Do We have to Spine Our Arrows?

A forum containing shooting/accuracy tutorials and useful information pertaining to shooting primitive bows.

Do We have to Spine Our Arrows?

Registered User
Registered User
Joined: June 17th, 2005, 11:07 pm

September 8th, 2015, 2:06 pm #1

Not necessarily, though being able to predict what will shoot well out of your bow has advantages.
I might suggest that we are too influenced by an industry that has precision as one of its main selling points; by the habits of target archers who think it normal to standing in one place trying to reproduce one shot again and again; by a history that famously includes the battlefield use of thousands of almost identical shafts.

Beyond that we share a history where individual hunters or warriors were likely to have a collection of arrows according to need, blunts, piercing, cutting, poisoned, detachable heads, specialised barbs, whistlers and noise-makers, fire arrows.

For a whole variety functions, birding, hunting small game or large, fishing, fighting, threatening, man killing, signalling, marking territory, decorative, ceremonial, marks of status, spirit chasing, ghost scaring, offering or praying to ancestors or gods.
Arrows for close work, arrows for distance, arrows for in-between. Arrows for magic, arrows for show, arrows to keep, arrows to use and arrows to lose.

What matters is that we know how to get those that have an important function to work well enough to serve their purpose. Anything else is a bonus.

To achieve some predictable level of performance we can use a method of our own that is consistent or we can use the commercial standard adapted as necessary to our own ends.

The old method is to make as many as we care to, to make them as well as we can, then try them out, always being aware of the difference between what the equipment can do and what we in fact make it do.
Having seen how they go, we then select and set aside the best arrows.
We can then, having found a pattern we like, can do our best to reproduce it, but we should hacv a clear understanding of what in reality might constitute a  matched set.
Specific function would be the most sensible defining factor.

We might have to think about how to test the arrows and not the archer, 
being careful not acquire the stupid habit of blaming the equipment for our own faults.

It is a basic tenet that if we found it, were given and accepted it, chose it, bought it or made it and subsequently shoot it, everything that follows is our own responsibility.

What we shoot only ever goes where we sent it. :-)

Rod Parsons.

© Rod Parsons   2015
Last edited by Rod on February 15th, 2016, 11:03 am, edited 5 times in total.
It's meant to be simple, not easy.