I concur with everything you said. Apart from being useful as an emergency weapon against intruders there would have been little use for this back then. But times have changed, now we shoot bows for recreational purposes. We now want fun, and that is what I have designed this for. I think the IGK has a much better chance to change archery history in the 21st century than in the 13th century. Oh, and I did a ton of work on repeating crossbows. The „Adder“ that will hit the market this December will be very popular I think.
Herr Sprave, Respectfully, I like a lot of what Nu said, however, a technique used by musket using troops could be modified for use with blokes toting IGK's. That of volley fire ( Loose? ). The musket carrying blokes would stand in ranks, the first rank would fire, then as the first rank reloaded, the second rank would fire, then the third while the first rank finished reloading and the second rank started on reloading. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just offering a thought experiment.
Wayne Scace such a technique was used in the samurai tactics already, kinda. And, although, you are right about the amount of arrows, there is limitation due to human body becoming tired and the power, at which the arrow would be delivered.
@@caninedrill_instructor5861 Arrows would be easily defeated by simple pallisade type shields, unlike musket bullets that will tear a simple cover like that apart.
I initially thought You just wanted to show just another way to make something close to a crossbow, by circumventing the crossbow laws in Europe, as You did many times by making cross slings.
@@jakubpawlowski396 Most anyone involved in shooting sports in europe will have met confusing and selfcontradicting laws, as such i dont personally want to break the laws or even bend them. But sometimes feel like i,have no real alternative to "bending" I am active in trying to make the laws more reasonable (thats not right to carry and castle doctrine in my book) but politics tend to like playing tough on guns rather than smart on guns. IId say the magazine bow is morein the region of good fun when you allready have repeating and selfreloading crossbows. Neither of wich would be legal in Denmark.
Not very useful for Isekai protagonists - they tend to level up very fast, and very soon their natural shooting speed would make the magazine reload time an issue. (unless you use magic to mitigate that - some fantasy systems had the "bag of holding" enchantments applied to similar designs for massive ammo capacity.)
Could be useful in a fantasy setting of you want different but real looking and working equipment. As such it could be useful in both movies and games..
One scenario where such a bow would've been useful would be hunting. You load the bow before you head out, and if you miss one shot you can quickly shoot again.
Especially in modern archery, this would be useful instead of holding super sharp arrows, and risk having one open your hand up, yea you have a thing on the side to hold arrows but taking time to take that out and knock it, the animal could already be gone or see you and run
@@devinm.6149 Shadiversity... It was a huge thing... At one point, Shad hinted to his exclusive fans and they flooded NUSensei's videos with unlikes and racist comments (like real racism, not the ordinary stuff, that Marxist snowflakes are cringy about), which eventually split formerly overlapped audience. The way in which Shad evaluated the outcome on his community pages was also pretty much disgusting...
@@devinm.6149 He created (since deleted) video, I think the name was "NUsensei is IDIOT" or something like this, where he attacked NUSensei for pointing out Shad's terrible myth spreading habits, in this case, regarding archery. In the description he added links to some videos, as he claimed it, beginning with worst one... A few minutes later that videos were flooded and infection slowly infected other videos, which weren't on the list...
Even in firearms, there was a time when generals didn't want to issue repeating rifles or magazines to line troops because they felt that soldiers would waste a lot of bullets.
IGK is similar to tube magazine firearms (Lebel 1886, various Winchester rifles, modern pump action shotguns). You have some amount of ammo ready to use and that gives you ability for rapid fire, which might overwhelm (or even break) your enemy. But once you've used this ammo you need more time to reload than someone using "single fire" weapon.
@@marcusc9931 The idea was to use them (Lebel 1886) was single shot rifles. Magazine was to be used only in emergency, when ordered by officers. C&Rsenal channel has very good video about that rifle and others used during First World War.
After 15 days watching Nu S. I (55) bought a full Archer’s kit (recurve wooden riser), I never had a bow in my hand before..... in this way is how this begins? Is fascinating to me should I be worried 😧?
I think one way it would be useful is what Joerg alluded to in his video, sort of an "emergency bow" that a guard could have by their bed. No need to grab arrows and try to nock quickly while just being awoken by a sudden attack. A couple dozen soldiers running out with 4 quick shots each could make a difference while the camp gathers itself to respond.
That would require the bow to be always strung - possible with modern materials, but a wood or horn bow will quickly lose its shape. You would probably better off relying on rotating guard shifts than guards suddenly waking up battle-ready.
@@chinggis_khagan You could have the string already through it and have it loaded but not strung. Then just grab it attach the string to the second arm and boom ready to go. It is only a few extra seconds.
I love the amount of respect Joerg is getting from the medieval/historical community on yt. His invention is indeed genius and shows how this community is easily one of the most nontoxic on this website.
I've been a fan of @JoergSprave for years & thanks to these reviews of the IGK I'm now a fan of yours! I've always enjoyed seeing his creations (and all of their features "HAHAHA") & your reviews of not just how fun it is to shoot but also the pros and cons of its potential tactical applications are a testament to both his ingenuity & craftsmanship, as well as your knowledge & skills in archery. Thanks for the great content, I'm off to catch up on your other videos that I never knew existed till now lol
Consider that every nation all over the world, invested in developing early firearms, which were initially very slow, unreliable, and inaccurate instead of finding ways to increase the rate of fire of battle proven, reliable and accurate bows :D. Convenience is underestimated historically :P.
I can see it as being used along side the crossbow for militia and it might even be used slightly more than some low powered crossbows considering the speed The IGK would ultimately be more useful for field combat but not against heavily armored hostile but against light troops But in sieges crossbow would still be more preferred
with all the attributes Jorge built into the Fenris.. with the trigger handle installed while in a hunting situation where your at full draw waiting for the shot or the animal to relax.. that alone is an invaluable asset in the hunting world.. as is equally fast follow-up shots... god bless Jorge!!!
I don't think it will be useful on horseback. BUT, if you're in a watchtower guarding a gate, being able to shoot 4 arrows at a target without moving your bow to load might give an accuracy advantage.
If you are on a wall/tower your arrows would be deadlier to begin with (Since being higher = getting extra speed due to gravity). So I think it would make up for the bow being lighter.
It synergises with horseback quite nicely - the magazine saves you a lot of movement while shooting, while the horse's mobility mitigates the problem of reloading - you can approach, fire a burst of arrows, retreat, reload, repeat.
@@b.m.5068 a crossbow is a single shot and then you need to reload which takes time, this on the other hand you can fire several arrows one after the other and then stop to reload
Some points to address those concerns. The magazine can be made larger with more time and more engineering. Possibly from a capacity of 4 bolts, to maybe 8 or even 10 bolts. Second, would it be possible to make such a device with detachable magazines? You heard me correctly. Create the device so that the fixture that connects with the riser is fixed in place, but that only serves as an attachment point. Behind that would be where the magazine clicks and locks into. That way once each magazine is expended, you can simply unlatch the magazine, and pop on a fresh one. One could probably carry 5 or 6 magazines with 8 bolts each. That would be around 40 shots that can mostly be shot one after another. Also don't forget: Reducing the time it takes to load a new shot means more time available to aim at your target. So that rapid availability doesn't always need to translate into a faster rate of fire, but more time to aim, and less body movements needed for each subsequent shot.
I think you are severly underestimating one factor for this. If crossbows had trigger mechanisms which weren't exactly the cheapest, especially in the medieval ages. The fact that this requires a block of wood and an arrow is such a mindboggling economic advantage for whoever uses this. This coupled with the fact that it's easy to use means that it's easier to field a large militia with ranged weapons. The main disadvantage I see is the lack of power on this model, but maybe that could be improved.
The new version does have a trigger mechanism. It makes it more complex to make, but makes aiming a lot easier, since you can relax your arms the moment the bow is ready to fire - no need to keep struggling with the bow string.
I was thinking that too, but if you would make this stock from 2 halves (instead of one piece with a slit in it). and sand them quite smooth and wax it. I think it would last a long time. But that's mostly guess work.
The rail in which the string runs is off centre, so as the string is released as it moves to rest position, it must be rubbing the wood of the guide rail. Have you noticed much string degredation at all?
Medieval warfare seems to have happened at a 4 ranges: Artillery, Ranged (Bows and Crossbows), Standoff, and Melee. Standoff range refers to the 50-30 meters when an enemy is charging into melee, and whole loads of weapons have been developed to hit the enemy at standoff range e.g. Roman pilae, Frankish throwing axes. Winston Churchill describes in his account of the Afghan wars the British camp being charged at night by Afghan warriors using swords and shields. The British were equipped with the new Lee-Enfield magazine repeating rifles, which improved on the previous Martini-Henry rifle by having a magazine that could be tapped into at standoff range. As the Afghans charged, the British fired single shots as they came in, right up until standoff range. At that point, the troops were ordered "five rounds rapid" and emptied their magazines into the charge at close range, which in pretty much every case stopped the charge cold. I don't know if it would be worth the extra cost, but having the ability to dump 6 arrows per archer into a charging enemy at close range is certainly interesting. Of course, even if this device existed the context to develop the sort of drill I'm describing probably wouldn't have existed.
I’d like to see the magazine on the opposite side, double capacity, and have a slot to move the spring off to one side for a fistful of arrows kinda reload!, spring could be pinned to be able to rotate and still keep tension !?
Hello sir, i do not know you nor nothing about bows, im a Joerg Fan :) and i do weapons in joerg style. but i have always been interested in Swords & Bows. so im your new subscriber! what do you think about The use of a sight on top of the wood structure (yes, a bow with a sight, there is not much other chances to do such things) and the use of special bolts like really long ones.
Sights are normal for bows these days, so adding a pin or reference point is not unusual. It wasn't used historically because there were other effective methods of sighting the bow, typically using the arrow as the reference point. Aiming was more instinctive and more versatile for different methods of shooting. Sights only really came about because of target shooting.
One inherent limitation I see from its design is that you can only use arrows with 2 fins on them. The problem with this is that it means the arrows/bolts will have a lack of long range stability, making it only a weapon for close range. I guess that goes in line with your earlier concept of an 'assault bow'. One way I can see how this would be used historically is for horse archers. A very common tactic for horse archers is to run up fairly close to the enemy's formation, shoot in a number of arrows, and run out of range again. I know that Korean Horse archers had specialized arrows for this purpose(대우전), which has a structure of only two fins that are larger than normal, making them easier to load on the string and having an ideal short range ballistic while terrible long range ballistics. If they used this bow for that purpose, they can rapidly shoot in a magazines worth of arrows, retreat back, reload, and then repeat.
@@akreid4614 Yes, I know and and I am aware that both gentlemen colaborate on a mutual basis snd i a very fruitful manner. I meant "mirror" in the sense of analyze and draw conclusions in context of history. Sorry for causing a misunderstanding due to my poor language skills. My mother toung/dialect is "bavarian". Being a member of this tribe I must admit that we have our problems even with high German, not to talk about English.
You can't keep a traditional bow strung because it would loose strength and break in no more than a few days. So if a burglar broke in, you have to string this up, taking a considerable time. So, this as a home defense weapon is only viable with modern technology. The best bow for home defense back then would probably be a weaker hunting bow. A warrior can shoot quite fast with one, as Lars demonstrated, and a burglar is would not be wearing armor, so a lower poundage bow would suffice.
There is actually no speed advantage, because the time it takes to reload one arrow into the mag is longer than it takes to load one arrow in normal shooting, so overall you shoot slower than normal shooting. Another big problem is that there is an optimal arrow weight for a given bow strength, so a full sized arrow is actually optimal for most war bows, not short bolts.
Yes and no, the largest force *should* be when releasing, in which case it is sat in the nock. The slight wear on the draw might damage the string there, but then again it could be mitigated, plus the effects of vibration could wear bows down more than we think. Not significantly is my answer. I don't think it will ruin them before they are too old anyway.
@@mandowarrior123 I was more thinking the rubbing during the draw where the "spring mechanism" is sandwiching the string between the arrow and the wood and the string rubbing there. . . but could go both ways if ya string is waxed good and proper it might just make the wood slick over time instead of wearing the string.? he will just have to thrash it and let us know lol. after all a steady drop of water over a long period of time can bore a hole in a rock so who knows what way it will go.
I believe the IGK is perhaps the perfect training tool. It promotes full draw fire. It clicks when properly drawn. It is quick and easy to reload. The faster shooting and higher capacity means less time between shots, and more instant gratification. And by the looks of it it is just fun to do, so for anyone looking to start archery but not be slowed down by some of the intricacies of it, the IGK is just the perfect tool to teach people how fun archery CAN be. Whether they want to stop practicing or keep using the IGK or move on to some more technical bows it's up to them.
May have been useful for guards protecting important persons. At close range it seems it would be very effective to take down one or two assailants very fast. I wonder if it was possible for Joerg to create a speed loading system, similar to revolvers. Maybe even revolving arrow magazine; build a mechanism when the string is drawn, arrow is pushed into chamber from revolver, once it's released next arrow rotate into place. Something giving tension to the revolver to make it want to turn. The arrow could be what keeps it from turning, so once fired, it would spin to the next arrow which would stop it. I wonder if a custom arrow with spring loaded fletching would be possible to keep it lower profile too.
yea make it automatic with a lever or air compression but that works more for crossbows i cant really think of a design that works for bows holding vertically that works and wont be clunkly i dont know how u would hold it while turning the lever, a button with a air compression tube sure but lever would be hard to hold in bow aiming position vertically but im sure its possible
The main advantages I see are that it is that you don't have to spend as much time reacquiring a your target between and that shot placement can be fairly consistent, because you didn't have to move the bow to reload between those shots. The main disadvantages are the obvious reload delay and the shorter ammo tends to have a bit less range from what I've seen of testing.
@@Meop79 "real" ancient archers take months if not years to train while this at much would take days to master, which it's an extremly powerful advantage And imo, this weapon is better than a crossbow
@@carso1500 possibly, yes ancient archers took years to train and this would be easy to learn, this verses a crossbow... hmmm it's an interesting question.
I can see it's use in horseback combat where you're rushing up to the enemy, getting off a few shots, and galloping away. That's one place where rapid fire and not having to manipulate arrows on a bouncing horse may have had a positive effect, possibly.
I have an idea for a period correct, technologically speaking, anti-aircraft turret sort of contraption. Use pedal power to spin a flywheel. The flywheel could control rotation, and elevation, as well as have the draw mechanism for a heavy crossbow, or ballista. Use a feeding system similar to the one shown. It could be mounted vertically, since it's a crossbow, and there could potentially be a hopper style loading system. Simply feed arrows or bolts into the hopper, and have a person, or team, keeping the flywheel spinning.
@@akreid4614 there are a lot of videos on RUclips that show archers shooting accurately and faster than this. You can search too... I have even seen them shoot two targets at the same time with two different arrows...
Meop79 ffs. Watch all of Nu's videos on this topic. And on the topic of lars Anderson. People can shoot fast out of a 40lb bow with a half-draw, yes. But the warbows were at least 100lb. Anybody can shoot pretty fast out of s 18 lb bow easily with a full draw. Pls, research. And all the things that are called "newly found" and "reborn" in Larses video are, well, aren't. People know about them, people practice. Lars isn't a bow jesus. He is talented (and knows how to sell himself), but only that. Now then - where is your proof, that people of old could shoot a warbow (100< lb) fast? And - which is more important - how fast was it?
I think addition of grove at the end of the magazine would definitely increase its usability. Just imagine, you have strong +-100 lbs bow. You draw it, and then insert string into a grove for it to rest. Not only your accuracy increases but you don't use that much strength for aiming. With loading speed. I have to disagree. I tried to make it myself. And using 20lbs bow, normally reloading(with or without magazine) speed with magazine was faster. I think mainly because you don't need to switch your actions(from shooting to reloading and vice-versa). With magazine, you can continue to reload, and after reloading you can only shoot without any switch in your actions. Main issues to my understanding are inability to shoot without drawing a bow to full length(So when using strong bow you loose ability to shoot weaker shots, which given situation sometimes are needed) and second issue is inability to use when you are not using correct form. For example when you are on horse, in a woods crouching. Basically it is clunky. Given that they lacked ability to make magazines, I think they simply couldn't use this kind of tool because they couldn't create it(even Chinese repeating crossbow's magazine was full of limits because it only used gravity, so when you turned it sideways, bolts would fall out)
If you put a groove into it, you won't be able to loose it quickly enough and you also don't want to keep a 100+ lbs bow drawn at that draw for a long time. All that energy rests in the string and the bowstave while its on full draw. If you have any material faults, which could even be increased if the nook you are using isn't perfectly round. A single damaged strand on the string could be enough to have a cascade failure and resulting in the bow basically expending all that energy as the string snaps. Same with the bowstave. Also with all due respect... a 20lbs bow will have a hard time to go through a gambeson or have any real, meaningful, penetration through leather. 20lbs isn't even enough for medium sized game. You need 40lbs at least with that to get any sort of meaningful penetration into the animal. So yeah... 20lbs repeating bows are fun, if you are hunting watermelons and 3D targets. It would be my "go to" choice for a bow to just muck about, but if you want to hunt game.. its at least 40lbs or you are pretty much stuck to hunting small game like rabbits and birds. And for fighting humans, that have armed and armored themselves with even just basic protection.. you need 60+ lbs. You can wound people with less draw weight, but those wounds are unlikely to be deep enough to actually incapacitate the enemy.
@@IshanDeston All your points are right but Joerg made this for "FUN". If I was going against humans with this device the first thing i would change is the ammo. 1/ The arrows/bolts are hollow tubes with a head screwed on. a) Adapt the head so it is a loose fit held in place with some wax.(A "Bodking" would be good). b) place inside the shaft a short iron rod (striker), Fixes in place with a "Small" drop of wax to the rear. c) Drill two small holes in the shaft near the head. 2/ Same as above but your "Striker" is to have a blunt point and attach a (.22) blank to the base of the head before you fit it.. 3/ There are other ideas which use "Hollow" heads and liquids. (And yes I would change the bow)
@@Geordun You are quicker at just taking a metal tube, fitting it tightly into a bigger metal tube at the end. Drill a hole into it, attach the tube on top of the wood, and fill it with some matchstick heads, put in a metal bearing, some cloth to hold it in place.. and light the matchsticks through the hole you drilled. If you gonna change the design, you might as well do it properly ;)
@@IshanDeston Yes but i live in the U.K. and the police would be a wee bit upset if someone made them self a firearm or *ANYTHING* "to be used in Self Defence".(Yes it is illegal to make/purchase items for "*Active*" use in defending oneself) Now if I "just" happen to have a *Fun* Bow and some "Funny" arrows, (but NOT the ones containing blanks) that's a different matter.
You seemed to be able to load it quicker in the second section with the car behind, how quick is it to load and shot just one arrow then repeat as you would with a normal bow ?
what about having the spring on an unlockable axle so you can slide a clipped together bundle of X arrows into the magazine stripperclip style. Or maybe have a special bow with a connection to clip the magazine assembly into place for quick release and exchange as a whole.
I'm thinking that if they had 2 of the bows, had a dedicated firer and reloader on the 2nd bow, it might work. It'll be harder to tell if the rapid-fire bow + reloader would be faster than 2 crossbowmen. Maybe 2 crossbowmen and 1 reloader for both?
I've seen his assisted pull bow, and it's quite cubersome looking. The concept would definitely would be useful on artillery, but the ease of storage and transportation is not something to be underestimated. The more you add to the bow, the harder it is to transport.
Several years ago I thought about a fast firing vertical crossbow with a simple wrought iron slider that could allow the bow to be cocked by putting the end of the crossbow on the ground, locking the bow string to the trigger mechanism and then sliding the bow down with your foot to lock, allowing the weight of the archers body to do the work. Somewhat like a Greek gastropedes. Such an approach could allow for quite a heavy bow to be used without tiring out the archer and without a separate cocking mechanism. Then I saw JoergSprave's videos, especially his more advanced sliding "instant Legolas" designs. Perhaps combining the slider with a foot rest to cock the thing might be advantageous. True it wouldn't be as fast firing as Joerg's designs but the magazine would eliminate the time consuming step of setting the arrow on a cocked crossbow. And untrained troops could quickly learn how to use it.
I think you should consider the skirmish formation which indeed did use burst fire. For example this was the main advantage of horse archers and chariots. Basically the horses or chariots ran in a circular or oval and fired their weapons at the moment they were nearer the enemy and rested/reloaded as their mounts were on the retreating part of their formation, the ranks behind them then taking their shots as they followed..This would give a continuous 4x Even some light foot formations historically used a skirmish formation for missile fire. In any of these cases the repeating bow you designed would hold distinct advantages! Each ranks "volley" being quadrupled! Very useful indeed. The total firepower of a given unit massively increased without adding fatigue
Do you think something like this may have existed historically, perhaps soley for recreation and we just don't have records of it? People like gimmicks and novelty. I could see a medieval bowyer selling something like this as a curiosity or a gimmick.
I would think that it's simply too useful to have gone down without records. Like even the "assassin's crossbow" has some records and reproductions, even though it was likely never used for anything but shooting at targets when you're a bored nobleman.
S Engelhard, the "Assassin's Crossbow" is a good example of something "impractical" that existed for one reason or other... Consider also the chinese triple barreled repeating crossbow, the tongah Nu mentions, lantern shields, spiked gauntlets, kusari gama (sickle with chain and weight), rifle shields, revolver cannons, and etc... Each of these can be argued that it represented a useful adaptation in a very specific niche... There are probably more recreational archers around today than at any point in history even though archery is technically "useless" today. I am almost certain that magazine bows existed at some point in time. It's possible that we just haven't found any evidence for them yet?
@@sengelhard2982 I think you are onto something in regards to recreation... I can almost bet that in the future we will discover historical accounts of magazines for bows being used at the very least as a fun little toy.
I do not agree on the point that it makes more sense or is more efficient or effective to develop a cross-bow than a magazine for the bow. Also not to have a magazine for a cross-bow. As mentioned it takes time to reload a cross-bow, e.g. with a windlass. The time to put in the bolt is neglectable for this. Also the cross-bow has a much higher draw-weight then a bow, since you do not need to hold the tention with your arms, but you can store it as potential energy in the trigger mechanism. Therefore you get a lot of accuracy combined with reach and power. Complementary a bow with a low draw weight that is quick to shoot makes a lot more sense. Consequently, the bow would need to have the magazin.
Not sure I only just found this, so I apologize for the late comment. Like all things in combat, the right tool used the right way. I would think the power limitation remains valid with the magazine or not. You can only pull back so many times before your body can't do another. With the magazine, if you need 2-4 quick shots, you in theory would have them. Or you wouldn't have to keep it held on the string the entire time until you're ready to fire (not pulled back, just held in place on the string). Once you are, you just go through the motions of aim, pull, loose. An entire regiment of burst fire could be enough to intimidate a charge, and while they're scattered and trying to figure out what just happened, the trained and practiced archers are reloading, probably quite quickly if they've had any time to practice. The limited training is I think the highlight of this technology. It take A LOT of practice for an archer to achieve "effective", much less "useful" in combat. With this, that training need drops dramatically, which for a low budget/manpower nation could mean more archers that require significantly less training/practice time. You mention the cross bow, but those are notoriously hard to cock. True some could punch through armor (I think), but you're talking about a weapon that takes a special method to cock, which takes time. So back to that low budget/manpower nation, you could have all three. 1) You have your standard archers who have put in the time to be experts. 2) You have archers with this tech who basically have the exact same stopping power in their weapon but without the extensive training. (Alternately, you could have crossbows that are no harder to pull than a bow.) 3) You have the true crossbow that has that extra hard stopping power, but takes longer to cock each shot. The versatility of the bow is a factor that is hard to argue against. I could be wrong, but I understand some archers would use their long bows like a staff if engaged up close. Not every time, and most had an arming sword instead, but the option was there, and wouldn't be with this thing. I think this will pop up in fantasy stories, and I don't think that would be so bad. First it looks cool, which is enough for most. But those who think it all the way through could really build interesting stories, worlds, and tactics around the technology. I know I've got my brain working with where and how it would indeed be useful.
Mass production is taken for granted this day in age. Before the industrial revolution, there were rigorously trained individuals who performed the art of producing the implements of war. Central planning was required in order to produce items of similar size and shape, but the exact reproductions of today weren't quite possible. Mass producing an item with such precision was always difficult and near impossible before the industrial revolution.
True, i thought about that too. It would not be so easy and fast to make a magazine device without modern machines. But it would still be possible back than, you had to learn a lot of people how to make these and even then it wouldn´t be able to produce it in high amounts. Maybe this magazine were given to some kind of elite soldiers and it may not changed history but have an impact on certain situations, of course depending on who and when this were invented first.
I wonder if you'd get serious problems with the bow, at military draw weights. It is hard on arrows in general, when they are shot from a powerful bow. If they rubbed against a magazine as they were loosed, they might splinter to pieces.
Advantages In a military setting: #1 higher rate of fire #2 dont need to take view off target to knock #3 can be proficiently operated by untrained archers #4 arrows cannot be shot by opponents with normal bow #5 cheaper to manufacture than crossbows
I think I'll only agree on #3 Tbh I love Joerg's instant legolas but I think it's impractical, like it has some disadvantages that made me think it still can't replace bows on medieval times.
THIS VIDEO IS OUTDATED!!! Joerg made a whole new version. Also the advantage with this weapon is that your can field larger numbers if archers and guerilla warfare.
@@succusage3966 twice? It has to be like 4x as strong. Plus imagine how quickly you can recruit a militia to fight with these back in ancient - medieval times, very little need for weapon training.
The low draw weight and rapid fire makes it better for close quarters combat like raiding or urban village warfare. Speed is more important in a stand off situation and the low draw weight isn't too bad since distance isn't a big factor.
Completely agree with you and in truth maybe this could have been something maybe for closer quarters combat as then the bow draw weight can be lower. This design is based on many engineering feats in firearms development so in truth as designed this wasn’t in the minds of people back then. But I do love to watch it work and with more updated materials it can be improved immensely. The genius of this is amazing and I do think it’s going to be a hit across the world soon!
I get that this concept can't really work for a high power bow, but it does work for the power bow you are comfortable with. The advantage I see over a crossbow (even one with a magazine), is that it can be kept loaded and "cocked" much faster... I see it as the bow equivalent of a pump shotgun; yeah, you can empty the magazine if you have to, but you can also top it off after one or two shots, during a pause, and then still have those four shots available if needed. Jorge built this on the Mongolian bow as a concept, a what if, kinda like the posters from some years ago of an American Indian warrior on horseback with a compound bow... Would it have been a gamechanger, we'll never know! Built as an integrated magazine on a more modern bow, even maybe a compound, this seems like a great device for the non-expert archer in a survival scenario, facing multiple attackers who also don't have guns, and not much else... Cause, never bring a bow to a gunfight! Pretty much why bows have been relegated to recreation, while guns are used for defense. I'm no archer, or historian, these are just my thoughts.
Compared to a modern rifle or shotgun, a bow is slower to shoot, much harder to aim, and much less powerful/less range. A .308 or shotgun blast will stop a man dead cold in a single hit. It could take 2 or 3 arrows and a few minutes for a bow to stop a threat. This bow design solves 2 of those issues. It makes it comparable in speed to a bolt action. You could mount a red dot and with a bit of practice be able to aim it as easy as a rifle. However the power and range issue is still a problem. You could use a modern fast acting poison, but that is a war crime I believe. There's nothing you could do about the range save for add more poundage/mechanical advantage. If you could shorten the limbs, perhaps similar to a triangle bow, you could use this 'tactically' similar to a rifle. That is, in a spread out formation, using cover, trenches, ect. Maybe even fire from prone by tilting the bow. But even then that would only "work" in a mad max like survival setting. Where enemies would be few in number and unarmored and under-gunned. In a more realistic situation, you'll be facing a guy with steel body armor and a AR. You'd be hopelessly outmatched. On the medieval battlefield, these would do nothing against armored knights, and a massed charge by them would break through such spread out lines easily, as if they weren't there (assuming no earth works were prepared). At best, weapons like these would be used by skirmishers in forests, at close range, against infantry caught away from cavalry support. They would at least have a role though. Similar to repeating air guns used by the Austrians during the Napoleonic wars.
I'm an archer. I for one find no advantage in having such a device, since unlike the crossbow, you still must learn the skill to draw the arrow, knock it, aim and fire just like any ordinary archer, and training for it is considerable. If you are a trained archer it's much faster in the long run, to just do it the traditional way. Much convenient to in carrying it too. You must understand, unlike bullets today, in the old day arrows are very expensive and hard make. You have the carpenters to make the shafts making them straight and of the same length and size, the fletcher to make and tie the feathers and the smiths to make the arrow heads (good steel is worth like gold at that time). In an army each archers are probably given a limited amount arrows to use and carry. In battle, with such a valuable resource the ordinary archer would probably aim more on accuracy to each single shot and making each shots count, since if the arrows ran out their basically dead.
Castle defense. The ladders hit the walls and enemy begin to climb. Archer can lean out from cover and quickly let loose several arrows, where time is very critical to prevent a breach and also not spending time out of cover nocking arrows keeps him safer. Archer leans back into cover and sets down the bow and grabs a second bow, leans out and shoots some more. First bow is picked up by a squire, servant, or some other untrained person (or a melee fighter waiting for enemy troops to scale the wall) and reloaded , ready for the trained archer to grab. And so the cycle goes.
And then basically every complaint was addressed by his addition of the pump-action mechanism, as well as the clip he created for the mini version which could be scaled up.
I don't want to get on my high horse here but when did your comments section stop being archers/beginner archers and people interested in history and start being populated by people who get all of their information from the Robin Hood movie? There are two main issues here making it impractical: firstly arrows were *expensive* which cannot be stressed enough. Therefore they were generally issued by armies (King Henry V had to order the removal of a feather from every goose in England prior to the Agincourt campaign just to get enough arrows to run out 5 minutes into the battle.) So arrows were not rapidly flung downrange as fast as possible, each one needed to count. Secondly, and often overlooked.: Our ancestors were not idiots. They spent their time training for war, refining weapons, armour, tactics etc. Every historical weapon was designed for a role and refined until it worked. As Nusensei mentioned, the Chinese already had a magazine fed crossbow - they could have adapted it to bows but chose not to. People often assume that people from the past were stupid - they had exactly the same brains as modern people but with a lifetime of experience instead of armchair theorising.
People could be stubborn and stupid sometimes, like the guy who said they think matchlock is better than flintlock because the soldier are fine with the former.
It could have been used perfectly by robbers of all sorts. Not to shoot rider, but his mount, or armed, but unarmored civilians. Or it could have been used by specialised units in later times. Just imagine, Napoleonic times. There is some kind of entrenchment with fusilers, defending it. And attacking it, comes unit with repeating bows. Bows have less range, so it recieves incoming fire (bang, bang, bang) => 30% of attackers are killed or wounded. But those 70 % come closer and finish them off. Like easily.
Not to mention english longbowmen also had to bring their own arrows. Agincourt wasn't the only battle on that campaign though. Doubt they each fired 60+ arrows each in under 5 minutes.
Maybe it's like an automatic gear box or a manual? People say you should learn to drive a manual first. Also, how do you know it never existed... It might have, just not in large enough numbers to be recorded. Yes I'm being picky. Subscribed! Thanks Herr Jeorg for showing me an epic channel. Also, we know that Persian and mongol archery would have a far greater rate of fire... Take Lars for example. Definitely need to increase the arrow capacity, I keep saying it, Hilux design like the North Korea's newish Ak magazine.
Someone probably did, but by means of natural selection and actual use most like found it useless. ...and as he pointed Lars uses a very light draw weight bow (40 lbs) for his trick shots. Those things are ineffective in battle where most soldiers are at least wearing tough leather or heavy padded clothes, much less to those wearing metal armor, and remember your shooting hundreds of yards away. The actual Mongols war bow used had 120 - 160 lbs draw, according to historians. It's way much heavier than what competitive/Olympic archers are using. As an archer myself, a well trained archer would probably take a decent amount of time to draw the bow, aim and shoot, relax for few seconds then do the process again. Now imagine trying doing that all day in battle.
What about close combat? You can field large numbers of soldiers armed with automatic crossbows as an engagement weapon much like how the Romans equipped their infantry with Pila's. The Pila was used before formations closed in for melee. The Pila thrown would impale shields making them useless or right out injure or kill enemies. What if infantry was equipped with these bows that they used before they go to their sword or spears? Combine the automatic bows with stripper clips for bolts and you got a rapid fire close range weapon. How much damage would a soldier be able to inflict before he's forced to use his melee weapon? For home defense yes that's a deadly weapon vs anything other then a real gun.
one potential downside i haven't heard mentioned is the potential for dry firing the bow with this mechanism. couldn't that break the bow which would be very bad i think?
I've dry-fired the bow a few times due to failure to feed, but these cheap modern fibreglass bows couldn't care less. With historical materials, that would be riskier, perhaps.
Like they say: it it's worth killing it's worth overkilling. a bow that shoots faster and acts as a middle ground between a layman and a fast shooting professional would be awesome
This is a good bridge between a normal bow and a crossbow. It can have the ease of use of a crossbow and the Speed (Even if you don't speed shoot you can shoot four and reload four more and shoot them in less time than many crossbows. Especially the stronger ones.) and accuracy of a bow. Plus it is likely cheaper and easier to make then a crossbow. Also it would be like the repeating crossbow but can have more power (power is set but bow used and archers ability to draw. Meaning you can have an 80 to 120 pound repeating bow). And if you come up with some kind of universal attachment method then it can be used with any bow (of an approximate set draw length). This means if one bow breaks just remove it and attach it to another, personal bows enemy bows you name it it can be attached to and used by your people.
You're forgetting that all weaponry as undergone a ton of iterations over time to make them more useful. The first handheld firearms weren't particularly effective compared to what we have today for example. As such, this type of thing would also undergo a ton of iterative work. Just look at the difference between a Roman gladius and a 17th century rapier just in terms of the hilt. And who knows what happens when this thing is introduced For example, I can envision a version that turns a heavy draw weight war bow into something that is halfway to a crossbow, just by having a notch to hold the string. At that point you have something that has massive range and power, is faster to arm than a crossbow and very likely cheaper to manufacture. Sure, you'll still have to train people in using it, but now you can far more archers - some will be the regular kind, and others will have to use twice or thrice as long to cock the damn thing, but once they're ready to go, the range will be the same, and the advantage here is you can have one big guy cocking the bows and handing them off to his neighbours, who will fire when told to. If you can cock the damn thing, suddenly you can have your archers fire from otherwise impossible locations, where it'd be impossible to pull the string. I don't know, but I suspect it'd be extremely difficult to draw and aim a bow from a prone position, whereas cocking this device on your back and then rolling into a decent firing position seems far more plausible. I can also envision adding an arrowguide to the top of it, allowing you to fire from a quiver without having to reload the magazine, thereby giving you the advantage of both. Adding ranged sights to the device would also be relatively simple, and would make training bowmen in volleys far easier and faster, as they could have a fixed reference point instead of having to rely on lots of training and experience to know how high to aim. And as Jörg commented on another weapon, it will inevitably end up being fed via a clip-system, and then the downside of reloading goes away. It also seems like a fairly obvious innovation to put a bayonet at the end of it, but I'm not sure if that's particularly useful in a theatre of war. A device like this might make no difference whatsoever in an alternate timeline, but it might also evolve into something far more potent than what we see now.
I think you are overlooking a huge advantage this has and that it shoots bolts that cant is shot back, compare the firing speed vs a Mongolian arrow guide. Two ideas I had were 1, square bolts with small holes drilled and 'pinned' together in the front and back with small breakable dowl to make a stripper clip. The second would be to build a frame that holds the regular bolts and 'glue' them together with wax and a dowl to keep the wax a bit stiffer and keep them straight.
It's a quiver attached to a bow, I don't see the point. It's also harder to aim and takes longer to aim as well, along with making the bow heavier. In the same time you fire the first round - reload and fire again the average archer can empty the quiver.
JoergSprave if has living in the 13th century i think was like a Leonardo Da Vinci specialist in bow :) And today we has watching a movie "The JoergSprave Code" with Tom Hanks :)))))))
I like that you mentioned how this could be used by militia and I agree. The ease at which it can apparently be used means that if you strapped that thing onto a bunch of light draw weight bows (50-70 lbs) you could create a decently armed militia force either in a pinch or to supplement a core of professional archers in a real army. An archer's weakest point is up close and personal, hence English longbowmen were issued falchions or other swords. Imagine if for every longbowman there were two or three IGK armed light bowmen to serve as skirmishers, flank guards, and longbowmen protectors. Their usefulness would be relegated to close range fighting, possibly even in urban settings. I know that English law in the Hundred Years' War required all free men of a certain age to own and be proficient with longbows, so this is a moot point, but other countries weren't so adamant; it just needed the right setting to flourish. On top of that, IGKs might be a cheaper, more manageable alternative to crossbows; they don't need to be huge things that require a guy to lay down and use his whole body to cock nor do they need to be made of steel to make shorter, more powerful bows. Crossbows were the weapon of the professional mercenary and soldier/guard; this could make for a peasant's equivalent. Again, it's all about the right setting and circumstances. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that raiders would love this for a lightning attack.
There was a similar device used against Rome i.e. The Belly Bow which later became the Crossbow. Also you are assuming that person using this device will be *standing*. But in history sometimes the Crossbow/heavy bow was used from the sitting position (I think it was the Han). With a heavier bow ,sitting this would be ideal for ambushing! With this device you end up with something between a Bow and the Crossbow, A Jack of all trades.
@JThorsson Bael Invictus It just wasn't worth the trouble, rate of fire isn't as important as saving money in combat. Yeah you get kick ass bows, but you double the cost of the bow, more than triple the ammo needed (archers usually shot until they ran out of arrows anyway) and made another part on the bow that could break, it's easier and cheaper just to draft a few more guys and give them crossbows
Infinite power and godly accurate. Japan is the best case study, best bows & archers in world, first to transition to matchlocks. Why? Matchlocks require MORE training and cost, no shortage of skilled archers. Because when you get shot with a thick ass musket ball, you know about it. Nothing like tiny bullets. And armour would stop it, but that armour is heavy, and not cheap. They have stopping power on their side. Japanese used guns so big they couldn't stand up and firing them without falling over (or they fell to absorb recoil, its a whole martial art anyway. Or was.) skilled people can dodge/deflect (lethal)arrows, guns can be aimed for as long as you like, almost. Guns can be fired prone in ambush, massed fire can be used easily, they scare horses, and they penetrate at much longer ranges than most archery (japanese archery in war was done at excessive ranges up to 400m, in excess of guns, however it is stated don't bother shooting at more than 20m if you want to hit/hurt anything in war.(criticism samurai were training at too long ranges) the strongest tactic pre-gun in japan was shock cavalry. On the battlefield in heavy rain (considered by most at the time the worst weather for matchlocks) were tried by shock cavalry and they were massacred. Horses die far quicker with ball cavitation, wounds were catastrophic (you either stop with armour or do not stop, no real mitigation of damage like with arrows) and they plain got more shots in. They used extra men to help reload iirc, but the extra (effective) range is what did it. Also bullets break bones, which is substantially more debilitating than piercing bones, though i have no doubt arrows sometimes did that too.
cause they were easier than teaching how to use bows thats why we use guns nowadays, that was just the beginning of guns and Technology about guns that's why no one uses muskets anymore
@J Thorsson How would you lug this thing around and keep it protected from the weather? Both traditional bows and muskets are relatively easy to store and lug of around. Most of battlefield combat through most of history was walking or taking a boat to enemy territory through various weather conditions.
From a historical perspective, I think these would have been utilized by commoners and militias who had been conscripted but weren't professional, trained soldiers. Especially from a defense perspective, even a small number of unskilled archers would be devasting firing from atop or inside a castle or fort. I could also see the smaller crossbow style versions being a highly effective sidearm for infantry and cavalry.
Well this looks like one of the best exemplars of a Sassainian Archery device from the 3rd to 7th centuries - the Panjagan (five device). No one is at all sure quite what or how this worked other than it allowed the mounted archer to fire 5 smaller arrows (small enough to require an arrow guide) eith er all at once OR equally likely very rapidly. This device was an at times key element in Sassinad "shower" shooting - very rapid shooting by stationery or "slowly" moving dense cavalry. The techniques were to disrupt infantry or attack mounted formations making them vulnerable to being shattered by a determined charge.
I don't think its fair to say it wouldn't have been used if people had thought of it. If the chu ko nu could find success I see no reason to think that magazine bows wouldn't. In fact you should really be comparing it to the chu ko nu and crossbow, not bows wielded by professionals, the magazine makes it a simple mans weapon. Being able to loose bolts without precious time and attention spent reloading is an advantage even if the total rate of fire ended up being the same. A magazine is much simpler to use when you actually want to ready your weapon as opposed to down time. Using your 4 shots wisely is certainly far simpler than frantically reloading after every shot mid combat. You also don't need to ever look away from the target to loose the next bolt, allowing you to quickly adjust your shot if you miss spending that time aiming instead of reloading. Like the chu ko nu it is far more mobile than crossbows and useful in rough terrain. And the ultimate and final point - rate of fire is most useful in close ranges, which is what this weapon would most certainly excel at.
The issue I see is that rate of fire must not sacrifice the other pillars (accuracy and power). Repeating mechanisms that need be operated quickly - such as the chu-ko-nu or the IGK - are only done with light weights, which would render the weapon ineffective against most kinds of armour. Additionally, if you can craft an IGK, why *not* make it a repeating crossbow since it would have same limitations, but without requiring the physical action of shooting the bow? Considering that a proficient archer can get a shot off every 2-3 seconds without taking their eyes off the target, the tactical limitation of a small magazine capacity doesn't seem to be worth the tradeoff.
@@NUSensei well the point of the instant Genghis khan (as well as any crossbow) is that you can loose bolts without needing to be a proficient archer, so there is no sense comparing them to proficient archers who trained well enough that they don't need to bother with the magazine. I agree that the IGK can and should be modified to become a crossbow, or at least have a snag to hold it cocked position that can be triggered, because there's no reason not to really. Accuracy and power is king of long ranged combat, but is less important at closer ranges where being rapid fire becomes more and more an advantage - particularly having that ability to fire second shot faster than your opponent I would think of as being a big advantage. Also, this is just a magazine attached to a bow, you can still make the bow somewhat strong and have the benefits of simplicity, and potential to loose in quick succession, even if this is rather hard to do due to the weight. I could be wrong on this point, as the recovery time that you would have to wait from the stress to your arm might be same time or more than it would take to reload, so you might as well spend it reloading negating any time saved by the magazine, but even so, in a dire situation one might be able to attempt it. The simplicity of not needing to reload alone is still always going to be strong benefit in a stressful situation, and means you need even less training, as it is not important that you know how to reload quickly with a magazined bow. Of course, i'm just going off of theory, i've never even loosed a bow, and you the experienced archer actually have the IGK to test! If you have a gut feeling that the magazine isn't worth the extra weight in your hand, then maybe I should trust your judgement. But so far I don't entirely agree with your reasoning.
I concur with everything you said. Apart from being useful as an emergency weapon against intruders there would have been little use for this back then. But times have changed, now we shoot bows for recreational purposes. We now want fun, and that is what I have designed this for. I think the IGK has a much better chance to change archery history in the 21st century than in the 13th century.
Oh, and I did a ton of work on repeating crossbows. The „Adder“ that will hit the market this December will be very popular I think.
Herr Sprave,
Respectfully,
I like a lot of what Nu said, however, a technique used by musket using troops could be modified for use with blokes toting IGK's. That of volley fire ( Loose? ). The musket carrying blokes would stand in ranks, the first rank would fire, then as the first rank reloaded, the second rank would fire, then the third while the first rank finished reloading and the second rank started on reloading.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just offering a thought experiment.
Wayne Scace such a technique was used in the samurai tactics already, kinda. And, although, you are right about the amount of arrows, there is limitation due to human body becoming tired and the power, at which the arrow would be delivered.
@@caninedrill_instructor5861 Arrows would be easily defeated by simple pallisade type shields, unlike musket bullets that will tear a simple cover like that apart.
I initially thought You just wanted to show just another way to make something close to a crossbow, by circumventing the crossbow laws in Europe, as You did many times by making cross slings.
@@jakubpawlowski396 Most anyone involved in shooting sports in europe will have met confusing and selfcontradicting laws, as such i dont personally want to break the laws or even bend them. But sometimes feel like i,have no real alternative to "bending"
I am active in trying to make the laws more reasonable (thats not right to carry and castle doctrine in my book) but politics tend to like playing tough on guns rather than smart on guns.
IId say the magazine bow is morein the region of good fun when you allready have repeating and selfreloading crossbows.
Neither of wich would be legal in Denmark.
Possible markets:
- Spec-ops agents
- Civilians and hunters
- Isekai protagonists
Joshua Madoc stranded in fantasy reference?
@@spacebear4742 Never heard that before. I'm much more exposed to the isekai manga genre than 1d4chan in general.
+1 for isekai protagonists :DD
Not very useful for Isekai protagonists - they tend to level up very fast, and very soon their natural shooting speed would make the magazine reload time an issue. (unless you use magic to mitigate that - some fantasy systems had the "bag of holding" enchantments applied to similar designs for massive ammo capacity.)
Could be useful in a fantasy setting of you want different but real looking and working equipment. As such it could be useful in both movies and games..
the theory is that joerg is an avatar of a ancient war god that come on earth to amaze us with his divine warfare
And to show you their features!
If you imagine a war god with his physical strength then yea it still matches .
@Vanillaman you forgot Hephaestus in that equation
One scenario where such a bow would've been useful would be hunting. You load the bow before you head out, and if you miss one shot you can quickly shoot again.
Especially in modern archery, this would be useful instead of holding super sharp arrows, and risk having one open your hand up, yea you have a thing on the side to hold arrows but taking time to take that out and knock it, the animal could already be gone or see you and run
A white-tailed deer can run 10 feet *during arrow* flight at 20 yards. If you miss the first shot you have lost the animal - there is no second shot.
If you hit the deer, especially with bow under 55 pounds it can take more than 1 arrow to kill it, I'm not cutting it's neck if it has a big rack
@@clear_image_photos5477 Then why use a bow under 55 pounds?
I was just giving an example, any weight you have to wait and let the deer, bear elk ECT bleed out, lower weights just take longer
the two era of this chanel :
The Pre-Jörg era
The Post-Jörg era
Pre-Shad? Post-Shad?
@@kaisersnow2618 Shadiversity, or a different Shad?
@@devinm.6149 Shadiversity... It was a huge thing...
At one point, Shad hinted to his exclusive fans and they flooded NUSensei's videos with unlikes and racist comments (like real racism, not the ordinary stuff, that Marxist snowflakes are cringy about), which eventually split formerly overlapped audience.
The way in which Shad evaluated the outcome on his community pages was also pretty much disgusting...
@@FalkonNightsdale what did he hint?
@@devinm.6149 He created (since deleted) video, I think the name was "NUsensei is IDIOT" or something like this, where he attacked NUSensei for pointing out Shad's terrible myth spreading habits, in this case, regarding archery.
In the description he added links to some videos, as he claimed it, beginning with worst one...
A few minutes later that videos were flooded and infection slowly infected other videos, which weren't on the list...
Even in firearms, there was a time when generals didn't want to issue repeating rifles or magazines to line troops because they felt that soldiers would waste a lot of bullets.
IGK is similar to tube magazine firearms (Lebel 1886, various Winchester rifles, modern pump action shotguns). You have some amount of ammo ready to use and that gives you ability for rapid fire, which might overwhelm (or even break) your enemy. But once you've used this ammo you need more time to reload than someone using "single fire" weapon.
And their soldiers got slaughtered when the enemy thought differently.
@@PobortzaPl There has been formation tactics for centuries for dealing with reload time issues.
@@marcusc9931 The idea was to use them (Lebel 1886) was single shot rifles. Magazine was to be used only in emergency, when ordered by officers.
C&Rsenal channel has very good video about that rifle and others used during First World War.
The friggin' high command of the North in the Civil War had the "wastes ammo" concern and had to be overruled by *Lincoln himself*
This is created by JoergSprave only with one purpose: FUN. HAHAHA.
THANKS AND BYE BYE
Sensei can't get enough of this, and why not. I mean having this creative masterpiece really feels wonderful. Joergsprave is a creative genius man.
You have a point, but counterpoint: Moar Dakka!
WAAAAAAAGH!!!!
Dem oomies wont be expectin' dis bolt shoota!
Sum Gud Bitz un dat panzy hummie shoota.
Neads moar Dakka!!!
Jus' got ta snag uh grot to put moar pointie sticks in.
@@codysing1223 DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!
Fast dakka best dakka
I think you're addicted to this.
And so am I.
Well, you are not alone. Me too!
@ that's tragic
After 15 days watching Nu S. I (55) bought a full Archer’s kit (recurve wooden riser), I never had a bow in my hand before..... in this way is how this begins?
Is fascinating to me should I be worried 😧?
@@Xupertes wait til you get a compound;)
@@bumstudios8817 i saw my Archery Senior's compound bow.. man, it is mind blowing! I love it!
I think one way it would be useful is what Joerg alluded to in his video, sort of an "emergency bow" that a guard could have by their bed. No need to grab arrows and try to nock quickly while just being awoken by a sudden attack. A couple dozen soldiers running out with 4 quick shots each could make a difference while the camp gathers itself to respond.
This seems perfect for garrison duty.
That would require the bow to be always strung - possible with modern materials, but a wood or horn bow will quickly lose its shape. You would probably better off relying on rotating guard shifts than guards suddenly waking up battle-ready.
@@chinggis_khagan You could have the string already through it and have it loaded but not strung. Then just grab it attach the string to the second arm and boom ready to go. It is only a few extra seconds.
@@Duke00x Have you ever strung a high poundage bow?
I love the amount of respect Joerg is getting from the medieval/historical community on yt. His invention is indeed genius and shows how this community is easily one of the most nontoxic on this website.
I've been a fan of @JoergSprave for years & thanks to these reviews of the IGK I'm now a fan of yours! I've always enjoyed seeing his creations (and all of their features "HAHAHA") & your reviews of not just how fun it is to shoot but also the pros and cons of its potential tactical applications are a testament to both his ingenuity & craftsmanship, as well as your knowledge & skills in archery. Thanks for the great content, I'm off to catch up on your other videos that I never knew existed till now lol
Consider that every nation all over the world, invested in developing early firearms, which were initially very slow, unreliable, and inaccurate instead of finding ways to increase the rate of fire of battle proven, reliable and accurate bows :D.
Convenience is underestimated historically :P.
Dude what
This was a great collaborative series. :) Love both of you, and I really hope that Joerg's and NUsensei's channels both grew a lot from this.
I can see it as being used along side the crossbow for militia and it might even be used slightly more than some low powered crossbows considering the speed
The IGK would ultimately be more useful for field combat but not against heavily armored hostile but against light troops
But in sieges crossbow would still be more preferred
with all the attributes Jorge built into the Fenris.. with the trigger handle installed while in a hunting situation where your at full draw waiting for the shot or the animal to relax.. that alone is an invaluable asset in the hunting world.. as is equally fast follow-up shots... god bless Jorge!!!
I don't think it will be useful on horseback. BUT, if you're in a watchtower guarding a gate, being able to shoot 4 arrows at a target without moving your bow to load might give an accuracy advantage.
If you are on a wall/tower your arrows would be deadlier to begin with (Since being higher = getting extra speed due to gravity). So I think it would make up for the bow being lighter.
It synergises with horseback quite nicely - the magazine saves you a lot of movement while shooting, while the horse's mobility mitigates the problem of reloading - you can approach, fire a burst of arrows, retreat, reload, repeat.
That's why they had crossbows
@@b.m.5068 a crossbow is a single shot and then you need to reload which takes time, this on the other hand you can fire several arrows one after the other and then stop to reload
Some points to address those concerns. The magazine can be made larger with more time and more engineering. Possibly from a capacity of 4 bolts, to maybe 8 or even 10 bolts. Second, would it be possible to make such a device with detachable magazines? You heard me correctly. Create the device so that the fixture that connects with the riser is fixed in place, but that only serves as an attachment point. Behind that would be where the magazine clicks and locks into. That way once each magazine is expended, you can simply unlatch the magazine, and pop on a fresh one. One could probably carry 5 or 6 magazines with 8 bolts each. That would be around 40 shots that can mostly be shot one after another. Also don't forget: Reducing the time it takes to load a new shot means more time available to aim at your target. So that rapid availability doesn't always need to translate into a faster rate of fire, but more time to aim, and less body movements needed for each subsequent shot.
ohhh man imagine if you could get to try more of Herr Sprave's creations!
I think you are severly underestimating one factor for this. If crossbows had trigger mechanisms which weren't exactly the cheapest, especially in the medieval ages. The fact that this requires a block of wood and an arrow is such a mindboggling economic advantage for whoever uses this. This coupled with the fact that it's easy to use means that it's easier to field a large militia with ranged weapons.
The main disadvantage I see is the lack of power on this model, but maybe that could be improved.
The new version does have a trigger mechanism. It makes it more complex to make, but makes aiming a lot easier, since you can relax your arms the moment the bow is ready to fire - no need to keep struggling with the bow string.
I have to wonder how an historic bowstring would hold up to sliding through that wooden slot.
I was thinking that too, but if you would make this stock from 2 halves (instead of one piece with a slit in it). and sand them quite smooth and wax it. I think it would last a long time. But that's mostly guess work.
The rail in which the string runs is off centre, so as the string is released as it moves to rest position, it must be rubbing the wood of the guide rail.
Have you noticed much string degredation at all?
the notch on the arrow holds it in the center for the most part
so when ever you wanted to charge enough energy, that will be super tiring and slow?
i guess that's why we invented gun......
the first guns were super slow and used more for psychological effect. Then we got them refined and the world changed.
Medieval warfare seems to have happened at a 4 ranges: Artillery, Ranged (Bows and Crossbows), Standoff, and Melee. Standoff range refers to the 50-30 meters when an enemy is charging into melee, and whole loads of weapons have been developed to hit the enemy at standoff range e.g. Roman pilae, Frankish throwing axes.
Winston Churchill describes in his account of the Afghan wars the British camp being charged at night by Afghan warriors using swords and shields. The British were equipped with the new Lee-Enfield magazine repeating rifles, which improved on the previous Martini-Henry rifle by having a magazine that could be tapped into at standoff range. As the Afghans charged, the British fired single shots as they came in, right up until standoff range. At that point, the troops were ordered "five rounds rapid" and emptied their magazines into the charge at close range, which in pretty much every case stopped the charge cold.
I don't know if it would be worth the extra cost, but having the ability to dump 6 arrows per archer into a charging enemy at close range is certainly interesting. Of course, even if this device existed the context to develop the sort of drill I'm describing probably wouldn't have existed.
I’d like to see the magazine on the opposite side, double capacity, and have a slot to move the spring off to one side for a fistful of arrows kinda reload!, spring could be pinned to be able to rotate and still keep tension !?
He can't stop shooting it 🤣🤣🤣nice job Jorge 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾😁
I doubt I could either
@@WhoThisMonkey i will got the addiction too..
Hello sir, i do not know you nor nothing about bows, im a Joerg Fan :) and i do weapons in joerg style. but i have always been interested in Swords & Bows. so im your new subscriber!
what do you think about The use of a sight on top of the wood structure (yes, a bow with a sight, there is not much other chances to do such things)
and the use of special bolts like really long ones.
Sights are normal for bows these days, so adding a pin or reference point is not unusual. It wasn't used historically because there were other effective methods of sighting the bow, typically using the arrow as the reference point. Aiming was more instinctive and more versatile for different methods of shooting. Sights only really came about because of target shooting.
Awesome weapon mate 😁.love how your doing more trad stuff 👍
His six shot long bow version of this is absolutely lethal and accurate.
One inherent limitation I see from its design is that you can only use arrows with 2 fins on them. The problem with this is that it means the arrows/bolts will have a lack of long range stability, making it only a weapon for close range. I guess that goes in line with your earlier concept of an 'assault bow'. One way I can see how this would be used historically is for horse archers. A very common tactic for horse archers is to run up fairly close to the enemy's formation, shoot in a number of arrows, and run out of range again. I know that Korean Horse archers had specialized arrows for this purpose(대우전), which has a structure of only two fins that are larger than normal, making them easier to load on the string and having an ideal short range ballistic while terrible long range ballistics. If they used this bow for that purpose, they can rapidly shoot in a magazines worth of arrows, retreat back, reload, and then repeat.
Jeorge made one with the two twisted fins, it twisted in flight giving greater stability, much like rifling in a gun barrel
Greetings from Germany. Interesting how you comment and mirror Joerg Spraves invention. Well done, good job!
Hans Müller he isn't mirroring. Joerg send this to him)
@@akreid4614 Yes, I know and and I am aware that both gentlemen colaborate on a mutual basis snd i a very fruitful manner. I meant "mirror" in the sense of analyze and draw conclusions in context of history.
Sorry for causing a misunderstanding due to my poor language skills. My mother toung/dialect is "bavarian". Being a member of this tribe I must admit that we have our problems even with high German, not to talk about English.
Very good NuSensei
I learned a lot watching your videos. Big fan.
You can't keep a traditional bow strung because it would loose strength and break in no more than a few days. So if a burglar broke in, you have to string this up, taking a considerable time. So, this as a home defense weapon is only viable with modern technology. The best bow for home defense back then would probably be a weaker hunting bow. A warrior can shoot quite fast with one, as Lars demonstrated, and a burglar is would not be wearing armor, so a lower poundage bow would suffice.
There is actually no speed advantage, because the time it takes to reload one arrow into the mag is longer than it takes to load one arrow in normal shooting, so overall you shoot slower than normal shooting.
Another big problem is that there is an optimal arrow weight for a given bow strength, so a full sized arrow is actually optimal for most war bows, not short bolts.
Im a proud subscriber of JoergSprave
RUclips is boosting Joergs video for obvious reasons >:)
@Deimos Cain do you not know of what Joerg is doing to RUclips? He's planning to sue them if they do not listen to his demands.
Great channel, much expertise and interesting to watch. Greetings from Germany!
Would the string wear out faster too chafing against the wood with prolonged use
Hmmm... that's a good point of view
Yes and no, the largest force *should* be when releasing, in which case it is sat in the nock. The slight wear on the draw might damage the string there, but then again it could be mitigated, plus the effects of vibration could wear bows down more than we think. Not significantly is my answer. I don't think it will ruin them before they are too old anyway.
@@mandowarrior123 I was more thinking the rubbing during the draw where the "spring mechanism" is sandwiching the string between the arrow and the wood and the string rubbing there. . . but could go both ways if ya string is waxed good and proper it might just make the wood slick over time instead of wearing the string.? he will just have to thrash it and let us know lol. after all a steady drop of water over a long period of time can bore a hole in a rock so who knows what way it will go.
I believe the IGK is perhaps the perfect training tool. It promotes full draw fire. It clicks when properly drawn. It is quick and easy to reload. The faster shooting and higher capacity means less time between shots, and more instant gratification. And by the looks of it it is just fun to do, so for anyone looking to start archery but not be slowed down by some of the intricacies of it, the IGK is just the perfect tool to teach people how fun archery CAN be. Whether they want to stop practicing or keep using the IGK or move on to some more technical bows it's up to them.
May have been useful for guards protecting important persons. At close range it seems it would be very effective to take down one or two assailants very fast. I wonder if it was possible for Joerg to create a speed loading system, similar to revolvers. Maybe even revolving arrow magazine; build a mechanism when the string is drawn, arrow is pushed into chamber from revolver, once it's released next arrow rotate into place. Something giving tension to the revolver to make it want to turn. The arrow could be what keeps it from turning, so once fired, it would spin to the next arrow which would stop it. I wonder if a custom arrow with spring loaded fletching would be possible to keep it lower profile too.
you can make a turn leaver to make the spring come up and down quickly and drop all the arrows at once,
I don't think that would be easier or faster, or have any other advantage over repeatedly pulling the string back. Well, it would be fun.
@@DarxusC i think he is talking about reloading
yea make it automatic with a lever or air compression but that works more for crossbows i cant really think of a design that works for bows holding vertically that works and wont be clunkly i dont know how u would hold it while turning the lever, a button with a air compression tube sure but lever would be hard to hold in bow aiming position vertically
but im sure its possible
The main advantages I see are that it is that you don't have to spend as much time reacquiring a your target between and that shot placement can be fairly consistent, because you didn't have to move the bow to reload between those shots.
The main disadvantages are the obvious reload delay and the shorter ammo tends to have a bit less range from what I've seen of testing.
Joerg gave you your new favorite toy, didn’t he? :)
I mean, who doesn't love this bow?
Real ancient archers could fire this rapidly and reload faster than this. This would have been a rich man's toy...
@@Meop79 but did u see the bow? Isn't it heavy?
@@Meop79 "real" ancient archers take months if not years to train while this at much would take days to master, which it's an extremly powerful advantage
And imo, this weapon is better than a crossbow
@@carso1500 possibly, yes ancient archers took years to train and this would be easy to learn, this verses a crossbow... hmmm it's an interesting question.
I can see it's use in horseback combat where you're rushing up to the enemy, getting off a few shots, and galloping away. That's one place where rapid fire and not having to manipulate arrows on a bouncing horse may have had a positive effect, possibly.
I have an idea for a period correct, technologically speaking, anti-aircraft turret sort of contraption. Use pedal power to spin a flywheel. The flywheel could control rotation, and elevation, as well as have the draw mechanism for a heavy crossbow, or ballista. Use a feeding system similar to the one shown. It could be mounted vertically, since it's a crossbow, and there could potentially be a hopper style loading system. Simply feed arrows or bolts into the hopper, and have a person, or team, keeping the flywheel spinning.
I think this would be great for a Wall/Tower defense during a siege of a stronghold or castle.
Real ancient archers were much faster than this bow, that's why...
Meop79 proof?
@@akreid4614 there are a lot of videos on RUclips that show archers shooting accurately and faster than this. You can search too... I have even seen them shoot two targets at the same time with two different arrows...
@@akreid4614 ruclips.net/video/BEG-ly9tQGk/видео.html
Meop79 ffs. Watch all of Nu's videos on this topic. And on the topic of lars Anderson. People can shoot fast out of a 40lb bow with a half-draw, yes. But the warbows were at least 100lb. Anybody can shoot pretty fast out of s 18 lb bow easily with a full draw. Pls, research. And all the things that are called "newly found" and "reborn" in Larses video are, well, aren't. People know about them, people practice. Lars isn't a bow jesus. He is talented (and knows how to sell himself), but only that.
Now then - where is your proof, that people of old could shoot a warbow (100< lb) fast? And - which is more important - how fast was it?
I think addition of grove at the end of the magazine would definitely increase its usability. Just imagine, you have strong +-100 lbs bow. You draw it, and then insert string into a grove for it to rest. Not only your accuracy increases but you don't use that much strength for aiming.
With loading speed. I have to disagree. I tried to make it myself. And using 20lbs bow, normally reloading(with or without magazine) speed with magazine was faster. I think mainly because you don't need to switch your actions(from shooting to reloading and vice-versa). With magazine, you can continue to reload, and after reloading you can only shoot without any switch in your actions.
Main issues to my understanding are inability to shoot without drawing a bow to full length(So when using strong bow you loose ability to shoot weaker shots, which given situation sometimes are needed) and second issue is inability to use when you are not using correct form. For example when you are on horse, in a woods crouching. Basically it is clunky.
Given that they lacked ability to make magazines, I think they simply couldn't use this kind of tool because they couldn't create it(even Chinese repeating crossbow's magazine was full of limits because it only used gravity, so when you turned it sideways, bolts would fall out)
Joerg did this on one of his.
If you put a groove into it, you won't be able to loose it quickly enough and you also don't want to keep a 100+ lbs bow drawn at that draw for a long time. All that energy rests in the string and the bowstave while its on full draw. If you have any material faults, which could even be increased if the nook you are using isn't perfectly round. A single damaged strand on the string could be enough to have a cascade failure and resulting in the bow basically expending all that energy as the string snaps. Same with the bowstave.
Also with all due respect... a 20lbs bow will have a hard time to go through a gambeson or have any real, meaningful, penetration through leather. 20lbs isn't even enough for medium sized game. You need 40lbs at least with that to get any sort of meaningful penetration into the animal. So yeah... 20lbs repeating bows are fun, if you are hunting watermelons and 3D targets. It would be my "go to" choice for a bow to just muck about, but if you want to hunt game.. its at least 40lbs or you are pretty much stuck to hunting small game like rabbits and birds. And for fighting humans, that have armed and armored themselves with even just basic protection.. you need 60+ lbs. You can wound people with less draw weight, but those wounds are unlikely to be deep enough to actually incapacitate the enemy.
@@IshanDeston All your points are right but Joerg made this for "FUN".
If I was going against humans with this device the first thing i would change is the ammo.
1/ The arrows/bolts are hollow tubes with a head screwed on. a) Adapt the head so it is a loose fit held in place with some wax.(A "Bodking" would be good). b) place inside the shaft a short iron rod (striker), Fixes in place with a "Small" drop of wax to the rear.
c) Drill two small holes in the shaft near the head.
2/ Same as above but your "Striker" is to have a blunt point and attach a (.22) blank to the base of the head before you fit it..
3/ There are other ideas which use "Hollow" heads and liquids.
(And yes I would change the bow)
@@Geordun You are quicker at just taking a metal tube, fitting it tightly into a bigger metal tube at the end. Drill a hole into it, attach the tube on top of the wood, and fill it with some matchstick heads, put in a metal bearing, some cloth to hold it in place.. and light the matchsticks through the hole you drilled.
If you gonna change the design, you might as well do it properly ;)
@@IshanDeston Yes but i live in the U.K. and the police would be a wee bit upset if someone made them self a firearm or *ANYTHING* "to be used in Self Defence".(Yes it is illegal to make/purchase items for "*Active*" use in defending oneself)
Now if I "just" happen to have a *Fun* Bow and some "Funny" arrows, (but NOT the ones containing blanks) that's a different matter.
Safer than a Tong-Ah if its able to load a wider range of arrow sizes than the bows draw length would normally dictate?
You seemed to be able to load it quicker in the second section with the car behind, how quick is it to load and shot just one arrow then repeat as you would with a normal bow ?
what about having the spring on an unlockable axle so you can slide a clipped together bundle of X arrows into the magazine stripperclip style.
Or maybe have a special bow with a connection to clip the magazine assembly into place for quick release and exchange as a whole.
Nu Sama!! Try to use High draw power with a Chronograph (if possible) to test the Speed and efficiency!
I'm thinking that if they had 2 of the bows, had a dedicated firer and reloader on the 2nd bow, it might work. It'll be harder to tell if the rapid-fire bow + reloader would be faster than 2 crossbowmen. Maybe 2 crossbowmen and 1 reloader for both?
Watching this after he created an assisted pull, meaning drawing heavier bows is a lot easier. Does this change your opinion?
I've seen his assisted pull bow, and it's quite cubersome looking. The concept would definitely would be useful on artillery, but the ease of storage and transportation is not something to be underestimated. The more you add to the bow, the harder it is to transport.
Several years ago I thought about a fast firing vertical crossbow with a simple wrought iron slider that could allow the bow to be cocked by putting the end of the crossbow on the ground, locking the bow string to the trigger mechanism and then sliding the bow down with your foot to lock, allowing the weight of the archers body to do the work. Somewhat like a Greek gastropedes. Such an approach could allow for quite a heavy bow to be used without tiring out the archer and without a separate cocking mechanism. Then I saw JoergSprave's videos, especially his more advanced sliding "instant Legolas" designs. Perhaps combining the slider with a foot rest to cock the thing might be advantageous. True it wouldn't be as fast firing as Joerg's designs but the magazine would eliminate the time consuming step of setting the arrow on a cocked crossbow. And untrained troops could quickly learn how to use it.
I like the rapid fire of your videos lately.
You can thank joerg
I think you should consider the skirmish formation which indeed did use burst fire. For example this was the main advantage of horse archers and chariots. Basically the horses or chariots ran in a circular or oval and fired their weapons at the moment they were nearer the enemy and rested/reloaded as their mounts were on the retreating part of their formation, the ranks behind them then taking their shots as they followed..This would give a continuous 4x Even some light foot formations historically used a skirmish formation for missile fire. In any of these cases the repeating bow you designed would hold distinct advantages! Each ranks "volley" being quadrupled! Very useful indeed. The total firepower of a given unit massively increased without adding fatigue
Do you think something like this may have existed historically, perhaps soley for recreation and we just don't have records of it?
People like gimmicks and novelty. I could see a medieval bowyer selling something like this as a curiosity or a gimmick.
I would think that it's simply too useful to have gone down without records. Like even the "assassin's crossbow" has some records and reproductions, even though it was likely never used for anything but shooting at targets when you're a bored nobleman.
S Engelhard, the "Assassin's Crossbow" is a good example of something "impractical" that existed for one reason or other...
Consider also the chinese triple barreled repeating crossbow, the tongah Nu mentions, lantern shields, spiked gauntlets, kusari gama (sickle with chain and weight), rifle shields, revolver cannons, and etc... Each of these can be argued that it represented a useful adaptation in a very specific niche... There are probably more recreational archers around today than at any point in history even though archery is technically "useless" today. I am almost certain that magazine bows existed at some point in time. It's possible that we just haven't found any evidence for them yet?
@@sengelhard2982 I think you are onto something in regards to recreation... I can almost bet that in the future we will discover historical accounts of magazines for bows being used at the very least as a fun little toy.
A guard that suddenly need to deal with a crowd.
These did exist prior to Joerg. You can find references to them in many different forms in the old Saracen Archery book.
I do not agree on the point that it makes more sense or is more efficient or effective to develop a cross-bow than a magazine for the bow. Also not to have a magazine for a cross-bow. As mentioned it takes time to reload a cross-bow, e.g. with a windlass. The time to put in the bolt is neglectable for this. Also the cross-bow has a much higher draw-weight then a bow, since you do not need to hold the tention with your arms, but you can store it as potential energy in the trigger mechanism. Therefore you get a lot of accuracy combined with reach and power. Complementary a bow with a low draw weight that is quick to shoot makes a lot more sense. Consequently, the bow would need to have the magazin.
Not sure I only just found this, so I apologize for the late comment.
Like all things in combat, the right tool used the right way.
I would think the power limitation remains valid with the magazine or not. You can only pull back so many times before your body can't do another. With the magazine, if you need 2-4 quick shots, you in theory would have them. Or you wouldn't have to keep it held on the string the entire time until you're ready to fire (not pulled back, just held in place on the string). Once you are, you just go through the motions of aim, pull, loose. An entire regiment of burst fire could be enough to intimidate a charge, and while they're scattered and trying to figure out what just happened, the trained and practiced archers are reloading, probably quite quickly if they've had any time to practice.
The limited training is I think the highlight of this technology. It take A LOT of practice for an archer to achieve "effective", much less "useful" in combat. With this, that training need drops dramatically, which for a low budget/manpower nation could mean more archers that require significantly less training/practice time. You mention the cross bow, but those are notoriously hard to cock. True some could punch through armor (I think), but you're talking about a weapon that takes a special method to cock, which takes time.
So back to that low budget/manpower nation, you could have all three.
1) You have your standard archers who have put in the time to be experts.
2) You have archers with this tech who basically have the exact same stopping power in their weapon but without the extensive training. (Alternately, you could have crossbows that are no harder to pull than a bow.)
3) You have the true crossbow that has that extra hard stopping power, but takes longer to cock each shot.
The versatility of the bow is a factor that is hard to argue against. I could be wrong, but I understand some archers would use their long bows like a staff if engaged up close. Not every time, and most had an arming sword instead, but the option was there, and wouldn't be with this thing.
I think this will pop up in fantasy stories, and I don't think that would be so bad. First it looks cool, which is enough for most. But those who think it all the way through could really build interesting stories, worlds, and tactics around the technology. I know I've got my brain working with where and how it would indeed be useful.
Mass production is taken for granted this day in age. Before the industrial revolution, there were rigorously trained individuals who performed the art of producing the implements of war. Central planning was required in order to produce items of similar size and shape, but the exact reproductions of today weren't quite possible. Mass producing an item with such precision was always difficult and near impossible before the industrial revolution.
True, i thought about that too. It would not be so easy and fast to make a magazine device without modern machines. But it would still be possible back than, you had to learn a lot of people how to make these and even then it wouldn´t be able to produce it in high amounts. Maybe this magazine were given to some kind of elite soldiers and it may not changed history but have an impact on certain situations, of course depending on who and when this were invented first.
I wonder if you'd get serious problems with the bow, at military draw weights. It is hard on arrows in general, when they are shot from a powerful bow. If they rubbed against a magazine as they were loosed, they might splinter to pieces.
Advantages In a military setting:
#1 higher rate of fire
#2 dont need to take view off target to knock
#3 can be proficiently operated by untrained archers
#4 arrows cannot be shot by opponents with normal bow
#5 cheaper to manufacture than crossbows
6 uses Bolts and Bolts are cheaper to produce than Arrows
I think your Nr 3 is by far the strongest point
I think I'll only agree on #3
Tbh I love Joerg's instant legolas but I think it's impractical, like it has some disadvantages that made me think it still can't replace bows on medieval times.
@@53n47 mounted long bow archers?
THIS VIDEO IS OUTDATED!!!
Joerg made a whole new version. Also the advantage with this weapon is that your can field larger numbers if archers and guerilla warfare.
And it's like twice as.strong and even faster
@@succusage3966 twice? It has to be like 4x as strong.
Plus imagine how quickly you can recruit a militia to fight with these back in ancient - medieval times, very little need for weapon training.
I think he knew it already and the new magazines are in a other leaque
Would it be advantageous as a horse bow, where drawing arrows would (possibly) be trickier?
I would say the opposite. Trying to reload that thing while riding would be a pain.
I want to buy this arrow magazine. Where can I buy it?
I wonder if it’s easier to shoot on horse back with this compared to standard bow
The low draw weight and rapid fire makes it better for close quarters combat like raiding or urban village warfare. Speed is more important in a stand off situation and the low draw weight isn't too bad since distance isn't a big factor.
Completely agree with you and in truth maybe this could have been something maybe for closer quarters combat as then the bow draw weight can be lower. This design is based on many engineering feats in firearms development so in truth as designed this wasn’t in the minds of people back then. But I do love to watch it work and with more updated materials it can be improved immensely. The genius of this is amazing and I do think it’s going to be a hit across the world soon!
I get that this concept can't really work for a high power bow, but it does work for the power bow you are comfortable with. The advantage I see over a crossbow (even one with a magazine), is that it can be kept loaded and "cocked" much faster... I see it as the bow equivalent of a pump shotgun; yeah, you can empty the magazine if you have to, but you can also top it off after one or two shots, during a pause, and then still have those four shots available if needed.
Jorge built this on the Mongolian bow as a concept, a what if, kinda like the posters from some years ago of an American Indian warrior on horseback with a compound bow... Would it have been a gamechanger, we'll never know!
Built as an integrated magazine on a more modern bow, even maybe a compound, this seems like a great device for the non-expert archer in a survival scenario, facing multiple attackers who also don't have guns, and not much else... Cause, never bring a bow to a gunfight! Pretty much why bows have been relegated to recreation, while guns are used for defense. I'm no archer, or historian, these are just my thoughts.
Compared to a modern rifle or shotgun, a bow is slower to shoot, much harder to aim, and much less powerful/less range. A .308 or shotgun blast will stop a man dead cold in a single hit. It could take 2 or 3 arrows and a few minutes for a bow to stop a threat. This bow design solves 2 of those issues. It makes it comparable in speed to a bolt action. You could mount a red dot and with a bit of practice be able to aim it as easy as a rifle. However the power and range issue is still a problem. You could use a modern fast acting poison, but that is a war crime I believe. There's nothing you could do about the range save for add more poundage/mechanical advantage. If you could shorten the limbs, perhaps similar to a triangle bow, you could use this 'tactically' similar to a rifle. That is, in a spread out formation, using cover, trenches, ect. Maybe even fire from prone by tilting the bow. But even then that would only "work" in a mad max like survival setting. Where enemies would be few in number and unarmored and under-gunned. In a more realistic situation, you'll be facing a guy with steel body armor and a AR. You'd be hopelessly outmatched.
On the medieval battlefield, these would do nothing against armored knights, and a massed charge by them would break through such spread out lines easily, as if they weren't there (assuming no earth works were prepared). At best, weapons like these would be used by skirmishers in forests, at close range, against infantry caught away from cavalry support. They would at least have a role though. Similar to repeating air guns used by the Austrians during the Napoleonic wars.
I'm an archer. I for one find no advantage in having such a device, since unlike the crossbow, you still must learn the skill to draw the arrow, knock it, aim and fire just like any ordinary archer, and training for it is considerable. If you are a trained archer it's much faster in the long run, to just do it the traditional way. Much convenient to in carrying it too.
You must understand, unlike bullets today, in the old day arrows are very expensive and hard make. You have the carpenters to make the shafts making them straight and of the same length and size, the fletcher to make and tie the feathers and the smiths to make the arrow heads (good steel is worth like gold at that time). In an army each archers are probably given a limited amount arrows to use and carry. In battle, with such a valuable resource the ordinary archer would probably aim more on accuracy to each single shot and making each shots count, since if the arrows ran out their basically dead.
Castle defense. The ladders hit the walls and enemy begin to climb. Archer can lean out from cover and quickly let loose several arrows, where time is very critical to prevent a breach and also not spending time out of cover nocking arrows keeps him safer. Archer leans back into cover and sets down the bow and grabs a second bow, leans out and shoots some more. First bow is picked up by a squire, servant, or some other untrained person (or a melee fighter waiting for enemy troops to scale the wall) and reloaded , ready for the trained archer to grab. And so the cycle goes.
And then basically every complaint was addressed by his addition of the pump-action mechanism, as well as the clip he created for the mini version which could be scaled up.
I was looking for your comment lol
And then a few months later Joerg fix the drawing problem with a string of rubber :D Gotta love that guy!
Really cool and accurate video.
I don't want to get on my high horse here but when did your comments section stop being archers/beginner archers and people interested in history and start being populated by people who get all of their information from the Robin Hood movie?
There are two main issues here making it impractical: firstly arrows were *expensive* which cannot be stressed enough. Therefore they were generally issued by armies (King Henry V had to order the removal of a feather from every goose in England prior to the Agincourt campaign just to get enough arrows to run out 5 minutes into the battle.) So arrows were not rapidly flung downrange as fast as possible, each one needed to count.
Secondly, and often overlooked.: Our ancestors were not idiots. They spent their time training for war, refining weapons, armour, tactics etc. Every historical weapon was designed for a role and refined until it worked. As Nusensei mentioned, the Chinese already had a magazine fed crossbow - they could have adapted it to bows but chose not to. People often assume that people from the past were stupid - they had exactly the same brains as modern people but with a lifetime of experience instead of armchair theorising.
People could be stubborn and stupid sometimes, like the guy who said they think matchlock is better than flintlock because the soldier are fine with the former.
It could have been used perfectly by robbers of all sorts. Not to shoot rider, but his mount, or armed, but unarmored civilians. Or it could have been used by specialised units in later times. Just imagine, Napoleonic times. There is some kind of entrenchment with fusilers, defending it. And attacking it, comes unit with repeating bows. Bows have less range, so it recieves incoming fire (bang, bang, bang) => 30% of attackers are killed or wounded. But those 70 % come closer and finish them off. Like easily.
Not to mention english longbowmen also had to bring their own arrows. Agincourt wasn't the only battle on that campaign though. Doubt they each fired 60+ arrows each in under 5 minutes.
Maybe it's like an automatic gear box or a manual?
People say you should learn to drive a manual first.
Also, how do you know it never existed... It might have, just not in large enough numbers to be recorded. Yes I'm being picky.
Subscribed! Thanks Herr Jeorg for showing me an epic channel.
Also, we know that Persian and mongol archery would have a far greater rate of fire... Take Lars for example.
Definitely need to increase the arrow capacity, I keep saying it, Hilux design like the North Korea's newish Ak magazine.
Someone probably did, but by means of natural selection and actual use most like found it useless.
...and as he pointed Lars uses a very light draw weight bow (40 lbs) for his trick shots. Those things are ineffective in battle where most soldiers are at least wearing tough leather or heavy padded clothes, much less to those wearing metal armor, and remember your shooting hundreds of yards away.
The actual Mongols war bow used had 120 - 160 lbs draw, according to historians. It's way much heavier than what competitive/Olympic archers are using. As an archer myself, a well trained archer would probably take a decent amount of time to draw the bow, aim and shoot, relax for few seconds then do the process again. Now imagine trying doing that all day in battle.
What about close combat?
You can field large numbers of soldiers armed with automatic crossbows as an engagement weapon much like how the Romans equipped their infantry with Pila's. The Pila was used before formations closed in for melee. The Pila thrown would impale shields making them useless or right out injure or kill enemies.
What if infantry was equipped with these bows that they used before they go to their sword or spears? Combine the automatic bows with stripper clips for bolts and you got a rapid fire close range weapon. How much damage would a soldier be able to inflict before he's forced to use his melee weapon?
For home defense yes that's a deadly weapon vs anything other then a real gun.
one potential downside i haven't heard mentioned is the potential for dry firing the bow with this mechanism. couldn't that break the bow which would be very bad i think?
I've dry-fired the bow a few times due to failure to feed, but these cheap modern fibreglass bows couldn't care less. With historical materials, that would be riskier, perhaps.
Like they say: it it's worth killing it's worth overkilling. a bow that shoots faster and acts as a middle ground between a layman and a fast shooting professional would be awesome
like the handgun to a war archer's sniper rifle
I want one! Where can I get one?
This is a good bridge between a normal bow and a crossbow. It can have the ease of use of a crossbow and the Speed (Even if you don't speed shoot you can shoot four and reload four more and shoot them in less time than many crossbows. Especially the stronger ones.) and accuracy of a bow. Plus it is likely cheaper and easier to make then a crossbow. Also it would be like the repeating crossbow but can have more power (power is set but bow used and archers ability to draw. Meaning you can have an 80 to 120 pound repeating bow).
And if you come up with some kind of universal attachment method then it can be used with any bow (of an approximate set draw length). This means if one bow breaks just remove it and attach it to another, personal bows enemy bows you name it it can be attached to and used by your people.
Why would volume of fire not be primary when shooting a large body of troops
You're forgetting that all weaponry as undergone a ton of iterations over time to make them more useful. The first handheld firearms weren't particularly effective compared to what we have today for example. As such, this type of thing would also undergo a ton of iterative work. Just look at the difference between a Roman gladius and a 17th century rapier just in terms of the hilt. And who knows what happens when this thing is introduced
For example, I can envision a version that turns a heavy draw weight war bow into something that is halfway to a crossbow, just by having a notch to hold the string. At that point you have something that has massive range and power, is faster to arm than a crossbow and very likely cheaper to manufacture. Sure, you'll still have to train people in using it, but now you can far more archers - some will be the regular kind, and others will have to use twice or thrice as long to cock the damn thing, but once they're ready to go, the range will be the same, and the advantage here is you can have one big guy cocking the bows and handing them off to his neighbours, who will fire when told to.
If you can cock the damn thing, suddenly you can have your archers fire from otherwise impossible locations, where it'd be impossible to pull the string. I don't know, but I suspect it'd be extremely difficult to draw and aim a bow from a prone position, whereas cocking this device on your back and then rolling into a decent firing position seems far more plausible.
I can also envision adding an arrowguide to the top of it, allowing you to fire from a quiver without having to reload the magazine, thereby giving you the advantage of both. Adding ranged sights to the device would also be relatively simple, and would make training bowmen in volleys far easier and faster, as they could have a fixed reference point instead of having to rely on lots of training and experience to know how high to aim. And as Jörg commented on another weapon, it will inevitably end up being fed via a clip-system, and then the downside of reloading goes away.
It also seems like a fairly obvious innovation to put a bayonet at the end of it, but I'm not sure if that's particularly useful in a theatre of war.
A device like this might make no difference whatsoever in an alternate timeline, but it might also evolve into something far more potent than what we see now.
Look hom many iterations it has undergone in the past couple months.
Hi bro i like to buy this magazine can you give me any link
I think you are overlooking a huge advantage this has and that it shoots bolts that cant is shot back, compare the firing speed vs a Mongolian arrow guide. Two ideas I had were 1, square bolts with small holes drilled and 'pinned' together in the front and back with small breakable dowl to make a stripper clip. The second would be to build a frame that holds the regular bolts and 'glue' them together with wax and a dowl to keep the wax a bit stiffer and keep them straight.
Arrows from war bows shatter on impact for the most part.and your opponent would just copy you if it worked.
It's a quiver attached to a bow, I don't see the point. It's also harder to aim and takes longer to aim as well, along with making the bow heavier. In the same time you fire the first round - reload and fire again the average archer can empty the quiver.
JoergSprave if has living in the 13th century i think was like a Leonardo Da Vinci specialist in bow :) And today we has watching a movie "The JoergSprave Code" with Tom Hanks :)))))))
How about making a replacible clip for this system
The ability to shoot short arrows would be an advantage.
Thats a sweet hoodie. Where does one get himself one of those?
I like that you mentioned how this could be used by militia and I agree. The ease at which it can apparently be used means that if you strapped that thing onto a bunch of light draw weight bows (50-70 lbs) you could create a decently armed militia force either in a pinch or to supplement a core of professional archers in a real army. An archer's weakest point is up close and personal, hence English longbowmen were issued falchions or other swords. Imagine if for every longbowman there were two or three IGK armed light bowmen to serve as skirmishers, flank guards, and longbowmen protectors. Their usefulness would be relegated to close range fighting, possibly even in urban settings. I know that English law in the Hundred Years' War required all free men of a certain age to own and be proficient with longbows, so this is a moot point, but other countries weren't so adamant; it just needed the right setting to flourish. On top of that, IGKs might be a cheaper, more manageable alternative to crossbows; they don't need to be huge things that require a guy to lay down and use his whole body to cock nor do they need to be made of steel to make shorter, more powerful bows. Crossbows were the weapon of the professional mercenary and soldier/guard; this could make for a peasant's equivalent. Again, it's all about the right setting and circumstances. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that raiders would love this for a lightning attack.
There was a similar device used against Rome i.e. The Belly Bow which later became the Crossbow. Also you are assuming that person using this device will be *standing*.
But in history sometimes the Crossbow/heavy bow was used from the sitting position (I think it was the Han).
With a heavier bow ,sitting this would be ideal for ambushing!
With this device you end up with something between a Bow and the Crossbow, A Jack of all trades.
Muskets took a long time to load and they still used them
There's no strength requirement for a musket, lots of bodies and volley fire fixes the low fire rate
@JThorsson Bael Invictus It just wasn't worth the trouble, rate of fire isn't as important as saving money in combat.
Yeah you get kick ass bows, but you double the cost of the bow, more than triple the ammo needed (archers usually shot until they ran out of arrows anyway) and made another part on the bow that could break, it's easier and cheaper just to draft a few more guys and give them crossbows
Infinite power and godly accurate. Japan is the best case study, best bows & archers in world, first to transition to matchlocks. Why? Matchlocks require MORE training and cost, no shortage of skilled archers. Because when you get shot with a thick ass musket ball, you know about it. Nothing like tiny bullets. And armour would stop it, but that armour is heavy, and not cheap. They have stopping power on their side. Japanese used guns so big they couldn't stand up and firing them without falling over (or they fell to absorb recoil, its a whole martial art anyway. Or was.) skilled people can dodge/deflect (lethal)arrows, guns can be aimed for as long as you like, almost. Guns can be fired prone in ambush, massed fire can be used easily, they scare horses, and they penetrate at much longer ranges than most archery (japanese archery in war was done at excessive ranges up to 400m, in excess of guns, however it is stated don't bother shooting at more than 20m if you want to hit/hurt anything in war.(criticism samurai were training at too long ranges)
the strongest tactic pre-gun in japan was shock cavalry. On the battlefield in heavy rain (considered by most at the time the worst weather for matchlocks) were tried by shock cavalry and they were massacred. Horses die far quicker with ball cavitation, wounds were catastrophic (you either stop with armour or do not stop, no real mitigation of damage like with arrows) and they plain got more shots in. They used extra men to help reload iirc, but the extra (effective) range is what did it. Also bullets break bones, which is substantially more debilitating than piercing bones, though i have no doubt arrows sometimes did that too.
cause they were easier than teaching how to use bows
thats why we use guns nowadays, that was just the beginning of guns and Technology about guns that's why no one uses muskets anymore
@J Thorsson How would you lug this thing around and keep it protected from the weather? Both traditional bows and muskets are relatively easy to store and lug of around. Most of battlefield combat through most of history was walking or taking a boat to enemy territory through various weather conditions.
From a historical perspective, I think these would have been utilized by commoners and militias who had been conscripted but weren't professional, trained soldiers. Especially from a defense perspective, even a small number of unskilled archers would be devasting firing from atop or inside a castle or fort. I could also see the smaller crossbow style versions being a highly effective sidearm for infantry and cavalry.
Well this looks like one of the best exemplars of a Sassainian Archery device from the 3rd to 7th centuries - the Panjagan (five device). No one is at all sure quite what or how this worked other than it allowed the mounted archer to fire 5 smaller arrows (small enough to require an arrow guide) eith er all at once OR equally likely very rapidly. This device was an at times key element in Sassinad "shower" shooting - very rapid shooting by stationery or "slowly" moving dense cavalry. The techniques were to disrupt infantry or attack mounted formations making them vulnerable to being shattered by a determined charge.
I don't think its fair to say it wouldn't have been used if people had thought of it. If the chu ko nu could find success I see no reason to think that magazine bows wouldn't. In fact you should really be comparing it to the chu ko nu and crossbow, not bows wielded by professionals, the magazine makes it a simple mans weapon.
Being able to loose bolts without precious time and attention spent reloading is an advantage even if the total rate of fire ended up being the same. A magazine is much simpler to use when you actually want to ready your weapon as opposed to down time. Using your 4 shots wisely is certainly far simpler than frantically reloading after every shot mid combat. You also don't need to ever look away from the target to loose the next bolt, allowing you to quickly adjust your shot if you miss spending that time aiming instead of reloading. Like the chu ko nu it is far more mobile than crossbows and useful in rough terrain. And the ultimate and final point - rate of fire is most useful in close ranges, which is what this weapon would most certainly excel at.
The issue I see is that rate of fire must not sacrifice the other pillars (accuracy and power). Repeating mechanisms that need be operated quickly - such as the chu-ko-nu or the IGK - are only done with light weights, which would render the weapon ineffective against most kinds of armour. Additionally, if you can craft an IGK, why *not* make it a repeating crossbow since it would have same limitations, but without requiring the physical action of shooting the bow?
Considering that a proficient archer can get a shot off every 2-3 seconds without taking their eyes off the target, the tactical limitation of a small magazine capacity doesn't seem to be worth the tradeoff.
@@NUSensei well the point of the instant Genghis khan (as well as any crossbow) is that you can loose bolts without needing to be a proficient archer, so there is no sense comparing them to proficient archers who trained well enough that they don't need to bother with the magazine.
I agree that the IGK can and should be modified to become a crossbow, or at least have a snag to hold it cocked position that can be triggered, because there's no reason not to really.
Accuracy and power is king of long ranged combat, but is less important at closer ranges where being rapid fire becomes more and more an advantage - particularly having that ability to fire second shot faster than your opponent I would think of as being a big advantage.
Also, this is just a magazine attached to a bow, you can still make the bow somewhat strong and have the benefits of simplicity, and potential to loose in quick succession, even if this is rather hard to do due to the weight. I could be wrong on this point, as the recovery time that you would have to wait from the stress to your arm might be same time or more than it would take to reload, so you might as well spend it reloading negating any time saved by the magazine, but even so, in a dire situation one might be able to attempt it. The simplicity of not needing to reload alone is still always going to be strong benefit in a stressful situation, and means you need even less training, as it is not important that you know how to reload quickly with a magazined bow.
Of course, i'm just going off of theory, i've never even loosed a bow, and you the experienced archer actually have the IGK to test! If you have a gut feeling that the magazine isn't worth the extra weight in your hand, then maybe I should trust your judgement. But so far I don't entirely agree with your reasoning.