English Longbow V.'s American Flatbow

[Jimbo]

I'm just looking at starting Field Archery and want to go down the Trad route. Originally I was looking at getting an English Longbow, been looking round various sites getting information and bought Pip's 'The Heritage Of The Longbow' to try and determine what it'll involve if I do get one.

But yesterday, whilst I was down the woods, the club secretary bought along her AFB and I was really quite taken with the design.

What do people feel is the relevant merits/problems with either bow?

From what I've read ELB's take a bit of preperation before you start shooting and more care needs to be taken in storing it. I've not had a chance to look into AFB's yet, but it seems you can more or less just go for it. Does this sound right?

Any/all opinions appreciated.

Cheers

[Kae]

IMHO, there is enough difference for it to be unfair to compete against each other.
AFB's have flatter trajectories, are easier to aim (because the handle is cut away to make a shelf of some description), and generally are easier to shoot and look after.

Longbows are the opposite of the above, but are traditional.

These are only my opinions, and are based from my experiences of shooting both.

Cheers, Kae.

[Macbow]

This is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth - AFB is just an easier option all round. They are usually glass backed laminated wood so very stable and virtually maintenance free.
They have a well defined handle and an arrow shelf so easy to get your hand position right and a consistent nocking point.
The shelfs are cut into the riser - you are not shooting around the handle so arrow spine is not that critical - my 45# Border Griffin will send wood, aluminium or carbon arrows spined 30-55# to the same spot with the only real variance being elevation due to the weight of the shafts.
They are easier to shoot in my opinion. 45 lbs of glass backed laminates with carbon will send an arrow downrange with a lot more speed and far less handshock than an equivalent ELB. The higher FPS and resulting flatter trajectory makes any aiming method more repeatable and less critical of yardage estimation.
Modern materials and manufacturing methods as well as computer aided designs are constantly pushing the performance of AFBs up - there are some very high tech, super high performance AFBs out there.
IMO it is not really fair to compare ELBs and AFBs as they are very different animals. ELB shooters are content to accept the performance limitations of a straight stick & string in the name of history & tradition. Getting the max out of an ELB is a labour of love which I suspect has a lot to do with the appeal. The flatbow is a very ancient design but I feel that you cannot put a modern AFB into the same trad category as an ELB.
The shape of the AFB appeals to me - I own five of them - but I also love how a skilled bowyer has managed to squeeze so much energy out of a wooden bow. My Zeta is D-shaped at brace height to conform with IFAA rules but it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. I also have a 35# Viper which I use to practice form and anti-target panic drills. It will whack my standard pine shafts over 160 yards with effortless ease. It is left constantly strung so I can grab it for a quick practise and hasn't lost an ounce of draw weight. I can fling it in the back of my landy and abandon it for days without worry. A solid performing, good looking, tough field bow for under £100.
Basically, if the historical/trad aspects of the longbow is what is calling to you then embrace it. If the AFBs performance and shootability is more important then go for it. Better still get one of each!

[kernowtom]

I agree with Kea. The predominance of the medieval longbow was perhaps more to do with ease of manufacure and the efficient use of wood than cast or accuracy. We shoot them now because of the history and, perversely, because they are hard to shoot well. One of the oldest (getting on for 5000 years) bows found in the UK is a self flat bow and it was almost certainly a much better hunting weapon than a D section bow.

[Haywain]

I've tried to shoot both, and the AFB is certainly a much easier beast to tame. I take my hat off to Longbow shooters everytime, because they are able to do something I cannot, but it is certainly unfair to pit these bows against each other.

[Raedwald]

Tick in the box for the NFAS and EFAA. AFB is a seperate class to Longbow, so under those codes, they don't compete, so they're not "pitted against each other".

There is another "traditional" option for a field bow - don't forget the Hunter. One piece recurve, shorter (around 58" - 62" - mine is 60". Although some are as short as 52"). It might well be an option worth considering.

[English Bowman]

Originally Posted by Raedwald

Tick in the box for the NFAS and EFAA. AFB is a seperate class to Longbow, so under those codes, they don't compete, so they're not "pitted against each other".

There is another "traditional" option for a field bow - don't forget the Hunter. One piece recurve, shorter (around 58" - 62" - mine is 60". Although some are as short as 52"). It might well be an option worth considering.

AFB is seperated from ELB in GNAS as well, but I admit that NFAS does it better here. In GNAS AFBs are in the trad catagory which includes recurves such as the Hunter and also the Mongol style bows. I think that AFBs have a catorgory to themselves in NFAS, not sure about EFAA

Daniel

[bkupris]

Interesting topic. I was wondering if this part of the forum "traditional archery" is the correct place to discuss things concerning trad one piece hunter type recurves ?

[robtattoo]

Yep, far as I'm concerned!

[Raedwald]

Originally Posted by English Bowman

AFB is seperated from ELB in GNAS as well, but I admit that NFAS does it better here. In GNAS AFBs are in the trad catagory which includes recurves such as the Hunter and also the Mongol style bows. I think that AFBs have a catorgory to themselves in NFAS, not sure about EFAA

Daniel

Yes, both NFAS and EFAA have separate classes/categories for AFB.

With the EFAA this is an additional class that they recognise (as I don't think the IFAA have such a separation).