probably an engagement distance which would come out at about 200yds in todays money. Again, there'll be many who disagree with that, but its not the lowest estimate you'll find either.
Lloyd - I wasn't intending to disaparage the arrow you've shown and my comment about the bows was only intended to suggest that discussions of arrows ought to had with an eye to context. I know about the Charles I quote and have often wondered about it because you can shoot said arrow out of any bow providing you don't mind it not being too effective. I think that if the quote is an accurate one, it would have been interesting to know the precise context of the conversation.
I think I can see why theres a range of weights of the same arrow heads mentioned by Soar. Volume varies with the cube of radius and that in effect means that you get a great deal more substance of anything with fairly puny increases in radius. This effect is more marked with denser substances so that I can well see that two ingots of metal might have very little difference in size to the naked eye, and make two arrowheads that look very similar and have but have a big variance in weight. The surface area variation is smaller because it varies with the sqaure of radius only and that surface area vs volume variation for given radius changes is used to advantage in nature many times.
To the medieval arrowsmith, I suppose it might have been relatively easy to standardise weights of arrowheads - simply start off with a standard weight ingot of metal - but I've never made any so I don't know :(
I agree that the arrowheads came in a big range of weights - but I always reckoned that lighter ones would have been used at longer ranges and heavier ones closer in. Do you think that maybe they could all have been designed to a standard weight (or matched with shafts such that the end result was standard)?
C
-
I didn't think you were being disparaging of my work.
Sorry if I came off a bit defensive, that was not my intention. I was just trying to add my perspective to the discussion. I am also interested in the opinions of others and I love a well reasoned argument. The thing I continue to find amazing is the difference in wood density and weight. I have 5 finished but unfletched shafts made from Czech ash that I got from Jaroslav. This is some of the straightest, strongest and most resilient ash I've ever seen. Of those 5 shafts the weights run from 740 to 980 grains. I've had others from the same batch of wood weigh as much as 1400 grains after tapering.
I always thought the subtext on the Charles I quote should include "worth a damn" appended to the end of "and none can now shoot an quarter pound arrow (worth a damn)" It's true that one could if one wished shoot a 4 oz arrow from a 50 lb bow. It might actually clear the bow once the sting is released before hitting the ground. But to shoot it well requires one hell of a bow.
I'm not too sure about the ability of the smith to forge consistently matched heads, at least no smith I've ever got heads from seems to be able to do it. That's the job of the arrow smith with a good scale and a big file. Here's a challenge for any blacksmiths reading this post. Can you make 6 of any type arrow head, but lets say type 7 or 16 with a 1/2" socket, and have them come out within 20 grains of each other without any file work? If you can please send me your email address and price list ;)
For the arrow heads it's not just the volume of metal involved but different smiths have different ideas of how the same head should be made. Also individuals seem to have different default settings when it comes to measuring by eye. As an example I'm grinding horn inserts for my shafts I can get down to 3/32" without any problems and I can do it reliably and repeatably. But trying to get to 1/16 kills me every time. I've finally figured out that the thickness of the insert doesn't matter, as long as it matches the width of my cut, and I think the same applies to forging heads.
I agree that lighter livery arrows are for longer distance, hence the quotes about "galling arrows", and the heavy ones are definitely for close in work, although I saw a post from Marlon heavybows saying he shot a 2000 grain arrow something like 200 yards from his yew selfbow. No one except maybe Marlon is going to be shooting 1400 grain arrows 300 yards. 400 yards is probably a pipe dream, or someone did it once with a 30 MPH tail wind and the world has never forgotten. On the other hand the Mongols are recorded shooting at targets 500 yards away so who knows? I certainly don't.
When I'm making a set of arrows I almost always put the heaviest head on the lightest shaft and the lightest head on the heaviest shaft to reduce the weight variation as much as possible. I think when England was preparing for the French campaign that culminated in Agincourt they didn't worry about it too much. When you have all the blacksmiths in the kingdom producing barrels of arrow heads, and all the arrow smiths churning out hundreds of thousands if not millions of shafts and all the farmers in the land are raping their geese for feathers I don't think you are going to end up with matched sets. One of my favorite scenes in the Grail Quest books by Bernard Cornwell is when Thomas and the rest of the archers are sitting around camp going through their latest set of munitions grade arrows bitching about the quality and fondly remembering the old days when they each used to make their own arrows and how much better they were. I think that's an important point to remember when we look at war arrows in the historical context. Today livery arrows are lovingly made and cherished. 500 hundred years ago they were throw away munitions and were probably produced as quickly as possible. There were undoubtedly masterpiece matched sets but they were probably few and far between. I'm also willing to bet that the king's archers had better quality arrows than the shire militias who brought what they had and made do with what they were given.
Pax.
-
"Again, there'll be many who disagree with that, but its not the lowest estimate you'll find either."
Strawmaning again are we?
J.
-
I think I remember that part in the grail quest books. I have to say though that bitching about how good things were in the past is a peculiarly British pastime and I'm sure that Cornwell was using the scene to make a 'plus ca change' point. Another author who does the same is Julian Rathbone - especially in 'The Last English King' which is a great read which I can heartily recommend.
I've been wondering about something for a while which was restimulated by your post. What if they didn't put the heaviest heads on, but the lightest possible ones?
The thought goes like this. Drag is mostly produced by surface area of an object which is defined by radius squared. Mass is produced by volume which is defined by radius cubed. In some aquatic animals, for example, this produces a selection bias towards increased size because the extra volume you get contains a lot of muscle which is acquired for not that big an increase in surface area, and therefore drag. The result is that big aquatic animals are fast, and the blue whale, for example was only hunted from the 1930's onward for that reason.
As with aquatic animals, so with arrows. The increase in mass should come at the expense of smaller increases in surface area, and therefore drag if you make them bigger. The problem is that with a tip heavy arrow with a big head on it, eventually, the tip will drop and the drag then goes up markedly as the length of the shaft and fletches come 'face on' to the direction of travel.As Hardy pointed out, the calculations at the end of the book didn't allow for attidudinal changes in the arrow.
Now, to my mind, for a galling arrow, the head doesn't need to be heavy, just strong enough to withstand the impact and hard enough to concentrate all the force at a point without deforming so that it has a chance to go through. Ascham said that ash was the material of choice because it gives a hell of a whallop (fierce heavy stripe is how I think he put it), which to me indicates that the job of providing weight to the arrow belonged, perhaps predominantly, to the shaft. We also have an indication that fletches were 'long and low', from a welsh poem about a medieval chap saying what he'd need to shoot a really strong shot (yew bow, girlfriend nearby to impress and a few other bits and pieces). I'm not at all a fan of using art of the period as too much of a guide because those guys had some real problems with scale and perspective - but some depictions of arrows do look as if the fletches com a a long way down the shaft.
Where all this is going is that the trick might not be to add a heavy arrowhead- it'd be to use heavy wood and control the attitude of the thing in the air so it presents as little as possible of itself for as long as possible, as big aquatic animals do. What about taking the heaviest shaft you can find, put a bodkin head on which is strong enough to do withstand the impact without deforming, but no more, and experiment with 8.5inch fletches in terms both of height and position on the shaft? It'd still weigh in at over 1000grains and might travel a long way.
I'd be surprised if this hasn't been done - its just that I haven't heard about it and I'm curious.
C
-
The thought goes like this. Drag is mostly produced by surface area of an object which is defined by radius squared. Mass is produced by volume which is defined by radius cubed. In some aquatic animals, for example, this produces a selection bias towards increased size because the extra volume you get contains a lot of muscle which is acquired for not that big an increase in surface area, and therefore drag. The result is that big aquatic animals are fast, and the blue whale, for example was only hunted from the 1930's onward for that reason.
A minor point, but I think this is wrong. The surface area is a function of the radius, not radius squared (surface area = length.2.pi.r). Volume is a function of the cross section area (length.pi.(r squared)).
I think the radius cubed is all to do with spheres.
-
1st question, are you an engineer or a scientist? :D :D :D
"I have to say though that bitching about how good things were in the past is a peculiarly British pastime..."
couldn't disagree more. It's an element of human nature. As universal as the fact that we all breathe air and drink water
"I've been wondering about something for a while which was restimulated by your post. What if they didn't put the heaviest heads on, but the lightest possible ones?"
I think you always use the lightest heads available within the class of head you are using at the moment. If I'm shooting light horse I want to use type 7s which are probably a lot lighter than a 9a for example. But I still want the lightest type 9a on my arrows when I'm shooting at heavy horse. There is definitely it seems a "bigger is better" attitude in the development of heads. It would be very interesting to see a detailed analysis of the ballistic properties of all the different head types.
"Now, to my mind, for a galling arrow, the head doesn't need to be heavy, just strong enough to withstand the impact and hard enough to concentrate all the force at a point without deforming so that it has a chance to go through"
Absolutely. Galling arrows are to keep the other guys heads down and piss them off more than anything else. Probably good for irritating the horses too.
"Ascham said that ash was the material of choice because it gives a hell of a whallop (fierce heavy stripe is how I think he put it), which to me indicates that the job of providing weight to the arrow belonged, perhaps predominantly, to the shaft."
See my previous comments about the bigger or heavier is better syndrome. Since Ascham doesn't really talk about heads that much I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions from him on this particular subject.
"We also have an indication that fletches were 'long and low', from a welsh poem..."
I like low cut feathers for my arrows. Usually 1/2 to 5/8 high at the back and at least 8" long. I've done some swallow tails with 9.5" feathers.
"Where all this is going is that the trick might not be to add a heavy arrowhead- it'd be to use heavy wood and control the attitude of the thing in the air so it presents as little as possible of itself for as long as possible, as big aquatic animals do. What about taking the heaviest shaft you can find, put a bodkin head on which is strong enough to do withstand the impact without deforming, but no more, and experiment with 8.5inch fletches in terms both of height and position on the shaft? It'd still weigh in at over 1000grains and might travel a long way."
Interesting experiment, I'd be interested to see it in action. But, if it would have worked I think they would have figured it out, wouldn't they? And aren't you really restating your definition of a galling arrow?
I think there are things about war bows and war arrows that we have forgotten about and some of them probably can't be rediscovered until we let 500 guys with war bows kill a bunch of knights and horses. As I've said before I'll bet my life if it didn't work they wouldn't have done it. I think a universal principle of archery is that you want the lightest arrow that will do the job. How light is heavy enough for the particular job is the real question.
"I'd be surprised if this hasn't been done - its just that I haven't heard about it and I'm curious."
Me too. Good conversation!
-
No Simon, it isn't wrong. I'll send the reference if you want - in a fascinating book on form and function in nature.
The reason we got taught about spheres in school is that its easier to start that way because there is only one variable to think about - the radius.
In the case of a cylinder, there are two variables - radius and height.The surface area is the area of the two ends (pi x r squared x 2) + the area of the shaft (2x pi x r x h). It still depends on r squared.
Hope that helps. ;D
C
-
Yes Chris you're right, if you count the surface area of the ends of the cylinder you have to use r squared. Is that what you were saying? I thought you were talking about the surface area of the whole arrow, in which case the ends become negligible compared to the sides.
Volume is still not a function of r cubed.
-
Simon, I think where you are getting hung up is by thinking of only one dimension as a radius. Ellipses have two radii, for example and in a cylinder, the traditional radius is regarded as one while height can be regarded as another (well diameter really).
Surface areas always get calculated on an a x b basis therefore the order of magnitude called a square.
Volumes always get calculated on an a x b x c basis therefore the order of magnitude is called a cube.
;) ;) ;)
What you actually call the dimensions doesn't really matter - its simply a fact that discussing spheres is the easiest way to illustrate the point that surface area increases proportionately less than volume when you make things bigger - I was only trying to add an empirical perspective to the discussion which I haven't seen before because it is one way of seeing how arrows might get really heavy without necessarily looking so much bigger to the naked eye, especially with these super dense woods that Lloyd mentioned.
LLoyd I guess I'm neither scientist nor engineer - just a simple unsplicer of human tissue - which I endeavour to resplice when I'm done. I would say that my training has been heavily science based but I did spend a year doing tissue engineering work in a materials science lab and I still have a bit to do with those guys so I've got a nodding familiarity with some aspects of engineering and general aspects of biological systems at a cellular level. What it means is that I can get access to some interesting gew gaws if necessary - MR scanners, Instron machines and the like.
On the arrow shapes, my thoughts were driven on the basis that the narrowing in the distal part of the MR shafts, for example might have been designed according to the weight of the head in order to keep the thing as neutral as possible, with a dinky wee pointy head attached. What else can I say? An experiment to give a whirl and keep me out from under the nose of erindoors.
I have to say that I agree completely with the pragmatic principles which you have espoused on arrow manufacture and I'm sure that the ancient arrowsmiths would equally have used what worked best, even if they mightn't have been able to say precisely why.
C :)
-
Lloyd,
On foot of your last post (as well as a post on another place), a question and a comment.
First the question - how heavy do you think a galling arrow was?
Now the comment. Its about your question of what people should charge who make arrows - I'm assuming Livery arrows is the topic in question. I've just paid about £17.80 per arrow for a bunch of heavyish arrows for messing about with my various bows. They have big fletches, are 33ins long total, and have forged steel heads by Simon Stanley, are made of Poplar (I think) and have horn reinforced self nocks. These are well made arrows weighing between 950 and 1000 grains. I've graded them and there are some differences however, the best three flew in excess of 180 yds into a headwind out of my yew longbow - which to my consternation is giving up the ghost faster than my hairline and is now less than 75 lb at 31 inches (started life at 90@30 - but I weighed it yesterday). There are 3 others which need some attention to get them to fly that well and the remaining 6 are OK but I'd need a slightely heavier bow to get full clout distance with them.
So, £17.80 is what I'm prepared to pay for what I reckon is a pretty well made piece which I expect to perform very well. Add to that, maybe a forged replica head and your own time and attention to get a great finish and consistency, and I think you'd be cheating yourself if it was much less than £30 a go - and if they are really good arrows - a bit more. One day, I'll have the time to do it myself, but at the moment, work and new small child limit me to an average 15 mins a day making bows which is about all I can manage.
Hope that is helpful.
Chris
-
I'd expect a galling arrow to come in around 700- 800 grains give or take. I think the BLBS standard arrow is probably a fairly good example of a galling arrow. 36" 3/8 ash runs about 650 - 850 grains. Stick to the lighter end of that and you will end up around 575 at 32". Go with a fairly light head and you will come out around 750 - 850, and a standard arrow is right in the middle of that range.
Thanks for the input on the arrows.
-
which to my consternation is giving up the ghost faster than my hairline
;D :D :)
All this talk of radii,cubes and surface area's make my head hurt ???.
i've seen Livery arrows for sale for £20 without the heads on,so twenty pounds plus the price of the head is around the going rate.
If you charge 50-60 bucks an arrow with a hand forged head,its a good deal for the buyer.
-
400 yards is probably a pipe dream, or someone did it once with a 30 MPH tail wind and the world has never forgotten.Pax.
In a recent conversation with Chris Boyton he told me that Simon Stanley has now shot more than 400 yards with a flighting shaft.
Rod.
-
Further to some recent discussions on 'the other site' - is a galling arrow and a flighting shaft the same thing?
I have read of 'galling arrows' 'flighting shafts' and 'Prick(e?)shafts' and have always thought them to be different things.
C
-
Isnt galling the lightest usefull against living, even if lightly clad force? It is something which should give you option to prolong the time you can keep the enemy in your reach, though it shall probably still be effective if it hits somebody who does not cover and it needs to be strong enough to withstand the same bow as your 1000-1200 grn arrow....
That said I have shot 600 grn bodkined arrow with 5´´ fletching way over 300 yards out of 100# bow made by Marc StLuis. Hence shooting that from quality yew bow at 330# + and up to 350 or some should not be that much problem considering that I m neither strongest nor best longbowman awailble, even if we accept 125# as median weight of bows in latter period.
Jaro
-
Jaro! Glad to see you are posting again!
Thats exactly what what I would have thought from reading and from other posts - a lighter arrow to do as you say - gall the opposition. It was recently suggested elsewhere that 'galling arrows were used for hunting and not warfare' - which seemed an odd idea to me as does the idea of a 1500-2000grn arrow for all distances.
I would tend to agree with Lloyd that 1000grn seems like it would have been about right given the size of the longer MR shafts, which as you say would cause merry hell amongst horses and the lightly clad or unwary.
My bow is an osage/hickory which is 80lb at 28" but which I have recently been drawing to 32 - I get 250yds with with 500-600grn arrows, but I'm not such a good archer and the bow is quite new and I'm told more will come from it. The interesting thing is that 1000grn arrows with 8" fletches travel only 30yds less.
C