http://youtu.be/O39t7jmZgW4?t=37s

Quote:

Mythbuster's clip of them firing a minigun at a barrel for a shooting fish in a barrel segment.

NaturalHazard wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 7:18pm:


Agreed. Although, I thought the computer voice narrator was annoying.

Quote:

Not really. I'd like to know what a 20lb twig can do that's worth a damn that a longbow can't. Sure, it shoots fast.. but I don't see a practical use for it.

In what context?

Sticking to the context here: He's using a 20lb bow. I don't see what that would do to any half armed army at any point in time. Some decent leather would render him almost useless.

Yes, I would compare a handgun to a rifle. One is situationally better than the other.

But for the purpose of a shortbow versus a longbow, please. Tell me when the shortbow is more effective.

[some shit] wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 8:34am:



Longbow: For using a longbow effectively, you need a very long training, something like 6 years.
Self bow / short bow: you can use it after 2 weeks training. You are not expectet to hit targets at 100 meters.

In the jungle or riding a horse, a Longbow is very difficult to use.
A short bow uses lighter arrows so the impact force will be smaller as from a longbow...but again...the longbow guy must be trained.
I had a 20 pound short bow. At 20-50 meters it is deadly. No fucking leahter armor will stop it, believe me. Arrow heads are very sharp, they will penetrate the leather armor. Several layers of wool and leather, or paper armor may stop any arrow, even from a long bow. The long bow arrow could have enough kinetic energy to throw you from the horse.
In History, self bows or short bows have been used very often agains poorly armored enemies, then they are very effective. You may reload very fast, you can hide, peep out of your hiding and shoot an arrow. Impossible with the long bow.
And so on..

If I am in a wood or in a city, with a team agains several enemies, I would rather use a short bow.
If I have to fight agains charging heavy cavalry, yes, please, give me a long bow. But I will use it very very poorly

[some shit] wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 9:30am:


First, for not getting into "name trouble" let´s  say the 20lb is a "selfbow", and not a shortbow (so, no, I am not talking about the mongol bow. Mongol bows were awesome, but also quite impossible to use as the guy here is using the selfbow)

For using a selfbow well it requires years of training, for using it good enough, two week should be ok. You really don´t need to have such a good grip, it is just fucking 20lbs. I was 12-14 years old, and after a bit of self learning I could hit a target at 20 meters. 50 meters is my guess for maximum range for killing somebody. Maybe not, okay, I don´t know either. But 20-30 meters anytime.
For using a longbow well enough...well, I am not sure. You are suppoused to hit something at a long range, so I guess you need very long.

Anyway, for that what the guy is doing in the video, you need a small light bow. For a bigger / stronger bow you would have to train (very) disproportionaly more.

raybob wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 4:53pm:

It's true and false.  It by it's self is not enough to knock someone down.  Because of Newton if it was it would knockdown the shooter as well.

That said the impact would likely knockdown a rider because of the balance needed to ride a moving horse,  a good blow even if it didn't penetrate armor to cause actual injury could throw a rider off balance enough to fall.

So true and false at the same time.

Quote:


You should listen to Azog, he is 100% right. It's the diffrence between a Sniper Rifle and an Mp5. Quite literally, that's difference. No one busts into a compound with a sniper rifle, nor do you fire it moving. Just like a Long bow.

Stop being choads.

[some shit] wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 8:51pm:


At 20-30 meters a 20lb would kill you. At 50 I agree it would maybe just hurt you.
Native american bows went from 28 lbs to 45 lbs, and they killed people. And their arrowheads were mainly made of stone, not steel or iron.

Inuit bows the same. 20lbs, 24lbs, 30lbs the most.

Quote:


Because he didn't have time to train them from childhood to adulthood to be effective archers with it?

Don't forget people the mongolian composite bow had very heavy draw weights and a long range as well.

To the people who are saying dumb shit like this isn't impressive because it is not done using the most powerful bows around:

a) Can you do better, using any bow at all?

b) Would you offer to be the target, at the ranges mentioned in the video?

Also, there are valid situations in which the lighter bow would be preferable. If you don't have greater than 20m line of sight, who cares if the bow can be deadly at 60m?

Sure, this guy isn't doing this using a 100lb bow. Who fucking cares. Getting off that many shots with that degree of accuracy is damned impressive even if it's only at short range and low draw weights.

So I've been thinking about the whole small bow with a low draw strength debate that has been going on.  Is it just me or wouldn't the main use for such a bow in ancient times been for traveling and hunting small game on the go?  Less weight to carry with you,  faster firing,  etc etc etc.  Who cares if it can't penetrate armor,  if it can put a rabbit on the cook fire.