1 (edited by geoarcher 2021-01-16 19:38:57)

Topic: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Ok, so I found a digital scale and got a measurement for the Goldtip arrow of 416 grains.  Bit more than I thought but factoring the field point's weight of 77 grains plus insert and what minute weight the fetching and plastic nock would add I suppose that's about right.  Like I said before I draw to 32" but not all of these bows are rated at that.  I believe the appropriate formula is the following:

(rated draw weight)/(rated length - brace height)*(draw length - brace height)

So if something doesn't look right just say so.  Here's a breakdown of each bow in relation to grains per pound:

Saluki Crim Tatar: 6 GPP (rated 65@30" but drawn to to 32")
Golhan Turk: 6.5 GPP (rated 58@28" but drawn to 30")
Korean YMG: 7.27 GPP (rated 55@31" but drawn to 32")
Mariner: 8 GPP (drawn to what its rated at 50@32")
Korean HMG: 8.8 GPP (rated 45@31" but drawn to 32")
Saluki Damascus: 10 GPP (rated 40@30" but drawn to 32")

Now compare to the chrono results:

Saluki Crimean Tatar Hybrid: 222 fps
Golhan Turk Bow: 183 fps
YMG Korean: 216 fps
Mariner 'Han I'/Khotanese: 173 fps (note: average speeds were actually 160-163...may be more of an anomaly)
HMG Korean: 186 fps
Saluki Damascus: 181 fps

The actual draw weights for each therefore:

Saluki Crim Tatar: 70.2
Golhan Turk: 63.8
Korean YMG: 57.2
Mariner: 50 (obviously)
Korean HMG: 46.8
Saluki Damascus: 41.6

Like I said, this is all I have for carbon arrows but I do believe it is meaningful in lieu of the chronograph being utilized as now I can analyze and see where to go next.  For instance, interesting to see what happens when you get to the Mariner and then how the FPS picks back up with an increase in GPP with the HMG and Damascus.  Dropping a grain or two per inch with these would be beneficial especially if I were to take either of these out hunting.  I have my eyes set on the Easton 700 Axis as a result. 

It was also interesting to see how brace height factors in.  Turk bows have a notoriously high one and Golhan's at 8 inches does cause a more stark effect on the increase in draw weight when going past what its rated and decreases arrow speed.  I think its fair to point out given that you'd expect the second iteration here, which the Turk bow is, to have a higher FPS than the third, which is the YMG when factoring in GPP.  But that's not the case as the difference appears tied to the brace height as the rest all more or less had a 6 inch and returns in FPS begin to increase interesting enough towards the end of the spectrum.

Like I said, I like the Mariners a lot but they have more meat on them which can have a tendency to slow things down.  Regardless this round of chronographing will help me refine arrow selection for particular bows and I intend to work on refining things for the Damascus and Mariner.   

I also have some longbows that I worked on today with measurements that I'll share shortly in this thread after I get done calculating.

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Yo Geo?  Did you already sell your Scythian style bow? If not, I'm curious what it would test at.

Thumbs up

3 (edited by geoarcher 2016-06-27 00:54:21)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Ha!  Yeah I already sold that thing before I got the chrono.  It probably would have told a story though similar to what happened with the Crim. Tatar as I recall very light arrows being hardly visible to track with the eye with that bow.  But we'll never know empirically now....

I have two longbows that I chronied just the other day.  Naturally I used a finger release and got some interesting results.  One was a Glenn Parker bow called "Stalker" and if you recognize the name you'll know him from the Traditional Bowyers Bible series as he was an author.  When he was alive he made some pretty good Hill style longbows but now they're quite rare.  Here's one of them on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Glenn-Parker-Gr … 7675.l2557

Anyway here is the breakdown for that one:

Rating: 51@27"
Actually Draw: 60.27@31"
Arrow Type: old 31" wooden Szaloky sans field point
Arrow Weight: 370 grains
GPP: 6.1
FPS: 191

I always wanted to do one of these because any long bow style is said to be slow.  This isn't too bad although it doesn't have a field point.  However if I chose a light enough field point and/or a shaft that was weighed slightly less I could still get relatively respectable results.  Given this is 6 GPP I do have some room to drop down to the rule of thumb minimum of 5 GPP.

Last one I have to calculate for is my Mary Rose replica 85# English Yew Longbow.  I just need to get the rating length from the bowyer which was lost somehow so I can completely tell the story.

Stay tuned...

Thumbs up

4 (edited by geoarcher 2016-06-27 01:03:46)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Ok so here are the results for the Mary Rose replica English Yew Longbow:

Rating: 85@28"
Actual Draw: roughly 99@32"
Arrow Type: old 32" wooden self made arrow sans field point
Arrow weight: 401
GPP: 4.01
FPS: 189

Overall, pretty sluggish especially given the 4.01 GPP arrow sans field point.  I should note just to be as fair as I can be that this bow could use a draw weight re-measurement since its made of natural materials which can fluctuate over time causing the draw weight to either increase or decrease.  Unfortunately at the moment I don't have immediate access to a measuring system for this nor is it at the top of my list to so at the moment.  hmm

Thumbs up

5 (edited by Hunterseeker5 2016-06-27 22:07:07)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I hope you don't mind, but as I'm prone to I wanted to rub a little math on your raw data to make it more digestible. Thankfully, you provided the information necessary for one of my simplest and also favorite analyses: poundage held efficiency, which is the kinetic energy of the arrow divided by the poundage of the bow at full draw. It is important to note that this ONLY works to compare bows shot with identical draw lengths. Draw a bow further or shorter and this falls apart, as it generally benefits long draws and penalizes short ones, but also can throw a real curve ball if a bow stacks badly for example.

https://i.imgur.com/hJg1QXe.png

You noted in your discussion, for example, that you intended to work on your Saluki Damascus. Surprised then you'd be that, based on this analysis, it was the second most efficient bow you tested.

I do want to be clear though that this measure of efficiency also has limits, so people should be careful not to too broadly apply it especially when it comes to potentially condemning various manufacturers for what some may perceive as a performance deficit.

6 (edited by geoarcher 2016-06-27 22:37:07)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Thanks for doing the efficiency analysis.  I've wanted to get more into this stuff but naturally have just begun to tread these waters and getting the chronograph is often a key first step. 

Actually though I'm not surprised that the bow is as efficient as it is, but naturally the math provides the concrete terms/data.  I do want to increase FPS though so I have some new arrows coming and will speed test them shortly and share here.

Interesting too about the shorter draw penalization factor and how the arrow's kinetic energy comes into play.  It would be too easy to condemn the Turk bow but really that's how it was designed to work.  I was always curious about its stacking point though.

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I have always wondered about the numbers generated by Adam Karpowicz. Really, they seem staggeringly, almost implausibly, good. Just so we're all looking at the same stuff:

http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performanc … h_bows.htm
http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performanc … _table.htm
http://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpowicz … _tests.htm

Just to pull out a specific example, he claims to have shot a 203 grain arrow at 357.1fps from a 125# bow drawn to 27-7/8". That is 57.495 foot pounds. And he claims that was 48% efficient. That means his bow would have to be storing less than 120 foot pounds of energy. Now in NONE of my tests did any of my bows have a ratio of less than 1 for foot pounds energy (stored)/peak draw force. If you do go into his table though and try to extrapolate/cross check his math, to be fair to him, everything does appear to be within a rounding error of correct. And sure, he'll gain some efficiency from having his bows fairly rigidly mounted, and gain some from his fast draw-shoot machine, and maybe gain some elsewhere that I'm not thinking of. The punchline though is that, his bows still seem almost inhumanly efficient. Even if you subject them to arrow energy output/poundage at max draw they seem unreasonably well off, particularly given their short draw lengths. Sure that makes them look a little more human, clearly his bows are comparatively poor at storing energy relative to their maximum draw weight, but even still..... *shrug*

8 (edited by geoarcher 2016-06-28 12:57:43)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

A 1.84 GPP test....I wonder sometimes too about durability, building techniques and how it relates to material and dry fire tolerance.  Possibly one of many ways the traditional horn composites are so different from the rest?  Or does it have more to do with repetition?

But, yeah an over 50% efficiency?  That does seem 'inhuman' but I'm not sure if the mount and all that would give even all that much advantage.  One would perhaps expect that to cause say maybe an 80% efficiency at most?

On the other hand, there is something to be said now I see about the critique of 'why are these bows not being shot by humans?'; something brought up in one of Adam's other threads.  That answer may be obvious on the surface but there's also the matter of 'how did these weapons of high draw weight actually function in human hands'?

Thumbs up

9 (edited by geoarcher 2016-07-01 18:11:51)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

New arrows came in for the Mariner.  So here's the breakdown:

Bow Rating: 50@32"
Actual Draw: 53.8@34"
Arrow Type: 4 fletched aluminum Easton X23 @ 34"
Arrow weight: 500 grains
GPP: 9.29
FPS: 175 (scored 3 times in a row)

Yeah think its definitely safe to throw that 173 FPS score from last time out the window, as if we didn't know.  But going with 163 FPS as the max for last time shows a pickup of 12 FPS.  Not too bad.  So taking a page from Hunterseeker5's book:

Energy: 33.99483646593097 Ft-lbs
Efficiency: 0.73901818404198

Provided the math is right, we now have not only a significant increase in FPS but also efficiency.  Matter of fact this arrow-to-bow-draw-length combo now makes this the most efficient pairing.  Something to be said of utilizing a bow's full potential (max draw length) and arrow with appropriate weight and length.

Also, I went to the range last night with them and was happy with what I was able to accomplish, that is ping a precise target area at a distance over 30 yards quite a few times and group just slightly to the left of it if I missed.  I was quite comfortable shooting a myriad of distances across the field, something that I'm not always so confident at doing as I am usually limited to 32 inches which actually for me is a tad short (again long arms...) and doesn't allow for as good of an anchoring and stability.  So, it really does pay to experiment.

Next up, will be to see if I get a significant FPS increase with the Easton Axis arrows for the Damascus.  And that'll probably be it for a while unless I get a new bow but still have a few to sell before I do in the meantime....

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

32 inches from the belly is short? What's your armspan? Interesting..
should I try measuring speed with slow motion footage?

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Pedro C wrote:

32 inches from the belly is short? What's your armspan? Interesting..
should I try measuring speed with slow motion footage?

Haven't measured but ultimately I prefer the longer arrows with the Mariner's long draw capabilities....I'm definitely not short armed.

Not sure about the slow motion footage.  I think the guy who tested the Golhan bow tried that and got the scores of 191-200 FPS which I believe were wrong because he later posted in the comments that via chronograph you get scores in the 180s.

You can probably do it if your camera is good enough but may have to cross check it anyway? 

At the end of the day I'd just get a chronograph m8.

Thumbs up +1

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

My armspan is about 65" between the two webs of the hand, 73-74" between middle fingers.
I get 36" or so with this measurement: (gungdo measuring link, will edit)
and 32" from the belly is about perfect for Gao Ying style draw.

I might try markers (vertical red poles) 2 feet apart with a 1000FPS camera

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I came in at 72 or 73 inches measuring from the tips of my middle fingers.  Sounds like you may have me beat.  I wonder what the average arm span is for most traditional Korean archers?

Good luck with the video chronographing.  Hope it works and you can get some good results to share.

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

geoarcher wrote:

New arrows came in for the Mariner.  So here's the breakdown:

Bow Rating: 50@32"
Actual Draw: 53.8@34"
Arrow Type: 4 fletched aluminum Easton X23 @ 34"
Arrow weight: 500 grains
GPP: 9.29
FPS: 175 (scored 3 times in a row)

Yeah think its definitely safe to throw that 173 FPS score from last time out the window, as if we didn't know.  But going with 163 FPS as the max for last time shows a pickup of 12 FPS.  Not too bad.  So taking a page from Hunterseeker5's book:

Energy: 33.99483646593097 Ft-lbs
Efficiency: 0.73901818404198

Provided the math is right, we now have not only a significant increase in FPS but also efficiency.  Matter of fact this arrow-to-bow-draw-length combo now makes this the most efficient pairing.  Something to be said of utilizing a bow's full potential (max draw length) and arrow with appropriate weight and length.

Also, I went to the range last night with them and was happy with what I was able to accomplish, that is ping a precise target area at a distance over 30 yards quite a few times and group just slightly to the left of it if I missed.  I was quite comfortable shooting a myriad of distances across the field, something that I'm not always so confident at doing as I am usually limited to 32 inches which actually for me is a tad short (again long arms...) and doesn't allow for as good of an anchoring and stability.  So, it really does pay to experiment.

Next up, will be to see if I get a significant FPS increase with the Easton Axis arrows for the Damascus.  And that'll probably be it for a while unless I get a new bow but still have a few to sell before I do in the meantime....

I'm not entirely sure how you're generating your numbers. A 500 grain arrow traveling at 175fps I get 34.01 foot pounds. Since you don't have a force draw curve, I'm assuming you're calculating your efficiency as energy output in foot pounds divided by the poundage at full draw. So that is 34.01/53.8=63% efficiency.

Given the bow's apparently extremely smooth draw, gaining less than 4#s in 2" at full draw, combined with the fact that the output-over-poundage metric favors long draw lengths, I would posit that this bow stores energy extremely efficiently for its poundage therefore actual efficiency (output-over-stored-energy) would be even lower.

This is not to condemn the mariner necessarily, but to suggest it may have been designed for shooting extremely heavy arrows rather than light ones. This is something Karpowicz fails to note in his own analysis where he suggests his Turkish bows could efficiently shoot extremely heavy arrows; while true, they also store very little energy per pound at full draw so apples to apples a design with high reflex and long siyahs will likely be able to provide superior terminal performance.

15 (edited by geoarcher 2016-07-05 16:55:11)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Yeah it looks like I grabbed the wrong number to divide by now that you mention it.  And there's differences from all the converting too.  Still looks like an improvement in some regards though.  Interestingly enough, Justin usually discusses these bows within the context of using heavier arrows.  I still enjoy the bow a lot regardless and take it out frequently.

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I would love to test my my hypotheses on these bows, but given their expense and my general disinclination to shoot very heavy arrows, I see them as too much of a novelty to invest the money necessary for a reproduction or even a Mariner.

That takes nothing away from anyone else who enjoys them though. If our goal were simply efficiency at all costs, wheelie bows typically offer vastly superior performance as well as having a high tolerance for low mass projectiles. But then why not move to a crossbow? And from there, why not a firearm? So I enjoy these bows as a protest against some level of technology, if that makes sense. I suspect similar reasoning applies for most people.

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Ok last test for a while:

Bow Rating: 40@30"
Actual Draw: 41.6@32"
Arrow Type: 3 fletched Easton Axis 700 @ 32"
Arrow weight: 310 grains
GPP: 7.45
FPS: 212

Hoping for better math this time....

Energy: 30.931464759105182 ft-lbs
Efficiency: 0.74354482594003

Ok I double checked this time what I was dividing by for efficiency so I believe this should be OK.  Since I did quite a few back and forth converting the ft-lbs result isn't going to be as tight as it could but probably in the ball park still.  Obviously, big FPS increase and small efficiency improvement.

Now all I have to do is sell 2 or 3 more bows so I can get the Yuan by Mariner and maybe even an SMG carbon which I had in the past but regret every day for letting go. hmm

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Numbers seem to check out.

What bow was this?

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

The Damascus.

Thumbs up

20 (edited by Pedro C 2016-07-06 08:31:02)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

why divide the kinetic energy of a launched arrow by the poundage at full draw rather than the integral of the force draw curve? because it's easier? but it doesn't make sense to me, I don't think it's necessarily that close, though it was the same result with my korean bow..

maybe it'd be better for telling how efficient a bow would be for launching heavy arrows, but i dunno

21 (edited by Hunterseeker5 2016-07-06 17:21:53)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

So I'm using that analysis on geoarcher's data because that is all the data I have. That said, the analysis is still actually perfectly valid. Let me explain why.

Adam Karpowicz actually has his own analogous metric to this one. While we divide kinetic energy output by poundage at full draw, he divides kinetic energy stored by poundage at full draw. While slightly different, really, they're trying to look at similar things. Dividing energy stored by poundage at full draw tells you how efficient the bow is at storing energy with a ratio that allows fair comparison across a wide range of different poundage/power level bows. This was probably chosen by him because, as a bowyer, he was more interested in comparing how efficiently his bows generate stored energy. Now contrast this to "my" metric, energy output over poundage at full draw. (I should note I was unaware of Adam's metric at the time I came up with mine) Less interested in energy storage efficiency, I was more interested in practical bow efficiency.

So lets take a quick example here. You're looking to shoot some particular arrow with a certain power. If you were infinitely strong, it wouldn't matter, as you could simply buy ever more powerful bows until you achieved that terminal energy. Being a human of finite strength though (I assume) you can't achieve that, so you look for a bow that, relative to the maximum draw weight you can hold, produces the highest kinetic energy output. So this is the best metric for you, and it allows level comparisons of bows of vastly different draw weight.

But wait, there is more. So if you integrate a force draw curve and divide the energy output by the energy stored, you do get the bow's actual efficiency. (more or less, you're excluding various sources of loss that aren't the bow's fault) But then what? This has limitations though, because in some respects it is the special olympics of comparisons as it allows everyone to compete on their own level. That means bows inefficient at storing energy get to be compared to bows efficient at storing energy on level footing, as they only are asked to ever spit out as much energy as they stored in the first place. While all the bows I tested in my analyses and most of the bows seen here are highly reflexed so store a comparatively large amount of energy, this is not universally true. Take an English longbow which, when unbraced, is only roughly straight. Or take wood selfbows from a variety of arid climates, like Nubia/Egypt, which are highly deflexed and hold little or no string tension at brace height. (someone correct me, last I looked, years ago, it was still a debate whether they were braced under tension at all) These bows would store comparatively little energy as early draw weight is very low. So say they were, hypothetically, capable of 75% efficiency. (I genuinely have no idea how efficient they are) Would it be fair to compare one to a composite bow which also is capable of 75% efficiency? What if the ratio of stored energy to poundage at full draw of the composite bow was 1.05 whereas the arid climate selfbow was a mere 0.68? (again, just a shot in the dark) Probably not. And then you look at the outer limb mass of these selfbows next to a short slick efficient composite. Is stored energy over poundage really fair? Unless you plan to shoot extremely heavy arrows with both, again probably not. So now we compare energy output over poundage at full draw. And that is it, that is where the rubber meets the road: how much energy can this bow spit out for an archer of a given strength.

I hope that all made sense.


*edit*

I stumbled on something and didn't want to double post:
http://www.cinnabarbow.org/marinerbows/scorpius.html

So I like short, fast, and efficient bows. (obviously) This jumped out at me though, 210fps with a 416 grain arrow on a 30" draw 40#s.

So the most efficient bow in Adam Karpowicz's set of inhumanly efficient Turkish bows managed 94% efficiency shooting a 23GPP arrow. If you divide energy output over poundage at maximum draw for that particular setup, you get .932.

A 416 grain arrow traveling at 210fps is 40.75 foot pounds..... from a 40# bow drawn 30". That gives you an efficiency ratio of 1.02. Turkish style bows, what with their higher brace heights (which this has) and shorter draws (which this also has) are disadvantaged in this metric, as they store less energy. My Spitfire, which is quite efficient at storing energy with its strong reflex, low brace height, and long draw, pulls 43#s at 31" and has stored 46 foot pounds of energy. So lets give this bow the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is storing as much energy as a lower brace height longer draw bow. So shooting a 10.4GPP arrow that'd be 88.6% efficient.

All of these numbers strike me as a little difficult to swallow, particularly for a glass bows since, these days, the most efficient bows use carbon and for good reason. I don't suppose anyone has gotten their hands one one of these bows and can provide some data?

*edit2*
Just found on their facebook page:
"50# @ 28" = 57" @ 30"" (ref. https://www.facebook.com/bambooarchery/ … 496827919)

While not totally dramatic stacking, it hardly is indicative of an unimaginably fat force-draw curve that'd store unusual amounts of energy. Amusingly, it also seems to match the Grozer almost perfectly.

22 (edited by Pedro C 2016-07-07 07:30:46)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

It did, haha, why didn't I see it... even if a 80# Manchu bow is harder to draw than a 80# straight longbow, it's still easier than a 0#@30" + 130#@32" bow? So max draw weight is a better indicator of difficulty. Thanks for the in depth response!

brace height... scorpius is 6", the spitfire is.. maybe 5.5"?

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

So I actually got a response from a very nice gentleman from Bamboo Archery - Malaysia. He was able to supply me with some data:
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t35.0-12/13582468_10207903542720512_1955072750_o.png?oh=6dbb1cb441ff615aa07761939ed23ffa&oe=57818672
(these image hosting links tend to go dead, so the FB page is the more reliable long-term place to find it. I'll probably post it Monday)

He also gave two chrono examples:

48# @ 28"
drawn to about 27.5~28"
341 grain arrow at 222 fps
37.32641258
77.7% efficient energy output over poundage at draw

40# @ 28"
drawn to 27.5~28"
341 grain arrow at 204fps
31.518869936
76.6% efficient by both metrics. Note this bow resembles the force draw curve, so was compared to it.

In both of these cases, these bows appear to be on about the same level as our Korean carbon bows. This is still impressive, especially given that the test bow here claims a >7" brace height, but is a far cry from the >100% KE/# efficiency claimed on the Cinnabar Bow website.

I'd certainly consider purchasing one of these bows. They're incredibly beautiful, elegant, and appear to be quite efficient especially given their brace height and draw length disadvantage.

Of course insert the usual disclaimers of I didn't generate this data, just analyzed it, so direct comparisons should be done with caution yada yada blah blah.

24 (edited by Pedro C 2016-07-09 05:49:25)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Yes, the facebook CDN links to images aren't permanent.. was bitten by that a few times

postimage or something may last a while longer.

strange, Ronald told me 5.5" was high enough for him but he chose 6" for forgiveness

here's some mirrors of the image above:

https://s32.postimg.org/hpyf6mqzp/13582 … 2750_o.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/reSgSr3.jpg

25 (edited by geoarcher 2016-08-26 02:06:45)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

****New Bow Alert****

Well I didn't sell the Turk or one other bow I was supposed to however that didn't stop me from buying Alibow's Kaiyuan once I got notification that its new online shop was up via FB. roll

Bow Rating: 40#@36"
Actual Draw: 40#@36"
Arrow Type: 3 fletched Alibow Carbons @ 36"
Arrow weight: 341 grains
GPP: 8.525
FPS: 192 (highest repeated)

Energy: 27.91 ft. lbs.
Output efficiency: 0.69775

Have to admit I found the results surprisingly better than what I had thought they would be.  For start, a speed of 192 was way beyond what was expected considering the tips of the bow aren't what I consider understated and neither are the limbs.  But then again its less meat than the Han I's static tip section.  Also, efficiency wasn't dragged down nearly as much due to the design either.  Penetration is probably the most disappointing result when compared to some of its peers.  But metrics aside, what was the most pleasing about the bow was the smoothness of draw.  This one hands down is the most ergonomic in regards to the draw process that I own.  Its elasticity is simply unmatched. 


Mariner's Yuan will be next up in about a month.

Thumbs up