Trad Talk Forums banner
21 - 40 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Rather, I suspect it's the back of bow method or 'grip throat to nock' method (bowyers have specifically asked for this). The back of bow method is to me the least useful, as it's error prone due to the vast difference in modern riser designs. It's basically bow specific. You could see 1" of difference easily across different risers, from English D longbows to chunky wood recurves.

t.
I think you must be reading "back of the bow" on some web sites and getting confused.
The "back" traditional bow is the side farthest from the archer.
The side closest the archer is called the "belly."
It doesnt make sense but its been that way seemingly forever.
The throat of the grip is on the the "belly" side not the "back" side.
 

·
Losing arrows since 1966
Joined
·
337 Posts
… I’m not sure what the question is any more, but we can chew on this a bit...

… a draw length measurement is only a variable, used in determining draw weight …
… your anchor point is a fixed distance from the front of the riser… the real distance I pull the arrow back from the front of the riser is my draw length (with that bow)(measured with an index card)...it is not relative that it is different from bow to bow… because that number is use to determine weight only, from your anchor to the front of that bow…
...I hang a $12 digital luggage scale, accurate to 100th of a pound, and a yardstick, on the wall, to measure draw weight…
… I set a hard stop on the yardstick, at my draw length, and pull down to that hard stop for the exact poundage at my “front of riser” draw length…. That’s the only use I have for that number…

...the question "whats your draw length" when asked about arrows, is a totally different scenario...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remote

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
I think you must be reading "back of the bow" on some web sites and getting confused.
The "back" traditional bow is the side farthest from the archer.
The side closest the archer is called the "belly."
It doesnt make sense but its been that way seemingly forever.
The throat of the grip is on the the "belly" side not the "back" side.
I think we're on the same page. When I say grip throat I mean the same thing. But here I might be confused: in English using the 'to the back of bow' method, folk are measuring from their nock throat to the back of the bow, right?

If so, then yep I reckon that method is no good as it's bow specific, and so welcome this 'AMO DL' standard as it uses the natural/true DL (as I grew up with, to give to a bowyer) + a set 1.75".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
this question about differents method for measuring draw length make me thinking about differents method for mesuring a penis...... (take this with humour please).
about the draw lenght, all the world going, with times, to use the AMO draw lenght because it's the more coherent, even it's not your true natural draw lenght.
by experience the poundage marked on a bow is rarely exact it is call the imprécise, normally you have to write for exemple to be honnest: 40# +/- 1 #, @ 28" +/- 1/4 ".
all measuring tools use this imprecise quote, and all measures use this imprecise quote .
so if you add all the imprecise involded in a measure, it make this débate surrealist.
try to buy a dozen of same fields points or broadheads or schafts, and i will surprise if all got exactly the same weight, this is the natural imprecise of all things.
by experience fews grains more or less, or few millimeters more or less, or few pounds more or less don't play a lot.
in france the archers are saying they shoot less their normal draw lenght in hunting act because the adreanline, the cold body, the time you got to take a shot et caetera.
i don't really understand why it's so important to be sure of this measures, because the imprecise this measure can't be exact.
so it's not a subject to fight because no one had the true because the imprecise +/- of all measures.

in another subject, the standardisation to name and identify plants with their latin name permit to know what your talking about in every part of the world and it's a very plus for to be sure we are talking about the same things.
so use amo measures is the best thing for us and every bowyer gone to use it with time .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Grands mots. C'est vrai ce que vous dites au sujet de la chasse. C'est pourquoi la méthode de mesure utilisée par Bob Lee m'intéresse.

De façon réaliste... it will take a while before archers here use the AMO method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Rather than draw length - “how big is yours” - I pay attention to expansion of the back.

What feels right to the maximum expansion is good enough for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
So, here's my thought. There is a standard, AMO string to grip throat + 1.75, why everyone does not use it I cant answer, same reason not everyone obeys the law I guess. So that being said I do measure mine that way. But for tuning purposes and to know exactly what poundage I am shooting off the fingers I also measure to back of bow and mark my arrow, Measure this and put my bow on the tillering rack to check exact poundage at that draw length and figure spine from that. I use a Easton draw check arrow to do this and crank the bow back until I reach that measurement( Back of Bow). This gives me my exact draw weight at my exact draw length for that particular bow. I have found that the AMO and back of bow are usually very close( like 1/16-1/8) with most bows. I think there is a reason to do both, much easier to check actual draw weight pulling the bow back and checking to back of bow instead of trying to measure at the grip. The only bow that I had a drastic ( like 3/4-1) difference on was a Dakota recurve, they have a very wide riser, or at least mine did. It doesn't need to be complicated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
The Archery Trade Association was founded in 1953. One of their goals was to standardize various aspects of manufacturing archery equipment and they adopted a standard for measuring draw length as being the measurement from the string to the throat of the grip, plus 1.75 inches. Even most archery manufacturers outside of North America recognize and follow this standard so why the confusion?

The wingspan method has always been a way to estimate a person's draw length and is just that, an estimate. I'm not aware of any manufacturers who utilize the wingspan method.
I definately agree with OP on the confusion part, when I was new it was hard to determine which measurement people used, I know some bowyers and people on here use nock valley to grip throat and others use AMO but never mention which system they use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
I definately agree with OP on the confusion part, when I was new it was hard to determine which measurement people used, I know some bowyers and people on here use nock valley to grip throat and others use AMO but never mention which system they use.
Who are these bowyers who the grip throat and never told anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Who are these bowyers who the grip throat and never told anyone?
i'm pretty sure that some asiatic traditionnal bowyers, are using for the spécifications of their bow, the poundage at the max draw length possible for the bow, and the references points are the throat off the nock and the back off the bow.
exemple 40# @ 32 "
considering the slim riser off asiatic bow the amo system put the end off shaft at approximatly 1/2 " past the back off the bow.
so you have to be carefull if you want a specific poundage if you don't know that because you can get a very less poundage than you expect.
 

·
Civil but Disobedient
Joined
·
10,816 Posts
AMO is not an ILF document. In fact, the AMO standard predates ILF. The reason draw length is measured from the back of the bow is because it is easier.

That's the same reason we use draw weight to measure bows instead of energy.

Performance is more strongly related to energy than holding weight.

This confusion seems to only come up in the trad community. It may stem from trad involving more DIY rather than formal training.

There are draw length bows that are very light with a graduated stick on them. These are used by archery shops to measure draw length.

They measure from the back of the bow.

The last one I saw was from Bear which does not make ILF bows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Who are these bowyers who the grip throat and never told anyone?
As I said above, it happens often with bowyers. Maybe not as often in your country though.

The last for me was with Bodnik/Bearpaw when I was ordering a new custom bow from Bodnik (custom Mohawk Chief) they specifically asked for my draw length, at the draw weight I wanted, measured from grip throat to string. They asked for it again, auf Deutsch, when I called them about string angle on the Slick Stick. They didn't mention AMO DL (I have rarely heard it in the trad scene in my years in Germany), nor asking me for my DL to the back of the bow, presumaby because I didn't have either of those bows.

CD cited an 'ATA True Draw Length' standard above that he uses this way for this reason. Maybe it is more commonly used outside your particular country than you think in the trad bows scene.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
much easier to check actual draw weight pulling the bow back and checking to back of bow instead of trying to measure at the grip.
What I was raised doing and what I see in some shops is to simply mark the shelf of any bow with tape or a white water based marker, soft pencil etc at the depth of the grip throat. Then pull the bow with a marked arrow to that point.

You will see an even shorter DL measure if using the 'string to back of bow method' on a highly deflex riser and arrow rest with marked arrow. Many deflex risers are curved right back at the height of an arrow rest. No good..

The one thing that never changes, across any bow, is the deepest point the hand contacts the bow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
The ATA and the AMO are the same thing. They changed their name over the years and are now the ATA - but the original standards for draw length were established when they were the AMO.

"
So what is draw length?
The Archery Trade Association (ATA) defines draw length as follows:
Draw length is the distance at the archer’s full draw, from the nocking point on the string to the pivot point of the bow grip plus 1 3/4 inches.
Draw Length (DL) from the Pivot Point (PP) shall be designated as DLPP and shall be called TRUE DRAW LENGTH.
"


Its weird that some European manufactures use the ATA definitions but dont use the ATA standard "Draw length".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
The ATA and the AMO are the same thing. They changed their name over the years and are now the ATA - but the original standards for draw length were established when they were the AMO.

"
So what is draw length?
The Archery Trade Association (ATA) defines draw length as follows:



"


Its weird that some European manufactures use the ATA definitions but dont use the ATA standard "Draw length".
Europeans have been making bows for millennia, so I guess there's a bit of sticky 'old world' thinking in there. A lot more people in Europe, even in the EU itself, than in the US so stuff kind of gets ingrained and reinforced in trad archery cultures. Perhaps in some EU states they are faster to adopt these useful ATA/AMO standards.

As it seems to me some EU bowyers and shop owners (those I alone have dealt with - will not generalise) use this true draw length measure to calculate the weight the archer wants on a bow. So that's the number you carry around in your head and give people who ask. Bow thickness at grip is added, or arrow length decisions, to that number on a case by case basis. I just confirmed with my hunting buddy, and he too only knows and works with his "true" draw length, not in any other form. I was raised calling this the 'natural draw length', which you pointed out is a misuse of that term. Just a different way of thinking about it, I suppose, and clearly not portable.

3 cheers for standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
Well, I can't add to the educational discussion, but, I can answer the original question. When asked my draw length, I give the amo number, because, at the time, with the recurve I was shooting, amo was to the back of the bow, as per Bear, in their 1966 catalog. My wingspan draw length figures to about 29.6. My amo draw length is 30.5. That was measured by using the index card to the back of the bow, multiple times. Been using that measurement for the past 12 years, since i got back into archery, even during my layoffs. I know also, that that it's to maximum back expansion, as when I started fixing my form earlier this year, I was making sure I purposely fully engaged those muscles. Which meant 6 shots before my back was absolutely screaming at me. Funny thing. My anchor point didn't exactly change. Only my concentration on how I drew and anchored. Anywho, that's my answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Well, I can't add to the educational discussion, but, I can answer the original question. When asked my draw length, I give the amo number, because, at the time, with the recurve I was shooting, amo was to the back of the bow, as per Bear, in their 1966 catalog. My wingspan draw length figures to about 29.6. My amo draw length is 30.5. That was measured by using the index card to the back of the bow, multiple times. Been using that measurement for the past 12 years, since i got back into archery, even during my layoffs. I know also, that that it's to maximum back expansion, as when I started fixing my form earlier this year, I was making sure I purposely fully engaged those muscles. Which meant 6 shots before my back was absolutely screaming at me. Funny thing. My anchor point didn't exactly change. Only my concentration on how I drew and anchored. Anywho, that's my answer.
Good answer. I think what we're seeing is that the official ATA/AMO DL is more widely used in the North American trad scene than in the EU, which use the back of bow or "true" DL.

What's clear in any case is that the back of bow method falls apart when your interest includes the likes of Asiatic bows (Twix cited a 1/2" difference) and historical D longbows, and highly deflex risers (esp with elevated rests).

Personally will be defaulting to and specifying ATA here forward, even if not popular yet.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,073 Posts
remote, in #1 you refer to "natural DL" as nock throat to grip throat..
in #39 you said I think what we're seeing is that the official ATA/AMO DL is more widely used in the North American trad scene than in the EU, which use the back of bow or "true" DL.
yet back some posts you referred to "natural" or "true" DL as similar and one and the same measuring method......referring to the nock to grip method.
yet again above in #39 you refer to measuring to BACK OF BOW as "true" DL.
 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
Top