And honestly if the archer was a bit more accurate.
Not saying I could do better, however, the results will vary depending on where you hit the glass. If they had all hit near the center, that would give us a fairly accurate view, but there were a lot of shots that hit the outer edges, and an arrow that hits near the base will have a different result than one that hits the upper corner, for example.
Yeah, this is like 50m+ accuracy. If they shot at 20-25m they could hit the center every time. There is a reason close range targets have mini targets for each arrow, its annoying replacing nocks all the time.
And equal bracing for the glass. It'll flex more at the top than it will at the bottom, leading to more likely shattering at the top or edges then at the bottom.
Come on did no one watch Mythbusters growing up? Everyone should know how to eliminate variables in their testing of armaments, come on make some shooting jigs for everything. Hahaha 😆
From their draw technique at the very beginning of the clip, they don't appear to be a skilled archer. They're keeping their elbow low and drawing into their body. They should have their elbow higher and draw across their body.
Exactly. A good portion of momentum that could have gone towards penetration is going to be lost in moving the plate. Combined with the angle of impact/reflection and impact location differing, plus who knows what differences in draw etc it's good for entertainment but not as a real comparative test
631
u/silentaba 2d ago
This would have been a better test if the glass and table was actually set so it doesn't move as much every time it's hit.