# How many pounds do you think the American Indian bows were?



## ERdept

I realize that the early American Indians made bows according to whichever the individual preferred, but I was wondering how many pound pull weights you think the early peoples of the North American continent used on average to bring down the game that they hunted.

I would assume they were light, maybe 30-50 lbs. I can only imagine the coordinated effort it took to bring down a Buffalo with flint heads and wooden shafted arrows. So much inconsistency from arrow to arrow, and arrowhead to arrowhead, and feather to feather, and once the string broke or wore out, you had to *make* another one or knap another head. Amazing!

All this done successfully and serving them well, when modern folks debate over ounces, grams, and feather shapes.


----------



## Dave T

I read many years ago (long enough I don't remember the source) that the average was about 40#. I've never believed the Native Americans were outstanding archers, rather they were outstanding hunters, i.e. excellent at stalking their prey.

Dave


----------



## Whittler

I remember reading it was around 40# also, but I think they were very good shots. It wasn't a game with them they had to shoot good to survive. They started shooting a bow when they started walking so by the time they were old enough to go on hunts they must of been very good at hitting what they shot at. At least that is what I think.


----------



## Dropzone2006

some mid evil archers had 100 plus pounds ........:darkbeer:


----------



## kegan

well, it all depends on what native americans you are speaking of. the plains indians had short sinew backed bows around 80# for shooting off horses and taking buffulo. the northern inuit (though the really didn't use the bow s much as various spears) used light bows about 30# for simply attaching a string to whatever the wanted and holding it to hit it with a big weapon. the northern crees and other norhteastern native americans used bows anywhere from 25# for young hunters to 65# for war fare and very large game hunting. 

the english used war bows over 100#-180# for peircing armor and killing horses at 200 yards.

well, that's all i know.


----------



## SaskBushMan

I am not really sure that's a intresting question. One thing someone said is that he thinks they were good shots, well I don't believe that I have seen pics of a bow and arrows in a museum and with the bows and arrows they had I don't thinks they shot very accurate I think they hunted in numbers. Shoot 10 arrows into anything it will die. Sorry don't want to offend anyone.


----------



## ERdept

SaskBushMan said:


> I am not really sure that's a intresting question. One thing someone said is that he thinks they were good shots, well I don't believe that I have seen pics of a bow and arrows in a museum and with the bows and arrows they had I don't thinks they shot very accurate I think they hunted in numbers. Shoot 10 arrows into anything it will die. Sorry don't want to offend anyone.


I find the question very interesting, that's why I asked it. In my theorizing, I believed that they had to be good shots just because of exposure and because not all hunting was done in groups. I'm sure shot oppurtunities occured while they were alone and there was a chance that a shot had to be made in order to get food to live.

Conversely, it is true as well, that if you shoot 20 arrows from a group of people, that some of them will hit the mark.


----------



## TALON

I read that here in the west, bows for the native americans, ranged from 40-50# on average. But those numbers don't equate into the fine laminated bows most of us shoot, as we get far better performance. Think the bottom line is that they hunted to live, and were far better hunters than most of us can even hope to be.


----------



## Whitehair

I tend to think, like Whittler, that they were excellent shots...they had to be if they intended to live very long...

I remember reading that some Southeastern tribes (I.E- Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, etc) used some bows almost identitcal to English war bows, pulling as much as 80 pounds, others were lighter, and pulled into the 30-40 range. Plains tribes shot short horsebows of 60-70 pounds, and I beleive most Northern Tribes shot in the neighborhood of 40-50.

I think a lot of people would be suprised how accuracte such "crude" equiptment can be...

My 2 cents...


----------



## Recurvanator

I would agree with the idea that they must hav been at least "decent" shots, but not sure of "great". They also hunted in a time when animals were in greater abundance and mostly in groups.

As far as poundage goes, I had always heard that they used a pinch draw. They would draw by pinching the arrow/string with the thumb and forefinger, can't imagine being able to draw alot with that set up.


----------



## kegan

they did use the pinch draw, but left the back thicker with the bark on so you had somnething to hold. and beleive me- they were good shots. though the whiteman had ruined the land for game (compare the usa to the canadian bush) but they did have to be good- especially considering they could hit small game and birds that landed. besides, proimitive equipment can be just as acurate if made properly (and they knew proper).


----------



## Okie1bow

*American Indians & Bows*

You all are correct in one way or other. Born, raised and shooting all my life in Oklahoma and being part Delaware, I've studied this subject in many ways and over many years. The real limiting factor for Natives bows was the materials available to them. Most tribes in the "so called Nations",
had Osage and Pin Oak. Northern tribes had Ash, Big Oak and others.
Most Indians learned to shoot a bow as soon as they could; taught by their fathers or sometimes by the tribes greatst hunter. It meant survival or no!
There were two commonly built bows. The short bow [about 40#'s and about 45 " long] usually designed for horse back hunting and another seen less often,a heavier version about 60" long and tested arround 60 #'s. That was about the maximum sinue[for the string] would handle. The bows were always a "long bow style", without a shelf. These were designed for Fall and Winter hunting of larger game. Arrows were usually made of the same woods. Turkeys, Ducks and Geese provided the most common feathers. Bows were a natives survival and so were very valuable. Great care, and the expert advice from generations all contributed to bow building. Men usually built the bow, but women were the arrow makers. Each warrior would mark his arrows in some unique way. And yes, of course they were good shots! For now, that's enough. Google "Native American Bows and Arrows"; you'll find all you want to know.
Bill


----------



## ERdept

Thanks Bill, 

I really appreciate the information. I suspected that they were good shot because this was a matter of survival and not recreation. They had to learn from their early youth and I suspect, had hunted alone as well.


----------



## pigpopper

Some years ago, I came across the book 'Warpath', by Stanley Vestal. It's a biography of Chief Joseph White Bull, one of Sitting Bull's nephews. The author notes that the chief recalls twice in his lifetime getting pass-through shots on buffalo. If my remembering is accurate, he liked to use arrowheads made of iron from frying pans and wagon wheels. No mention, as I recall, of the draw weight of the bow, though. However, it's quite an interesting book about a very interesting man. He was one of a few who participated in both the Fetterman fight and the Custer battle at Little Big Horn. Not only should you get the book, I think I'll try to find mine and read it again. 

Back to the subject, I recall reading somewhere that most Indian bows pulled about 40-50#. They counted on being close enough to place their shots properly, more than on the power factor. So I'll go with the 'good shot' theory for now. Don't remember where I read that, but I must have believed it since it's locked into my memory. I've got to think that they could have made them about as heavy as they wanted, within the limitations of the bow string material that was available. As the point has been made, they used their bows to survive. As seriously as we take our shooting today, bottom line-we don't have to shoot to survive (I'm talking physically, not emotionally). Enough babbling for now, I have a book to find. Toodles. Pigpopper


----------



## Perkinator

*Accuracy*



ERdept said:


> Thanks Bill,
> 
> I suspected that they were good shot because this was a matter of survival and not recreation.


When I have hunted with "primitive" wooden bows and arrows, I tried to get very close so that missing wasn't much of a possibility, even for me not being a good shot. I remember reading that Ishi (the last Yahi indian) was not very good at shooting bull's eyes on a target, but was excellent at hitting animals. There are different types of accuracy. 
Also it is reported that the Indians of what is not the Southeast had longbows and shot long range with great accuracy (the European explorers before rifling were scared to get off their boats).


----------



## Seancmichael

I read Ishi, the last indian. It reports him being able to hit birds in flight. I believe an average indian could shame our best at close ranges.


----------



## Since1985Tx

You'll probably get 100 different answers here....But in "The History of the American Indian" in the early to mid 1830's. Bows were on average 50 lbs draw and a superb 50 yard range with the accuracy of the shots rivaling that of a rifle.
(depending on the quality of the bow, arrow and the experience of the archer).
That said, it also mentions accuracy out to 150+ yds but didn't elaborate on the bow poundage.
_(just repeating what I read)_


----------



## wb_hunter

If I might add a question, how did they (Native Indians) handle the arrow spine issue ?
Trial and error ?
(I am aware that most of this thread is more than 6 years old...).
As I have read about medieval English warfare, spine did not really matter.
Arrows were made in large numbers by specialised craftsmen, usually with half-inch diameter.
Draw weights of individual archers ranged from about 100 to almost 200lbs, but all were shooting the same arrows.



Since1985Tx said:


> (just repeating what I read)


The same here - I haven't witnessed it myself ...


----------



## Since1985Tx

wb_hunter said:


> If I might add a question, how did they (Native Indians) handle the arrow spine issue ?
> Trial and error ?
> (I am aware that most of this thread is more than 6 years old...).
> As I have read about medieval English warfare, spine did not really matter.
> Arrows were made in large numbers by specialised craftsmen, usually with half-inch diameter.
> Draw weights of individual archers ranged from about 100 to almost 200lbs, but all were shooting the same arrows.
> 
> 
> The same here - I haven't witnessed it myself ...


*Like me you have to read book(s) or use your online sites/Google. I'm sure there are plenty of Native Indians still alive who had far reaching knowledge from their distant ancestors past down through the ages.*


----------



## Pyme

Fifteen year old thread, but I'll admit, an interesting one.


----------



## Toxalot

Nothing wrong with retrieving old threads. I wish more folks would do that so they can see more responses. Don't ever assume the Native Americans weren't very good shots, they had their games and tournaments back in that day as well, even against local villages. They were proud folks and also proud of their ability with their various weapons and that was honed through competition. I suspect they were mostly very good with their bows since they weren't distracted by grocery stores or smart phones. Hunting skills still apply today but you need to be able to shoot accurately even if you're the best hunter in the country.


----------



## lunger 66

I read a long time ago the earlier plains Indians mostly used their dogs and all the people they could muster to do a buffalo drive, like cattle. They would drive them straight off a bluff or cliff and finish off the wounded with heavy Spears. Along came the horse, and they got better at it. Kinda doubt most were ever killed with a bow from a galloping horse like the paintings all show.
However, I suspect the Indians were death on small game at close ranges with their bows regularly, and great at it. Crude equipment was probably still just fine for 15 yards and less where aiming is as important or more so than a perfect tune. Mark


----------



## Draven Olary

Mark, I've watched not long ago a youtube movie about the natives bows in general and the discussion was with a native bowyer who was trying to pass down an art. The interesting part was that he was teaching the young archers to aim looking down the arrow because they can't afford to miss when the life depends on the shot. I guess this explains Ishi style of shooting and why in general all the aboriginal hunter gatherers keep the arrow in front of their eyes. They are not instinctive shooters until the arrow is in the right position. Something similar with Ryan Gill's shooting. 
Regarding the poundage, a bow built for short draw and #40-45 makes a stout bow. We think too much in 28" draw length.


----------



## ThumbsMcGee86

Dave T said:


> I read many years ago (long enough I don't remember the source) that the average was about 40#. I've never believed the Native Americans were outstanding archers, rather they were outstanding hunters, i.e. excellent at stalking their prey.
> 
> Dave


The amazing thing they were able to do when horses were introduced, is shoot from horseback. I remember reading some western text at how the settlers were amazed to see how proficient they were at doing this.


----------



## Beendare

I bet their accuracy isnt nearly as good as we are picturing….how could it be with the equipment they were shooting? With the technology they had it was impossible to get matched arrows.

Its probably much like the hunters of today, you only see the successful shots…not the misses.

Ishi was a master at getting close…..like 5 steps close. The indians near Yosemite would sit in a smoke house until a fine ash covered their bodies before a hunt eliminating human scent….they understood scent control!

I bet 20 yds was a long shot for them. 

..


----------



## Dartwick

"Good shot" is a fairly undefined term. 

Im sure they had excellent woodsmanship. Im guessing there was a pretty big variance is marksmanship but with a reasonably high floor.


----------



## Boomer2094

I would imagine not "heavy" at all, compared to modern standards... 



Beendare said:


> I bet their accuracy isnt nearly as good as we are picturing….how could it be with the equipment they were shooting? With the technology they had it was impossible to get matched arrows.
> 
> Its probably much like the hunters of today, you only see the successful shots…not the misses.
> 
> Ishi was a master at getting close…..like 5 steps close. The indians near Yosemite would sit in a smoke house until a fine ash covered their bodies before a hunt eliminating human scent….they understood scent control!
> 
> I bet 20 yds was a long shot for them.
> 
> ..


Consider the technology, knowledge, and materials, I would reckon that their accuracy is as good as they can get with all the limiting factors. After all, their survival depends on it.

Also, living where they hunt, I would imagine that they were a lot more in tune with nature than all of us city dwellers... They have a lot of chances to observe the animal, seeing what they react to, and appropriately shield themselves from being spotted by the animal.

Just look at the indigenous Amazonians... Watching them bowhunt monkey on the tree is pretty cool.


----------



## GCook

Look at some of the video documentation of the south American tribes. They hunt smaller game, decent close range shooters and excellent at following up on wounded game. 
Also realize native Americans starved during hard times. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven Olary

Don't forget most of them use poison on their arrow tips too.


----------



## Boomer2094

Just stumbled upon this video...


----------



## Beendare

Good find Boomer.
I may be wrong but it sure looks like they are using the tip of the arrow to aim.

Im going to have to try that little bow arm push at the end of the shot…it might give me a little more speed. 😆

.


----------



## 1canvas

ERdept said:


> I realize that the early American Indians made bows according to whichever the individual preferred, but I was wondering how many pound pull weights you think the early peoples of the North American continent used on average to bring down the game that they hunted.
> 
> I would assume they were light, maybe 30-50 lbs. I can only imagine the coordinated effort it took to bring down a Buffalo with flint heads and wooden shafted arrows. So much inconsistency from arrow to arrow, and arrowhead to arrowhead, and feather to feather, and once the string broke or wore out, you had to *make* another one or knap another head. Amazing!
> 
> All this done successfully and serving them well, when modern folks debate over ounces, grams, and feather shapes.


Indian hunting with bow and arrow was quite different from what we do. By time they dropped a large game it would have a dozen or more arrows in it.


----------



## lunger 66

All I have to say is those Indians should go home with a copy of vipers book "shooting the stickbow" before their next competition. Mark


----------



## Since1985Tx

Pyme said:


> Fifteen year old thread, but I'll admit, an interesting one.


_*Haha...yep...I don't know why I always get suckered into distant past threads.....but I guess this subject isn't so out dated.*_


----------



## Boomer2094

Beendare said:


> Good find Boomer.
> I may be wrong but it sure looks like they are using the tip of the arrow to aim.
> 
> Im going to have to try that little bow arm push at the end of the shot…it might give me a little more speed. 😆
> 
> .


couple things I find interesting...

1) Pinch draw, I didn't think I see any hook draw.

2) Different archer, different forms. 

3) A woman archer is the only one in this tribe that managed to hot the fish's eye!


----------



## Beendare

Pinch draw doesnt surprise me….but the way they held the bow did.

Ishi held the bow with a wrist up, canted hard and the arrow sat in the middle of his grip.
There are some good vids by Shawn Woods on how the indians made these arrows.

I pictured horribly mismatched arrows and poor consistency but now I think I was wrong. I can see where these indians could have gotten pretty darn good, especially considering very close shots.

This would be a good time to trot out my favorite Far Side cartoon of the woolly mammoth laying there dead with only one arrow in him and the two indians say, “We should mark that spot”

..


----------



## wb_hunter

Boomer2094 said:


> Just stumbled upon this video...


I would be interested in the draw weights and arrow weights.
The arrows look more like tent poles, what the medieval ELB archers were shooting against horses and armoured knights.
I think these jungle tribes mostly deal with short distance shots, unlike the Great Plain people.


----------



## Boomer2094

wb_hunter said:


> I would be interested in the draw weights and arrow weights.
> The arrows look more like tent poles, what the medieval ELB archers were shooting against horses and armoured knights.
> I think these jungle tribes mostly deal with short distance shots, unlike the Great Plain people.


I'd be interested in that as well, consider that they shoot in jungle canopy at fairly small sized game (monkey, etc) at relatively short distance. They don't need heavy draw weight and light weight arrows to penetrate a monkey and/or other small-ish game.

What I wonder is, how long of distances were the native American shooting at?


----------



## Bill_in_TR

I think that many people tend to discount the potential skill and accuracy of the Native Americans based upon the supposedly inferior equipment they were using. Just because they didn't have all the high tech tools and scientific analysis of their bows and arrows doesn't mean they weren't capable of building them such that arrows flew straight and to the same point if the archer shot them the same way consistently. It really isn't rocket science even though we try to make it that way.

These days we spend so much time tuning, tweaking and measuring. We make archery way more complicated than it needs to be. We have multiple ways of adjusting various aspects of bows with metallic risers. We have arrow shafts available in various materials that we adjust in diameter, length, weights of various components. We spend hours testing those arrows to make sure they are flying exactly where they are supposed to.

Well if your arrows fly straight and hit the same location assuming you shoot each of them exactly the same way then you should be able to hit anything you want. All this micro measuring and adjusting just makes a simple process way too complicated.

JMHO, YMMV.


----------



## Skeptix_907

Seancmichael said:


> I read Ishi, the last indian. It reports him being able to hit birds in flight. I believe an average indian could shame our best at close ranges.


A lot of those "Stories" are really just tall tales passed down by people who were never there.

The "average indian" of those times couldn't shame even a good JOAD archer with modern equipment and techniques. It's not even close. Modern recurve archery took the best techniques and put them into one, and uses the best materials and technology. The accuracy difference is immense. There is no "ancient secret" at play. They were good archers, sure, but they were doing the best with the materials they had.

Plains indians were shooting into herds of wild buffalo. You don't need to be particularly accurate to hit a hundred-yard-square target of moving meat.


----------



## Draven Olary

Skeptix, you never shot at moving objects right? I have no doubt Ishi couldn't hold a candle to any kid with some training but shooting moving objects like birds are requiring another set of skills than correct form and sight.
We have a built in hand-eye coordination and capacity to lock-on small moving objects. He absolutely missed some but knowing when to shoot and with repetitions I have no doubt he could do it. Even you can do it if you train at this.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau

The technology argument is always interesting. You can find examples where technology has made a big difference. Look at track and field. Shoes, track surfaces, nutrition and training techniques have made a huge difference. I doubt that anyone from 100 years ago could come close to matching what runners do today. That doesn't mean that the runner from 100 years ago would not be able to hang with runners from today given the same advantages. Then I look at the Anasazi cliff dwellings and the climbs that whole families had to make. As a rock climber, I can appreciate the difficulty of what they did every day just to get to their homes. I would probably want a rope. Separating fact from legend is always a challenge. We will probably never know the answer. At this point, it probably depends more on what you want to be true.


----------



## wb_hunter

Skeptix_907 said:


> Plains indians were shooting into herds of wild buffalo. You don't need to be particularly accurate to hit a hundred-yard-square target of moving meat.


Only this was not a 3D shoot.
Missing the vitals could be lethal.
But even a kill shot could be lethal for the archer. Buffalos are not rabbits that always run for their lifes.


Skeptix_907 said:


> There is no "ancient secret" at play.


The only ancient secret I can see is at play are necessity and mental focus.


----------



## Skeptix_907

Draven Olary said:


> Skeptix, you never shot at moving objects right? I have no doubt Ishi couldn't hold a candle to any kid with some training but shooting moving objects like birds are requiring another set of skills than correct form and sight.
> We have a built in hand-eye coordination and capacity to lock-on small moving objects. He absolutely missed some but knowing when to shoot and with repetitions I have no doubt he could do it. Even you can do it if you train at this.


I don't doubt you could hit a bird with enough shots. No, I don't think Ishi could hit a moving bird with 1 try every time. I think a lot of these stories are just straight-up made up out of whole cloth or retellings of retellings.


----------



## Skeptix_907

wb_hunter said:


> Only this was not a 3D shoot.
> Missing the vitals could be lethal.
> But even a kill shot could be lethal for the archer. Buffalos are not rabbits that always run for their lifes.
> 
> The only ancient secret I can see is at play are necessity and mental focus.


Unless I'm just hugely mistaken, but American bison are nowhere near as aggressive as cape buffalo. They also have poor eyesight and tend to stick to the herd.

And I don't buy that this made plains indians crack shots with a bow. Like I said, they were doing the best with what they had. But don't delude yourself that they are even in the same ballpark accuracy wise as modern shooters. Even a low-level competitive trad archer with modern equipment who shoots 500 on a 600 indoor round would wallop every single one of them, one after the other. That doesn't mean they were bad archers, but they were limited by their environment.

This kind of thinking also pervaded martial arts. For the longest time there were devoted practitioners of far eastern martial arts who claimed that their style was superior, until modern MMA came around and we QUICKLY found out that kung fu was no match for a guy with some modern boxing and wrestling. It's the same thing here.


----------



## wb_hunter

Skeptix_907 said:


> Unless I'm just hugely mistaken, but American bison are nowhere near as aggressive as cape buffalo. They also have poor eyesight and tend to stick to the herd.


That might be true for cows (without calves).
But have you ever dealt with a bull, I mean a male adult domestic cattle ?
Or cows with calves ?
They charge even when slightly disturbed.
At least here in Europe a common cause for lethal accidents, often involving romanticising tourists.


Skeptix_907 said:


> I think a lot of these stories are just straight-up made up out of whole cloth or retellings of retellings.


I think, as usual. If it wasn't extraordinary, it isn't worth a story ...


----------



## Draven Olary

Skeptix_907 said:


> Unless I'm just hugely mistaken, but American bison are nowhere near as aggressive as cape buffalo. They also have poor eyesight and tend to stick to the herd.
> 
> And I don't buy that this made plains indians crack shots with a bow. Like I said, they were doing the best with what they had. But don't delude yourself that they are even in the same ballpark accuracy wise as modern shooters. Even a low-level competitive trad archer with modern equipment who shoots 500 on a 600 indoor round would wallop every single one of them, one after the other. That doesn't mean they were bad archers, but they were limited by their environment.
> 
> This kind of thinking also pervaded martial arts. For the longest time there were devoted practitioners of far eastern martial arts who claimed that their style was superior, until modern MMA came around and we QUICKLY found out that kung fu was no match for a guy with some modern boxing and wrestling. It's the same thing here.



Martial Arts were taught with the intention to incapacitate the adversary as quickly as possible not to win within a very well defined set of rules protecting the fighter. If there are no rules and take all the protection equipment out the things would be different most of the time. Who can incapacitate first wins it, even if that means crushed esophagus, broken bones and eyes out of socket. Surprise element was also a big factor or do you think that “alerted indifference” mindset which is having different names in different eastern countries with MA tradition was taught for ring fights? The natives were making their best with their skillsets from knowing the woods, how to stalk the animal and know when to shoot and how to track. You don’t need to be the best archer to be successful when you put yourself in the predator’s position: aka you decide the distance, the time and when to attack. 
PS the best knife fighters are the ones who don’t practice in dojo, are the ones with the predatory mindset. The same way the best hunters are not top podium archers today, but they have a predatory mindset when they hunt and knowledge. Don’t look down their craft, it happened in another time with no bearspray and shotgun to protect you when a bear, grizzly or black decided he wants your pray. And natives were smart: when white man came with the shotgun they adopted it. They left the bow and arrow to “pale face”.


----------



## Skeptix_907

Draven Olary said:


> Martial Arts were taught with the intention to incapacitate the adversary as quickly as possible not to win within a very well defined set of rules protecting the fighter.


This isn't true at all. Different martial arts had varying reasons for their invention. You can't make a broad strokes statement like this. Despite this, my point about martial arts is still true. People were convinced certain martial arts were superior to a mixing of styles, and they were wrong. A sa.mbo fighter from Russia (like Khabib or Fedor Emelianenko), or an American wrestler with boxing ability (ike Randy Couture) would toy with the absolute best kung fu fighters of all time without breaking a sweat. It wouldn't even be a fight, just a massacre.



Draven Olary said:


> The natives were making their best with their skillsets from knowing the woods to stalk the animal and know when to shoot and how to track. You don’t need to be the best archer to be successful when you put yourself in the predator position: aka you decide the distance, the time and when to attack.


This my point exactly. The archers of yesteryear were hunters first, archers second. Thus, they weren't so much focused on being as accurate as possible, but rather accurate enough when at a close distance. Their primary skills were stalking and hiding from prey. This was my point, though. They couldn't hold a candle to modern target archers, even though some people think there is some ancient secret to their skills. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about this. Are we going to pretend that there haven't been advances in target archery equipment and techniques in 300 years?


----------



## Draven Olary

1. It's true, maybe not generalised but this is not the point. The point was that the mindset is everything, and that mindset from the past is very different than what we practice these days.

2. Then, you go back to your first line in your first post in the topic and continue argue with yourself or pat yourself on the back. "don't believe ..." but "I don't doubt they can.." to "this is my point exactly". Whichever makes you happy


----------

