Mad bow skillz

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • K31

    "Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 15, 2006
    35,674
    AA county
    The only assertion I have trouble with is the shooting from the left side is what caused the "need" for one-eyed shooting and sights. Plenty of instinctive shooters use both eyes (you simply cant the bow) and although I'm only a beginner I found that I was way more accurate with both eyes open shooting instinctively.

    I do wonder why archery didn't survive the era of smooth bore muzzleloaders though. From what I've read archers could get off far more arrows, and hit targets over distances more accurately, than early muzzleloading soldiers who relied more on massive numbers of shooters (volley fire) than aim.

    Of course, it also took many years to make an English longbow archer.
     
    The only assertion I have trouble with is the shooting from the left side is what caused the "need" for one-eyed shooting and sights. Plenty of instinctive shooters use both eyes (you simply cant the bow) and although I'm only a beginner I found that I was way more accurate with both eyes open shooting instinctively.

    I do wonder why archery didn't survive the era of smooth bore muzzleloaders though. From what I've read archers could get off far more arrows, and hit targets over distances more accurately, than early muzzleloading soldiers who relied more on massive numbers of shooters (volley fire) than aim.

    Of course, it also took many years to make an English longbow archer.

    When I first started I had a recurve and shot both eyes open,no sights,it was like a "triangulation" way of aiming (I'll try to find a pic).
     

    JBinDC

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2012
    1,252
    MoCo - Silver Spring
    Saw this after a Bow Huntin bud forwarded it to me. Def impressive. Is it hard to find a traditional right handed bow with a right handed arrow rest? May have to try this out. My only experience is shooting a compound.
     

    Jimet

    Active Member
    Feb 4, 2007
    757
    Harford Co.
    What are you saying? I've seen that movie at least 100 times and he's done it every single time.He also shot a bouncing rope on a ferry boat every time in Josey Wales. :sad20:

    I forgot about the "Missouri boat ride". That settles it, must be true.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,675
    Sykesville, MD
    ...
    I do wonder why archery didn't survive the era of smooth bore muzzleloaders though. From what I've read archers could get off far more arrows, and hit targets over distances more accurately, than early muzzleloading soldiers who relied more on massive numbers of shooters (volley fire) than aim.

    Of course, it also took many years to make an English longbow archer.

    Rumor has it that Wellington asked for archers during the Peninsular War (the campaign in Portugal/Spain against Napoleon). The old requirement to "Shoot at the Butts" every Sunday had long since vanished, and there were no appreciable numbers of skilled archers left to make a difference. Or so I've heard.
     

    K31

    "Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 15, 2006
    35,674
    AA county
    Saw this after a Bow Huntin bud forwarded it to me. Def impressive. Is it hard to find a traditional right handed bow with a right handed arrow rest? May have to try this out. My only experience is shooting a compound.

    Lots of traditional bows (AKA self bows) such as many longbows don't have a handedness as far as the grip is concerned so you could get a LH model. Or even as to have a bow made with a RH grip and rest on the right.

    Of course, some of "Lars's" bows seem to have no arrow rest, just like the originals.
     

    Roneut

    Active Member
    Oct 10, 2010
    279
    The only assertion I have trouble with is the shooting from the left side is what caused the "need" for one-eyed shooting and sights. Plenty of instinctive shooters use both eyes (you simply cant the bow) and although I'm only a beginner I found that I was way more accurate with both eyes open shooting instinctively.

    Lars is a fine archer, but kind of an idiot when it comes to history. Mongol, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Turkish and Arab archers always shot off the right side of the bow, and still do (they also shoot with their thumbs). It's the Western Europeans that shot off the left side for no other reason than that's just how archery evolved in those areas, and Western became the norm for archery in modern Europe and North America.
     

    photoracer

    Competition Shooter
    Oct 22, 2010
    3,318
    West Virginia
    The only assertion I have trouble with is the shooting from the left side is what caused the "need" for one-eyed shooting and sights. Plenty of instinctive shooters use both eyes (you simply cant the bow) and although I'm only a beginner I found that I was way more accurate with both eyes open shooting instinctively.

    I do wonder why archery didn't survive the era of smooth bore muzzleloaders though. From what I've read archers could get off far more arrows, and hit targets over distances more accurately, than early muzzleloading soldiers who relied more on massive numbers of shooters (volley fire) than aim.

    Of course, it also took many years to make an English longbow archer.
    Actually archers in those days did volley fire also mainly. They did not just sit there and pick off the enemy one at a time, like Robin Hood in the media. That did not mean that they were not good archers but they were not like the horse archers of the steppes and Middle East who did both in the same battles. In the the West archers were the artillery of the battlefield after the decline of the legions with their arrow engines.
    Archer not only took a long time to train but it required constant physical practice as evidence from the past indicates that most military longbows had pull rates in the 150 lb range and used 30" arrows of both heavy and light configuration. But they were not totally effective against the best armor either. At Agincourt the better steel torso armor used by the Frech nobles was pretty much impervious to the heavy arrows of the longbow so they resorted to shooting at the weaker limb armor and at the horses side armor. The ones who could not afford that level were not so lucky.
    Even early blackpowder weapons were effective against armor and required less training and strength to use. Also archers required protection against both other archers and cavalry. There were a couple of battles in the Hundred Years War where the longbowmen were routed before they could set their defenses up. Pretty much their most effective period in Europe was from the 1300's to the 1500's.
     

    LimaVictor

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2012
    2,245
    Southern MD
    My problem is there should have been some epic type rock song playing in the background like maybe Europe's The Final Countdown or some Priest or something! LOL
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,431
    Messages
    7,281,538
    Members
    33,454
    Latest member
    Rifleman

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom