wood arrows & compound bows

[Tartar Horde]

I have heard the same thing too and can tell you it is wrong, you can shoot wooden shafts with a compound, but the trade off will be accuracy and arrow speed. You will also have to use a higher spine than you would with the same poundage traditional bow. The reason for this comes down to the effect the "cams" have on the acceleration of the string. When you draw the string back on a compound towards the end of your draw the cams will rotate and effectively increase the length of your bow, this allows the final draw weight to reduce making it easier to hold powerful bows at full draw without bursting blood vessels. Upon release the string of a compound bow accelerates faster for the portion of the shot where the cam effect is taking place, making for a much steeper power curve as compared to say a Longbow. It is this steeper acceleration that can put wooden arrows in jeopardy.
So the answer is yes you can shoot wooden arrows from a compound you just have to be very careful in selection. If I chose to shoot a compound I would not use wooden shafts personally, as to get the best out of a compound bow you really need to use sighting and release systems alongside closely matched arrows, and wooden shafts will never be as accurate as aluminium or carbon.

[Timelord]

Hello Tartar Horde. Please can you define a few points for us. You say the rotating cams effectively increase the length of the bow.. Is this the length of the limbs or the draw length which is effectively a longer acceleration distance (power curve) of the string before release? I thought it was the latter but I could be wrong seeing as this is not my specialist subject.

Also seeing as some folks like to bring historical war bows into the discussion, this confuses the issue when terms like "traditional longbow" are used. Would this be a historical warbow of the longbow family or a more recent Victorian style of longbow that we are more used to seeing nowadays? It would be good for discussions if we could separate and clarify which type is being referred to at any time or the discussion can go round and round in circles as the points of reference are perceived differently.

One last point I noticed is that while modern aluminium and carbon shafts may be more accurate for modern types of bow, there are two challenges to this:- One is that if we are to use the historical long warbow example, then the heavy duty wood shafts were unlikely to bend or shatter to the same extent as aluminium or carbon. This may apply to some degree to the more modern wood arrows as well. If made from suitable selected and correctly seasoned timber, then they should be remarkably tough. They certainly will not bend out of true like aluminium arrows can. True they do flex at the point of release and this is one characteristic of a wood arrow. It continues to flex throughout its flight. Upon impact this also gives it substantial penetrative power unlike aluminium arrows. I do not know the info for carbon arrows at this time. Point two is for accuracy, the longbow archers of medieval history were reputed in the 14th century to be able to cloud shoot and hit a one foot diameter tin disc laying flat on the grass at 100 to 200 yards. This was supposedly a test of competency. They were supposed to be deadly accurate at flat shooting as well although this was not their training priority. Therefore I do not think that the accuracy of a modern arrow as compared to a good wooden one should be that much of an issue.
I am not trying to teach a grandmother to suck eggs, but please can you clarify the points above. Thankyou & regards, TL.

[Hex]

well thanks for the advice guys if the bow is still there next time im picking up some food i think ill pick it up and ill stick to carbon/aluminum arrows for it to be on the safe side

[Tartar Horde]

Hello Timelord. When you draw the string on a compound bow those elliptical cams rotate and when they are at the top of their profile it gives the effect of making the bow longer, and also decreasing the string angle making it easier to pull. Those rigid Siyahs on Asiatic composites give the same effect but on a much reduced scale. To visualise what is happening with those cams and Siyahs get two eggs (which are roughly elyptical) and put them with the pointed ends the same way one above the other, now measure from the top of one egg to the bottom of the other one. now rotate both eggs so they are pointing up and down with pointed ends away from each other mimicking the rotating cams, now measure, the distance is greater. this is the principle behind compounds and composites with Siyahs. An added bonus is that it allows long draw lengths from short bows, as attested to by archaeological evidence and modern Asiatic archery methods.
I agree with the need to clarify such terms as "traditional" when talking about the Longbow as the modern Victorian facsimile, used more for gentile archery is far removed from the rough and ready bows of the Hundred years war, but unless you are really into the subject I wouldn't expect most archers to know the difference.
Regarding arrows Timelord you are correct that those heavy "cloth Yard shafts" made out of Ash were very durable and as Ascham says in Toxophilus "give a good stripe" meaning they hit hard, those arrows were never meant to be used for target archery they were designed as artillery, heavy shafts carrying heavy bodkins to lay down fire on masse. This was the key to English archery during the Hundred years war, archers trained from birth to shoot upon command any yardage. This training is carried out today and is know as "clout shooting" where archers shoot at 180yds attempting to hit or land closest to the target, the archers normally shoot in volleys imitating massed archery. To get back to your point in my experience wooden arrows certainly are more forgiving than Aluminium or Carbon, but can never be as accurate. The "flexing you mention is a product of the "spine" the arrow has. This "spine" is the ability, and amount the arrow flexes for the given weight of a bow. The ability of the arrow to bend upon loosing is very important in bows that are not centre cut, ie English Longbow because of what is termed the archers paradox. When you put an arrow on the string of a longbow and look behind the arrow it appears to be pointing off to the left (for a right handed archer) yet the arrow goes straight when shot??? (well hopefully) this is because upon release of the string the arrow bends away from the bow for a fraction of a second allowing it to pass without obstruction, these oscilations continue for a short distance before the fletchings stabilise the arrow. I'm not sure I agree with your point about these oscilations assisting penetration as the arrow has stopped doing this by 10-15 yds due to the effect of the fletchings, but I would be interested if you had some backing for me, knowing as I do that Atlatl darts continue to do this for quite a distance, so there might be something in your proposition.
Accuracy is a hard subject to tackle as it has so many variables and parameters. My statement that wooden shafts will never be as accurate as Aluminium or Carbon is purely based on my modern form of archery and the times I live in. for example you stand the best Olympic archer alongside our English Longbowman of Yore and get them to shoot on command different ranges, of course our Longbowman will destroy our Olympic archer, but the reverse is true regarding our target archer in his field, so how do we gauge accuracy?? The machine tolerances of modern alloy/carbon shafts are so tight as to make each shaft virtually identical in both flight and performance, this can't be done with wood and if it could you would see Olympic and Compound archers still using them at competitions, the fact is not one Olympic archer on the planet uses wood. I shoot Asiatic composites/longbows/recurves and enjoy making wooden arrows, but I will be the first to admit that if I changed to Alloy or Carbon shafts my accuracy would increase simply by having more "uniform" ammunition.
hope this helps

[Timelord]

Thankyou for that Tartar Horde, it is really in informative. For target type weight of arrows, do you think wood arrows would have a greater mass impact, the same or less? The flexing of a wooden shaft can also be an important factor at the receiving end. Although the shaft has stopped flexing during its flight, when the head impacts a less forgiving material, the head can momentarily stop dead. The shaft behind however does not due to its mass impetus. The shaft then flexes substantially from one direction to the other and back again repeatedly, but it can be so fast it is not really visible to the naked eye. This flexing motion can literally drive the point through the material in a pecking motion. This was observed using high speed cameras with an arrow shot a some type of bullet proof glass. The arrow was seen to momentarily stop and then the shaft literally pecked its way through the glass while a bullet fired at the same glass could not penetrate. This was an extreme scientific test and I do not advocate that arrows make good armour piercing missiles for real world use, but the material physics of it are very interesting and will have effects in other areas of the subject of bows. I am sure an aluminium arrow will not have these qualities. As for carbon I have not looked into it. Atlats have a high enough mass inertia to not need the shaft to bend on impact and I do not think the flight speed and larger dynamics would result in the "pecking action" to any degree that would improve the impact action any further. I am of course talking about ancient hunter gatherer type atlats and the game they were used for, which brings an interesting point into discussion - The S.American Indians are reputed to have been able to pierce the Conquistadors armour at times with their obsidian tipped war atlats. That point starts a whole new train of thought! lol. TL.

---

lol - should read at the beginning as "is really informative", without the previous "in" TL

[Tartar Horde]

Hello Timelord, energy transfer is a complicated matter when comparing arrows and has caused many Archaeologist a sleepless night. To honestly answer the question do wooden shafts deliver higher kinetic energy than Olympic style alloy/carbon arrows you would have to get both the wooden shaft and your Aluminium one to weigh the same in grains to start with, then use exactly the same fletchings and points to make each arrow as near to identical in weight as is humanly possible. Next you would shoot those arrows exactly the same draw length through a chronograph. I reckon because of the thinner profile of an Alloy/Carbon shaft as compared to a standard 11/32 wooden shaft,the Alloy/carbon will have less energy lost to air friction and so just might have the edge in energy due to it's slightly faster velocity. There are other factors at play with this subject, for instance two archers shooting the same bow, same arrows, same draw length, put them through a chrony and there will be a difference that is purely down to how they loose the string. I definitely agree with you about arrow flex at the target, there is a video on youtube that shows a mongol bow shooting through a melon and the arrow wiggles and snakes its way through.
Some experimentation was carried out by Mike Loades, a respected historian and weapons tester and put into a Military channel programme called "weapons of war" (I will check and send you link). They got some of the best Atlatlists in the USA, the likes of Bob Berg to test flint and obsidian darts on a dummy wearing the correct grade (munitions) and style of Conquistador armour. None of the darts pierced the breastplate, but they did make some impressive dents, although in reality these would soaked up by the padded Gambesons etc worn under them, so the answer is no Timelord I don't think the Aztec Atlatls could pierce Spanish plate, HOWEVER!!!! having read the accounts of the Conquistadors they talk about "arrows" causing the most damage, and being responsible for festering wounds and having the ability to penetrate armour. I believe this may be the source of the confusion and due to a misunderstanding of the word "Armour" and what this pertains to. The Conquistador authors do not differentiate between plate and maille, and as generally only the highest ranking soldiers would have breast plates, that leaves the majority wearing mail over padded garments. The accounts talk of arrows made of cane that will shatter and splinter, driving the sharp parts through their armour (like flechetes). Interestingly the writers talk about "darts" and "arrows" so they were aware of the difference between Atlatl and Bow.
I can send you the links to these sources if you wish to read them, but you could do no better than read the eyewitness accounts of Bernal del dias/z who participated in the conquest of Mexico with Cortez. You can find it at "Project Gutenberg" which has a vast online library containing most of the "classics" in downloadable format, highly recommended.

[Timelord]

Ok, thankyou for the sources (& info), pls pm those sources to me.
For our prep subject, the question of whether a wood arrow or a carbon/aluminium one would have more mass impact (which then expends into penetration hopefully), we would not need to get arrows exactly the same in weight/grains or design etc. The real world measurements is what matters. If a modern non-wood target arrow was put up against a wooden one of the same physical size, then which would have the greatest mass impact and also due to its own physics the greatest penetration ability through a variety of likely materials? That is the thrust of the question. This is where a difference might apply.

Often the recent data from target sports is used when really the historical data from real world combat should be preferred. I see this a lot with ranged and hand to hand martial arts when discussed generally. Folk get all excited and as discussion develops it gets ever focused on to the minutia specifications of the sport version. The hard won lessons from history are often completely bypassed and those same folk end up happy with modern target sport solutions which are not what is really needed..

I have seen that "Weapons of War" documentary before.
I agree with your interpretation of the effectiveness of the Indians projectiles against the Conquistadors. It makes sense to me as far as penetration is concerned. The mass of arrows the conquistadors must have faced in volleys will have caused a worrying rate of attrition as they found gaps in the armour protection. I believe that by the time the war out there was consolidated, the small expeditionary force of Spaniards had suffered well over half their number in casualties and many more were added to this total continually due to some limited gorilla actions by the natives. Not many came home from the original force, also aided by disease.

By the way, "Mike know Loads about everything", while being an excellent media historical re-interpreter, student of history etc etc, does not actually know everything about everything! lol. In fact some of his historical weapon firing against stationary target experiments have been flawed due to basic non scientific rigour and use of suitable materials. He is a Historian working in the commercial media world with researchers to look stuff up for him. Some good, some not so. Some of his stuff is good don't get me wrong.., like the archery fire directed at his back whilst riding away on horseback wearing a rear billowing silk Samurai cloak. Outstanding! "It is entertainment at the end of the day". (Jerry Springer)

Usually the basic mistake of most weapon firing against an armour recreations is they do not replicate the energy absorption of different materials or overall composites, like the human body for instance or even at different ranges.It is no use firing a longbow arrow with a bodkin head from a compressed air powered tube from 20 feet away at a 90 degree angle straight on with no usual high probability of glancing off, at a recently made un-tempered breastplate of 16 gauge steel that is rigidly fixed to a wooden post or backing without any padding or other layers or human torso behind. To the contrary, this test does NOT prove that the longbow was a battle winning "plate" armour piercer. While in this specific set of conditions it might penetrate the modern sheet of steel, the many historical narratives and paintings, line drawings etc etc depict a very different daily reality during the 15th Century when Plate Armour was widespread. Their use against "brigandines" is probably even less effective judging by the explosion of preference for that type of armour by the end of the 15th Century also when ball firing arquebus' (shotgun) were now much more common.

I seem to have gone off on a tangent (unlike the arrow)lol. apologies. TL.
(What I write is not all aimed at you Tartar Horde, as I know you will already be aware of many points I raise - it is debated for a wider audience also)

[Tartar Horde]

The arrow proposition vizwooden arrows vs modern is very hard to answer Timelord, but I will give it a bash. So if both arrows are the same "physical" size, and am I safe to assume that they are both shot from the same bow? then the answer would rely on which shaft had the greatest velocity, because if both shafts are the same the faster one would deliver more Ft/lbs of energy on target, but which one? to be honest I can't answer to my satisfaction, and rather than blag you I'll say so.
There are major problems with interpretations of historical weapons being based on modern assumptions of how they were used. I find this more prevalent on Youtube where everyone is an expert who can pick up a sword or bow. The light on the horizon is that we are now seeing a lot of experimental archaeologists carrying out such tests with materials as close to original as possible. This approach is the only method which can extract useful knowledge, the one of rigorous enquiry backed up by sound methodology. On youtube it would be some guy shooting through eight milk jugs with a modern longbow as a way to prove the "warbow" could kill a knight at 100yds
here's some of the links regarding conquistador accounts.

https://archive.org/stream/memoirsofconq...0/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/anarrativeofthee34997gut

http://alkek.library.txstate.edu/swwc/cdv/book/1.html

This is more my area
http://www.academia.edu/2300543/Hunting_...plications

[Timelord]

& thankyou for the links.

V. Basically, would a wooden arrow of same physical size and of the correct type of wood, be heavier or lighter than a modern materials arrow? The heavier one would have more impact/penetrative ability. Would a carbon shaft flex like a wooden one? Would it be as forgiving structurally? I presume (dangerous assumption) that an aluminium one would not flex to the same degree before becoming out of true or even kinked.
Faster shaft does not necessarily mean more impact. Ft/lb velocity is quite different to terminal impact ballistics - WHICH is what I am looking at! This is what really matters, not the technical launching specs. This applies across all projectile weapon types and is where the Sporting angle is at an oblique with combat mechanics.
Mass has much more to do with impact than high speed (subsonic only discussion!!) and in the case of an arrow pecking or punching through harder facings, then the mass is far more critical than the speed (within reasonably similar & authentic launching velocities)
Lighter projectiles lose speed more rapidly over distance. A heavier arrow may in fact be travelling faster upon reaching a more distant point of impact and has more mass on target.
**(Terminal ballistics is all that really counts, not launching specs)**

This discussion has reference to many projectile weapons, including air rifles and so is a very important discussion, which is I why I have pressed it to the point of exhaustion.. Thankyou Tartar Horde and all other readers for suffering the long winded dialogue & regards, TL.

[Steve]

This is a similar discussion to one often seen about air rifles, where the flat trajectory of a light pellet is considered against the greater momentum ( not energy ) of a heavy pellet. I won't go into it all again, except to say that to kill your quarry you first need to hit it.