Fastflight on Perks longbow

[Dennis La Varenne]

Kim,

That's true enough too. But it does have the big advantage that it is much better wearing than dacron. FF strings last so much longer and don't seem to fray like dacron, so I suppose that it works out pretty even in the end.

Regards,

Dennis La Varenne

[Coach]

I have always used the same material as the string for padding and it all seems fine , I have not experimented at all with the different material in the padding .

[kimall]

Thats true Dennis I agree but I have a roll of each colour dacron I need to use up now I found 8125 for the string material.
Cheers KIM

[Brumbies Country]

Brumbies,
I have no information in regard to ELBs being made with bamboo laminates prior to 1900, but I suspect there would not have been many if any were made at all. To my knowledge, such bows did not feature in any of the literature of those times that I have read.

I presume you are asking this question in regard to the legality of such a bow for use in ABA comps. I have a few things to say about this scenario which ABA has got itself into later.

[Regards,

Dennis La Varenne

Thanks Dennis

I appreciate that much more has happened more quickly after 1900 than before, but like Grahame I feel that it was an arbitary IFAA cut-off point. 1900 does rule our arrow shelfs and I must say I've really got to enjoy shooting off the hand. I notice your later point about recurves, alloy arrows etc should be included in trad and in truth ABA already caters for these. I too preferred the ELB's initially but am finding American Indian flatbows do the job nicely.

Thanks for confirming that bamboo wasn't used in ELBs prior to 1900. Interestingly after I asked I recently read an article recording that sub-continental Indian infantry used bamboo longbows " much along the lines of ELBs" 2300 years ago. I'd like to verify that but it looked authentic.

Regards

Simon

[Dennis La Varenne]

Simon,

Continuing our off-topic discussion, it is precisely because of the 1900 ruling and what bows existed before and after, that we have the silly situation that it then behoves all bow checkers at shoots to be trained to recognise all the multifarious designs of bows prior to 1900 which ever existed on this planet on every continent.

For example, your own question regarding the possible existence of bamboo bows on the Indian sub-continent as a criterion for the possibility of getting an all-bamboo bow through shoot rules demonstrates the shortcomings of this definition.

Suppose I am a bow checker and I say to you that all-bamboo ELB designs did not exist anywhere before 1900 simply because I have never heard of such a thing, do I simply take your word for it or do I allow you the benefit of the doubt in the face of possible/probable challenge from a close contestant especially if you score well? Remember, on the day, I may have a great many bows to check and you must pay a fee to challenge my call if I do not decide in your favour and possibly may not be allowed to shoot until the matter is resolved. Does the resolution committee then adjourn for a couple of weeks to research the matter independently of your assertion, or does it take your assertion at face value?

Will ABA then issue a catalogue of all acceptable bows to all bowcheckers at every shoot. The IFAA listing which Grahame posted shows very few of all the known historical bows. By definition, ANY bow existing before 1900 is eligible, even if it is not depicted or described in the existing shoot rules.

The rule allows only known historical bows - or replicas - and not variant bow designs BASED on an historical bow. These bows are NOT actual historical bows. They are variants or combinations of historical designs. I don't think anyone has thought of this yet. The wording of the definition is poorly drafted.

Who knows all of them? Who can? Must one prove the historical existence of one's bow before one registers?

Lack of a bit of thought on this matter by the deciding ABA committee opens a potential can of worms it could have avoided. I do not for any instant think the decision was made out of bloody-mindedness. I just think they were badly advised on this matter, and I don't think IFAA are any better.

At this juncture, I suggest that this thread has sufficiently diverted from Beleg's original thread that perhaps it should be separated into a new thread if everybody is agreeable and want to continue discussing it further.

Regards,

Dennis La Varenne

[GrahameA]

Good Morning Dennis

It would be a good to move all the posts regarding bow desigb/1900 rule/etc. to a seperate topic.

You have Admin privleges and I would appreciate you doing so.

From my point of view The 1900 rule whilst being just a choice does not present any great difficulty.

we have the silly situation that it then behoves all bow checkers at shoots to be trained to recognise all the multifarious designs of bows prior to 1900 which ever existed on this planet on every continent.

My view has always been that if you want to shoot in any "historical" division then you need to be able to show proof that what you are shooting meets with the rules. I do not expect the person doing the checking to know every bow type.

All that means if I want to shoot my ELB I have some documentation that the thing I have turned up with approximates the ELB in the documentation.

Similarly if I want to shoot Southern Indian Bamboo bow or a Mughal Steel Bow or bow from Kamchatka I should be able to provide to the person giving the nod some documentation so that they can see what I am about to shoot approximates the original.

It is the responsibility of the archer to show his equipment complies with the rules.

[Brumbies Country]

Good Morning Gentlemen

Just opened new thread on this .

Regards

Simon