Compound Bows

PLEASE HELP TO FUND ARCHERY INTERCHANGE

Steve1968

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Little Else, I did not say anything about careless compound archers or anything along those lines. Re-read my first post, I was simply asking for opinions, like I said elsewhere, there may be a reason for 60lb draw weight on compound bows. It might help if you read the other thread as well, it was the one concerning ACC and others being discontinued.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I was questioning why you have a problem with people doing what they want to do with a type of bow that is legal.
That is why I posed the question whether you have a particular experience or whether you just want people to agree with you that your bias is correct.
I dont shoot a 60lb bow, I couldnt draw that but that doesnt mean to say no-one else can or should. I was querying whether the rest of your attempted justification points towards a problem or is it just an excuse to reinfoce and seek support for your bias.
So if there isnt a problem that has been caused by the difference in energy of a 60lb compound bow's arrows that has affected you personally why would you want to ban them?
I cant shoot recurve, does that mean AGB should ban them? I am not a GMB archer, does that mean I am not allowed to shoot at 90m?
Effectively these are things you are asking for when you apply an arbitrary limit.
AGB already has a draw weight limit on longbows so that forces people to join other organisations if they want to use such a bow. Their reasoning behind this is "tradition" rather than anything practical. Now a club may have to limit the maximum energy for such bows because of field design or wear and tear on their bosses but a blanket ban doesnt do them any favours. If they want to tell govt they are in charge of olympic selection then fine, let someone else represent the grass roots and clear out of their way and let them take the lead.
The delays due to looking for arrows on our field last week were all down to a couple of recurve archers shooting at 50yds, both nominally a higher class than me but the ground conditions meand the arrows were skidding along a little. No-one suggested they shoot at 40 yds or took up a different bow style to speed up shooting.
 

Steve1968

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I don't have a problem with anyone shooting compound or anything else. I certainly do not expect anyone to agree with my opinion, as I didn't give one, I simply asked a question in relation to someone's post regarding light high speed arrows being shot by high poundage compound bows and missing the target and burying into the ground. Like I suggested, re-read the threads and my posts, I think you are confusing me with someone else.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
Quote: "surely there is no need...."
that is an opinion.
you mention the draw weight of recurve bows. Why not limit them to 36lbs or better still as no-one eats straw bosses or goes to war with bows and arrows the whole sport is pointless so just ban the lot.
If you are worried about lost arrows a decent brick wall behind the target will cure that.
As I have said, if a lost arrow is a problem them you need to consider the ground layout. I have enough space and suitable backdrop to allow me to twang at 30m in my garden but I would never in a million years consider doing a bit of clay pigeon shooting even though it would be legal as I can get far away enough from the road to legitimise it.
You have raised the poundage issue in 2 threads so clearly it is something that occupies your thoughts.
I used to shoot with a self loading rifle and that was banned. I also shot pistol and that was banned, parlty because other people who partake in shooting sports are happy to denigrate those who use such guns and sacrificed those who did in an attempt to preserve their own little kingdom. If people inside a sport are happy to chuck their fellow participants to the wolves over some imagined problem then they shouldnt expect any sympathy when they suffer as a result as the general public doesnt know any different so wont be sympathetic. Simple stats show that half of the population is below average intelligence but already even the elite universities have to cater for them.

But of course none of this applies to you because you dont have a problem, it is someone else.
 

Sinbad

Member
Simple. Make note of how long it takes to find each arrow by type of bow over a period of time, summer would do, I bet compound arrows hit the green less than any other, and the time to find those arrows over the time frame is a lot less. Is that down to power of the bow, the design of aim being more accurate, I would think all factors play a part. If people wanted compound to be a lot less poundage then why not do it for all forms of bow?
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
Surely there is no need for compounds bows to have such high poundage, when you consider that recurve bows of 36lbs can hit a target at 90m.
In response to little-else I read this as a rhetorical question with a falling intonation, not an opinion, but each to his/her own. :)
In fact I would argue that many if not most compound archers could not reach 90m with 40lb or 45lb for reasons surely no one wants me to go into. :)
 
Last edited:

FernbankArcher

New member
I'm with "little-else" on this. The thread was all about losing arrows BUT speed limits ARE about overshoot safety, particularly when overshoots are likely to occur.
Safety is, ultimately, down to the archer; responsibility in attitude; awareness of hazard and associated risk ; skill ; arrow velocity when coupled with a bad / inadvertant / inexperienced shot.
Note that Rules of shooting require 150yd overshoot when a bow is shot with a release (NO mention of compound last time I looked).
My recollection is that 60lb compound limit came in mid/late '80's as a range limiting restriction, after some significant overshoots (several arrows beyond the defined range, and with some mention of a kitchen window).
These were the early compound days in uk, with wheel (not cam) bows and the range limit effect seemed to be adequate. I doubt that with a modern cam bow, built for speed, the 60lb limit remains sufficiently effective. Going to a velocity limit seems , by far, the best approach although it might require chronograph equipment to verify it, possibly requiring some changes to inspection regimes as well.

I don't have direct knowledge of current recurve capability but, from past experience, I rather doubt that they are achieving much more than~220fps. (I needed 200 fps with 50lb recurve on a 30" alloy arrow, and that was marginal at 90m /100yd; 220fps ~+10% velocity ~ +21% energy, is quite a lot).
I became aware of the IFAA velocity limit of 300fps some years ago (for ALL bow types, by my reading). I suspect that that may be a reflection of what was being achieved at the time, limiting further increase, rather than an attempt to reduce velocities.

Now my real point... At 300 fps, an arrow passing 1m above the butt centre is likely to land close to, or beyond, the 150yd prescribed overshoot. Mr I Newton's theories have something to do with that calculation.
Shooting from fingers, there is some premonition of an accidental release, and instinct will usually kill the shot.
With a release, no feel, no instinct, no kill. Its just GONE!
Does anyone shooting a release claim to NEVER have had an inadvertant release? Before coming finally on aim?
During draw, does anyone really know where that arrow is pointing, with any precision? That's why I picked the 1m high criterion.
If 300 fps lands at the range limit, is the range really too short? Should the range required be made longer? OR should we reduce the velocity limit to, say 250fps? (Like cutting CO2 emissions, politically inconvenient but actually necessary?)

This is a concept argument. Numbers used are, I believe, not unrealistic. I don't want to see our sport killed (as firearms were by Dunblane & Hungerford) because the non-archer world sees it as being unacceptably dangerous (should there be a sufficiently public "incident") or us being irresponsible.
 

English Bowman

Well-known member
I always thought that the speed limit was a better option than a draw weight limit as bows are getting more efficient and so the potential for an arrow going beyond the overshoot is greater with a new bow than an old bow. Then I read this thread, and saw the comment on heavier arrows being used to stay under the limit, so I think that we should keep the 60lbs limit, and add a speed limit as well, so a compound bow must be less than 60lbs, and no bow is permitted that will shoot an arrow at over 300fps.
(As for the accidental release of a compound with release aid question, I don't shoot compound that often, but have owned one that I shoot occasionally for about 20 years now (Not the same one) and I can honestly say I've never had an accidental release, nor have I ever seen one at my club. I have seen it happen elsewhere, so I do know that it can happen though.)
 

Stretch

Active member
Just to be clear.. I think this whole thread originated from something I said In another thread and presented out of context just looks a bit Troll-like but I don’t think it was the intention of the poster.

The point being put forward was that a blanket ban on all carbon arrows was unlikely to actually be a preventative solution for lost arrows (on shared land). It was about completing a Root Cause Analysis that failed to correctly identify the issue (and therefore the solution).

I wasn’t suggesting a ban on anyone, or a change of rules for GB only. I was pointing out that I have searched for (just one example) a light fast arrow shot by a GMB archer when a release triggered at the wrong time - the carbon aluminium arrow flew fast and low and was never found - probably buried deep and nobody saw it leave the bow. So to put in place blanket bans on the use of all carbon arrows is a mitigation only and has highest impact on the entry level archer who could shoot 70m with their 30lb or so beginner bow with a light arrow but can’t afford aluminium carbon arrows so is limited to alloy... and therefore in most instances (face length, and limb speed etc allowing- yeah yeah Denise Parker) will be limited to shorter distances.

(I have also seen releases punched by mistake, fail under tension and release ropes fail all yielding similar “arrow hunt“ scenarios. There used to be a hole in a sports centre wall not too far away from here that prove it).

To put in place blanket rules that have biggest impact on new archers, and those on the lowest budget the most, seems poorly thought through for something that is a MITIGATION not a SOLUTION. That was the point - none of this other stuff.

Putting limits on compounds is not a solution either, nor is it a sensible mitigation unless it is imposed by global governing body. International rules need to be international to set an even playing field (let’s not get into high draw rules).

I would imagine that 300fps rules are in place to ensure brand new bosses are not destroyed in less than a day of use but I could be off?

Ah that I had enough money to buy the acreage so that we could all enjoy this sport without the politics and nonsense.

Apologies from me for triggering the thread.

Perhaps we can let it die now?

Stretch
 

English Bowman

Well-known member
I think that the 300fps rule is put in place to limit overshoot problems, as it's an NFAS and IFAA(I think) rule which they use instead of the WA 60lbs limit. Overshoot problems are potentially more of a problem with field as you have to consider each shot individually rather than the range as a whole.
I think that there are flaws in both rules, with the 300fps rule, archers can go for heavier arrows to offset the heavier bow which ends up with the arrow having more momentum, but with the 60lbs rule arrows are travelling faster and further due to advances in bow technology.
I do think that using both rules together would allow most archers to keep using their current equipment (there will be a few that can't but not many) but would stop us creeping into a situation where the arrows have too much energy to be safely contained within a range or stopped by current bosses.
 

jerryRTD

Well-known member
[QUOTE="



Now my real point... At 300 fps, an arrow passing 1m above the butt centre is likely to land close to, or beyond, the 150yd prescribed overshoot. Mr I Newton's theories have something to do with that calculation.
Shooting from fingers, there is some premonition of an accidental release, and instinct will usually kill the shot.
With a release, no feel, no instinct, no kill. Its just GONE!
Does anyone shooting a release claim to NEVER have had an inadvertant release? Before coming finally on aim?
During draw, does anyone really know where that arrow is pointing, with any precision? That's why I picked the 1m high criterion.
If 300 fps lands at the range limit, is the range really too short? Should the range required be made longer? OR should we reduce the velocity limit to, say 250fps? (Like cutting CO2 emissions, politically inconvenient but actually necessary?)

This is a concept argument. Numbers used are, I believe, not unrealistic. I don't want to see our sport killed (as firearms were by Dunblane & Hungerford) because the non-archer world sees it as being unacceptably dangerous (should there be a sufficiently public "incident") or us being irresponsible.
[/QUOTE]
It all depends on the range, At 100 yards a 300 fps arrow must have left the bow at well over 360 fps not too many bows can do that with a sixty pound draw weight. This leaves us to assume that as the arrow left the bow at 300fps it would be on a down ward flight path as it passed the boss and would hit the ground inside 50 meters behind the boss.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I have designed rifle and pistol ranges and be involved in their certification by the MoD. They are prescribed by muzzle energy and velocity limits rather than just one or the other but for arrows the mass of an arrow is so similar to another ti wouldnt be necessary to apply a limit on both because you can take the velocity as being the deciding factor and never be too wrong and then as has been said, use gravity to determine the overshoot for that speed.
I have also made the point about berms and other backstops for reducing the overshoot nad have noted that AGB seems to be in 2 minds about this and the consultants who they employed to write up the more recent set of plans seem to have missed this out and when I raised the question of their experience in the field of range design it was impossible to see what expertise they had in this area.
So if the people at the top dont have a clear view on what is what then I am not surprised that a risk averse culture exists at club level as well.

A coroner wrote to Boris after a person was convicted of murder with a crossbow asking for legislation to govern their ownership.
Now it is several decades since the last murder by crossbow in the UK so the Home Office wont be able to roll out stats on it but also remember that a boomerang was used to murder back in the late 1920's and in Canada bagpipes are still classified as weapons of war so should we be making ourselves ready for the next such outrage.
My brother is in possession of a Canadian native war tomahawk that was used in the trenches so why dont archery clubs branch out into axe throwing?

Now CO2 emissions. At the start of the industrial revolution there were less than 1 billion people on the planet and now there are close to 8 billion. The start of the industrial revolution was also close to the end of a mini ice age so if you measure things in geological time there is nothing new about the earth's temperature, they grew red wine grapes at York in Roman times and during the 12th century England was the worlds largest exporter of wine but as they hadnt invented the thermometer no-one can tell you exactly what the mean temperature was. The climate change lobby like to stay silent on anything pre 1700 because it f***s their modelling
Why the wittering on about this? becasue like the so-called compound bow problem it just means people worry about something tangental rather than bothering to look at what is actually wrong.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I think I understand what you are getting at.
So, if I look at "what is wrong"..... I would say that the compound bows can send arrows further than the safety zone and by some margin.
Under normal shooting a miss under the target can bounce well past 150y.
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
I have also made the point about berms and other backstops for reducing the overshoot nad have noted that AGB seems to be in 2 minds about this and the consultants who they employed to write up the more recent set of plans seem to have missed this out and when I raised the question of their experience in the field of range design it was impossible to see what expertise they had in this area.
So if the people at the top dont have a clear view on what is what then I am not surprised that a risk averse culture exists at club level as well.
I have two ranges, one up to 90m, with a 14m high natural backstop at 100m and the other, a 30m range with a 2.5m high berm on three sides and currently installing a 1m high wooden fence across the top of the berm at the target line, this would give a total of a 3.5m high backstop. The land has no grass and is bare ground which reduces search time for missed arrows. If a berm is possible for a club to install I see it as a no brainer, a missed arrow is generally stuck in the berm just waiting to be plucked or sat on bare earth. I have had arrows deflect off the top of the target and just clear the 2.5m berm, none to date have cleared the berm by more than a few centimetres though I am under no illusion that at some point it will probably happen. Is an additional metre enough? I have seen some photos of ranges in France with 4 or 5m berms.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
In military terms you have an area that falls between the "first touch" and the "last graze". This is the beaten zone or to put it in other words the overshoot area. Now this area also includes the space in front of the target where a stray shot may go so a range may have a concrete area for you to stand on but nay area in front of where an arrow may possibly go should be made of absorbent or easily penetrable material So earth, timber etc. One range in Germany had massive steel plates across the width of the range at about 12 feet up to stop any stray rounds going beyond the perimiter of the range with eath banks at the more usual places. this made it possible to blat away with heavier calibre stuff than would normally be permitted in a confined area because although open to the elements it was effectively an indoor range in its construction.
Take off angle for a likely miss is important, you cant design out malice so you look at the "one in a million" events for accidents.
Arrows and berms have their own peculiar foibles as you end up with a zone behind the berm where it is possible to drop an arrow and not be seen by anyone who happens to be lurking there and the further away the berm is from the archer the worse you make this problem so in your case Chris your 14m natural bank is plenty good enough and a 2.5m berm is adequate on its own for 30m unless your targets are well forward of it. The closer the archer is to the berm the better as it needs a greater angle of elevation to clear it. For a normal 90m range a 4m berm is what you should be using as a minimum. However, being in Spain you need to meet the minimum requirements of the local archery association rather than just follow the AGB code of their requirments differ

So yes Geoff we need to look at what is wrong, if anything, rather than punish ourselves or others for a misconception about what we should limit ourselves to and importantly understand that one size doesnt fit all. Ever done clout at Woodford Archers on a very dry day? their playing fields sit over an old rubbish dump and the subsurface is as hard as rock. Even an arrow dropping vertically will snap when it hits the ground and lower angle ones bounce off the ground next to the flag and skid along for another 100 yds. On paper the field is perfectly OK and it is safe as far as wandering dog walkers go but it can be tough on your kit.
We do have another way of mitigating our problems- TRAINING ( incorporating education and experience)- and that is something archery clubs are generally good at. Drawing at 45 deg was outlawed years ago (bar longbow clout) so 99% of the most likely wayward shots are no longer in the equation
 

PetrolHead

Member
AIUK Saviour
I can understand most of the above is hypothetical but in my experience I have seen recurve and longbow arrows go over the fence at the end of the range but never a compound arrow. Is the speed or draw weight of a compound bow actually an issue causing day to day issues or dangers? Why would we want to impose restrictions or limits on ourselves? I wouldn't suggest limits on recurve or longbow as they were very much isolated incidents (including some stupidity)
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
Arrows and berms have their own peculiar foibles as you end up with a zone behind the berm where it is possible to drop an arrow and not be seen by anyone who happens to be lurking there and the further away the berm is from the archer the worse you make this problem so in your case Chris your 14m natural bank is plenty good enough and a 2.5m berm is adequate on its own for 30m unless your targets are well forward of it. The closer the archer is to the berm the better as it needs a greater angle of elevation to clear it. For a normal 90m range a 4m berm is what you should be using as a minimum. However, being in Spain you need to meet the minimum requirements of the local archery association rather than just follow the AGB code of their requirments differ
My 2.5m berm is actually only 1/2 a metre above the level of the adjoining field, so there is a reasonable possibility of seeing anyone lurking, the field adjoining has a 2m high wire fence surrounding it and the only entrance is via a shared visible driveway, so this shouldn´t arise as a problem.

Interestingly RFETA publish a chart for easy reckoning of heights of berms etc. this covers shooting from 18m -90m. Shooting at 30m the 2.5m berm is 4m behind the target and is shown as being required to be no less than 2.85m high, whereas if someone was shooting a target at 18m it would have to be a minimum of 3.39m high. So my additional timber fence is required in both instances. Does AGB issue such a chart for clubs and individuals?
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
In short no. They do have a guide for range construction but to find the short piece about berms you need to find the old version.
Your quoted requirements for different distances highlight the problem of using a static shooting line for different distances, it makes the safety angle a constant so says the berm shoudl be higher wheras if you moved the shooting line nearer to the target and keep that at a fixed position in front of the berm the berm hoovers up all of the misses.
There are military ranges whwere you shoot standing in a trench ( safety angle different for standing shooting and prone) to get extra mileage out of the berm so you could alter the shooting line depth, have shorter target stands and you would squeeze in the safety template with your existing berm. All depends on whether anyone inspecting can use a theodolite or maybe a bit of sense.
 

chrisgas

Supporter
Supporter
Little-else, it makes sense, except for the guide for berm heights in the new range construction guide. Keeping this in the updated version surely is an oversight? If people are requiring this information then it should be there as part of the guide, especially if people are shooting from home, it may give them further easy available guidance.
 
Top