The theory and practice of archery

by Horace A. Ford; W. Butt

The handle of the bow, which in size should be regulated to the grasp of each archer, should be in such a position that the upper part of it may be from an inch to an inch and a quarter above the true centre of the bow, or the point in the handle whereon the bow will balance. If this centre be lower down in the handle, as is usual in bows of Scotch manufacture, the cast of the bow may be somewhat improved, but at the cost of a tendency to that unpleasant feeling of kicking and jarring in the hand. Again, if the true centre be higher, or, as is the case in the old unaltered Flemish bows, at the point where the arrow lies on the hand, the cast will be found to suffer disadvantageously. If the handle be properly grasped (inattention to which will endanger the bow's being pulled out of shape), the fulcrum, in drawing, will be about the true balancing centre, and the root of the thumb will be placed thereon. Considering a bow to consist of three members—a handle and two limbs—the upper limb, being somewhat longer, must of necessity bend a trifle more, and this it should do. The most usual covering for the handle is plush; but woollen binding-cloth, leather, and india-rubber are also in constant use.

The piece of mother-of-pearl, ivory, or other hard substance usually inserted in the handle of the bow, at the point where the arrow lies, is intended to prevent the wearing away of the bow by the friction of the arrow; but this precaution overreaches itself, as in the course of an unusually long life the most hard-working bow will scarcely lose as much by this friction as must, to start with, be cut away for this insertion.

The length of the bow, which is calculated from nock to nock—and this length will vary a little from the actual length, according as it may be said to hold itself upright or stoop, i.e. follow the string—should be regulated by its strength and the length of the arrow to be used with it. It may be taken as a safe rule that the stronger the bow the greater its length should be; and so also the longer the arrow the longer should be the bow. For those who use arrows of the usual length of from 27 to 28 inches, with bows of the strength of from 45 lbs. to 55 lbs., a useful and safe length will be not less than 5 ft. 10 in. If this length of arrow or weight of bow be increased or diminished, the length of bow may be proportionally increased or diminished, taking as the two extremes 5 ft. 8 in. and 6 feet. No bow need be much outside either of these measurements. It may be admitted that a short bow will cast somewhat farther than a longer one of the same weight, but this extra cast can only be gained by a greater risk of breakage. As bows are usually weighed and marked by the bowmakers for a 28-inch arrow fully drawn up, a greater or less pull will take more or less out of them, and the archer's calculations must be made accordingly.

To increase or diminish the power of a bow, it is usual to shorten it in the former case, and to reduce the bulk in the latter; but to shorten a bow will probably shorten its life too, and mayhap spoil it, unless it be certain that it is superfluously long or sufficiently strong in the handle. On the other hand, to reduce a bow judiciously, if it need to be weaker, can do it no harm; but the reduction should not be carried quite up to the handle. It is a good plan to choose a bow by quality, regardless of strength, and have the best bow that can be procured reduced to the strength suitable. In all cases the horns should be well and truly set on, and the nocks should be of sufficient bulk to enclose safely the extremities of the limbs of the bow running up into them, and the edges of the nocks should be made most carefully smooth. If the edge of the nock be sharp and rough, the string must be frayed, and in consequence break sooner or later, and endanger the safety of the bow. The lower nock is not unfrequently put on or manufactured a trifle sideways as to its groove on the belly side. This is done with a view to compensate the irregularity of the loop: but this is a mistake, as it is quite unnecessary in the case of a loop, and must be liable to put the string out of position when there is a second eye to the string—and this second eye every archer who pays due regard to the preservation of his bows and strings should be most anxious to adopt as soon as possible.

From all that can be learned respecting the backed bow, it would appear that its use was not adopted in this country until archery was in its last stage of decline as a weapon of war, when, the bow degenerating into an instrument of amusement, the laws relating to the importation of yew staves from foreign countries were evaded, and the supply consequently ceased. It was then that the bowyers hit upon the plan of uniting a tough to an elastic wood, and so managed to make a very efficient weapon out of very inferior materials. This cannot fairly be claimed as an invention of the English bowyers, but is an adaptation of the plan which had long been in use amongst the Turks, Persians, Tartars, Chinese, and many other nations, including Laplanders, whose bows were made of two pieces of wood united with isinglass. As far as regards the English backed bow (this child of necessity), the end of the sixteenth century is given as the period of its introduction, and the Kensals of Manchester are named as the first makers—bows of whose make may be still in existence and use—and these were generally made of yew backed with hickory or wych-elm. At the time of the revival of archery—at the close of the last century, and again fifty years ago—all backed bows were held in great contempt by any that could afford self-yews, and were always slightingly spoken of as 'tea-caddy' bows; meaning that they were made of materials fit for nothing but ornamental joinery, Tunbridge ware, &c.

The backed bows of the present day are made of two or more strips of the same or different woods securely glued, and compressed together as firmly as possible, in frames fitted with powerful screws, which frames are capable of being set to any shape. Various woods are used, most of which, though of different quality, make serviceable bows. For the backs we have the sap of yew, hickory, American, Canadian, or wych-elm, hornbeam, &c.; and for the bellies, yew, lance, fustic, snake, Washaba, and letter-wood, which is the straight grained part of snake, and some others. Of all these combinations Mr. Ford gave the strongest preference to bows of yew backed with yew. These he considered the only possible rivals of the self-yew. Next in rank he classed bows of yew backed with hickory. Bows made of lance backed with hickory, when the woods used are well seasoned and of choice quality, are very steady and trustworthy, but not silky and pleasant in drawing like bows made of yew. One advantage of this combination of bow is that both these woods can be had of sufficient length to avoid the trouble in making and insecurity in use of the joint in the handle. Of bows into which more than two woods are introduced, the combination of yew for the belly, fustic or other good hard wood for the centre, and hickory for the back cannot well be improved upon, and such bows have been credited with excellent scores. There is also a three-wooded modification of the lance and hickory bow. In this a tapering strip of hard wood is introduced between the back and belly; this strip passes through the handle and disappears at about a foot from the horn in each limb. The lancewood bows are the cheapest, and next to these follow the lance-and-hickory bows, and then those of the description last mentioned. On this account beginners who do not wish to go to much expense whilst they are, as it were, testing their capacity for the successful prosecution of this sport, would do well to make a start with a bow of one or other of these descriptions. It will often be useful to lend to another beginner, or to a friend, to whom it might not be wise to lend a more valuable bow; or it may even be of use to the owner at a pinch. Bows have often been made of many more than three pieces; but nothing is gained by further complications, unless it be necessary in the way of repair.

Next in importance to the consideration of the material of which backed bows should be made comes the treatment of their shape. Judging from such specimens of backed bows, made by Waring and others, before the publication of Mr. H. A. Ford's articles on archery in the 'Field,' as have survived to the present day, and whose survival may be chiefly attributed to the fact that they were so utterly harsh and disagreeable in use that it was but little use they ever got, the author was probably right in saying that they all bent in the handle more or less when drawn, and were too much reflexed. There is but little doubt that—as the joint in the handle, necessitating extra bulk and strength, could be dispensed with in these bows—the makers considered it an excellent opportunity to give their goods what (however erroneously) was then considered the best shape (when drawn), namely, the perfect arc; and this harmonious shape they obtained most successfully by making the bows comparatively weak in the handle and unnecessarily strong towards the horns; with the result that these 'tea-caddy bows' met the contemptuous fate they well deserved. Modern archers have to be thankful to Mr. Ford for the vast improvement in backed bows (even more than in the case of self-bows), which are now perfectly steady in hand, and taper gradually, and as much as is compatible with the safety of the limbs, and this in spite of their being still made somewhat more reflex when new than appears necessary in the manufacture of self-yew bows. Yet Mr. Ford was perfectly right to condemn all reflexity that does not result in a bow becoming either straight or somewhat to follow the string after it has been in use sufficiently long for its necessary training to its owner's style. The first quality of a bow is steadiness. Now this quality is put in peril either by a want of exact balance between the two limbs—when the recoil of one limb is quicker than that of the other—or by undue reflexity. These causes of unsteadiness occur in self-bows as well as in backed bows, and are felt in the shape of a jar or kick in the hand when loosed. This unsteadiness from want of balance in the limbs may be cured by a visit of the bow to the maker for such fresh tillering (as it is called) as will correct the fault of one or other limb. If the unsteadiness arise from excessive reflexity, which cannot be reduced by use, a further tapering of the limbs must be adopted. No bow of any sort that cannot be completely cured of kicking should be kept, as no steady shooting can be expected from such a bow. A bow that is much reflexed will be more liable to chrysals and splinters, as the belly has to be more compressed and the back more strained than in a bow of proper shape; also, such a bow is much more destructive to strings, as a greater strain is put upon the strings by the recoil of the limbs than is the case with a bow that follows the string or bends inwards naturally. It is the uneven or excessive strain upon the string after the discharge of the arrow that causes the kicking of the bow.

When the question arises, 'Which is the best sort of bow?' it is found that the solution has only been rendered more complicated since 1859 by the great improvement in the manufacture of various sorts of backed bows: as the following remarks, then applied to the comparison between the self-yew and the yew-backed yew only, must now be extended to all the best specimens of backed bows of different sorts. The advocates of the self-yew affirm that good specimens of their pet weapon are the sweetest in use, the steadiest in hand, the most certain in cast, and the most beautiful to the eye; and in all these points, with the exception of certainty of cast, they are borne out by the fact. This being the state of the case, how is it, then, that a doubt can still remain as to which it is most profitable for an archer to use? Here are three out of four points (two of which are most important) in which it is admitted that the self-yew is superior; and yet, after much practical and experimental testing of all sorts, it must be left to the taste and judgment of each man to decide for himself. The fact undoubtedly is, that the self-yew is the most perfect weapon. But it is equally an undoubted fact that it requires more delicate handling; since, its cast lying very much in the last three or four inches of its pull, any variation in this respect, or difference in quickness or otherwise of loose, varies the elevation of the arrow to a much greater extent than the same variation of pull or loose in the others, whose cast is more uniform throughout. Now, were a man perfect in his physical powers, or always in first-rate shooting condition, there would be no doubt as to which bow he should use, as he would in this case be able to attain to the difficult nicety required in the management of the self-yew; but as this constant perfection never can be maintained, the superior merits of this bow are partially counteracted by the extreme difficulty of doing justice to them; and the degree of harshness of pull and unsteadiness in hand of the others being but trifling, the greater certainty with which they accomplish the elevation counterbalances, upon average results, their inferiority in other respects. Another advantage the self-yew possesses is, that it is not so liable to injury from damp as are the backed bows; but then the latter are much less costly, and, with common care, need cause no fear of harm from damp, as an inch of lapping at either end covering the junction with the horns will preserve them from this danger. As regards chrysals, and breakage from other causes than damp, bows of all sorts of wood are about equally liable to failure. The main results of the comparison, then, resolve themselves into these two prominent features: namely, that the self-yew bow, from its steadiness, sweetness, and absence of vibration, ensures the straightness of the shot better than backed bows; whilst the latter, owing to the regularity of their cast not being confined quite to a hair's breadth of pull, carry off the palm for greater certainty in the elevation of the shot.

It is almost unnecessary to say that there are bad bows of all sorts, many being made of materials that are fit for nothing but firewood; and yet the bowmakers seem to be almost justified in making up such materials by the fact that occasionally the most ungainly bow will prove itself almost invaluable in use, while a perfect beauty in appearance may turn out a useless slug.

Though it may be no easy matter to decide which particular sort of bow an individual archer should adopt, yet, when that individual has once ascertained the description of bow that appears to suit him best, he will be wise to confine his attention to that same sort in his future acquisition of bows. An archer who shoots much will find his bowmaker's account a serious annual matter if he keep none but the best self-yew bows; and therefore any who find it necessary to count the cost of this sport should do their best to adapt themselves to the cheaper though not much inferior backed bows. This also may be further said of the difference between self-yews and backed bows—namely, that there appears to be a sort of individuality attached to each self-yew bow, apart from the peculiarities of its class, which makes it difficult (not regarding the cost) to remedy the loss of a favourite self-yew bow. It is very much easier to replace any specimen of the other sorts of bows, as there is much less variation of character in each class.