@@yugen You do realize that a modern term based on a vague reference (hint hint) does not have to be 100% faithful to the source it's referencing, right?
@@potatoperson1719 I'm picturing someone holding a bow in each hand, and gripping the strings of the left in the right and vice versa and pulling their arms apart to shoot to the left and right at the same time. Of course you will drop both bows when you shoot. And you will miss. But it would look funny. And if you pull them apart far enough it'll snap off your nose.
Yes, but what if two have, hypothetically, the same level of accuracy. Speed is the final decisive variable. Which is more impressive: You hitting a bulls eye from 100 ft every 15 seconds You hitting a bulls eye from 100 ft every 5 seconds The answer should be unanimous, the faster the cooler. If you can hit just as many bulls as someone else twice or three times as fast then I would say that's way cooler and advertises WAY more skill. I don't know why people are overlooking this. Personally, I want to be accurate AND fast. Why only concentrate on one? Why not improve on both aspects, that's how you define someone that's good. You all seem to be a little....dumb... Also in addition, regarding to gunfighting, if I can shoot 6 times before you shoot 1 I have a much greater chance of hitting you than you hitting me. Not to mention my spray of bullets will likely cause a decrease in your focus and you may, or may not hit me. Speed AND accuracy are vital as you go against better and better gunfighters. This is all just logical....
Your comparison breaks apart in integrity when you look at the assumption made: that accuracy is static and speed is the success criteria. Sure, being able to hit a target with more arrows in a shorter time frame is more impressive. Doing that on horseback even more so. The problem is that, realistically, this is seldom the case - speed normally comes at the cost of accuracy, unless you make the target easier to hit. In this case, many people overrate speed, while the ultimately objective of archery is to hit the target. Being able to do so on demand is more of a sign of archery skill than being able to shoot really quickly and turn it into a matter of probability. In gunfighting, first shot accuracy as important as speed - you can't shoot 6 times if you die before you get your 2nd shot off. But that's beside the point - gunfighting isn't archery.
@@spin.chicken Wyatt Earp had the benefit of actually putting his theory to the test, have you? Anybody can bullshit in RU-vid comments but it would be a different matter when you are actually facing somebody in a gunfight. My guess is, your hands would be shaking so much, you'd shoot your own nose off.
Does it ruin both arrows? I always assumed it just damaged the back end of one that got hit, and the arrow that hit it could just be removed and reused.
Zasa Pamasawasa depends on the type of arrow, you could probably separate a wooden arrow. But I use aluminium arrows, and the penetrating arrow was so firmly lodged inside the the other arrow that both arrows were fused into one.
Being accurate enough to split the arrow every time might seem cool, but with that level of accuracy, one could instead make their initials with their arrows, within the gold of course, which is just as much a show of accuracy and doesn't cost you arrows.
One of the reasons I love teaching beginner classes is that it reminds me not to get caught up in archery culture hooplah. Just being a decent archer is pretty cool in the eyes of the general public.
Yup. Some so called "experts" just love to compare sport archery with medeival combat archery. Keep saying the old ways are better. I'm so sick of that attitude. Beginners are much easier to handle. Just fun, fun and fun.
When I hear "instinctive shooting" my mind immediately gravitates to those people who still practice traditional English war bow shooting, and look like they're tearing themselves in half to launch an arrow at 45° that travels like, 200 yards and still manages to land in a target that they don't even look like they're pointed at. I mean... That still seems pretty cool.
When I think of instinctive shooting I think of someone like Ron LaClair or Byron Ferguson shooting an aspirin out of the air. There's no context in which that isn't cool, and to say otherwise comes off as dishonest imo.
@@Sardonic_sardine they were called Welsh War Bows.... look it up. The video even says the English copied their longbow from the Welsh war bow. They used to hire Welsh archers for campaigns.
the ones broken in half. and you stick them back together with your nasal discharge and nock them in one swift'n smooth move while making a serious face that puts orlando bloom to shame.
Can't use a longbow at the Olympics, only recurve bows. You might be able to find a Golden Eagle Shakespeare on Ebay, they killed it in the Olympics in the 60's and 70's.
I have to disagree with you on ancient bows... They will always be cool. Yeah, if ancient archers could get their hands on modern bows, they would definitely chose a modern bow over their own. But ancient people didn't have the technology that we have. Horn, wood, sinew... Those simple materials were enough to make something powerful and that will always be cool.
As I said in the video, the original "cool" factor doesn't change. However, the "old" ways tend to be overrated by observers. Modern bows are better in nearly every way.
gethren1 Good point! Or why don't sport fencers use real rapiers, sabres, or smallswords... or even sparring versions of those weapons? Even many firearms shooting sports use firearms that are very different from modern combat firearms.
I'll admit that sport fencing has lost it's martial value. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any value. Even Matt Easton would still encourage people who want to learn swordsmanship, but don't have access to a HEMA or HMA club, to learn sport fencing as a precursor to Historical fencing. "The only true fencing is HEMA." I take issue with this. In fact, I'm pretty fucking sure that Tuareg martial arts provide far better martial value than HEMA. You know why? Because the Tuaregs still fight with swords to this day! Also, there are certain schools within FMA (mostly in eskrima but it also depends on the guro) that endeavour to teach historical fencing. I'm sure that there are other, non-European martial arts that value martial fencing and swordsmanship. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that it doesn't have value *(that's just like, your opinion man).* Admittedly, I don't really like sport fencing but I have to acknowledge that it has its value. Martial value isn't everything. We live in peaceful times. Learning to fight, maim, and kill is no longer important. The better angels of our nature have won to some tangible extent, and I for one hope that they continue to win. One more thing. Archery is ancient. Some theories suggest that archery was an important factor that contributed to the survival of humans during the later parts of the Quaternary Extinction Event. Humans could hunt smaller prey, other predators could not. Point is, we have reason to believe that archery is pretty fucking old. Not only that, it survives and continues to evolve. Apart from sewing, spear throwing, painting, sculpting and a few other things, it's one of the oldest memes that are still evolving in some way. I wouldn't hold my breath for spear throwing. Olympic javelin has started to plateau and even if atlatl becomes more popular, the limits of that technology are pretty tangible even at this moment. But archery still has so much potential. Sure you can invent many ways to stitch and embroider things for centuries, or even millenia to come, but I bet that it's never going to be as exciting as archery.
Michael Johansen Idk what those are lol... I do archery at school. We don’t wear any sort of protection. Only like 2 kids wear arm guards cause they really need it.
Michael Johansen my wife needs a chest guard that looks like a part of Richard 1st armour , with a pair of jugs like hers not wearing one would rip half her tit off !!!!
Compound bow is better for hunting sure but in a real 'world going to poo' survival situation repairing and maintaining a compound bow will be much more difficult. A take-down recurve bow would be a better bet in my opinion. Aside from that I think the modern stuff is very cool but I cant feel like a badass Robin Hood with something like that in my hands.
i agree but would you really need a bow in that situation or would a gun or knife be better? edit: i just realized that that means between the two bows
It's a good idea to have a bow along side of a gun if remaining unnoticed is essential. Also, reusing bow ammunition is easier than reloading cases in a bug-out scenario
@@johnomacian5586 Way easier to make arrows than bullets, it's relatively easy to make bows and arrows from found materials (I literally shoot with a 40lb bow made with PVC pipe, fiberglass rods and poly cord), and bows are much quieter. But modern guns are 10x more effective and much easier to be accurate with, especially at longer distances. Honestly you would want both in a end of the world sort of bug out scenario.
@@johnomacian5586 A job for every tool. There's several modern, real world military units that train with recurve bows. Sometimes the most effective or desirable weapon for a given scenario is not the most practical or easy to maintain.
I'll still romanticise my english longbow and instinctive/traditional shooting for it's simplicity and connection to my culture. but yeah, its nowhere near as effextive as modern equipment and tactics.
People tend to forget that the English Warbow was designed to be fired in massed volleys at large groups of targets and at faily long ranges. Accuracy was important, but it was a different kind of accuracy. The goal was to get an arrow into a fairly large area, say a 1.5m circle, where it would be bound to hit someone since you were firing at massed troops. These weren't flat trajectory shots, rather the arrow would strike the target from above. This type of shooting is still practiced in modern day Clout archery where arrows are scored based on how close they land in the ground to a target flag. Archers of the day used much lighter bows for hunting, where individual arrow placement was more important, generally 45-60# draws, the same as modern hunters. As for why the English longbow dominated the battlefield rather than the more technologically advanced crossbow...As the video explains, this has more to do with the English (or Welsh!) bowmen than it did with the bow itself. England could simply generate more trained archers at lower cost due to a deliberate cultural and economic base. The French produced better heavy cavalry than the English, due to their own cultural biases, unfortunately for them, Cavalry has always had certain weaknesses which the English were well placed to take advantage of. English Knights were much more willing to fight on foot than French knights, and this enabled them to work closely with archers in an early form of combined arms doctrine. The French would send crossbowmen ahead to 'soften' the English up, but then they just wanted a good old fashion cavalry charge...It was more a matter of tactics than technology.
Heavy cavarly was ALWAYS better to have than bowman or foot soldiers. Yes soldiers not knights. Knights were only using horses. What kind of a nobleman you are if you are not on your horse?
The English War Bows would hardly ever penetrate plate armor. They did penetrate mail and horses quite well though. Archers were used against cavalry to stop the momentum of the charge so that the billmen could close with the enemy more safely.
I'd be interested to get a source on the thing around arrows being fired in volley. Most depictions and texts I've seen show archers shooting flat not towards the sky. Additionally texts talk about archers aiming at a target. Keep in mind every arrow you fire has to be hand made and paid for. Additionally archers can only shoot a limited number at 180lbs before they tire so wasting tons in volley is not well thought out.
"Arrows cost money" EXACTLY! Or in my case it means I need to make a new arrow, I HATE ruining a well made arrow. I've reduced the number of arrows I shoot to 4 at a time so I don't destroy them as much.
It also makes for easier rapid fire without needing to hold multiple arrows in your hand. I'm trying to figure out if there is a sort of slight of hand technique that could still have the advantages of the reverse hand grip and right side position of the bow while still using the modernized left side of the bow. I like this because it is both a challenge and one could master doing accuracy and speed. As for survival techniques practice rigging up homemade bows and shooting them if that's your thing. What needs to be understood here is that these skillsets can transfer over into other things that you do. Things like card tricks, seeing long distance etc. There are advantages to doing more than just one thing in your life besides archery. Archery is cool to me precisely because it is harder and it provides skills that can transfer over to playing the guitar and improving / healing your eyesight by focusing on the target at a long distance without useing your glasses.
Indeed but for hunting you make brusk moves using a back quiver ,a good quiver is a side quiver ! imgur.com/Rv4xjOR Kwai Peter O. Stecher , target shooter :D
Since you brought it up, here is a Russian video on speed shooting using a back quiver, traditional bow, and arrow on the left, but with a unique draw. It's pretty neat: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1o9RGnujlkI.html
I started archery as a recurve archer and I lived and breathed it, despite having target panic from the start. After some time however, I got horrendously caught up in numbers and pbs and my coaches put more and more pressure on me to the point my already bad target panic became unbearable and I just snapped - I couldn’t do it anymore. I’d be standing facing the target, something that used to bring me joy, had reduced me to a shaking mess on the verge of tears and most of the time I’d end up crying in the clubhouse because I was so terrified of even hitting one 8 or 7. I’ve now moved to barebow and I entirely shoot instinctively and it’s the best thing I could’ve ever done. My love for archery has come back - I just hope one day I can get over my target panic and try recurve again, so I can see the appeal in instinctive shooting completely :)
What an awful coach! It is about progress not perfection. Every arrow that doesn't hit gets you closer to your goal of intuitive archery because you can adapt and it will happen less frequently.
Before I go out and shoot, or do some training with my pups I spend some time meditating on what I'll be working on that session. I learned to do this when I was training horses. It worked so well I expanded it into my daily life,which really improved, I deal with anxiety and PTSD from child abuse. EFT, Emotional Freedom Tapping also does wonders for anxiety and PTSD. I hope your doing better now. And just remember, relax, breath and enjoy
These videos are so correct and properly worded. I learn a lot from them as a novice hobby shooter. Meanwhile I enjoy them a lot, as a psychiatrist, as a “man of science”:) Very correct, describes the bigger picture, offers perspectives, whithout judgement and unnecessary emotional content and distorsion. This video can be used as a general example for describing something complex correctly, taking into account the human nature, the psychological laws working in the background. You teach and embody much more, than shooting skills.
Primitive Archery is NOT "better". That said, it is a different discipline, that simply appeals more to some people. For some of us. making our own bows and arrows are massively gratifying. Do I disdain the modern archer? Only when the modern archer tries to claim it was the epitome of their skill, instead of the many mechanical advantages given. The simple fact is, for hunting, for instance, a composite bow, with sights, mechanical release, etc, are simply EASIER to use. That does not mean that an archer using one cannot be immensely skilled. But there is a different mentality between almost ANY augmented vs unaugmented. I don't see the purpose of using a modern bow or inline blackpowder rifle. To me it is the historicity of a flint lock, or my compound bow, I simply feel a much higher sense of satisfaction to mastering them, then I do using their modern analogs... as TBH, if I want to maximize my efficacy... why would I use anything other than a modern, self-loading, scoped rifle? After all, that is the ULTIMATE destination of the "use technology to maximize your efficacy" IF we are being honest. Simply using a Bow or Black Powder rifle of any sort, at the end of the day, is about sentiment and romanticizing an obsolete discipline. That said, do I take issue with practitioners of these other disciplines? Not at all. Simply be honest (whether a primitive, traditional, Instinctive or modern target or hunting archer, or firearm user) about what it means.
killerpeaches7 When someone with a recurve and someone with a compound shoot together, and achieve similar levels of success, you can immediately tell who’s more skilled.
In the future people with automatet aiming mechanisms in their weapons will tell everyone else that they just want to be cool by not choosing the most efficient tool available while sitting back and eating nachos.
Started with gap shooting, moved onto compound. Enjoy both. At the end of the day, how you get your zen, and form is up to you, and who cares, as long as you enjoy. I would love one day to try the Japanese form, just for a day even. Mounted archery isn’t for the size of me, I wouldn’t want to inflict that on any horse. Came late to the game, but love the mental escape it brings. Especially now.
I’m an English Canadian, so brought up with a love of longbows, and two fingers to the French. Live in the Rockies, where compound is king, but archery is practised more, in most forms.
There's one objective advantage to shooting instinctive with a traditional bow and that is the price. I've only been shooting for a year but I wouldn't have been able to afford a modern recurve with a sight and stabilizers. So I would say that the very least it's a good style/class to get more people into archery as those with limited funds can also get started.
While I wouldn't begrudge anyone who does the setup for sights and stuff it just never appealed to me. I'm not trying to get super accurate I just want to shoot a bow. Using compound, adding sights, stabilizers, and button release all feel more like using a gun or something which just never was a draw for me. Definitely see why people do for accuracy and if I was hunting I absolutely would. But that's very unlikely.
I would rather have my arrows in a tight grouping, wherever I want on the target not necessarily the bullseye. Our target's center is not there anymore.
I just got my first Quiver in the mail today it is a back Quiver and I love it! I am living my inner Katniss Everdeen thank you very much. also I love most of your videos.
Absolutely nothing wrong with back quivers. If they're good enough for Byron Ferguson, Howard Hill, Ron LaClair, or Fred Bear, they're good enough for me. And yes they are cool :)
As an older man whom is seriously considering archery, traditional archery is fascinating to me. But I must say for myself I am leaning towards a modern recurve or takedown bow to start with. Thanks for your time and information.
Ah... Strafing or multi-firing. I only see it on games and movies (by movies, I mean a set up situations, like exhibition on youtube videos). Physics wise, it decrease the power each arrow will carry. Aiming wise, it will hard to aim precisely because usually, strafing done in parallel forms instead of all arrows grouped in the middle. With that positioning, shooting lines are harder to perceive. So in general, it is not that practical.
I am a traditional archer who uses a stick and a string and have had lots of people call me “cool” because I don’t use all the latest gizmos. Speed shooting is freakin cool because it is very hard to do well and very few people do it well. Higher poundage is freakin cool because it is harder to do than with a puny 30# bow. It is also much more useful if you want to hunt with your bow. Instinctive shooting is freakin cool because it is basically an art form. It takes dedication, skill, and patience. It is much more satisfying than a compound bow or a modern recurve with sights, rests and weights. Ok, you got me on the longbow. Recurves are just better. I hate anything on my fingers when I’m shooting. Calluses. Have you heard of them? Back-quivers are overrated.
You mean like on Nusensai's video on buying your 1st bow I stupidity bragged about my homemade pvc bow? So glad (thanks to his video's) that I saved up and bought a real bow.
I am a longbow archer at my local club. We're 3 bare/longbow archers in a larger group of people who use modern bows. It's just always cute to see them asking if they could shoot with our equipment for a few arrows. Same goes vice versa. Sometimes we ask them if we could shoot with their equipment when they got a cool new gadget. It's a really nice feel to hold a more designed for precision bow and take a shot or two with it :D
Oh I can relate to that. While I'm not in a club I often go to 3d Parcours with friends who have modern recurve bows from high tech materials worth $ 1000++ with weights and dampeners and feth knows what while I'm just standing there with a long wooden stick... 🤣 And nothing is more satisfying than hitting better than them while doing "everything wrong" because "you don't shoot like that!" 🤣🤣
I've done archery in the past before, and frankly just in my personal opinion, anything other than traditional seems a little pointless to me. I'm not interested in the modern technology, I'm not hunting, this isn't for survival. If it were for hunting or survival and modern technology was employed, I'd probably opt for one of my rifles instead. I'm more interested in archery for the historical appeal, this was the height of technology for most of human history, and it's fun to dabble in it. Once again, just my opinion.
This is exactly the point ^^ I think Archery should be thought of like a combat sport, speed is important and the targets should move. Hell if they can fire safe projectiles back at you that would be even cooler.
The cool thing about the modern technology is accuracy. It’s like comparing an iron sighted, sporter stock/barreled 30/06 vs a custom tactical rifle with ergonomic stock, target barrel, and tactical clear as anything optic. You can hit big targets much further away, or aim at really small targets closer in. Or put it this way. We each put $1000 on the table. 6” target 60yds away. I’ll shoot my modern compound, and you can have your historical bow. Closest to the center takes the cash. And that may be a bit dramatic an example, but the reality is that there are tournaments for archery, shot with modern gear, that pay very well if you make the podium. But the great thing is that there are some many ways to enjoy archery. You can go traditional if that’s your thing. You can shoot modern compound with sights, stabilizers, releases, etc. and anything in between.
the bullseye one. I used to think it was crazy but after about 6 months of shooting I can hit only bullseyes, so even after going for further distance and still hitting, I tried something different. I started making my own targets, and spreading them out, so when I hit one bullseye that targets locked out and I have to switch to another, or I put dots on the outside edges of my targets and try to pin all 4 corners, or some targets have no bullseyes at all, I do these ones that are multi-colored dots (like that game twister) and I call out a color and am only allowed to hit that color, so then I try to clear them all going from right to left, top to bottom. I find it actually adds difficulty switching between targets rather than aiming at one spot all day.
I hear you. Hitting a different target every time is a much more practical skill than shooting at the same target with all the arrows. Historically and practically the first arrow is what counts. You don't get a second arrow after a miss when hunting, or in combat back in the days, your target wouldn't stantdstill and let you take multiple shots. What I would like to see in a competition is where you don't know the distance or absolute direction before hand, but instead get spread out popup targets where you have a limited time to shoot. This form would show who is actually the best archer.
My favorite moment was at a national tournament when my arrow collided with the arrow next to me. Thankfully, my bow was stronger and more stable and I nicked the others arrow into a 9 over a 10 and won the round.
A few months ago, I was invited from the introductory archery class (well, a couple decades since I used a fiberglass recurve) onto the Paralympic team (oh did I forget to mention a new challenge). With limited funds, I needed to strategize my purchases. So first up was arrows. I won’t be shy to mention it’s been a long standing joke that I have “monkey arms” (less than a hand length from touching my knees without bending). Purely pragmatic because only six of the teams’ arrows stay on the rest at an anchor point that comes to my face and it sucks not to be able to fire a full set because one of the introductory archers grabbed the wrong arrow. Second, round I bought most of the non-bow accessories (arm guard, tab, glove, & a new set of points to experiment with changing FOC from 10-12.5%). I only finally got to purchase my first bow today (Galaxy Crescent, #28 bronze limbs), and I have to wait to afford the plunger and sight. I want to go back to those 2nd round purchases in just a moment. NUSensei, you were mentioning “instinctive shooting”. I come from doing Firearm marksmanship. I’m used to taking my time and relaxing down to my aim (Set, exhale, rhythm, feel the float, fire with the float). While making those 2nd round purchases (and being grateful a friend contributed $50), I asked the salesman what else I most critically needed now (knowing I don’t have a bow) to which he replied clicker. I wasn’t expecting that since he knew I was trying to save for a bow still. I told him for now, I’ll have to leave that as something to borrow from the team, but I wanted more information on how it was used properly since I had researched what it was, but not seen instructions. 📝: the Salesman is a lifelong archer and son of an Olympic Gold Medalist. It seems clickers can be a few introductions videos in themselves. I started thinking the arrow was almost completely drawn then the archer got close to their X, drew a bit more for the clicker to fall off and signal proper draw length (anchor verified), final aim was confirmed, and released. What got described to me was that the archer would use a slower draw, WHILE timing their aim toward the center and the clicker snapping to signal them to release the arrow just prior to passing through the X. Okay, maybe this should only be called semi-instinctual, but I was clearly warned never to stop drawing before releasing. 🤯 I left considering giving up archery because there is a very real chance that some of my medical issues interfere with producing a smooth form. I struggle to keep a consistent form, and great at putting my bow down if it’s not right, but trying to choreograph that into a smooth dance is too much to ask. I don’t want to waste my teammates time and resources taking up a spot on their Paralympic team if I’m not going to be able to plausibly train for an actual Paralympic game. I can move aside to a lower competitive level appropriate to my limitations. Thanks for any advice or input, NUSensei
As a competitive shooter first, hunter 2nd, and keeping in mind I face physical and neurological health issues, should I take his advice that I need to learn to be an instinct shooter to become a Olympic goaled competitor? or just accept that I may only be best in club or amateur competitions, keep it recreational?
You don't need to learn instinctive shooting to compete at Olympic or Paralympic level. Instinctive shooting is an entirely different style and doesn't promote growth in other styles. As for whether you want to compete at higher levels, that's entirely up to what you think you reasonably commit to. Success doesn't come without sacrifice, and for archer, that means hours each day training. Any less, and you won't make the cut. If that is your goal, do it. If it isn't what gives you the excitement for archery, don't. Do what you're comfortable with and enjoy.
he's right in some ways.. and totally wrong when it comes to the art of longbow men.. Our objective is not a bulls eye. But I can hit a man size target at 100 yards distance on a regular basis.. and thats exactly what we train to do.
There is one advantage to shoot high poundage bow. In windy condition it is less prone to wind drift. Both because it has more power and because it has to travel less curvature thus lower in the air where wind is slower than few feet higher. It has many disadvantages though. Require higher quality equipment, better form and allows less aiming time.
My bow making teachers, teacher Mike Berryhill when he got older in his years made himself a 14lb Osage bow with appropriately spinned arrows. He could still hit 90 yard corn stalk shoot targets. When he was younger he took his now and a single arrow and fired it repeatedly through a banner eyelet because some boasters were bashing inaccuracy of traditional archery.
I'm a traditional archer myself and I do find it more enjoyable than a modern recurve (even when shooting barebow) I can't see myself shooting olympic style recurve but I understand why people would enjoy it and i even like watching it myself but in the end it's just personal preference.
I personally think it's the difference between a philosopher's viewpoint vs a scientist's viewpoint. As far as the compound or Olympics archery style is I must hit the bullseye from 90m vs the wouldn't it be cool to hit the target at 90m
Traditional bow just looks much better and more elegant which is really important for relax shooting. Modern sport bows are really ugly. You can shoot with that, but it's ugly so you know....
I do appreciate the English Longbow, because it proved to be easily as effective as the early versions of muskets (in comparison, shortbows proved less efficient), when considering stopping power, of course. Bows will be more stealthy, and had a much higher rate of fire. Also, I appreciate the simplicity; it is, indeed, just a crafted stick and a string. But it can (in the right hands, of course) fling arrows consistently over distance and deliver them on target...
There’s one more great thing about historical/traditional archery that is a big draw. LARP. Live Action Role Playing. If I want to pretend I’m in a medieval fantasy war, I sure as heck don’t want a set of modern equipment. Totally ruins the emersion.
i've never cared about bulls eyes. just the canisters on those infected machines. take out a machine, grab some shards, buy some new clothes, override a broadhead. that's a day well spent.
Another thing newbs think is cool but really isn't cool at all: Compare a generalist style/setup (primitive/instinctive/"warbow" shooting) with a min/maxed style/setup (modern Olympic-style archery), and intentionally removing the latter from its intended context. You're not proving which is "moar bettur". You're just being deliberately disingenuous.
Thank you, I'm just getting into archery as I find it is a lot of fun and satisfying to see target hit. The same idea of desensitise goes to everything, I ride motorbike a lots and find it normal for bikes to just stand up on its own without rider input, you only need input when you are turning or changing direction, it became instinct to just hold the bars, not grabbing it.
bored of hitting the bulls eye? take up free range field archery .I bought my present bow,(Indian Archery Bighorn#50)in the 70's when i was in my late teens. I had ideas for bow hunting(never happened) This idea meant i had to have a MINIMUM 50lb bow to hunt. Geez it was hard. I grew used to it, Became an instinctive archer because i could NOT hold the bow at full draw for more than a few seconds. Taday? i'm in my mid 60's and still use that bow today. I am a traditional bare bow archer who learned to shoot by instinctively. I have made my own long bow too.
Just a point at 13:00 It was Welsh archers who mostly killed the Frenchies with the Longbow at Creche and Agincourt :P Edit: Oh, you did give us a shout out straight after, my bad
English mostly. 4/6 of them were English archers at Crecy. After the Welsh rebellion, the welsh were not really welcome in the army. So even less welsh bowmen at Agincourt.
Actually not many were killed during the battle of Agincourt. Most French knights were wounded or captured. Even with the impressive power of the bows they still couldn't pierce through plate.
Bah, the English didn't steal the longbow from the Welsh, at least not anymore than they stole it from the Norse. Pretty much everyone around northern and western Europe had been using yew and elm self bows of about 6 feet in length from long before the Medieval period. What the English did was build their culture around it, and treat their bowmen and billmen as useful assets in battle (unlike the French, who considered peasants almost useless in battle, sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy). It was a very defensive form of warfare, involving establishing a line and holding it, but worked quite well with dismounted men-at-arms, stakes in front of the archers, and an enemy who preferentially attacked noblemen over peasants. Certain other cultures did similar things with horse archery, and experienced comparable success in many cases (the Mongols being the most well known and successful example of this).
i like your videos but there's not many things cooler than someone like Ron LaClair instinctively shooting an aspirin out of the air with a heavy wooden longbow and a back quiver, and I say this as someone who's been shooting bows for over 30 years. Also going by your standards of practicality, why not shoot compound bows with sights and so forth? It comes off as inconsistent.
I luv traditional bows, afraid I can't like compounds. I've always been interested in instinctive shooting. I saw a friend shoot a flying sparrow out of the air with a .22 pistol. I myself shot a running rabbit at 50 yards, snap shot, .22 single shot rifle. There are people who can hit thrown aspirins in the air with a BB gun, there is no conscious aiming, and no time to aim. Very interesting!
If people want to focus on endless Olympic style archery that's fine, but personally I can't see any point in it. We evolved to shoot instinctively in hunting and combat situations, that's where archery would actually be useful. Shooting at targets close up, seems pointless to me.
Literally unironically do the stupid bowl of water thing from arrow (fill a bowl full of water, alternate hands as you slap bowl until its empty, fill, repeat.) Its stupid and you look like an idiot, but after two weeks of doing that for two hours a day, I've actually built up a lot of arm and upper body strength.
@@vivecthepoet36 so here's something funny... 2 years is a long time right and since posting this comment I've bought grip trainers, a pull up bar and other thing so noodle arms ain't a thing anymore and more importantly I've fallen out of favour with archery as I found the thing I enjoyed wasnt the archery but just talking to the people there so I just quit.
Actually for me personally the biggest disappointment came with the sound of the released arrow itself. I hoped it would have sounded like in the Lord of The Rings :P
Regarding instinctive shooting, I only shoot instinctively. Reason being is that I don't like having all the gadgets get in my way. And also, I'm too frugal to actually get sights. Although we call it instinctive shooting, there are techniques that can be utilized to assist aiming. One of which is gap shooting which you measure the gap between your arrow tip and your target when you draw. Another is string walking (or something like that) where you position the arrow nock higher or lower on it's nocking point to shoot farther or closer. It only becomes instinctive when you do these technique without thinking about it. When you start feeling the shot without thinking and being technical is when it becomes instinctive. Even with these techniques, an archer with sights will still shoot more accurate. But still. modern archery isn't as easy as it looks. When I tried it, I sucked. The hard part about modern archery is the form. You have to keep your form, focus on the target, remember to aim, don't draw too far, use the sights and release correctly... even then with enough practice, this is soon to become "instinctive". There's a technique to all shooting styles.
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain all these different things about archery. I find your videos very informative, not only from a technical point of view, but also the mindset. I’m thinking of getting into archery and this helps me tremendously in making informed decisions about all the different aspects of this sport.
I disagree on number 5. Being able to shoot at different distances without sights effectively is a skill, you can get better at it. Most of the time, if you ask someone to remove their sight, people who have relied on it, will miss. They have not developed that skill of perception. Vice versa, the effect is diminished. The sightless shooter may be slightly inconvenienced by the presence of a sight obscuring their vision of the target somewhat, but they'll not shoot as erratically as the sight reliant archer without his or her sight. In this regard, sights are like bicycle training wheels. They mitigate and cap the ability of the archer to learn to perceive distance effectively. I could never justify buying one, when using it enslaves you to it so.
The only reason your scenario would run true (removing sights) is because the archer hasn''t practised without a sight. The reverse is also true: put a sight onto a barebow and the shooter will struggle to adapt. Both shooters will require time to adjust. With practice, a barebow shooter might expect to be more consistent with a sight, though a sighted shooter shouldn't expect their previous consistency without one. Distance perception is different from using sights. Sights don't indicate distance, and you need to know the distance to set your sight correctly, just as a barebow shooter needs to visualse the correct gap or use the correct anchor point for that distance. The deterioration in depth perception is more to do with shooting marked distances rather than unmarked field targets.
Sure a fully rigged Olympic styled bow can be more consistently accurate than a trad bow and a compound will make both look stupid. But 2 points if you wants to be consistently accurate and believe in all things modern then shoot with a compound. And secondly a trad shooter isn’t competing against a Olympic recurve shooter as an olympic scooter isn’t competing against a compound shooter. We compete in our class so accuracy is relative to the class. Also poundage loosely equates to power and a better trajectory. The problem with high poundage is its hard to let loose a 100 or so arrow in a comp without getting exhausted. Lighter poundage is better for comps as you’ll have better form for longer and not get exhausted.
My favourite bow is an "Indian Archery" 50#"Bighorn" composite recurve.I bought it in my late teens,i still use it today,I'm now 64.Before that,i had a 50# sandvik Steel bow.I like traditional archery.I have also made a self bow and have started to use that too.Bow strength? my bows were always 50 pounders,because i had ideas of bow hunting.I find 45pounders more comfortable to use,anything lighter and i am hopeless. I use "instinctive" archery because i can't hold back the bow long enough to "sight".It's lift/draw aim fire.ONE movement.Compound bows leave me cold! Alluminium risers fibreglass limbs pullies and strings everywhere.Urgh,LOL i can see their use though.
One of the cool things I always did was shoot at a target as far as I can. I'd shoot a target over 100 yrds barebow just to see if I could hit my target (sometimes I did but rarely). But after a while, it really isn't that cool because 1.) you miss a lot of the time. 2.) It wasn't as practical as it seems. and 3.) You really screw up your form and forget to shoot correctly after a while if that wasn't the range you were comfortable at. My comfortable normal shooting range was about 25 yrds max for instinctive shooting.
i chose a recurve bow cause it was easier to handle, and i enjoy shooting it more than my longbow, the longbow isnt as comfortable to me, though the grip is better on the longbow, i can actually hit things with my recurve, granted the weights are different, the recurve just feels better to me so i enjoy it more, eventually i hope to be a respectable shot, i dont have to be the next robin hood, but i at the very least have good control over where the arrow goes, archery to me is fun and relaxing, whether im good or not, i enjoy it all the same
on the hunting argument nusensei brought up i just want to had the caviat of darkness. if hunting at night instictive is better. just playing devil's advocate, but yeah Nu is right as usual
I have a counterpoint, I don't think ancient and medieval archers would necessarily choose newer bows over old. Military men are innately conservative and prefer to stick to the tried and true. Swapping a Longbow that has seen them through a campaign where they genuinely feared for their life, for an equivalent ability modern bow would likely be seen as pointlessly disadvantaging yourself with a new technology to learn before heading back into the same conditions the longbow you have used since you were a boy has seen you through. One real life example to back this up is the attitude of many British NCOs in WW2, who often preferred to stick with their Lee Enfield Rifle over the Thompson Machine Carbine or the later Sten. When your life is on the line a new weapon that hasn't been proven to be better is a big gamble.
Totally agree. I must say the sten gun was the cheapest and simplest light machine gun we invented, initially just for the French and Dutch resistance. It was also the most unreliable. For those who get bored with modern laser pointed target shooting (yawn), traditional combat archery training is more exciting. Moving and shooting from all manner of positions. Archers rarely stood still in battle conditions and had to shoot instinctively but accurately very quickly, including shooting back enemy arrows. They didn't have the luxury of perfectly weighted arrows for their bows, they used village made mass produced arrows that were issued by their leige when going to war.
For me since I grew up on a farm and that's where I shoot I find shooting close up and hitting the centre is ok but shooting from a distance and watching your arrows drop a little or a lot onto the target is much more gratifying.
NUSensei always puts forward a well argued and logical view on archery and, as a relatively new archer, I have gained much insight from these videos. Thanks and keep posting them.
Personally, my reason for choosing a traditional bow style, a recurve, was that I liked the aesthetic and simplicity of it. Fewer things to go wrong. Had nothing to do with "being cool". In fact, probably the only person who has seen me shoot my bow is my wife.
I fully agree. It is more fun to hit closer to target center, even at a slower pace. That's why I have gone to the hybrid compound, the "SAS" seige 55# bow. With minimum practice I have increased accuracy by approx 20%.
"But in the end, the English longbow is a stick and a string." :-D On top of being insanely informative, every vid has at least one line that's utterly hilarious. Best archery content on RU-vid!
Here’s the coolest thing, *camping on a tower to anger noobs* Also bow spamming (speed shooting) is my favorite kind of shooting... because it again *anger noobs* And using longbows... because again... as I said *anger noobs* Pay close attention to the anger noobs parts and realize they are all stacked. That’s cause I like to *anger noobs* 😂 The problem with modern things is they aren’t biodegradable which creates a disconnect from nature, this causes a disgust for modern objects, that’s how I see it at least.
What is drawing me into archery is my love of medieval stuff - so traditional bows, and my love for training - high poundage bows. Guess I´m not that cool :(
He's operating on the assumption that every archer only cares about hitting the bullseye of a stationary target. It's dishonest and quite frankly a bit disappointing.
