[Warbow] War bow verses Compound?

jerryRTD

Well-known member
I think BL is Bow Hunter Limited, unless I am mistaken that class allows a five pin sight peep an a 12 inch stab. But must be shot off fingers (No release aid).
 

english_archer

New member
Ironman
Spoken like a confirmed release aid archer. Oneida bows can be shot as fast as a recurve or a war bow, may be faster as the let off would make it easier. They have no bus cables or cable guide tp get in the way and are far more powerful the either a recurve or war bow.
Yep you got me Confirmed Hinge release shooter :) but this is such a fun thread to get involved with and I had forgotten about the Oneida bows Ive only ever seen one in all the years Ive been shooting
 

fanio

Active member
Think about what you would least like to face as an enemy combatant - that's the one you should choose. I'd say crossbow, followed by compound shot with a fixed pin sight. I'd have little concern if the enemy was using longbows/warbows.
 

jerryRTD

Well-known member
Think about what you would least like to face as an enemy combatant - that's the one you should choose. I'd say crossbow, followed by compound shot with a fixed pin sight. I'd have little concern if the enemy was using longbows/warbows.
I agree with you about what you would least like to face. That got me thinking and what I would least like to face is a compound cross bow in open country, at ranges of 150 to 80 yds. Below that fixed pin compound.
 

dvd8n

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I never really saw the point of compound crossbows. Surely the point of a compound is less weight on the fingers?
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
as well as greater arrow speed. And with the let off you can afford to have a very heavy draw weight but not put too much pressure on the trigger mechanism.
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
It would all depend on the battles layout really. If your archers were a big body of infantry akin to medieval regiments then the accuracy of the compound would be lost as volley fire would be just as effective. If it was small groups then perhaps it would be more worth the extra expense.

OR

Perhaps without gun powder we'd have worked more on the repeater crossbow to increase the power, accuracy and speed by making it more automated. leaving other bowtypes for the speacialists, e.g. snipers/artillary
 

jerryRTD

Well-known member
It would all depend on the battles layout really. If your archers were a big body of infantry akin to medieval regiments then the accuracy of the compound would be lost as volley fire would be just as effective. If it was small groups then perhaps it would be more worth the extra expense.

OR

Perhaps without gun powder we'd have worked more on the repeater crossbow to increase the power, accuracy and speed by making it more automated. leaving other bowtypes for the speacialists, e.g. snipers/artillary
That leaves the extra power of the compound which enables engagement at longer ranges than long bows.
 

Riceburner

Active member
That leaves the extra power of the compound which enables engagement at longer ranges than long bows.
Just curious - has anyone tried loosing a 'modern livery arrow' (ie a modern interpretation of the mediaeval war-arrow) from a 120lb compound?

Ie - something with a bodkin type pile, and the weight behind it to punch through the armour that would undoubtedly come into sudden fashion.

I'm curious because most modern archery is done with 'as light as possible' arrows - not 'as heavy as reasonably usable'. (the reason for the weight obviously is to give the arrow a decently fatal amount of momentum at the point if impact. momentum = mass x velocity iirc)
 
D

Deleted member 7654

Guest
Just curious - has anyone tried loosing a 'modern livery arrow' (ie a modern interpretation of the mediaeval war-arrow) from a 120lb compound?

Ie - something with a bodkin type pile, and the weight behind it to punch through the armour that would undoubtedly come into sudden fashion.

I'm curious because most modern archery is done with 'as light as possible' arrows - not 'as heavy as reasonably usable'. (the reason for the weight obviously is to give the arrow a decently fatal amount of momentum at the point if impact. momentum = mass x velocity iirc)
Very good question... The better acceleration characteristic of a compound might get lost a bit in the shorter draw and I dunno how the various pivots, cams etc would react to the higher inertial loading of a big fat arrow.
The reliability issues after a weeks march would be interesting....
"Ooooh has anyone got an Allen key??"
Del
 

WillS

New member
Half inch arrow wouldn't fit through their stupid contraptions would it? There must be all manner of bits and pieces all carefully calibrated to the Nth degree which would collapse with a hernia if it was offered a 13mm shaft.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
The largest shaft I've ever seen having been shot from a compound was a 32 (half inch) GoldTip shaft... I can't remember if the photo was on here or a different archery forum though.

Half inch arrow wouldn't fit through their stupid contraptions would it? There must be all manner of bits and pieces all carefully calibrated to the Nth degree which would collapse with a hernia if it was offered a 13mm shaft.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
I was wrong... it was a 40X (so 0.62")... and in a thread called "Super Fat Carbons"....

The arrow on the left is a 30X.
These are similar in size to a Doinker stabilizer.


 

fanio

Active member
Very good question... The better acceleration characteristic of a compound might get lost a bit in the shorter draw and I dunno how the various pivots, cams etc would react to the higher inertial loading of a big fat arrow.
The reliability issues after a weeks march would be interesting....
"Ooooh has anyone got an Allen key??"
Del
Compounds (and their bits) LOOOVE heavy arrows. And even a short draw compounds of say 26" delivers any given arrow with more energy than an equivalent longbow, even with 5 or 6 extra inches of draw.
 

fanio

Active member
I'm curious because most modern archery is done with 'as light as possible' arrows - not 'as heavy as reasonably usable'.
No. For long distance target archery anyway, you want an arrow that is as thin as possible and as heavy as you possibly can - so long as it allows decent sight marks. These characteristics minimise wind effects.
 

llkinak

New member
I think Fanio is correct. Compounds are pretty efficient with heavy arrows, at least up to 1,000 grains for hunting large game in Africa. As for this perceived unreliability of modern compounds, that's nonsense. They're made to take into the field and get beat up. The ones I have take substantial abuse and show no ill effects. For what it's worth, I'm far more concerned about dining up the wood on my warbows than the finish on my compounds. Also, for what it's worth, the compounds are less likely to have problems with cold, extreme heat, or wet weather.
 

blakey

Active member
Highly entertaining, and I cannot resist. I gave up compounds some years back when bits started falling off on the line halfway through a comp. An international archer I know says she has seen several compounds exploded in their cases when opened after plane flights? But our cousins the Sceptics hunt with them all the time? Perhaps they just drive to the tree stand and open the boot? And carry spare cables, strings, rests, etc. Howard Hill of course hunted elephant in Africa with a longbow. Having had a bit to do with grunts, or swoops as we call them down here, I know that for general issue army use one has to have something infallible and idiot proof, with as few delicate moving parts as possible. Because morons will stuff them up. Especially in battle. That takes cams out of the equation for a start. Mud, dust? Dropping the damn things? Hitting someone over the head, tripping? Cam lean, string jump? Oo, I've dropped my release aid? I' d take a war bow any day. Couple of spare strings and you're good to go. Same for a modern compound crossbow. Too fiddly. Now an arbalest, that's a different matter. They could be lethal. Apparently Wellington longed for a battalion of archers against the French. Give me a company of Howard Hills and world domination! Cheers
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
When compounds go (and I've seen a few), it tends to be the strings... when longbows go (and I've seen more of them go) it tends to be a whole lot more serious than just a new string... ;) and I believe there was an American lady who hunted an elephant with a compound a couple years ago... broke out a rather... entertaining... thread on hunting, especially animals like elephants.

Highly entertaining, and I cannot resist. I gave up compounds some years back when bits started falling off on the line halfway through a comp. An international archer I know says she has seen several compounds exploded in their cases when opened after plane flights? But our cousins the Sceptics hunt with them all the time? Perhaps they just drive to the tree stand and open the boot? And carry spare cables, strings, rests, etc. Howard Hill of course hunted elephant in Africa with a longbow.
 

Wookster

New member
Nice to see this still ticking along!! I do think compound would be the way to go, you don't have to hold at full draw for 5-6 seconds! As for airlines destroying bows I think we can all agree even a diamond in a titanium box wouldn't fair well against baggage handlers at the end of their shift!!
 
Top