@Bill Skinner
i don't think de re militari has exaggerations
the other source may have.
i'm not an archer but what is stated about the accuracy seems to me very possible . we have extremely accurate guys in our era.
don't compare english longbows and arrows with ancient bows , its like comparing a balearic slinger throwing heavy stones with a rhodian throwing lead
Quote: "Even though you are viewed as the son of the heavens," said Magnagt, "I still have doubts about the combat prowess of your people. If any one of them hits with a single arrow a tiny red flag from a distance of 100 num (one num equals the length of a bowstring, or nearly 1.5 metres), I will be your ally and friend – if not, I’ll be your enemy."
On hearing this, Taitsuu, one of Chingis’s generals, began to laugh: "You offer us the warrior’s standard exercise." On his order, archery marksman Chuu Mergen stepped forward and, hardly aiming, hit the target. Shortly afterwards, another sharpshooter, Khavt Khasar, said, "It’s no challenge to hit a motionless target." He raised his bow and with a single arrow pierced the neck of a drake flying high in the sky. No sooner had the falling bird touched the ground than Khavt Khasar hit it with another arrow.
source:
http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/mn_nat_arch/messenger.htmthe accuracy of the archers may be exaggerated here but it clearly writes :it's "the warrior’s standard exercise."
what do you think?
you have a point about lead projectiles for practice, it would be a trouble to use lead once or twice a day . so we must assume they used stones.
and yes canvas backstop is a good idea.
maybe a target in the form of jellyfish net with canvas instead of net?
still i find it too unnecessarily elaborate when compared to a bundle of twigs