So it's a bale and not an earthen butt.
Unless you wish to sue under the Trade Description Act, I suggest that having made the point we let it go.
If a landowner could be found who allowed construction of the butts and regular access for shooting at them, then it would perhaps be worth the trouble of constructing some earthen butts to an agreed size.
It is something I have contemplated.
I say agreed size, since an accepted format might prove useful for the purposes of comparison, should the day arrive when that is considered acceptable.
I agree with Jeremy that in mediaeval times it is likely that there was local variation in practice, though laws were passed from time to time prohibiting shorter distances so as to encourage strong shooting.
Nonetheless, to call targets of a standard size and recording scores a Victorian obsession is perhaps more a reaction against lawn archery and its lineal descendents GNAS and FITA target shooting than a balanced comment on past practice.
Whilst it is true that hits were in the past considered the real criterion, the use of a target of a more or less standardised size is ancient, since it has long been understood that a hit on a given sized mark at the distance offers a truer basis for comparison than hits on targets of different sizes.
As for continuing comment on user names, that could become a sport in it's own right.
Better to let it rest.
Rod.
