Why 32”.

[greybeard]

From the English War Bow Society;

“When speaking of war bows the full draw length is usually taken to be 32”, which does not mean that the archer will draw it to that length; it may vary by a few inches.”

From Wiki;

“….bows from the Mary Rose are estimated by Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N). The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.”

“….. were made of poplar; others were made of beech, ash and hazel. Draw lengths of the arrows varied between 61 and 81 centimetres (24 and 32 in) with the majority having a draw length of 76 centimetres (30 in)…..”

Initially my thoughts were along the lines of ‘a draw length of 32” may have been the optimum for stored energy and efficiency.’;

but when looking at the variation in the length of the bows retrieved from the Mary Rose they ranged from “the excavation of the Mary Rose, where bows were found ranging in length from 1.87 to 2.11 m (6 ft 2 in to 6 ft 11 in) with an average length of 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in).”

so could the 32” draw be for the 6 ft. 6 in. bow or is there another reasoning for this measure.

In 1545 the average height of an English male was 5ft. 7in.

Daryl.

[cmoore]

My guess is that it may have been an ego thing...something along these lines
"Yeah?, well I got 115lbs at 32 inches!"

[scuzz]

Did they anchor behind their ear? That would have to add a few inches to the average draw length of shooters (if so).

Shoooters with longer draws do seem to get flatter projectory.

Scuzz

[Eoin Mc Carthy]

I am pretty certain that the term shooting in the bow refers to the type of draw used when shooting a war bow as apposed to other types of bow ie drawing past the ear. For me who has a 28 and a half inch draw normally this takes my war bow draw to 32 and a half inches. So if you want to shoot in the bow your draw should increase by three to four inches depending on your normal draw length. Or that's my opinion at any rate.
It did take me a year or so before i was happy to do a field round with this method.
Hope this helps.

[greybeard]

Did they anchor behind their ear? That would have to add a few inches to the average draw length of shooters (if so).

The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.”“….. (24 and 32 in) with the majority having a draw length of 76 centimetres (30 in)…..”

Hi Scuzz and Eoin,

If your arrow is 30" long it is impossible to draw it to 32".

I have seen various techniques used where archers are trying to mimic the 32" draw but I could not image the close ranks of English archers employing this method in battle.

http://warbowaustralia.weebly.com/rolling-loose.html

Daryl.

[hunterguy1991]

I have thought about this a fair bit after getting into the warbow shooting (loads of fun by the way)...

I shoot a 27.5" draw when shooting a traditional bow for hunting and the longest shafts I have for my war is are 31.5" from nock to socket of the bodkin. Now I stand 6' 1" in the old scale and there is no way my biomechanics would allow me to pull 32 inches... My 31.5 inch arrows only equate to a 30.5 inch draw since there is an inch of arrow taken up by the thickness of timber in the handle
.
Maybe email EWBS and ask them why the draw weight is measured at 32"... I measure an mark my bows for a 30 inch draw because very few people can pull a bow further at that weight...

As far as the draw and shot technique is concerned, I suggest looking up some of Steve Stratton's videos on YouTube as he demonstrates various different techniques all utilizing a 120lb bow and 31.5" arrows (nock to socket)...

Colin

[slowhand]

has to be about 32" no other way to handle 150# or more

[hunterguy1991]

Would still only be a 31.5" arrow from nock to socket at most... His hand is only at his ear
... So a 30.5" draw maybe.. And there is very few people that can get 140+ back even that far...

[Dennis La Varenne]

Daryl,

I don't think the 32 inch thing is anything more than a standard instituted by the EWBS for their category of bow interest in the same way that AMO uses 28 inches for most non-compound and traditional bows today. It is just a means of comparison, nothing more.

I am pretty sure that blokes like Mark Stratton, who is not unusually tall, can draw 32 inches similarly to the Japanes Kyudo archer who almost routinely seems to draw 30-32 inches. Both the mediaeval English archers and the Japanese archers have an anchor well behind the face and even the head in order to obtain that very long draw, albeith using very different techniques.

Both techniques shoot 'in' the bow as the expression goes. It is very strange when you first start to use it.

I bring the bow partly drawn up to just before my chest and at the same time that I draw the string back, I step forward into the bow and push with my bow arm while leaving my drawing hand behind me and level with my ear - if that makes any sense. As it comes back, my drawing arm forearm moves above shoulder level and rearwards until the shoulder joint stops further rearwards movement and then I bring both the drawing arm down to level with my bow arm.

The rearward movement of my drawing arm makes a sort of arc of movement from partial draw, upwards and rearwards just above shoulder level until shoulder lock and then downward to arrow level. For some strange reason, there doesn't seem to be the same stress on the shoulder joint as with a straight T-draw, but that strange push-pull draw has enabled me to get 2 inches more drawlength amost overnight and no discomfort. My new anchor is the point of shoulder lock and is a floating anchor, but seems to be surprisingly consistent which I find amazing.

But, you have also got to put your chest into the bow in order to get the trapezius and lats to pull together to keep one from collapsing and losing your length.

If any of this is how others do it, I would like to know. I am only copying from YouTube videos for the most part. I don't do the big up and down pre-emptive swing that a lot of the English archers seem to do to get the big bows back for distance shooting. I would rather be able to shoot straight and 'hit the mark' as Ascham puts it so succinctly. The EWBS and the Euro followers seem not to place any real emphasis on accuracy for some reason, at least in their videos and writings. 'Pricking' was just as much part of mediaeval archery training in those times as was 'far shooting' according to Ascham.

Like Colin, with a conventional mouth-corner anchor, at 165cm tall, I can manage 26.5 inches draw at a stretch, but can't get within a bull's roar of 28 inches. Using the English technique, I can get to 28 easily enough so long as the bow is less than 45lbs these days. My anchor is level with the angle of my jaw and there is enough rearward movement in my drawing arm for possibly another inch and a bit if I can build my strength up a bit more. Muscle failure is the drawback at present.

However, I have come to realise over the years that a lighter bow with a long power stroke gives quicker cast than a shorter draw from a heavier bow within about 5-7 lbs of each other at my present strength. But, there is an entirely different technique required to learn to do the longer draw with the same length arms I have always had.

I would love to be able to draw 100lbers just for the hell of it, but that is not going to happen at my age and state of health. So I just use those I can with a new (to me) technique which gets better cast from bows I use already.

Colin,
Have a look at the pic above. The further bow in the pic has a very stiff centre and whippy ends.

[slowhand]

Would still only be a 31.5" arrow from nock to socket at most... His hand is only at his ear
... So a 30.5" draw maybe.. And there is very few people that can get 140+ back even that far...

there are more people than we anticipated that can draw 32" using 120# @ 28"
just need to try...well,,, with some instructions

[hunterguy1991]

I think Dennis is probably pretty well on the money with his thoughts on the 32" draw being an EWBS standard...

and as I mentioned earlier, there are various different techniques to drawing a war bow, one must find the style that is most efficient for their bone and muscle structure for pulling that kind of weight that far.

My technique with a war bow is very simple and straight forward compared to some on YouTube, however watching a Steve Stratton video where he is teaching technique had provided a crucial bit of info. It is best to pull using the back muscles making the elbow traverse an arch in a vertical plan rather than a horizontal one.. Much like Dennis has described in his style. I will try to find the video where Stratton demonstrates this.

slowhand, 120@28 is close to 145@32... I'm in the Australia warbow society and I don't think any of the guys in it are a) shooting bows that heavy, and b) shooting a 33" long arrow to match a 32" draw... But I will ask...

I have spoken to Steve Stratton on facebook previously after he commented on one of the bows I made. I will ask his thoughts on the 32" draw and see what his thoughts are.

[rodlonq]

My 31.5 inch arrows only equate to a 30.5 inch draw since there is an inch of arrow taken up by the thickness of timber in the handle

Colin, I thought draw length is measured to the back of the bow, not the pivot point. After all you do not draw the point back to the pivot point, usually only to the back of the bow at most.

Interested to read your thoughts...

Cheers... Rod

[hunterguy1991]

Hey Rod,

I have always measured draw length from the belly as its the span from fingers on the drawing arm to the furthest part of the bow hand regardless of the type of bow... some bows are thicker than others in the handle... for instance comparing a flatbow with a narrow thin handle to a modern recurve that might be a bit thicker in the handle or a warbow that could be 30-40mm thick even.

Measuring to the back would mean your draw length would change depending on what type of bow you were shooting, which I find silly because with a consistent anchor, your length of pull doesn't change.

I could very well be wrong tho...

Colin

[Dennis La Varenne]

I have always measured draw length from the belly as its the span from fingers on the drawing arm to the furthest part of the bow hand regardless of the type of bow... some bows are thicker than others in the handle... for instance comparing a flatbow with a narrow thin handle to a modern recurve that might be a bit thicker in the handle or a warbow that could be 30-40mm thick even.

Measuring to the back would mean your draw length would change depending on what type of bow you were shooting, which I find silly because with a consistent anchor, your length of pull doesn't change.

I understand your reasoning perfectly, but the international standard - both GNAS and AMO has been to measure from the back surface of the bow - at least with trad bows. I understand that AMO has recently changed to something like belly to drawn nock plus 1.5" or something similar. Daryl knows more about it and we had a lengthy discussion on it.

I don't agree with the AMO thing. Measuring from the back surface is the closest you will get to running parallel to the neutral axis of the bow limbs irrespective of handle depth. That was my main point with Daryl. Measuring from the belly takes no account of bow handle thickness in fact. Daryl in fact agrees with you as I understand his argument.

[greybeard]

....... Daryl knows more about it and we had a lengthy discussion on it.

Hi Colin, the following link will take you to the topic.

http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... 3114&hilit

Daryl.

[greybeard]

....after getting into the warbow shooting (loads of fun by the way)...

Maybe for some people.

Apart from flinging arrows down range there is little else to do to amuse oneself with this style of bow.

You can't compete at events run by 3DAAA, ABA, IFAA, FITA and I do not think that the bow would be suitable for hunting.

Daryl.

[hunterguy1991]

Daryl,

Maybe I'm just easily pleased... but I find it great fun watching an arrow follow its parabolic trajectory out a couple of hundred yards... then there is the challenge of hitting close to a mark at that range and some friendly competition between mates to see who is closer to the mark, or who can get an arrow out the furthest...

Testing arrows on metal or armour is always interesting and shooting a round of targets for time with a group of people makes for some good fun...

Unless you tried it all, you wouldn't understand I think..

No need for official competitions... just fun ones with friends with a few beers once the afternoon light is done...

And the intricacies of making the period appropriate arrows I find very satisfying... properly orientating and tapering shafts, fletching by hand not a jig using whipping, hand cutting feathers...

But that's just me.

Colin

[mikaluger]

Another perspective,

As a budding bowyer, I have been on a journey over the past 3 or so years. As I have developed my skills, I have started to think on the history in the bows I make, and through that my own ancestry.

I started making flat bows for hunting and target archery which led me on to ELB's and of course Warbows.
I enjoy ALL aspects of these "genres" if you like.
They are all a challenge, and all different in their own way. Both in shooting and making.
They all appeal.


If I enter in a competition or go hunting, as Daryl suggested above, I would use one of my flat bows but more likely use my ELB, as for what ever reason, I can shoot that better.
At the moment anyway.

The war bow is a challenge that has been a little unexpected and one I find fascinating in its history.
To make one was a challenge, I have now made 3. To find a place where I can use one has been the biggest challenge........... in my area any way, so I have not got to shoot my war bows as they are intended.....for distance at a mark, or indeed at a target.(my club would not allow bodkins in it targets and there is not the space).

My parents and siblings were/are English, so the historical and ancestry side of this interests me greatly, as does Colin's reasons above.
I understand and can fully appreciate the thoughts and comments that people (my friends included) say about using warbow, but there is something inside me that keeps drawing me toward it with ever growing interest.
It is what my ancestors did, and that intrigues me.
Shooting a bow over 100lbs........we will see.
For now shooting my 80lber, making bows and learning to shoot it as it is intended, that is what interests me!

As for "Why 32?".............. I believe in his post, Dennis has it spot on.

Mick.

[Eoin Mc Carthy]

Hi Graybeard

I did think the same as you. That war bows were a artillery pice with no real accuracy possable but after nearly four years i can be very competitive with a 120# war bow on even a small game field round and have put in scors nearly as high as my 28" draw flat bow . Shooting war bow has not only kept me strong but has improvrd my instinctive shooting as using any refrence point just dosen't work for me. I truly belive there is no resion given enuff practice why i could not be just as accuret with a war bow as with any other trad bow.

[Eoin Mc Carthy]

and moving targets are not a problem either.

[AndyF]

My usual draw length is 28.5 inches, and when shooting Eoin's 120lber the other week, I was pulling to 'about 32 inches' according to Eoin (I'm 5'11"). That length seemed to be the most comfortable ( I use that term loosely) to draw to and feel like it was 'locked in', without the more obvious, solid feeling of my usual 'tooth in the corner of my mouth' anchor.

Nick L is currently making up my first 120lber from some high growth ring Pacific Yew (my experimental 105lb Brigalow bow blew up). And Steve Wallace just delivered some 1/2 inch to 3/8 shafts this morning. I'll make them all up at 32 inches from the bottom of the nock to the back of the point and see where things get to, just out of interest.

A

[hunterguy1991]

I will try to get some shots at full draw with my 80@30" bow to show how far back my hand actually is at that length.


Im looking forward to seeing both the bow and arrows Andy!! Cant wait to get my yew for my 130-140!

Colin

[Kendaric]

My 31.5 inch arrows only equate to a 30.5 inch draw since there is an inch of arrow taken up by the thickness of timber in the handle

Colin, I thought draw length is measured to the back of the bow, not the pivot point. After all you do not draw the point back to the pivot point, usually only to the back of the bow at most.

Interested to read your thoughts...

Cheers... Rod

I always consider drawlength to the pivot point to be 'true draw'.

AMO drawlength is the drawlength to the back of the bow (the part of the bow that faces away from you). AMO length can change from bow to bow due to different thicknesses of the handle, even though your true draw is the same.

Assuming the same style with different bows, true draw is always the same. The pivot point being perpendicular above where your bow hand sits on or in the bow (depending on handle configuration).

As a general rule, AMO length is approximately 1 3/4" longer than true draw, but that depends also on the thickness of the handle or riser.

[greybeard]

AMO drawlength is the drawlength to the back of the bow (the part of the bow that faces away from you). AMO length can change from bow to bow due to different thicknesses of the handle, even though your true draw is the same.....

PIVOT POINT
“The point at which True Draw Length and Manufacturer’s Draw Length and Draw Weight are determined.
True Draw Length is the Draw Length from Pivot Point and is designated as DLPP.
AMO Draw Length is the distance to Pivot Point plus 1 3/4”. This establishes a constant when compared to the variations of profile of the back of bows.
Thus - 26 1/4” from Pivot Point is equivalent to 28” draw length and is the draw length at which manufacturers’ weight and mark conventional bows.”

AMOStandards.pdf

(125.52 KiB) Downloaded 128 times

Daryl.

[rodlonq]

Good reference Daryl, I was going to post the AMOStandards document if you already hadn't done so. Thank you.

Cheers... Rod

[greybeard]

Rod,

I think the wording regarding the AMO measure has at times been misread or misunderstood.

Daryl.

[hunterguy1991]

Heres a photo of my draw...

Standard at full draw (640x525).jpg (187.42 KiB) Viewed 5817 times

Note, Im 6'1" tall... the arrow is 31.5 inches from throat of the nock to the socket of the head... Bow is my 80lb warbow...

Now there is still a half to three quarters of an inch of shaft left before the socket touches the bow and my drawing hand is well behind my ear, even with the bend in my neck. Head sits there to keep it out of the way of the string...

Anyone else got photos of full draw with a warbow?

Colin

[mikaluger]

Arrow is 30"......

Your arrow looks better than mine Col.....

[greybeard]

Thank you for posting the photos.

To me the draw looks awkward, uncomfortable and unnatural.

I envisaged the anchor for this style of bow would be lower as shown [circled] in the illustration.

As previously stated I do not place too much faith in the accuracy for the detail in paintings and this one is no different but it appears to illustrate a more natural style of anchor.

Archers.jpg (107.98 KiB) Viewed 5790 times

Found a photo showing lower anchor point.

1361672658.jpg (38.53 KiB) Viewed 5781 times

Daryl.

[hunterguy1991]

Daryl,

I have just been out shooting my 80lb bow to practise a drawing technique I found Steve Stratton demonstrating in Victoria a few years ago and it is starting to look very much like the picture you have posted...

The video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEqWyPTV6H8 hard to hear but easy to see what he means when watching it.

Second video is a distance shot demonstration at the same place... bow is 120lbs and he makes it look very easy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYuQlwEnUkM

It is a matter of "rolling" the elbow high to start and then down to a low final position as shown in your illustration... Because of the arching motion of the elbow it is very biomechanically efficient and the 80lbs feels like nothing...

All a matter of practise.

Colin