## Re: [SCA-Archery] Spine Scale

Expand Messages
• ... ... ... There seems to be a confusion here between: Standard Spine -- the standardized measure of the stiffness of a stick used to get an
Message 1 of 22 , Nov 30, 2000
Jeff Elder wrote:
>...
> I am still stumped though, how any one gauges the spine of a shaft!

> > If you evaluate a 26 inch segment of a 30 inch long piece of wood, it is
> > statistically likely that your measurement is fairly good.
> >
> > However, "statistically likely" and reality are frequently at odds.
> >
> > <shrug>

<snip>

> > > "Spine is determined by measuring the amount of deflection (in
> thousandths
> > > of an inch) that a shaft assumes when loaded with a 2-pound weight
> midway
> > > between two supports located 26 inches apart. This deflection is
> converted
> > > to pounds by dividing 26 by the deflection. This measuring standard was
> > > established during the first quarter of the twentieth century

<snip>

> > > > ...(Spine should be measured
> > > from
> > > >one inch from each end of the shaft with the tip and knock attached.)

There seems to be a confusion here between:

Standard Spine -- the standardized measure of the stiffness of a stick used to get an approximate functional match between bows and arrows. The resulting number is meaningful to all archers, but only so useful as a rule.

and

(let's call it) Full Arrow Spine -- the measure of the flexibility of the entire shaft of a particular arrow made to fly well out of a particular archer's bow. Whatever number might result is meaningless to anyone but the archer and his fletcher, but it is THE number they should care about most.

If you're sorting out your shipment of 5000 shafts, use the standard 26" 2# spine test. Then use that sorting as a guide to find candidates for full arrow testing to fit a particular archer and his bow.

All that said, I really don't know how much variation in full arrow spine you'll find in a dozen 32" shafts that are perfectly (well, OK, closely) matched according to standard spine. Could someone with an adjustable-span spine tester test this?

-- Fritz
--
Carl West
mailto:eisen@...
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/eisen

Experience Real-Time Full-Motion Hi-res 3D with Surround Sound! Step Outside.
• Greetings One more worm for the can. If you are working with un-sealed arrow shafts... how MUCH does mosture content effect spin? I know that it is not much
Message 2 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
Greetings

One more worm for the can. If you are working with un-sealed arrow
shafts... how MUCH does mosture content effect spin? I know that it is not
much fun on arrows, bolts, bow, targets, and archers.

James Cunningham

I really don't know how much variation in full arrow spine you'll find in a
dozen 32" shafts that are perfectly (well, OK, closely) matched according to
standard spine. Could someone with an adjustable-span spine tester test
this?
>
> -- Fritz
> --
> Carl West
• Greetings! Easy answer: I don t care! ;o) a) In medieval times they did not have PU varnish. b) They also did not have moisture-, spine- or other meters. c)
Message 3 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
Greetings!

Easy answer: I don't care! ;o)

a) In medieval times they did not have PU varnish.
b) They also did not have moisture-, spine- or other meters.
c) They still managed to hit stuff.

Now, trying to recreate _medieval_ archery I'm using linseed oil and
beeswax for shaft protection. I do _not_ hit the target very well (at least not
intentionally ... ;o) ). Sorry, but blaming moisture content would be to
easy. It's ME who's messing up.

Will
* Who also does not use a fletching jig until it can be documented ;o) *

> Greetings
>
> One more worm for the can. If you are working with un-sealed arrow
> shafts... how MUCH does mosture content effect spin? I know that it is
> not
> much fun on arrows, bolts, bow, targets, and archers.
>
> James Cunningham
>
> I really don't know how much variation in full arrow spine you'll find
> in a
> dozen 32" shafts that are perfectly (well, OK, closely) matched
> according to
> standard spine. Could someone with an adjustable-span spine tester test
> this?
> >
> > -- Fritz
> > --
> > Carl West
>
>
>
>
> Get medieval at Mad Macsen's
> http://www.MedievalMart.com/
>
> Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
> [Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
>
>

--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
• ... As a new member in the archery community I ve been following the banter about spine weights, perfectly matched arrows, and all the other items about the
Message 4 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
> Greetings!
>
> Easy answer: I don't care! ;o)
>
> a) In medieval times they did not have PU varnish.
> b) They also did not have moisture-, spine- or other meters.
> c) They still managed to hit stuff.
>
> Now, trying to recreate _medieval_ archery I'm using linseed oil and
> beeswax for shaft protection. I do _not_ hit the target very well (at least not
> intentionally ... ;o) ). Sorry, but blaming moisture content would be to
> easy. It's ME who's messing up.
>
> Will
> * Who also does not use a fletching jig until it can be documented ;o) *
>

As a new member in the archery community I've been following the
banter about spine weights, "perfectly" matched arrows, and all the
other items about the "scientific" approach to archery with much
amusement. M'Lord brings forward something that I've been wondering
about for sometime. While SCA archery turns it's back on that
unmentionable type of bow that is so prevalent in the hunting world
as being "not medieval/traditional", as a group it apprently has no
problem using all the gizmos and gadgets, bells and whistles in arrow
selection/construction. A bit schizophrenic I think.

I must admit that I know next to nothing about the sport, having
only been at it for about 8 months. However, I do like the approach
being taken by the gentlman above.

Conchobhar
• Conchobhar and others, While not taking sides on such an issue (my opinions don t matter to anyone else but myself), I can see some justification for the
Message 5 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
Conchobhar and others,

While not taking sides on such an issue (my opinions don't matter to anyone
else but myself), I can see some justification for the science of arrow
making. While the medieval fletcher may not have had the same sorts of
tools, you can bet the archer had a care for well matched arrows. Practice
for a many a medieval archer, was their job. I would hazard a guess that
they may have approached matching arrows by the shoot and record the
grouping method.

Njall Olaf Hagerson

----- Original Message -----
From: Prince, John
> Greetings!
>
> a) In medieval times they did not have PU varnish.
> b) They also did not have moisture-, spine- or other meters.
> c) They still managed to hit stuff.
>
> Now, trying to recreate _medieval_ archery I'm using linseed oil and
> beeswax for shaft protection. I do _not_ hit the target very well (at
least not
> intentionally ... ;o) ).
As a new member in the archery community I've been following the
banter about spine weights, "perfectly" matched arrows, and all the
other items about the "scientific" approach to archery with much
amusement. M'Lord brings forward something that I've been wondering
I must admit that I know next to nothing about the sport, having
only been at it for about 8 months. However, I do like the approach
being taken by the gentlman above.

Conchobhar
• Greetings! ... and I m absolutely fine with that. In the TBB chapter on handmade arrows James (?) Massey states that he s grouping his shafts by flexing them
Message 6 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
Greetings!

... and I'm absolutely fine with that. In the TBB chapter on handmade
arrows James (?) Massey states that he's grouping his shafts by flexing them and
going for the 'feel'. I'm sure a medieval fletcher would have had similar
skills just based on the amount of experience he must have had with the
material. I'm just reluctant to replace that with modern technology and still
consider the result to be rlated to medieval reenactment.

I also have to admit that sometimes I am enticed to cheat. An arrow rest
for example would make shooting much easier. And an undocumented selfbow
profile might provide better cast than the ELB design. So far, I've reminded
myself of my (personal) reason to start this type of archery - which was to try
to get as close to the medieval equivalent as reasonably possible. But this
might not continue if I don't get a decent Winter Challenge score soon ...
;o)

Will

> Conchobhar and others,
>
> While not taking sides on such an issue (my opinions don't matter to
> anyone
> else but myself), I can see some justification for the science of arrow
> making. While the medieval fletcher may not have had the same sorts of
> tools, you can bet the archer had a care for well matched arrows.
> Practice
> for a many a medieval archer, was their job. I would hazard a guess that
> they may have approached matching arrows by the shoot and record the
> grouping method.
>
> Njall Olaf Hagerson
>

--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
• ... Good M Lord, My missive was not met as a critism, only an observation. It would be interesting to determine if your conjecture holds true. I believe that
Message 7 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
> Conchobhar and others,
>
> While not taking sides on such an issue (my opinions don't matter to anyone
> else but myself), I can see some justification for the science of arrow
> making. While the medieval fletcher may not have had the same sorts of
> tools, you can bet the archer had a care for well matched arrows. Practice
> for a many a medieval archer, was their job. I would hazard a guess that
> they may have approached matching arrows by the shoot and record the
> grouping method.
>
> Njall Olaf Hagerson
>

Good M'Lord,

My missive was not met as a critism, only an observation. It would be
interesting to determine if your conjecture holds true. I believe
that it would take someone who is proficient in the art form to
draw any conclusions however. Intuitively, it makes sense.

Conchobhar
• The medieval fletcher did this 10-16 hours a day. He probably developed a fine sense for gauging the stiffness of shafts. This is a lot more time and effort
Message 8 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
The medieval fletcher did this 10-16 hours a day. He probably developed a
fine sense for gauging the stiffness of shafts. This is a lot more time and
effort than I can afford to get it correct.

-----Original Message-----
From: cgelszus@... [mailto:cgelszus@...]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:56 PM
To: SCA-Archery@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Spine Scale

Greetings!

... and I'm absolutely fine with that. In the TBB chapter on handmade
arrows James (?) Massey states that he's grouping his shafts by flexing them
and
going for the 'feel'. I'm sure a medieval fletcher would have had similar
skills just based on the amount of experience he must have had with the
material. I'm just reluctant to replace that with modern technology and
still
consider the result to be rlated to medieval reenactment.

I also have to admit that sometimes I am enticed to cheat. An arrow rest
for example would make shooting much easier. And an undocumented selfbow
profile might provide better cast than the ELB design. So far, I've reminded
myself of my (personal) reason to start this type of archery - which was to
try
to get as close to the medieval equivalent as reasonably possible. But this
might not continue if I don't get a decent Winter Challenge score soon ...
;o)

Will

> Conchobhar and others,
>
> While not taking sides on such an issue (my opinions don't matter to
> anyone
> else but myself), I can see some justification for the science of arrow
> making. While the medieval fletcher may not have had the same sorts of
> tools, you can bet the archer had a care for well matched arrows.
> Practice
> for a many a medieval archer, was their job. I would hazard a guess that
> they may have approached matching arrows by the shoot and record the
> grouping method.
>
> Njall Olaf Hagerson
>

--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net

http://www.MedievalMart.com/

Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
• I hope I didn t imply that you giving criticism. It seem to me you were stating an observation. Which I in turn, presented another side to. It would seem to me
Message 9 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
I hope I didn't imply that you giving criticism. It seem to me you were
stating an observation. Which I in turn, presented another side to. It would
seem to me that the test would not be a matter of proficiency, but rather
research. No it seems to me that Roger Asham recorded almost every other
aspect of becoming a good archer in period. From bow selection to choosing
the proper teacher. Does anyone recall him writing about arrow matching in
hi book?

Njall Olaf Hagerson (who admits to reading it so long ago, that the memory
of it fails)

----- Original Message -----
From: Prince, John
>I would hazard a guess that
> they may have approached matching arrows by the shoot and record the
> grouping method.
>
> Njall Olaf Hagerson
>

Good M'Lord,

My missive was not met as a critism, only an observation. It would be
interesting to determine if your conjecture holds true. I believe
that it would take someone who is proficient in the art form to
draw any conclusions however. Intuitively, it makes sense.

Conchobhar
• ... It would be an interesting project wouldn t it! You could have one set of arrows matched by whatever mechanical ( scientific ) means up against a set of
Message 10 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
> I hope I didn't imply that you giving criticism. It seem to me you were
> stating an observation. Which I in turn, presented another side to. It would
> seem to me that the test would not be a matter of proficiency, but rather
> research. No it seems to me that Roger Asham recorded almost every other
> aspect of becoming a good archer in period. From bow selection to choosing
> the proper teacher. Does anyone recall him writing about arrow matching in
> hi book?
>
> Njall Olaf Hagerson (who admits to reading it so long ago, that the memory
> of it fails)
>

It would be an interesting project wouldn't it! You could have one
set of arrows matched by whatever mechanical ("scientific") means up
against a set of arrows determined by the archer using your method.
This is where I think "proficiency" would play apart. Perhaps
"experience" is a better choice of a word. I say this only because
you would want any variation in grouping to be reduced as much as
possible due to performance on the part of the archer. A sort of
"science" vs "instinctive" approach in arrow selection.

Conchobhar
• ... Which is why we use the modern tools like fletching jigs. If i had the time I daresay that I could be silly/insane enough to go and find a tree and cut
Message 11 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
> On Dec 01, Block, Alan W scratched in indelible ink :

> The medieval fletcher did this 10-16 hours a day. He probably developed a
> fine sense for gauging the stiffness of shafts. This is a lot more time and
> effort than I can afford to get it correct.
>
Which is why we use the 'modern' tools like fletching jigs. If i had the
time I daresay that I could be silly/insane enough to go and find a tree and
cut out a nice set of arrows, and probably a bow too. But no yet ;) A
comment passed to my by one of the armourers in our group was that if the
Vikings had had grinders in their time, they would have used them!
I use the tools available to me to make my job of making my toys easier. I am
working on the joy of 'making my toys' but that will be more beneficial to me
when I have more time :)

/Jp...
--
Jean-Paul BlaquiÃ¨re || Avatar of Computational
japester@... || Thaumaturgy
Words are fingers that point at the moon. Once you see the moon, you no
longer need the fingers. -- someone, somewhere
• Several people, out of a desire to help others improve their shooting and the quality of their arrows, have suggested that they aquire a spine scale and a
Message 12 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
Several people, out of a desire to help others improve their shooting
and the quality of their arrows, have suggested that they aquire a spine
scale and a grain scale. One good gentle even posted an excellent site
with plans for making one inexpensively. With some of the responses,
you'd think we were asking you to drink "Drano". So please, if the idea
We really don't know a great deal about medieval period archery
and its craft. Ashams book "Toxophillus" offers some insight, but was
written well after the great age of the longbow and is the writing of an
academics tutor, not a great military archer. It is a wonderful book and
a must have for any student of archery.but it is not the final word or
by any means the complete story. We all seem to quote from it as if it
is the word of God. It is just another source.
90% of what we do in the SCA is not
period archery or re-creation or even re-enactment, it's modern
traditional style archery in costume. There are some that are fiendishly
attempting to be accurate, and others that buy a fiberglass bow and want
to step to the line with their Simms arrows and play the game, and "it's
all good", all are welcomed and encouraged.
That's the way it should be. We will not allow much of the real period
tackle because it has been deemed unsafe, we've learned over the
centuries. And we've learned more about physics and how to measure what
we do, and I'd venture to say that in many cases we are probably a lot
more accurate archers than our predecessors,IMHO.
Play the game anyway you want, I love to play at the romance, make
my own self-bows, self nocked arrows with tied on fletches and
re-inforced wrapping on the nocks, but I also have and use a moisture
meter, a spine scale, a grain scale, a cresting lathe, fletching jigs,
feather burner, oh, and yeah, the internet too.
-Geoffrei

http://community.webtv.net/jrosswebb1/EASTWINDStribal
• I know what you shoot and you do have a decent score better than mine. If I have followed the thread correctly you are planning to go back to Drachenwald? If
Message 13 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
I know what you shoot and you do have a decent score better than mine. If I
have followed the thread correctly you are planning to go back to
Drachenwald? If and when you do have them shoot the Winter Challenge.

James Cunningham

But this
> might not continue if I don't get a decent Winter Challenge score soon ...
> ;o)
>
> Will
• ... This brings to mind my friends that makes and shoot their own primitive tackle. One of them has a spine tester that he made but he does not always use it.
Message 14 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
--- In SCA-Archery@egroups.com, "Prince, John" <jbprince@p...> wrote:

> It would be an interesting project wouldn't it! You could have one
> set of arrows matched by whatever mechanical ("scientific") means up
> against a set of arrows determined by the archer using your method.
> This is where I think "proficiency" would play apart. Perhaps
> "experience" is a better choice of a word. I say this only because
> you would want any variation in grouping to be reduced as much as
> possible due to performance on the part of the archer. A sort of
> "science" vs "instinctive" approach in arrow selection.
>
> Conchobhar

This brings to mind my friends that makes and shoot their own
primitive tackle. One of them has a spine tester that he made but he
does not always use it. Another simply bends the shafts he makes in
his hands and grades them by feel. Feathers are put on without
benefit of a fletching jig but I have seen Tom use his toes, not sure
if that is period or not but it works for him. He will shape
feathers either with scissors of a burning coal. Pyrographic
decoration is done with the sun and a magnifying glass. Finished
arrows are further graded by actual shooting into the two classes of
the good ones and the ones that get the "Wonder if I can hit that
from here?" shots. The latter are frequently unrecovererable in the
bushes.

Taillear
• I do not think they worried about groupings as much as we do. Even the Ice Man had only one or two arrows ready to shoot. If I were a Welsh archer, the only
Message 15 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
I do not think they worried about groupings as much as we do. Even the Ice
Man had only one or two arrows ready to shoot. If I were a Welsh archer,
the only time I would need more than two arrows would be durring a war. For
the Hunters out there how many of you have taken more than two shots a deer
befor you retrieved arrows?

Intuitively, it makes sense.
• ... arrow ... Different persons get different things from their SCA participation. This occurs in every aspect of the SCA experience. For me, I am a
Message 16 of 22 , Dec 1, 2000
--- In SCA-Archery@egroups.com, "Prince, John" <jbprince@p...> wrote:

> As a new member in the archery community I've been following the
> banter about spine weights, "perfectly" matched arrows, and all the
> other items about the "scientific" approach to archery with much
> amusement. M'Lord brings forward something that I've been wondering
> about for sometime. While SCA archery turns it's back on that
> unmentionable type of bow that is so prevalent in the hunting world
> as being "not medieval/traditional", as a group it apprently has no
> problem using all the gizmos and gadgets, bells and whistles in
arrow
> selection/construction. A bit schizophrenic I think.
>
> I must admit that I know next to nothing about the sport, having
> only been at it for about 8 months. However, I do like the approach
> being taken by the gentlman above.
>
> Conchobhar

Different persons get different things from their SCA participation.
This occurs in every aspect of the SCA experience. For me, I am a
traditional archer first, the SCA is a game I play on the weekends to
be with some good people and to get another chance to shoot my
equipment in a friendly atmosphere.
Not to disparage anyone else's SCA experience but whenever I see
someone sign their letters with "In service to the Dream." I am
weekends, the Dream consists of a blond, a red head, a gallon of
chocolate syrup... etc. :-)
• The Medieval and Renaissance archery communities know full well about the intricacies of arrow making, they just didn t have the tools and had to use other
Message 17 of 22 , Dec 2, 2000
The Medieval and Renaissance archery communities know full well about the
intricacies of arrow making, they just didn't have the tools and had to
use other techniques (such as a balance scale to make sure all
shafts/points/feathers matched in weight to each other). Drying oils
such as linseed seal as well as varnish. The big difference was that
they didn't do this for war (never fall in love with your ammunition) and
sport didn't get written about as much. Their form of sport was somewhat
different as well. So while a perfectly matched set might be produced as
a gift to a high ranking noble, they really didn't need them as much as
they used them differently. The technologies and tools used in the shops
to make gear were always more sophisticated and precise than the gear
made and used in then field.

Njall Hagerson wrote:
While not taking sides on such an issue (my opinions don't matter to
anyone
else but myself), I can see some justification for the science of arrow
making. While the medieval fletcher may not have had the same sorts of
tools, you can bet the archer had a care for well matched arrows.
Practice
for a many a medieval archer, was their job. I would hazard a guess that
they may have approached matching arrows by the shoot and record the
grouping method.

And this is the crux of the issue because no matter how well the arrows
were matched, the was no quantifiable way to match them to a bow. In
fact, wood bows change their dynamics through their lives as they begin
to take a set, lose elasticity, etc. Thus the arrows perfectly matched
to it have to change.

In service to the dream,
Carolus von Eulenhorst

On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:15:57 -0800 "Prince, John"
<jbprince@...> writes:
>> Greetings!
>>
>> Easy answer: I don't care! ;o)
>>
>> a) In medieval times they did not have PU varnish.
>> b) They also did not have moisture-, spine- or other meters.
>> c) They still managed to hit stuff.
>>
>> Now, trying to recreate _medieval_ archery I'm using linseed oil and
>> beeswax for shaft protection. I do _not_ hit the target very well
>(at least not
>> intentionally ... ;o) ). Sorry, but blaming moisture content would
>be to
>> easy. It's ME who's messing up.
>>
>> Will
>> * Who also does not use a fletching jig until it can be documented
>;o) *
>>
>
>As a new member in the archery community I've been following the
>banter about spine weights, "perfectly" matched arrows, and all the
>other items about the "scientific" approach to archery with much
>amusement. M'Lord brings forward something that I've been wondering
>about for sometime. While SCA archery turns it's back on that
>unmentionable type of bow that is so prevalent in the hunting world
>as being "not medieval/traditional", as a group it apprently has no
>problem using all the gizmos and gadgets, bells and whistles in arrow
>selection/construction. A bit schizophrenic I think.
>
>I must admit that I know next to nothing about the sport, having
>only been at it for about 8 months. However, I do like the approach
>being taken by the gentlman above.
>
>Conchobhar
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.MedievalMart.com/
>
>Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
>[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
• Stored bare shafts will gain a little spine over the years if properly stored indoors , and working arrows will loose a little due to cell degridation . Carl
Message 18 of 22 , Dec 3, 2000
Stored bare shafts will gain a little spine over the years if properly
stored indoors , and working arrows will loose a little due to cell
degridation .
Carl
Message text written by INTERNET:SCA-Archery@egroups.com
>
Greetings

One more worm for the can. If you are working with un-sealed arrow
shafts... how MUCH does mosture content effect spin? I know that it is not
much fun on arrows, bolts, bow, targets, and archers.

James Cunningham

I really don't know how much variation in full arrow spine you'll find in a
dozen 32" shafts that are perfectly (well, OK, closely) matched according
to
standard spine. Could someone with an adjustable-span spine tester test
this?<
• snip (such as a balance scale to make sure all ... snip Wrong.... they had scales to weight gold (see the Viking )...what I have not found is fletchers or
Message 19 of 22 , Dec 3, 2000
snip
(such as a balance scale to make sure all
> shafts/points/feathers matched in weight to each other).
snip

Wrong.... they had scales to weight gold (see the "Viking")...what I have
not found is fletchers or bowyers using scales on arrows or how to prove it.
Maybe if we found arrow heads/a file/and a scale we could make a conjecture.

spip
The technologies and tools used in the shops to make gear were always more
sophisticated and precise than the gear made and used in then field.
snip

I cannot see a poacher getting his arrows from a fletcher but as any modern
fletcher knows, even with modern tools, experience and practice are a big
part of making the best arrows.

James Cunningham
• To All, Very heavy draw weight bows, such as the bows that were shot in medieval times are LESS critical of exacting spine. Ask any master arrowmaker even in
Message 20 of 22 , Dec 3, 2000
To All,
Very heavy draw weight bows, such as the bows that were shot in
medieval times are LESS critical of exacting spine.
heavier than average bows,70# plus, and although I am
compulsive about weighing, spine and grain weight, I am constantly
reminded by great fletchers such as Master Li Kung Lo and others that
the close matching of spines at that weight and speed is NOT AS critical
as it is on lighter weight bows and arrows, you just need to make sure
you are not shooting under-spined arrows, or, DISASTER! On lighter
weight bows (under 60#, by medieval standards) it is very critical. I
don't know why this is, perhaps there are experts out there that can
explain it better, but it is shown in practice.
So, even though you are using a nifty little self bow that you've
made that draws at 40# at 28" with self nocked arrows with tied on
fletching, you cannot compare what you are doing to the "classic"
British war bow which drew at between 80# for those weaker gents up to
170# for the "knuckle scrapers".
All of what I've written so far about spine and grain weight is
geared toward the wonderful sport" that we practice in the SCA. Where
the majority of people are not drawing seige bows, they are working on
their form and trying to get their arrows as close to center of the
paper target as possible. The physics and dynamics of our lighter weight
target bows is very different, much more critical of weight difference,
a lot more responsive, and due to increased speed, more critical of
archer error on release.
One previous writer is correct about the arrows found in the Mary
Rose(source: Hardy "Longbow", Hugh Soar, "Instinctive Archer") they were
estimated at being well over 1000 grains each. With a 300plus grain
arrowhead, that means the shafts with fletching would have weighed in at
over 700plus grains themselves. These would have been shot out of a
120plus pound bow delivering the ordinance at over 220fps. DAMN!
This isn't the type of archery that we do.
-Geoffrei

http://community.webtv.net/jrosswebb1/EASTWINDStribal
• Many years ago in the library at California State University, Long Beach there was a book with an illustration purported to come from the 14th or 15th century
Message 21 of 22 , Dec 3, 2000
Many years ago in the library at California State University, Long Beach
there was a book with an illustration purported to come from the 14th or
15th century from the archives of the "Fletcher's Guild" (I don't recall
the exact Guild name) in London which clearly showed a balance scale on
the workbench next to a pile of materials and several completed arrows.
While I know that the jewlers and goldsmiths had similar scales with
precise wieghts to measure against, I did not see any such weights in the
image and did not wish to imply facts from evidence not in view. In
parts against each other to achieve balance though the exact weight was
not important. We used a similar balance system. Thus, my deduction of
one possible conclusion. Since I no longer am near the University, I
will have to wait on trying to find the book again until I get back with
time to spend (I do still have library priveledges).
In service to the dream,
Carolus von Eulenhorst

On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:08:44 -0500 "James W. Pratt Jr."
<cunning@...> writes:
>snip
>(such as a balance scale to make sure all
>> shafts/points/feathers matched in weight to each other).
>snip
>
>Wrong.... they had scales to weight gold (see the "Viking")...what I
>have
>not found is fletchers or bowyers using scales on arrows or how to
>prove it.
>Maybe if we found arrow heads/a file/and a scale we could make a
>conjecture.
>
>spip
> The technologies and tools used in the shops to make gear were always
>more
>sophisticated and precise than the gear made and used in then field.
>snip
>
>I cannot see a poacher getting his arrows from a fletcher but as any
>modern
>fletcher knows, even with modern tools, experience and practice are a
>big
>part of making the best arrows.
>
>James Cunningham
>
>
>
>http://www.MedievalMart.com/
>
>Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
>[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
• Indeed, the archery we practice has much more in common with the archery spor of Ascham and Princess Elizabeth than the war of Agincourt and Crecy. If one
Message 22 of 22 , Dec 3, 2000
Indeed, the archery we practice has much more in common with the archery
spor" of Ascham and Princess Elizabeth than the war of Agincourt and
Crecy. If one were to examine the equipment of war vs. the equipment of
sport (including hunting) one will find the sport equipment much finer,
more precise, and delicate (though by no means fragile) than that for
war. We often seem to be arguing to cross purposes as even the sport is
still in period, albeit late period.
In service to the dream,
Carolus von Eulenhorst

On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:44:18 -0500 (EST) jrosswebb1@... writes:
>To All,
> snip<
> All of what I've written so far about spine and grain weight is
>geared toward the wonderful sport" that we practice in the SCA. Where
>the majority of people are not drawing seige bows, they are working on
>their form and trying to get their arrows as close to center of the
>paper target as possible. The physics and dynamics of our lighter
>weight
>target bows is very different, much more critical of weight
>difference,
>a lot more responsive, and due to increased speed, more critical of
>archer error on release.
> One previous writer is correct about the arrows found in the
>Mary
>Rose(source: Hardy "Longbow", Hugh Soar, "Instinctive Archer") they
>were
>estimated at being well over 1000 grains each. With a 300plus grain
>arrowhead, that means the shafts with fletching would have weighed in
>at
>over 700plus grains themselves. These would have been shot out of a
>120plus pound bow delivering the ordinance at over 220fps. DAMN!
> This isn't the type of archery that we do.
>-Geoffrei
>
>
>http://community.webtv.net/jrosswebb1/EASTWINDStribal
>
>
>