[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Possibles bag #30549

Mike –

Agreed – oftentimes they are all I need. I usually roll with a side quiver on one side, and a ‘possibles bag’ or haversack on the other for all of my small game hunting, stumping, and even larger game hunting when I’m not too far off the beaten track. Another thing I like about a haversack is that it doesn’t interefere with a knife, etc. that I may have on my belt the way that some day packs do. These are the two that I use:

The one above is the Lg. Shell Bag made by Frost River. Good thick canvas, with a leather strap and closure, brass hardware. For me, it’s the perfect size for most stuff – big enough for 1-liter water bottle, a few odds and ends and I can even get a lightweight layer in it if I pack carefully. A simple divider inside separate the bag into two compartments. Frost River makes really good stuff and it will last a lifetime. Made in the USA.

Bison Gear Haversack – larger than the Frost River bag, with room for an all-day hunt if you’re a thrifty packer. It’s about as big as I would want a bag like this to be, but it’s nice when I want to have water, lunch and a decent layer, game bags, and a few other things. It has loops on the back so you can also rig it up with a waistbelt. I’ve gone to wear it this way, as it doesn’t flop around as much when hiking, and when adjusted properly, it sits out of the way in the small of my back, but can still be swung around easily to access it. Mine is made of wool, but it’s also available in a couple other fabrics. BG quality is excellent, and Angelo (the owner) is a really friendly guy to talk to. He’ll give you an honest opinion on the best option for what you want, and will also do customization. Because they are built to order, there is usually about a 1 month wait, but they are worth it.

Not the best pic, but you can get an idea of size:

Hope that helps, and I’ve love to see what others are using.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #30428

R2 wrote:

…Would rather smell the “roses” 🙂

Amen!

Steve Graf wrote: Nice!

Been working on my “travel’en case” for my longbow/arrows. When it’s done I’ll post pictures somewhere or other.

I’ll be curious to see what you come up with, Steve. I’ve been kicking around some ideas myself.

Got out mid-day for a little stump hike. It was good, as always.

and then I came home and prepped a big slab of salmon for the smoker:

It’s been a pretty darn good day off! 😉

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Historic Examples of D/R Longbows #30041

Steve Graf wrote: As I recall (recollection is not my strong suit) the english longbow had not yet been developed at the time of the Norman Invasion. The bows in use at that time were shorter and weaker. Average weights being in the 50 lb range and used for hunting.

Bows had not yet become the tool of war that they would after Agencourt (I think that’s when the king added bows to the official english list of weapons for training). Thusly and therefore, the depiction of bows in this tapestry should be shorter.

I’ve been wanting to say “thusly and therefore” ever since I got up this morning 😀 🙄

It’s true that what is considered the “English” longbow as it was known in the 100 Years War had not really come into being yet, but the Saxons (and their Welsh compatriots) were already using a type of selfbow that was longer than the average Norman bow of the time. The debate about whether to classify this earlier bow as a true “longbow” continues, with cases continuing to be made for and against to this day by various historians. Regardless, it didn’t look like the bows depicted above, but was more like 5ft. long and not reflexed, and certainly seems to have been the predeccessor to the classic English longbow, if not quite there yet.

It’s also accurate that the bows used by both sides were significantly weaker than the 80-100+ lb. longbows to come along later. The Norman bow used at the Battle of Hastings was about four feet long, and drawn to the body, not to the ear as became common later. So the depiction of “shooting form” above is likely pretty accurate as well. It’s effective range against chain mail has been estimated at about 50yds.

The Normans brought many archers to the battle, King Harold brought relatively few. The Normans at the time were definitely already skilled in the use of the bow on the battlefield. Lower poundage aside, when several hundred of them are being launched at the same time, the effect can still be devastating, esp. if your opponent is mostly fighting with close-range, hand to hand tactics and has little missile capability of their own. Historians largely agree that the Norman bow (along with highly mobile cavalry) played a very decisive role in the Norman victory over the Saxons at Hastings. According to legend, King Harold himself was done in with a Norman arrow through the eye. In fact, it is thought that the decisive use of archers in the Battle of Hastings by the Normans was a painful lesson that continued to haunt the English for a long time, and prompted their own emphasis on superiority in bow warfare in the centuries to come.

Thusly and therefore, to bring it back around to the topic at hand, the bows depicted in the tapestry are very likely the well-documented short, reflexed bows of the Norman army of the time. 😉

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Historic Examples of D/R Longbows #29159

Steve Graf wrote:

Hmmm. If their bows are as stylized as their shooting form, I’d say this isn’t an accurate representation of archery (my snooty nose is way up in the air). Reminds me of the old “navel salute” 😀

Well, it is a woven tapestry, after all, not a photograph, so I think only so much accuracy can be expected, and I wouldn’t expect the subtleties of archery form to have been a priority in the depiction. That aside, many historians consider the Bayeaux tapestry to demonstrate a remarkable degree of accuracy on a number of subjects, given the limitations of the medium.

Of course there is some speculation involved, but the bows shown above are notably not as tall as the archer, nor d-shaped like a typical English longbow. Other parts of the tapestry clearly show a distinctly more recognizable, standard English longbow. Short composite D/R bows have been found at Viking sites at Birka and elsewhere – theorized to have been brought West through Viking contact with cultures of the East (they are know to have traveled at least as far east as Constantinople). In addition, eastern mercenaries were used in the Norman invasion of Britain as well – it’s possible that this panel of the tapestry depicts just such mercenaries.

Musing? Perhaps. But not all that far-fetched when you consider the cultural melting pot involved at the time.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Historic Examples of D/R Longbows #28903

This 131cm (51″) bow was recovered from a retreating glacier in Norway a few years ago, and has been dated to the early Bronze age – approx 3300 years BP. It’s incredible to think that a wooden bow that old has been found largely intact and preserved, but just as interesting (to me, at least) is the shape of the bow:

Check out the link for more info:

The Breheimen Bronze Age Bow – 1300 BC

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Historic Examples of D/R Longbows #28900

From the Bayeaux tapestry:

Are these stylized interpretations of bows in use then, or are they accurate depictions of the use of short D/R bows during the Norman conquest of Britain?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #28841

Lots of rain here in Idaho lately as well. While it’s foiling some of my plans for my days off, I’m liking the rain. And after a drier than normal winter, it’s a good thing.

I have some knives that need attention, a few arrows that re-fletching and I hope to get out for a stump hike, if nothing else. Hope everyone is having a fine Sunday.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #27320

I shot my Big Jim’s ‘Buffalo Bow’ when I got home from work today. It was immensely pleasurable and therapeutic. 8)

Mom – have a great time with TJ down south. We’ll be on our best behavior in your absence. 😉

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #25618

Nice find, paleoman. I love morels, and finding them is half the fun. Speaking of which, they’re on the menu for tonight’s meal at the Hammer homestead:

Got out for a hike with the Super D last night on the way home from work. Glassed some mule deer for a while, contemplated shooting a squirrel, thumped a bunch of stumps instead and appreciated the views and the fresh air after a day of sitting in front of a computer screen. I need to make sure to do this after work more often.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Re-Thinking old Thoughts on Woodies #24597

Makes sense to me. I used to scratch my head as to why so many people told me it was “essential” to have large fletching and helical if I wanted good, stable flight, when my arrows seemed to be flying just fine and no less stable with smaller feathers and a few degrees of straight offset. Eventually, after building lots of arrows that way with no ill effect, I concluded that they really didn’t know what they were talking about, and were just parroting what someone had told them.

Archery seems to have no shortage of myths taken as fact, particularly in regards to arrow and bow performance. All of this just underscores the importance of using what your arrow actually needs, not just what everyone else seems to be doing, nor what someone has told you you “have” to do in order to ensure good arrow flight.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #23453

I’ve been back to shooting my ‘ASL-style’ bows the last few evenings after work. Shooting these bows is like putting on a pair of my favorite broken-in jeans – they just fit and do what I need them to do. Grip ’em properly, look at what I want to hit, and they don’t let me down…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #23440

Looks like a fine adventure, Cameron! And a tasty dinner!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Happy Mother's Day to our own Web MOM #21651

Just got back from being on the road for several days and catching up – thanks for everything you do to keep this place great, Mom!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Our Arizona Javi Hunt #19136

Etter1 wrote: Man, I would sure love to be planning this trip again in January but got a little one due in November.

Wow – great news, Sean! Congrats!

I’m thinking you could still bowhunt with Mini-Etter along in a backpack…:wink:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: New Broadhead #16185

I hope they offer a screw-in adapter for woodies.

[Author]

Posts