Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: IKAC/IKCAC new season starts - check new rules
- In a message dated 2/13/02 6:36:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> I shoot a single wood non-laminated 56# period longbow. It doesn'tWith all due respect, please keep in mind that both of the bow styles you are
> stack too much but it does have terrible handshock, and it is not
> terribly efficient.
> Most of our local shooters who are "Bowmasters" or better (100+ in
> Royal Rounds of one end each at 40yds, 30yds, 20yds, and one 30
> second timed end at 20yds) all seem to be horsebow shooters.
> I have borrowed and shot their bows on occasion and I personally
> believe that there is no comparison between these bows performance
> and that of my period longbow... The horsebows behave almost exactly
> like a modern recurve. I could shoot a 40# Sythian for days without
> tiring, it is 'faster' than my bow and shoots much flatter.
> Now, that said, these bows limbs are made of fiberglass, and covered
> with leather... In my opinion these bows may approach the 'unfair
> advantage' provision of the Caidian Target Archery handbook's:
> "Modern materials (i.e. artificial sinew, fiber glass, etc.) may be
> used as long as the use does not give an unfair advantage in
> performance over period materials."
> I have never shot a period laminated bow. So, I do not know anything
> about the similarities or possible advantages of modern fiberglass
> (it is my understanding that most common justification is that
> fiberglass is affordable, and that accurate period lamination
> techniques would be fabulously expensive to produce), but I do know
> that these bows are much easier to shoot than any longbow that I've
> ever used (including my modern laminated longbow, which I shoot in
> the Open Division)...
> In your opinion do these bow constitute an "unfair advantage" in the
> Period Division?
referring to above were used in medieval times, i.e., the "English Longbow"
style bow and the Hun/Magyar/Scythian/Chinese/Persion/Mongolian style
recurve. Was one style of bow inherently superior to the other? You seem to
be saying that the eastern style recurve is inherently superior because you
could "shoot it for days" and it is faster than your longbow - both points of
which are true, but because of the type of design, not the materials used in
their construction. The eastern style recurve is, by design, easier to draw,
pound for pound, and will throw an arrow faster than the ELB. Are we to ban
the horsebow from period competition because it has a superior design, even
though it is as period as the ELB?
As for the implications of your statement that the horsebow might provide an
unfair advantage over the ELB, I can only answer from my personal experience.
I shoot modern recurves, English style longbows, American flatbows,
crossbows and a horsebow during the RR season. In four years of shooting the
horsebow I have never been able to average more than 105 in the RR. I have
often been at that level with any of the longbows I shoot, and consistently
over 120 with the modern recurve. In my personal experience, the most
difficult bow with which to score consistently is my horsebow. I would say,
resoundingly, that the horsebow does NOT confer any special advantage due to
materials over any longbow - the only advantages it enjoys are inherent in
its design, which is the same advantages it enjoyed during medieval times.
HL Andras Truemark, OGGS
Ludicrous Bowman, AnTir
Squire to Jarl Sir Master Barak Ravensfury, Lion of AnTir
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]