Arrow length, weight, and "The Influencers"

          It's been almost 100 years since a wonderful target archer and medical doctor name Robert Elmer wrote his book "Archery".  Dr. Elmer wrote three books and instructed lots of people in the art of archery.  He was a fine shot, winning seven national tournaments, besides multiple lesser tournaments.  Why would I be bringing up this fine arrow shot in a blog dedicated to the Hill style of shooting a longbow?  I believe Dr. Elmer was an influencer, of the kind that probably had much more influence in the world of archery than much of the social media influencers we see giving out all kinds of archery information these days.

       I was first informed of Elmer's words and instruction by none other than John Schulz.  I didn't ask why, but the references to him was intriguing and I began digging into the hidden meaning behind what John was trying to tell me.  John could be cryptic sometimes.  The target shooting aspect didn't appeal to me, really, at all.  But as I read his books "Archery, and "Target Archery", I found myself realizing some things I'd read in Hill's "Hunting the Hard Way" that paralleled.  Here's how I've put this all together.

      Elmer shot all wood bows, mostly of self-yew or of joined yew billets, but experimented with other bow woods as well over the years.  The bows were narrow, long, small-handled and non-centershot.  Hmm....sounds like a Hill style longbow of sorts. Hill references Elmer as a "noted archer" and a "leading authority" alongside Saxton Pope, Art Young, Chief Compton, and Steward Edward White. Quite the list of archers, and knowing the time of their influence being when Hill was an up and coming archer himself...I'd guess these guys were influential in making Hill the archer he was.  Hill's version of split-vision aiming, written about in the 1950's in his book, was referenced and explained by Elmer years before in "Archery" as being used by another well-known archer Rendtorff, who at the time, claimed the best target score ever made without artificial assistance.  Hill just took it and made it popular in my opinion.  So how many other things about shooting an arrow that Hill and subsequently Schulz taught, were actually just standard knowledge from 100 years ago and basically lost to time and to the trendy teaching instruction of the day?

       That's just a little background to give credence to what I'm talking about when we dive into making good arrows.   Schulz wrote in his book, "Straight Shooting" about "net arrow length".   Basically having an arrow that the end of the arrow is at the draw length to the back of the bow.  He says this is what he was taught by Hill, and that Hill was a "near fanatic" about this fact.  Hill wanted no "dead wood" hanging out in front of the bow.  Schulz says that Hill was after the best arrow flight possible.  Reading Hill's words, he mentions a 27" arrow as being the perfect length for the best arrow flight. This has caused confusion for archers, for a good many years, maybe decades.  People measure some of Hill's surviving arrows and they say the 27" arrow isn't correct, that Hill had a longer draw.  Let's see.

       Elmer wrote that the original "cloth yard shaft" used by the English was 36" long.  However, the American version used by weavers and cloth makes was 27".... The American version of the cloth yard shaft.... Plus the pile (arrow head) which would bring the total arrow length to 28" including the head.  Elmer said he drew the arrow 28".  That was his draw length.  Photo of his form show that he drew the arrow so that the tip/end of the head was even with the back of the bow.  This was full draw.  Anyone today looking at his arrows would think the 27" back of point might be his draw length.  Not so.  Same thing with Hill.  Photos of Hill show him drawing his blunt or target arrows to the head.  There isn't any dead wood beyond the bow.  Hill states that this arrow length was the best shooting. Reading through the Elmer books, you have to agree.  These old archers didn't have the benefits of slow motion filming to see their arrow flight.  They shot and observed the arrow flight and learned by trial and error what made a good flying arrow.

      Elmer discusses the various arrow tapers and how they affect flight and it's good reading for anyone interested.  He also goes into the nuances of arrow woods, densities, elasticity of wood fibers, etc., all things that make arrows fly well.  Elmer built a bow-holding arrow shooting contraption to test his theories.  So did Saxton Pope.  These guys were serious.  They had to be.  Shooting back then at the York round and American round was at targets from 40 yards to 80.  Some of the scores those ol' boys posted would hardly be bettered by most modern archers using an Olympic style recurve and sights.  Their arrows flew well.  

    This is a direct quote from Elmer.    "The center of gravity of an arow is not subject to nearly as much variation as the talk of archers would have us believe. Some Indian arrows have immense wooden heads and no feathers at all and yet will fly fairly straight for short distances.  I cite this fact, which may seem far removed from target archery, to indicate that the human mind has always associated accuracy of arrow flight with a weight as far to the front as may be. Modern archers with the same idea are liable to be disillusioned."   And now a quote from Hill. "Personally I do not often use footed shafts for broadheads, because the extra weight on the end makes the arrows topheavy and causes them to lose elevation too fast.  Unless one is shooting at game that is extremely close to him, he will have much better results without the extra weight that comes with a footed shaft, in my opinion."

     Elmer's quote sounds like he was watching a modern day archer trying to tune a carbon arrow, bareshaft, by adding a lot of point weight.  He says the arrows will fly fairly well for short distances.  Hill says a front heavy arrow isn't good for hunting unless the game is extremely close. Hill also stated that he believed a broadhead shouldn't weigh more than 150 grains for best flight.

      So how does his apply to the Hill style?   Schulz says to use, as per Hill, net length arrows.  Basically arrows that are drawn to the head as in the old days.  As I mentioned in a previous blog, balance of the arrow is critical for good flight.  An extremely heavy front weight was frowned upon by archers of the past, including Elmer and Hill, because the arrow would fly nose heavy and drop at any distance beyond very close ranges.  But it seems that everyone nowadays is preaching super heavy broadheads, and shooting at game at 10 yards, or 17.3 yards or whatever, but close.  How did we get to this point?

     I don't know.  I'm not going to get into the why's and how's of shooting heavy-headed arrows and really close ranges.  Except to say this.  The majority of the big game hunters in America and probably worldwide are whitetail deer or hog hunters hunting in heavy cover.  I'm sure their numbers influence the types of magazine articles, hunting videos, instructional videos and social media feeds that we all see.  When the majority of deer hunters hunt from a tree stand or ground blind in thick cover, and the shots are very close, their sum of voices can drown out the hunters who don't hunt in that manner.  It would seem, if you watch Youtube or other social media outlets and such, that the only way you can hunt deer successfully is from a stand. That thinking has now pervaded every other type of archery hunting.  Hunters now wait on stand for hogs, sit over waterholes or trails for elk and bear, or watch baiting stations for any other species they can.  For these methods of close range shooting, it is not imperative to have an arrow that flies well for 80 yards and strikes the gold.  But....what if you could shoot an arrow that would do that?  Would you?  Why not have the benefits of a good long-range shooting arrow, and then whatever hunting (or roving) situation you find yourself in, your arrow is up to the task?  I believe this was the thinking of the old archers and Hill.  Cover all your bases, have an arrow that flies good from 10 yards to 80.  And learn to shoot it.  You never know when you would really appreciate the ability to shoot a once in a lifetime animal at 30 yards, or 40.  Or be able to get that arrow under the low hanging limbs.  Or to be able to bring home venison by way of bow and arrow in the flat open landscapes of the West or extreme North where being accurate with an arrow at longer ranges is hugely beneficial.

        Proper arrow balance of a net length arrow with a moderate or even light head doesn't mean a light arrow.  It can, or not.  Elmer discussed fir arrows way back when, and today, fir arrows are an excellent choice for an arrow.  But shooting with fir arrows doesn't mean you have to put a 200-300 grain arrow head on it.  Remember balance is important.  

      Elmer found in his testing that a narrow longbow, held in a relaxed grip, would be pushed to the side by the pressure of an arrow being forced into the bow on an oblique angle by the string...because the bow was not centershot.  He discovered that heavier arrows (still cut to 28" including the head) would push the bow further to the side.  This was because of the physical mass weight of arrow carrying more momentum into the arrow sideplate.   A heavier arrow of the same spine as a physically lighter arrow would shoot a little more to the right (right handed shooter) because it pushed the bow a little more.  In this regard, lighter arrows could act a little stiffer than heavier arrows due to the overall weight of the arrow, yet all the while still being in balance because the lighter arrow didn't fly as far to the right.

       And here all along we've been thinking that we need to shoot arrow spines that are exactly the weight of the bow.  Archers have obsessed by getting wood arrows spines to match their bow, and bare shaft tuning and adding all kinds of tip weight...when it really comes down to shooting form, which is something Schulz stated in his book.  "It's generally the archer that needs tuning"...     If you have arrows that are a little light spined in your group of arrows, it will bend around the bow and fly the line.  If your arrows are a little stiffer, they will push the bow to the side and still fly the line.  If the arrow is physically heavier and stiffer, it will still push the bow out of the way further and fly the line.  All this is only possible if the bow is allowed to move a touch upon release.  Not move down, but move sideways and only fractions of an inch.   Elmer discovered this by shooting arrows from a bow held rigidly in his contraption.  

     Proper shooting form, when discussing the narrow, physically lightweight Hill style longbow, is the key to having a forgiving bow.  A bow that will allow the arrows to work around it as needed.  When this concept is grasped, its ramifications can have tremendously mind-freeing effects on how we make arrows.  These are concepts that were known and practiced by archers of our past, who passed along their findings to those willing to listen and learn.  Elmer to Hill. Hill to Schulz.  Schulz to us.   And with that, there's more to come in our building a proper arrow and learning to 

       Shoot Straight.