[Horsebow] GNAS (GB) proposed horse bow class

Si2

New member
It's become apparent that there are a number of horse bow archers in the UK that would like to see GNAS recognise this style of bow formally for target and field shooting.
The current situation sees these bows ranked along side the modern barebow recurve. The same target scores are required for the bowman classifications.

I would like to see horse bow archers work together to create a set of rules to govern the bow type and a set of scores to enable a bowman classification handicap to be created for this bow type.

I would propose a debate to determine what we deem to be the defining characteristic of a 'horse bow'. From the information gathered there we should try to create a set of rules that can be adopted by an organisation to classify the bow type.

We should also settle on a proper name for the class.

In terms of classification scores, I think the best idea would be for the horse bow archers to shoot horse bows as much as they can and turn in as many scores as possible.

I will investigate a method of storing these scores and eventually creating a range for each round type. For now I will create a thread here that will be only for recording horsebow round scores.

So let the fun begin.


As a starter for ten, can I suggest some bow type names:

horsebow
Asiatic recurve
traditional recurve
recurve shortbow



In terms of a set of rules to define the bow type, these are what I would consider pertinent questions for debate:

Max length - horse bows are by their nature short - what's the max?
Arrow shelf - should all horse bows shoot off the hand?
Grips and handles - should any 'grips' be less than half an arrow diameter, so they cannot be used as shelves?
Materials - is glass/carbon fibre allowed - cost is a factor here...
Arrows - any natural material?


Best regards
Simon
 


Dorset Lass

New member
Ironman
This is great. Thank you for starting this thread Si.

Now I like the name asiatic recurves for this class.

Traditionally there is no arrow shelf, and I think that shooting off the hand is where all the problem lies in being lumped in with the barebow brigade, so personally I would vote for no arrow shelf being allowed. Si your idea of limiting the width of a handle to half the width of an arrow is a good idea.

I think that people shooting in this new class should be allowed to use either a thumb release with thumb ring or pad, or a Mediterranean release with tab or glove.

I don't know about length. I shoot a 48" Kaya KTB but that is very short. What lengths are other horse bows out there?

I shoot wooden arrows and would be inclined to limit the class to wooden arrows, but then maybe I am biased.

I don't think that it would be fair to limit the bow class to construction of natural materials only, since horn bows are very expensive and need special storage conditions. Even hybrid wood and horn versions are pricey, and they are not something that people can easily make themselves. We would not be able to shoot our hornbows in the wet, even if we could afford them in the first place! If synthetic materials were allowed it would make this class of bow more affordable and may encourage more people to give it a go. Surely it is the shape and performance of these bows that is the real difference, not what they are made of?

I shall be collecting my scores for different rounds and passing them onto Si in due course. Not sure about posting them publicly though unless they drastically improve over the next few months!
 


Dorset Lass

New member
Ironman
I shall be collecting my scores for different rounds and passing them onto Si in due course. Not sure about posting them publicly though unless they drastically improve over the next few months!
Oh I posted this before I realised that Si had started a thread for the scores. I don't want to discourage others from sharing so I will be brave and post my scores in due course! We need to have a good and realistic range to get decent data for classifications.
 


Munsterman

New member
I dont shoot this style routinely but it is a lot of fun when I do. Perhaps you could get a list of all county secretaries and e-mail them to ask them to request shooters in this class to e-mail you directly with their scores for rounds, details of bow types, materials etc.
 


Si2

New member
I dont shoot this style routinely but it is a lot of fun when I do. Perhaps you could get a list of all county secretaries and e-mail them to ask them to request shooters in this class to e-mail you directly with their scores for rounds, details of bow types, materials etc.
That's a great idea. I was thinking of how I could contact clubs.
I wonder if GNAS could help me out with a contact list?

I am sure I can pick up a lot from the web.
I'll draft up a letter/mail to go with the request.
Si
 


N.Vodden

New member
Ironman
Si2, you have my full support and admiration!!!

There is a growing contingent at Pentref Bowmen ( about 6 of us regularly shooting and others who have them ) who would welcome this with open arms!

I think limiting length of the bow is a bit restrictive. Some bows such as the Hwarang/Scythian are very short and highly recurved, however the Hun bows are much longer. They have a shorter lower limb but the top limb and Siyah is significantly larger. My Hun is 62" I believe.

I drafted something similar to this up before but cant find it, so just threw together something quick along this kind of line...


Asiatic Recurve

A bow style/shape historically used by archers in the Eastern/Asiatic world. These bows typically are shorter than a Longbow and incorporate recurved limbs. Rigid limb tips (Siyahs) may be included in the design but this is not a requirement.

Modern materials may be used in the construction of the bow. Biocomposites, and true composite bows (hornbows comprising of horn and layered sinew) are also recognised.

Modern synthetic string materials may also be used for safety and reliability reasons. 2 nocking points may be fitted for consistent arrow placement, and if desired a reference point (kisser, tied on nock etc ) may be used.

Only arrows of naturally occuring materials (wood/bamboo for example) are permitted for this class. Plastic nocks may be used.

A handle may be fitted to the bow to aid in comfort and consistent hand placement, however at the arrow pass it may not protrude more than half of the width of the arrow, to prevent use as a dedicated rest.

Dedicated arrow rests/shelves are not permitted.



Defining them in the first part is the most difficult! There are so many cultures and variations on size and shape that it is tricky to nail in one hit!


Regarding scores, I havent scored a round yet! Always shot this style for diversion and only recently ( 2 months or so ) switched fully to it and started shooting a thumb ring. Its still a bit ropey but getting better. I'm off to the club tonight, think i'll score a Portsmouth for a laugh and see how I do! Recurve pb is 568, lets see if we cant best it.....:raspberry
 


Si2

New member
That's a great definition and describes the bow type well.

What is important too is to exclude what we do not think works as this bow type.
For instance the modern recurve.

Would there be an issue if the bow had to be a single piece?
I know of no horse bows that can be 'taken down'.
I would suggest that no metal is allowed in the construction.
Use of a thumbring should be encouraged and certainly a part of the spec.


Maybe a point that the tips should be infront of the handle when the bow is unstrung?

Good progress though!
Si
 


Last edited:

greygoose

New member
Hi Si2,
This is a very worthwhile and sensible post.
I can not think of any reason whatever that AGB/GNAS should not support the Horse Bow as a classification (or whatever it may otherwise come to be called , I like the "Asiatic Recurve" name as perhaps being more appropriate these days).
I would think that all it should need is for a significant number of interested parties to combine and propose it formally together with the appropriate rules and regs. I would envisage that there might be quite a lot of carry over from long bow rules with much in common between the two types.
I can not think of any reason whatever for it being declined if it is what the members want. (All sing- "Here we go here we go here we go"...), and as Cross bows are allowed there should not be any prejudice against this or any other class type.
I for one would like to try it. If my perception of this type of bow is right there is something akin to a "let off" in draw weight, (Please comment), and if true may enable those who do not have the strength to use a long bow to participate in a traditional archery style.
The bow specs need to be carefully thought about. The original "Horn and sinew" is a bit impractical due to cost and weather problems.
I wish you well with this, it thoroughly deserves to be adopted in my opinion.
greygoose
 


payneib

Supporter
Supporter
I shall be collecting my scores for different rounds and passing them onto Si in due course. Not sure about posting them publicly though unless they drastically improve over the next few months!
lol, i was thinkin exactly the same thing!!!!! Not really, am happy to post my rubbish scores.

Quick one for Si, do you want old scores? All of mine are on iArcher so i've got them all here.
 


Furface

Moderator
Supporter
Just a thought - from one who is willing to help push this through but has no experience of this type of bow.
IIRC, there are large numbers of bow types from around the world, some similar, some not. Given the benefits to be gained from having significant numbers contributing data and support, would the performance characteristics of these bows be sufficiently similar to be able to class them together - perhaps for now. Thus you would not be ruling out the Magyar tradition nor the North American. Once a "Primitive" grouping was up and running, then there might be sufficient data to produce sub-groupings.
It is also essential to define what is meant by "recognition". The farce of the "Compound Limited" in recent years shows what sticks in the throat of some of those you need to influence. I would suggest a starting point would be simply an agreed definition of the grouping, with local tournaments encouraged to include it. Only then start looking at participation in national events, and, finally (when there are enough participating to make them sensible) maintenance of national records.
 


greygoose

New member
Si2, you have my full support and admiration!!!

There is a growing contingent at Pentref Bowmen ( about 6 of us regularly shooting and others who have them ) who would welcome this with open arms!

I think limiting length of the bow is a bit restrictive. Some bows such as the Hwarang/Scythian are very short and highly recurved, however the Hun bows are much longer. They have a shorter lower limb but the top limb and Siyah is significantly larger. My Hun is 62" I believe.

I drafted something similar to this up before but cant find it, so just threw together something quick along this kind of line...


Asiatic Recurve

A bow style/shape historically used by archers in the Eastern/Asiatic world. These bows typically are shorter than a Longbow and incorporate recurved limbs. Rigid limb tips (Siyahs) may be included in the design but this is not a requirement.

Modern materials may be used in the construction of the bow. Biocomposites, and true composite bows (hornbows comprising of horn and layered sinew) are also recognised.

Modern synthetic string materials may also be used for safety and reliability reasons. 2 nocking points may be fitted for consistent arrow placement, and if desired a reference point (kisser, tied on nock etc ) may be used.

Only arrows of naturally occuring materials (wood/bamboo for example) are permitted for this class. Plastic nocks may be used.

A handle may be fitted to the bow to aid in comfort and consistent hand placement, however at the arrow pass it may not protrude more than half of the width of the arrow, to prevent use as a dedicated rest.

Dedicated arrow rests/shelves are not permitted.



Defining them in the first part is the most difficult! There are so many cultures and variations on size and shape that it is tricky to nail in one hit!


Regarding scores, I havent scored a round yet! Always shot this style for diversion and only recently ( 2 months or so ) switched fully to it and started shooting a thumb ring. Its still a bit ropey but getting better. I'm off to the club tonight, think i'll score a Portsmouth for a laugh and see how I do! Recurve pb is 568, lets see if we cant best it.....:raspberry
Hi,
What about a limit on the number of laminations and a wood core to keep it cheap and simple, .
And what about having to have a certain proportion of the limb non flexing. For me this is the main defining difference to all other types of bow
The thought occurs that the class should deliberately be kept quite dissimilar to a modern hunting bow.
greygoose
 


Si2

New member
lol, i was thinkin exactly the same thing!!!!! Not really, am happy to post my rubbish scores.

Quick one for Si, do you want old scores? All of mine are on iArcher so i've got them all here.
Old scores will be great.
I'm working on a less public way of collecting scores....
:)
 


Dorset Lass

New member
Ironman
Hi,
And what about having to have a certain proportion of the limb non flexing. For me this is the main defining difference to all other types of bow
greygoose
Greygoose I think there are significant numbers of asiatic recurves with no siyahs, ie they flex throughout the length of the limb. Enforcing a certain proportion of the limb non flexing would automatically reduce numbers in the class, unless people go out and buy a new bow. I for one would be excluded.

I would prefer to say that when the bow is unstrung the tips of the limbs should be in front of the handle and the bow should have a continuous single curve away from the belly (someone else can probably explain this better). It is this shape which differentiates asiatic recurves from other bows and gives them their unique characteristics.
 


greygoose

New member
Greygoose I think there are significant numbers of asiatic recurves with no siyahs, ie they flex throughout the length of the limb. Enforcing a certain proportion of the limb non flexing would automatically reduce numbers in the class, unless people go out and buy a new bow. I for one would be excluded.

I would prefer to say that when the bow is unstrung the tips of the limbs should be in front of the handle and the bow should have a continuous single curve away from the belly (someone else can probably explain this better). It is this shape which differentiates asiatic recurves from other bows and gives them their unique characteristics.
Hi DL,
I appreciate that there were/are many types of existing asiatic bow.
It was just an idea to try and prevent the "new" bow class from being similar to those already existing. I think that this is important otherwise there can be no justification for it's introduction. (Reinventing the wheel type of thing).
I do not think that a new class of bow shooting would become popular if the bows were very similar to others already in use and the only difference were to come down to the rules of shooting. (Though you never know).
It is very early days yet and there is much to be discussed. Given the input from the many experienced and expert archers around I am sure that a really good workable formula will be the outcome.
I sincerely hope so.
greygoose
 


Dorset Lass

New member
Ironman
Hi DL,
I appreciate that there were/are many types of existing asiatic bow.
It was just an idea to try and prevent the "new" bow class from being similar to those already existing. I think that this is important otherwise there can be no justification for it's introduction. greygoose
I completely agree that the class should be well differentiated from existing classes. Tell me though are there existing recurves which when unstrung have the tips of the limbs in front of the handle and form a continuous C shape away from the belly? I am relatively new and do not have the definitive knowledge of other recurve types to be able to say, but I understood asiatics to be unique in this regard.

You can't use a bow stringer on them - perhaps that could be another factor (only joking!).
 


N.Vodden

New member
Ironman
This is really interesting wrangling out the birth of a new bow style :)

To keep out hunter type recurves, i believe the no rest/shelf rule would exclude most and we could also include an 'arrow must be shot around the bow, no bow window/cut out is permitted' clause. That takes care of the traditional recurves!

Excluding metal parts I wouldn't agree with. Some bows I have seen on Atarn and other such sites have brass plate and other such pieces inserted in them ( usually to stiffen the kassan where it joins the sal part of the limb ) so they would be excluded then.

I think you are bang on the money with your definition Dorset lass! About the limbs being curved away from the archer at rest, with the tips pointing away. Enforcing a one-piece bow is also a good idea, only ever seen hunter recurves and a carriage longbow as takedown in the trad division, never an Asiatic bow.
 


Si2

New member
Hi DL,
I appreciate that there were/are many types of existing asiatic bow.
It was just an idea to try and prevent the "new" bow class from being similar to those already existing. I think that this is important otherwise there can be no justification for it's introduction. (Reinventing the wheel type of thing).
I do not think that a new class of bow shooting would become popular if the bows were very similar to others already in use and the only difference were to come down to the rules of shooting. (Though you never know).
It is very early days yet and there is much to be discussed. Given the input from the many experienced and expert archers around I am sure that a really good workable formula will be the outcome.
I sincerely hope so.
greygoose
Currently for UK GNAS target you have only modern recurve barebow and then longbow. So there is a bit gap in between.
For field you have the traditional class, which is, I think, a nod in this direction.

Maybe the answer is to work on the field traditional class and get this accepted for target?

You can already shoot most asiatic recurves in the GNAS barebow class, but you will not be able to attain the same scores for a similar skill level.
It's the differences that make that the case that we need to capture and define.

If you assume we all know what an Asiatic recurve looks like then the core differences between a modern barebow and our class that limit performance are:

No arrow rest/button.
short length

The modern recurve is really just a highly developed Asiatic.
With a slight change to the recurve traditional field class you could have a workable solution.

b) Arrowrest. The arrowrest must not be adjustable. A pressure button is not permitted

change this to the longbow wording:
b) Arrowrest. The bow may carry no support for the arrow.

And suddenly you have a recurve bow that you have to shoot from your hand with wooden arrows.
I don't believe that a modern pistol grip recurve can be shot from the hand.
With the addition of a rule that supports a single piece bow.
Actually, looking at the recurve definition in GNAS, it's anything bow shaped. So there's work to be done there - unless we want to encompass AFBs that shoot off the hand?

If GNAS can support three classes for compound, there has to be room for a historical Asiatic type!!

Si
Ac
 


payneib

Supporter
Supporter
Many thanks for that info.
I started around then too - and I'm not that far from you in Portsmouth.

Regards
Si

are you shootin up at the fort on the 3rd then? weather dependent i'll either be shootin the longbow or the horsebow, hopefully see you there.
 


Top