[Elnathan Barnett]

Benjamin,
In Basel,1605, they were shooting at a 30" mark at 190 yards with smoothbores braced on the cheeks (no shoulder stocks). Target guns, not military, but worth noting all the same. Even if you cut that down to a third, yoou are still looking at approximately a hundred yard capability.

I don't recall if William Rogers mentions accuracy, but he is quoted a couple of times in Robert Held's Age of Firearms and was a fervent supporter of firearms. You might check him out.

edited:
190 yards, not 290. mea culpa...

[Peter Bosman]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Lin Robinson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Jared Smith]

I am not at all disagreeing with the rock paper scissor analysis above. I think it definitely fits the 16th-17th century European war environment.

In the case of Hernando De Soto in the Southeast America, his European forces started out with breast plates, some mail, helms, some greaves, etc. The interpretations of three surviving accounts indicate that the unarmored "indians" did pretty well at at playing sniper with their bows, putting arrows through gaps in armour, eyes, throat, etc. by using guerrilla warfare style tactics at close range with their bows (night raids, ambushing along trails, and even surprise raids into fortified encampments.)

This does not really seem to fit the expected conditions (behavior or terrain) for European warfare, and could have turned out much differently without the type of dense vegetation that was a factor in Desoto's gradual loss of numbers. I suspect it is only fair and reasonable to consider the bow as potentially effective against forces with historical armour when appropriate conditions, skills, and tactics are employed.

[Elnathan Barnett]

Another thing that hasn't been sufficiently addressed on this thread is the pairing of arrows to bows. Due to the archer's paradox, the flexibility of arrows -"spine" - is important to accuracy - a bow of a given weight must be paired to a particular degree of flexibility, and the flexibility of the arrows must be consistent within a batch OR the archer must be familiar enough with his arrows that he can compensate for differences. The same is true with weight of both arrow shaft and head- either consistency or experience with a particular arrow is necessary for accuracy.
Now, I believe I read somewhere that during the 100 Years War arrows were made to a particular length (a clothyard?) and cut down after being issued, with the heads stuck on with wax. Now, I have no doubt that medieval fletchers were a skilled lot, but somehow I doubt that arrows made to generic spine and weight, then cut down in the field and fitted with heads which may not have been made to very tight specifications are going to either match a given bow very well or be very consistent, especially since a war arrow is going to be essentially a disposable object.
All of which to say, the carefully matched and cared-for arrows used by modern archers are going to show a much higher degree of accuracy than are medieval or rennaissance war arrows. If you are going to compare "sniper-quality" (for lack of a better term) archery to firearm, it is only fair to compare them to the equivalent, which would be either a contemporary rifle or the smoothbore match guns mentioned in my earlier post.

Incidently, during the 18th century muskets often fired multiple projectiles - the buck-and-ball load was the standard for the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Does anyone know if this was doen during the 15th and 17th centuries?

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Randall Moffett]

Elnathan,

I think you may be off a bit on a few points.

Archers paradox ends basically after a few meters when the spine will then go more or less straight. That said it does not seem to need huge compensation as it does so naturally once it stops. The Royal Military College has slow motion footage and it shows the distance needed for it to slow the flex in the spine from the paradox.

The types of bows used as warbows for war at this time could/would be able to be very accurate with arrows of a fair variety of weights. My guess is they would vary only a few grams and that they used various arrows for various tasks so this would seem to be just part of the job. Once more, likely the distance over accuracy suffers with very overly heavy arrows but the draw weight of the bow is hugely related for this as well.

Arrows were made to a standard size... yep, I agree. Regardless the arrow's length does not seem to drastically affect the accuracy as it does the extra dead weight of the arrow before the bow. This would limit the distance achieved not accuracy. That said a decent archer could fit his own arrows to his bow with little problem I'd assume. Apart from the heads and the shafts the rest can be done in the field but I do not think it related to accuracy as much as other factors.

RPM

[Elnathan Barnett]

Benjamin,
yes, that is who I was thinking of. I don't have the book mentioned so I wasn't sure what exactly he said, but I thought I'd mention it.

Randall,
An arrow that doesn't have the proper spine wouldn't stabilize properly, ergo its not going to be accurate. Properly matched, yes, it will stabilize a few yards from the bow. Too flexible or too stiff it will fishtail around, I believe. How sensitive the higher draw-weights are to variations in spine I don't know. Trying to match arrows to bows sounds like a logistical nightmare to me, so I expect that arrows were made to a "on-size-fits-all-within-standard-warbow-draw-weight-ranges," and archers shot what they were issued. Probably arrows were issued on a group basis, so an archer might be able to pick through the pile get at least a few that "felt right," but closer matching than that doesn't sound very plausible, nor is the suggestion that could shoot their arrows a couple of times to get the feel for them before firing them in battle.

As for weight, is the variations that would kill accuracy. Even starting with a uniform arrow, cutting them down in the field and fitting them with heads that also vary in weight is going to introduce greater variations. It is the cumulative errors that are the problem.

Here is a question: What is the accuracy of bows? I don't recall anyone giving figures, though I may have missed them.

Second, why does everyone assume that guns are cheaper than bows? Even a matchlock mechanism requires some precise geometry to function smoothly, while making a barrel, like forging a swordblade, requires a great deal of time and skill to forge, bore, and breech, not to mention a large quantity of high-quality iron (it takes about 22 pounds of iron to make a 6-8 pound barrel, according to Foxfore 5). Even the stock requires a bit of time and skill to make. I know bows are fiddly things to make, but still...

[Jean Thibodeau]

Just a thought but an archer might use standardized supply train arrows for general work i.e. Un-aimed volleys at medium to long range, and elite archers might have a few selected and tuned to their bow arrows for those times when high accuracy was needed ?

Would arrows come in all the same weights/spine or in a range of light, medium and heavy spines to match the average bows that might vary in draw weight but still all heavy bows: 100 pound draw to 180 pound draw with the average being somewhere between ?

[Jack W. Englund]

Gentlemen/ I think we need to step back a moment & set our parameter's. We seem, in IMHO, to be discussing 2 different things,. The English/Welsh Long bow & the war bows used by native Americans.( N. & S) IMHO, these weapons are VASTLY different , not only in construction, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY USAGE !!

Disclaimer- I am Not an expert i either areas ( I do own & shoot in competition, N. Amer. style bows ( flat bows, & a variety of arrows associated (historically) with them. But my knowledge of the "long bow IMHO ) the predominate"war bow" of it's day, is strictly through cursory historical study.

Long bow -Basic tactical usage etc:
1. Mass firing @ troop concentration ( the artillery of the day) 10-20 arrows per min.
NOTE- relatively lg.# of archers (100s- 1,000s)
2. Mass & more accurate firing @ closer range ( see above
3. Arrow woods
a. aspen,poplar,elder,birch,& willow for "flight arrows (distance)
b.Ash, hornbeam,& oak for penatration.
c. fletching - feathers, goose, peacock, swan.
NOTE- the arrows used, (with the right heads - bodkin) could & did penetrate both chain & plate Armour.)
5.. "When up close & personal" they fell back behind the "pole arms
NOTE the long bow was made primary of yew and a pull of over 100#s ( not all agree) & was 5-6' in length ,with a "killing" range of appox. 250 yd.
arrows were made "true"



Native Amer. bow tactical usage, etc :
1. en masse firring was not the norm. native tribes were small & warfare was basically limited to small groups.
2. Bows varied VASTLY
a. Most bows were "flat bows (there were some recurves, but few.) Some laminates (bone, mostly snake skin)
b.Bows were made out of avail. material. (ranging from will to elm, ash,, hickory,oak, with the best (IMHO) from "osage orange"
c.Arrow shafts varied greatly in truness
d., points ranged from fire hardened wood to Bone & stone ( the best in MHO was obsidian)
e. What ever available

NOTES- The following is based on the "best :
1. Pull wt. under 60#s
2.Could not penetrate Armour.
3. Max killing range = 100yds (most effective under 50 yd)
4.Accuracy- 50 yds & under = good 50yds+ = moderate

Conclution = ( IMHO ) In thr area of the use of the bow pnThe Battle fields of EUROPE MUST be looked @ seperately

Jack

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I can't agree with much of that, Jack. Yes, Amerindians tended to use their bows differently than the English. However, a bow is a bow. Obviously, it depends on which Amerindian group you mean. Some may have used light bows, especially for hunting. However, all accounts agree that the Amerindians of Florida used extremely long and powerful bows. I mentioned examples from Cabeza de Vaca in an earlier post. By the way, he wrote that Amerindian archers struck with unerring accuracy out to 200 paces.

The Spaniards made no distinction between these weapons and those of the English. De la Vega wrote how de Soto's band included an Englishmen and Spaniard who'd been raised in England. Unlike the rest, these two used bows proficiently. De la Vega also wrote that none of the Spaniards could fully draw a captured Amerindian bow. Whether this included the two archers is unclear. Either way, it's a testament to the strength of Amerindian bows.

[Stephen Hand]

[Stephen Hand]

[Stephen Hand]

I'm not aware of any claims from the 15th-17th centuries about whether bows or muskets were more accurate. In the 1560s William Harrison railed against how inaccurate archers were, but compared them with the semi-mythical archers of Crecy, 220 years earlier and not with guns. I based my statements on accuracy on what I have seen on ranges over a period of two decades.

Cheers
Stephen

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Shayan G]

Just a quick aside, since it's Thanksgiving and I'm not going to be delving into any citations today--
Many Mongolian, Turkic, and Persian accounts speak of accuracy much farther than 100 yards with composite bows. These soldiers started training almost from birth, and trained daily for their entire lives, honing their skills regularly in competition and combat. I wouldn't assume too quickly to the early musket's superiority to the bow in terms of accuracy simply because of later technological advantage--in these warriors' hands, it was capable of quite astounding things. This, in fact, is one of the reasons Central Asia was so slow to adopt firearms--until the advent of the mass-produced and rifled musket, it would have been a step backwards in terms of efficiency.

Back to the cooking--HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

[Jean Thibodeau]

Accuracy ? Depends on what we are comparing:

1) Musket using undersized ball to speed loading fired in volleys, the accuracy would be poor if aimed at a single target, assuming that the musket even had a front site.

2) Musket with a strait bore and a tight fitting ball and a competent skilled shooter: Accuracy would be adequate to 100 yards to 200 yards on single targets. ( Not a hit every time but close enough to make the target nervous. ).

3) Muzzle loading rifle with good sights, the optimum load for the gun and a very good shooter: We can get to very long accurate ranges as other posters have already shown.

Archery, bows & crossbows, with good quality archers should be better in the accuracy department than (1) with (2) to close to call under 100 yards +/- 25 yards But (3) would have much better accuracy and range.

This is just a ballpark guess from me and the quality of weapon/shooter variable makes for an overlapping range of results.

[Randall Moffett]

In medieval texts distance accuracy with longbows are listed as important. The butts are about man height and perhaps twice as wide maybe a bit wider for practice they seems at a minimum to use 220 and even 260 yards for target shooting of this nature. This indicates a man sized target could still be hit from quite far away, at the time it would be one of a very limited number of things that could.

Jean,

I think your summary is pretty good to me.

Elnathan,

I had wrote up a fairly large post to answer some of the statements you made but it ate it and I am not typing it again, sorry but not feeling too well.

First thing. You need to see gents that can shoot these real warbows. You will find they use a wide variety of arrows of various shaped heads, shafts and multiple weight employed with the same bows. accuracy may be a factor but any simple archer can figure out how to gauge it well.

Weight is a variable in using the bow. No doubt about it. The variation in the arrows weight does not seem to be significant enough to make them have difficulty with aiming arrows unless they are tree trunks or something. Between the gents I know who shoot heavy weight bows some use 90 some 150, they all can shoot off arrows of various weights on their bows with distance being harder to achieve after a point due to heavier arrows but all need be over a certain weight to avoid shattering. I suppose the heavy arrows might not be 'accurate' at over long distance but that is assuming the medieval archer used the same arrow for all tasks. The kings ministers ordered multiple typed arrows which the close and patent rolls and the early modern ship the Mary Rose indicate was established and understood then but perhaps today not so well. The archer would be expected to use various arrows for various jobs, distances, etc. It seems likely that the more militarily active semi-pro archers would likely be the better at this target/sniping shooting than the common levied man, which makes sense. The reason bows are useful is in the thousands for volley fire at a mass of other men. That said specialty arrows would not be uncommon. Retinues almost always bring chests of arrows along for their own use. Even levied archers were required to provide 2 sheaves most of the late medieval period. That said with the one or two most common type of arrows the king orders gathered for his armies and likely used by the bulk of troops I assume most would be used in mass volleys so individual aim would be not as imperative. If you have some good hands on experience with this or something that can show that weight directly relates to accuracy I'd be interested in it though.


RPM