howard hill longbow & broadheads
paul pomeroy
Does anyone know of a source where I may locate an original 80# to100#
Howard Hill longbow, the one with the bamboo laminate; and also some of
Hill's broadheads.
Chris Groppi
You can buy one new. Howard Hill archery still makes the Tembo (3 bamboo
laminations, or the big five (4 bamboo laminations), plus a bow with both
bamboo and maple laminations. Wow...#80-#100 that's pretty damn heavy for a
traditional bow!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Chris Groppi %%
%% ce...@cornell.edu %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Cornell University Paintball Team %%
%% "Who needs food? Stop eating and just drink Guinness!"%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Tom Warren
Chris Groppi wrote:
>Wow...#80-#100 that's pretty damn heavy for a
> traditional bow!
I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the bow he used only about 20-30#?
I thought I remembered him saying one time that's why he shyed away from
recurves, the poundage was so high he couldn't hold accuracy.
my $0.02
Tom
Chris Groppi
Howard Hill shot bows in excess of 120 pounds. The bow he used to shoot the
first african elephant taken with a bow by a westerner was over 120 pounds.
His "normal" every day bow was better than 80 pounds and his hunting bow was
close to 100. He shot these every day until he was in his 70's. Howard Hill,
however, was close to superhuman. Most people (including myself) shoot
traditional bows between 60 and 70 pounds.
Bowbuff
One of Hills favorite bows - one he called "Grandma" was only 65# but most
were much heavier("Grandpa was about 80). The remarkable thing and the
source of his legendary bow pulling strength in old age was that he shot
such heavy bows all his life....and that he shot 1000 arrows a day for
much of his adult life. Most of us can't shoot 100 arrows accurately from
65-70#, even in the prime of our lives.
Hill was a great showman who loved the spotlight. He was a religious
gentleman from the south who seemingly revered his wife and maintained his
center pretty well even when he became the most famous archer in
Hollywood. He loved the company of famous archer/hunters like Errol
Flynn, Guy Madison, and Earl Stanley Gardner. He lived and hunted in a
different time however. His hunting ethics were different than we know
today...so were almost everyone elses. He had his shortcomings.
The Hill style of longbow(deep core, narrow limbs, large/stiff handle) and
shooting became what most of us "returned to" and called "traditional
archery." His longbow configuration is still effective, though not as
popular as the reflex-deflex bow that is so common today. What with the
rebirth of recurves as well, the Hill bow is virtually unknown to many
traditional archers today.(and if they do get to try one, they moan about
its hand shock and harshness.) Those characteristics mean nothing if you
only shoot the one bow.
Now we have a choice and I like the r-d bow much better myself. But Hill
should be understood to be the one who kept the longbow mystique alive
until it could be "rediscovered".
Regards,
John Kelly
What with the
>rebirth of recurves as well, the Hill bow is virtually unknown to many
>traditional archers today.(and if they do get to try one, they moan
about
>its hand shock and harshness.) Those characteristics mean nothing if
you
>only shoot the one bow.
Maybe so. But there are people who today make HH-style bows that are
NOT reflex-deflex, that have almost zero handshock. Some learning got
done, over the years since Tembo.
In an ad, that I wish I could find and quote from, the current bowyers
at HH claim low-shock for themselves, admitting the nature of the old
bows.
A local amateur bowyer of reverent HH style says that the famous
handshock is mostly the direct result of antiquated usage of
fibreglass: much too thick. Of course, thick fibreglas is no problem
with elaborately curved recurves (like my Groves bows)...that's where
they get their power, and the mass of the risers kills all shock. If
you don't use such thick glass, you apparently sacrifice speed...but
that may not be all that relevant. My bowyer blew the rest of us away
with a just such a sloth-like HH-style bow in this year's Thursday
Night 3-D League, despite heavy, flat shooting(Black Widow, Groves,
Matlock, Fazio) recurve competition.
I own one of this man's bows (65#), can confirm that it is freer of
handshock than, for example, a recently shot Black Widow SAG recurve
(60#), or my old Bear Kodiak Magnum (only 50#). Not even in the same
bone-rattling galaxy as Howard Hills from ten years ago. And it LOOKS
just like them, until closely inspected. There's still a very little
shock, but only if you are trying to find it.
JK
paul pomeroy
Tom Warren wrote:
>
> Chris Groppi wrote:
>
> >Wow...#80-#100 that's pretty damn heavy for a
> > traditional bow!
>
> I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the bow he used only about 20-30#?
> I thought I remembered him saying one time that's why he shyed away from
> recurves, the poundage was so high he couldn't hold accuracy.
>
> my $0.02
>
> Tom
Tom: Hill shot tournys, exibition and hunted with #100 bow. In his old
age it was one of the things he was most proud of.
JAMES WILLIAMS
Howard Hill shot a different style than most people do today. He only
held the weight for about a second or two at full draw. He is noted with
having pulled and shot a bow of 172#, although that record has been
topped. There are a number of traditional archers shooting longbows by
the Hill method who use bow for targets and hunting that are in excess of
100 pound pull.
I have shot Hill bows almost exclusively for the past 25 years or so. I
worked up to an 80# untill an accident injured my shoulder. I now shoot
bows from 55# to 70# without any problem. One of the major tricks to
shooting a heavy bow is to get the back muscles to do the work. I have a
lot more difficulty pulling compound bows because they require more arm
strenght, which I don't have. I occasionally shoot compounds for
exibitions and I keep the bow peak weight near 50# for my personal
comfort. I've made and used a number of different longbows over the
years and like the Hill the best. Maybe it's the romance of the
tradition established by Hill. Shooting a bow well is a product of how
much you like to shoot it and how much time you spend shooting it. Most
of the things I've read on Howard Hill indicate that although he was
athletic, he liked to shoot the longbow and he shot a lot.
Jim W.
Thomas Dalzell
>Maybe so. But there are people who today make HH-style bows that are
>NOT reflex-deflex,
HH bows aren't reflex deflex, they are straight, which is part of the reason
for the hand shock, since it is essentially a design with zero string follow,
versus negative SF, ie low efficiency. Another problem is the bamboo, which
is hardly a light weight wood.
that have almost zero handshock. Some learning got
>done, over the years since Tembo.
>In an ad, that I wish I could find and quote from, the current bowyers
>at HH claim low-shock for themselves, admitting the nature of the old
>bows.
>A local amateur bowyer of reverent HH style says that the famous
>handshock is mostly the direct result of antiquated usage of
>fibreglass: much too thick. Of course, thick fibreglas is no problem
>with elaborately curved recurves (like my Groves bows)...that's where
>they get their power,
I don't buy this recurve power comes from the design, not the limb section, I
have many custom bows by different makers, and none of the recurves have as
much glass as the longbows, the simple reason being the width of the limbs,
none uses much glass at that. If glass causes hand shock, presumably because
of its weight, then adding a thick layer of it isn't going to contribute to
arrow speed, since it will just make the limbs heavy. In fact wood limbs are
pretty fast by themselves, if you can stop them from breaking, which is
basically where the glass comes in; just enough to keep everything together.
and the mass of the risers kills all shock. If
>you don't use such thick glass, you apparently sacrifice speed...but
>that may not be all that relevant. My bowyer blew the rest of us away
>with a just such a sloth-like HH-style bow in this year's Thursday
>Night 3-D League, despite heavy, flat shooting(Black Widow, Groves,
>Matlock, Fazio) recurve competition.
>I own one of this man's bows (65#), can confirm that it is freer of
>handshock than, for example, a recently shot Black Widow SAG recurve
>(60#), or my old Bear Kodiak Magnum (only 50#). Not even in the same
>bone-rattling galaxy as Howard Hills from ten years ago. And it LOOKS
>just like them,
Strung or unstrung, either way they are made better today. Part of the reason
being that people expect high performance, and are willing to take extra care
stringing etc... The days of using your Bear bow as a wadding staff and then
throwing it down next to your trophy, on talus are gone, and the result is
bows as they should be: Fully draw, 7/8 broken.
Thomas
Thomas Dalzell
In article <52edc8$c...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> JAMES WILLIAMS <dr....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>From: JAMES WILLIAMS <dr....@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: howard hill longbow & broadheads
>Date: 26 Sep 1996 17:09:28 GMT
>Howard Hill shot a different style than most people do today.
This is how most people shoot recurves and longbows today, and even a second
or two is too much.
He only >held the weight for about a second or two at
full draw. He is noted with >having pulled and shot a bow of 172#, although
that record has been >topped. There are a number of traditional archers
shooting longbows by >the Hill method who use bow for targets and hunting that
are in excess of >100 pound pull.
>I have shot Hill bows almost exclusively for the past 25 years or so. I
>worked up to an 80# untill an accident injured my shoulder. I now shoot
>bows from 55# to 70# without any problem. One of the major tricks to
>shooting a heavy bow is to get the back muscles to do the work.
This is the core of shooting every bow, reguardless of whether it is 100
pounds draw, or 12# after the 80% let-off.
I have a
>lot more difficulty pulling compound bows because they require more arm
>strenght, which I don't have.
Since compounds store more energy per peak weight, they are harder to draw
than trad bows, and you have to use your back muscles. This has to be very
refined, because it is your back which controls your horizontal hold, this
takes nicely trainned muscles, to control light weights,
and also to trigger a 1oz release.
Thomas
Richard Pate
Bear is coming out with a new longbow...The Bruin RH 50#,55#, & 60#.
LH 55# 68" AMO length.
Jeffrey J Bowland
>even if it was a 100# bow the arrow would have to so heavy to compensate
for the draw weight that it would be pointless to even use the stupid
thing.
Bowbuff
John,
Could well be. My impressions were formed from shooting many Big Five and
Tembo models, mostly years ago. I am not certain I've seen a real recent
one and was assuming those had not changed. I do know that would love to
regain the 63# Redman (yew laminated) HH longbow I traded a few years ago.
Though a straight bow, it lacked the deep core and stocky handle to which
I attributed the user-unfriendliness of the other Hill bows. They quit
making that model shortly after that because yew became precious. The new
name escapes me, but I believe it is now osage and some other wood
laminated with glass.
The Big Five was always a good bow-that seemed to take big ham-handed guys
to handle it well. Some of them were/are really good shots with
it....seems like it was usually the only bow they owned. If thinning the
glass made it a sweeter shooter, then that was a good move.
John Kelly
In <52t7sp$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> bow...@aol.com (Bowbuff) writes:
>
Hey, when are you going to write a book?
JK
Daniel Slone
On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Jeffrey J Bowland wrote:
> >even if it was a 100# bow the arrow would have to so heavy to compensate
> for the draw weight that it would be pointless to even use the stupid
> thing.
What a silly thing to say. Do you have data to back this up? Think of
the momentum of that heavy arrow and the impact on target.
Daniel Slone . slo...@bcc.orst.edu . (541)737-5524 . Entomology Department
2046 Cordley Hall . Oregon State University . Corvallis OR 97331-2907
PGP key, homepage, Nat. Sci. Illustration at: http://www.orst.edu/~sloned/
Chris Groppi
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.961001...@selway.umt.edu>, Jeffrey J Bowland <pred...@selway.umt.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, paul pomeroy wrote:
>
>> Tom Warren wrote:
>> >
>> > Chris Groppi wrote:
>> >
>> > >Wow...#80-#100 that's pretty damn heavy for a
>> > > traditional bow!
>> >
>> > I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the bow he used only about 20-30#?
>> > I thought I remembered him saying one time that's why he shyed away from
>> > recurves, the poundage was so high he couldn't hold accuracy.
>> >
>> > my $0.02
>> >
>> > Tom
>>
>> Tom: Hill shot tournys, exibition and hunted with #100 bow. In his old
>> age it was one of the things he was most proud of.
>>
>for the draw weight that it would be pointless to even use the stupid
>thing.
>
This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly increase
the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same arrow with
twice the KE of a 50# bow. The velocity would be theoretically 4 times as
fast, but since air resistance goes as the square of the velocity the speed
of the arrow leaving the bow will not be 4 times as much. An arrow spined for
a 100 pound bow would not have even close to twice the mass of an arrow spined
for a 50 pound bow, so the gain in potential energy would outweigh the
increased mass (U=1/2 M v^2 by energy conservation). Of course, since the
air resistance will increase like bv^2, and the arrow mass will increase
slightly (by 25-50%), the return will not be so great. If we assume the
arrow is 1.5 times the mass of the one spined for #50, and the terminal
velocity will be 16% faster => KE is 33% more, at the end of the power stroke,
where we can effectively discount the effect of air resistance for simple
calculations. So, while the mass of the arrow does increase, the increase
in bow draw weight does increase the final energy of the arrow by 33%. Also,
the momentum of this arrow, and consequently it's penetration will be
improved by 73%. At the target, the momentum will be increased by about 50%
since the air resistance and the increase in energy are both proportional to
the square of the velocity.
paul pomeroy
Chris Groppi wrote:
Chris, Ignore all future flames. That was a VERY interesting piece of
physics and very germain to this group. Thanks.
Daniel Slone
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Chris Groppi wrote:
>
>
> This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly increase
> the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same arrow with
> twice the KE of a 50# bow. The velocity would be theoretically 4 times as
> fast, but since air resistance goes as the square of the velocity the speed
Since energy is related to the square of the velocity, wouldn't a
projectile with twice the energy (and the same mass) be travelling 1.4
times as fast, not 4 times?
Jeffrey J Bowland
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Chris Groppi wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.961001...@selway.umt.edu>, Jeffrey J Bowland <pred...@selway.umt.edu> wrote:
> >On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, paul pomeroy wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Warren wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Chris Groppi wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Wow...#80-#100 that's pretty damn heavy for a
> >> > > traditional bow!
> >> >
> >> > I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the bow he used only about 20-30#?
> >> > I thought I remembered him saying one time that's why he shyed away from
> >> > recurves, the poundage was so high he couldn't hold accuracy.
> >> >
> >> > my $0.02
> >> >
> >> > Tom
> >>
> >> Tom: Hill shot tournys, exibition and hunted with #100 bow. In his old
> >> age it was one of the things he was most proud of.
> >>
> >>even if it was a 100# bow the arrow would have to so heavy to compensate
> >for the draw weight that it would be pointless to even use the stupid
> >thing.
> >
>
>
> This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly increase
> the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same arrow with
> twice the KE of a 50# bow. The velocity would be theoretically 4 times as
> fast, but since air resistance goes as the square of the velocity the speed
> of the arrow leaving the bow will not be 4 times as much. An arrow spined for
> a 100 pound bow would not have even close to twice the mass of an arrow spined
> for a 50 pound bow, so the gain in potential energy would outweigh the
> increased mass (U=1/2 M v^2 by energy conservation). Of course, since the
> air resistance will increase like bv^2, and the arrow mass will increase
> slightly (by 25-50%), the return will not be so great. If we assume the
> arrow is 1.5 times the mass of the one spined for #50, and the terminal
> velocity will be 16% faster => KE is 33% more, at the end of the power stroke,
> where we can effectively discount the effect of air resistance for simple
> calculations. So, while the mass of the arrow does increase, the increase
> in bow draw weight does increase the final energy of the arrow by 33%. Also,
> the momentum of this arrow, and consequently it's penetration will be
> improved by 73%. At the target, the momentum will be increased by about 50%
> since the air resistance and the increase in energy are both proportional to
> the square of the velocity.
>
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %% Chris Groppi %%
> %% ce...@cornell.edu %%
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %% Cornell University Paintball Team %%
> %% "Who needs food? Stop eating and just drink Guinness!"%%
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
thank you chris for actually clearing that up for both me and the other
guy. with all of your knowledge you must work with bows a lot, that or
you're a physics major. very informative.
John Kelly
In <32535E...@pe.net> paul pomeroy <src...@pe.net> writes:
>Chris Groppi wrote:
>
>> This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly
increase
>> the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same
arrow with
>> twice the KE of a 50# bow.
I find this sweeping statement pretty hard to accept, from practical
experience. I've got a 52# antique (1968) Groves recurve that will
throw the same arrows exactly as fast(measured)as a 60# Hoyt recurve of
the same 60" length (I did this test repeatedly, with the same
measuring equipment and the same arrows), and I have a 65# longbow that
is definitely not as fast as my 60# longbow (the former Hill-style, red
cedar and glass, the latter an extreme reflex-deflex, bamboo and
glass...Bob Watkins).
I'm entirely ignorant of (averse to) the mathematical physics of
archery, but I'd be prepared to accept them if they were qualified by
factors such as limb-length, limb-design, and limb-construction. I
don't accept the notion that an 85# Hill would be as fast (powerful) as
a good, modern, short, 65# recurve, for example, because I've actually
measured the results of just such bows (the recurve, another Groves,
offered around 15fps advantage with the same arrows).
JK
Chris Groppi
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.96100...@ava.bcc.orst.edu>, Daniel Slone <slo...@bcc.orst.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Chris Groppi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly increase
>> the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same arrow with
>> fast, but since air resistance goes as the square of the velocity the speed
>
>projectile with twice the energy (and the same mass) be travelling 1.4
>times as fast, not 4 times?
>
>Daniel Slone . slo...@bcc.orst.edu . (541)737-5524 . Entomology Department
>2046 Cordley Hall . Oregon State University . Corvallis OR 97331-2907
>PGP key, homepage, Nat. Sci. Illustration at: http://www.orst.edu/~sloned/
>
Oops. Yes, this is correct
2U=1/2mv^2
v^2=E/m
v=Sqrt[E/m]
Which is Sqrt[2]~1.4 times as fast.
The rest of the calculations are correct, though.
Chris Groppi
In article <531kl6$a...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, abqk...@ix.netcom.com(John Kelly) wrote:
>In <32535E...@pe.net> paul pomeroy <src...@pe.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly
>increase
>>> the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same
>arrow with
>>> twice the KE of a 50# bow.
>
>experience. I've got a 52# antique (1968) Groves recurve that will
>throw the same arrows exactly as fast(measured)as a 60# Hoyt recurve of
>the same 60" length (I did this test repeatedly, with the same
>measuring equipment and the same arrows), and I have a 65# longbow that
>is definitely not as fast as my 60# longbow (the former Hill-style, red
>cedar and glass, the latter an extreme reflex-deflex, bamboo and
>glass...Bob Watkins).
>
>I'm entirely ignorant of (averse to) the mathematical physics of
>archery, but I'd be prepared to accept them if they were qualified by
>factors such as limb-length, limb-design, and limb-construction. I
>don't accept the notion that an 85# Hill would be as fast (powerful) as
>a good, modern, short, 65# recurve, for example, because I've actually
>measured the results of just such bows (the recurve, another Groves,
>offered around 15fps advantage with the same arrows).
>
>JK
Practical exterience and physics have very little do do with each other :).
This was an extremely idalized example that compares two bows of EXACTLY the
same construction but different draw weights. Actually, the potential energy
in the limbs will not equal the kinetic energy of the arrow. The limbs are
not even close to 100% efficient in transmitting energy. The limbs absorb
energy and heat up, the string stretches, the arrow flexes etc. These bow
specific items are identical (i assumed) for two idealized bows of the same
construction, so the comparison between the #50 and the #100 bows is more or
less correct, in an order of magnitude sense. Obviously, I did not include
many important factors like arrow flexure, air resistance, nonlinear bow
effects that change with draw weight (limb efficiencty and string stretch
probably behave like this). The actual mathematical modeling of a real bow
including all the effects of limb design, riser length, limb length ,
stiffness and all the other factors that make up the real system wuld be VERY
complicated and to my knowledge has never been done. This would probably
require a reasonably complicated computer model, measurement of real bows to
determine parameters and a whole semester of my time. What I was trying to do
was give a very general hand waving argument of why a heavier bow will
generally perform better than a lighter one, all else being equal while still
including the effect of diminishing return for larger draw weights.
Robert S. Carroll
abqk...@ix.netcom.com(John Kelly) wrote:
>In <32535E...@pe.net> paul pomeroy <src...@pe.net> writes:
>>
>>Chris Groppi wrote:
>>
>>> This is just plain wrong. The increased draw weight will linearly
>increase
>>> the kinetic energy of the arrow so a 100# bow will shoot the same
>arrow with
>>> twice the KE of a 50# bow.
>I find this sweeping statement pretty hard to accept, from practical
>experience.
>I'm entirely ignorant of (averse to) the mathematical physics of
>archery, but I'd be prepared to accept them if they were qualified by
>factors such as limb-length, limb-design, and limb-construction.
>JK
John,
I'm sure Chris is comparing apples and apples. Certainly, if you bring in
reflex/deflex longbows,recurves (or even "training wheels"!), his figures won't
work. But for "Hill" style longbows, an increase in draw weight will give a
linear increase in speed as Chris stated. I believe that in Howard Hill
Archery's literature, they state that their bows will shoot 115fps + the draw
weight of the bow (Certainly a fairly linear increase.).
Hill shot heavy longbows because of the increase in speed they offered with the
subsequent flattening of trajectory. He gained this flatter trajectory because
as Chris stated, the mass of an arrow does not go up proportionally to spine.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Carroll
rsc...@ix.netcom.com
Bowbuff
Thomas,
Good analysis. True that the average recurve or longbow shooter today
knows to string his bow with a stringer, but I don't know if you can say
that bows are treated better today than many years ago. I am a collector
and have found that when the old timers made or bought something really
special they took care of it. So do most people today. I think the bows
that are in poor condition are often allowed to get that way by others:
relatives who inherit the stuff, neighbors or others who get it when the
original owner loses interest, etc. And the bows that are trashed or
twisted by improper stringing are most often the cheaper, mass produced
bows...or bows that have been through several owners.
When I find an old Black Widow, Wing, Hoyt, Howatt, or top-of-the-line
Bear that is still in the hands of the original owner, it is very unusual
to find that it has been twisted, abused, etc. On the other hand,
Brownings, Shakespeares, lower-cost Bears, Pearsons, etc are most often
the ones that are trashed. The Bear Magnum for example was made in larger
numbers than any other Bear model, and in its later years sold by KMart.
It is almost a sure bet that these bows will not have received the same
treatment as the Black Widow that cost 3-4 times as much new. Those guys
took care of their bows better: didn't leave them sitting on their lower
limb, etc.
Similarly, those early bows were not necessarily the poor performers that
they are sometimes called. You didn't condemn them in your post, but I
must jump at the chance to defend the performance of the top recurves and
longbows(largely only Hill of course)from the 50's and 60's. Popular
opinion today is largely based on the poor performance of the detuned
a-bow-for-all-draw-lengths manufacturing culture of the late 60s and early
70's. Its a shame that the rise of the compound bow was met by this
design decision on the part of many manufacturers to make shorter recurves
and make them work for every draw length. KMart sued Bear and Bear really
developed two lines for a few years. The 70's Kodiak Hunters and Magnums
were shadows of their former performances and the Super Kodiaks were still
available to those who knew the difference. The other mass producers
simply detuned them all. (Not to criticize a particular bow-if anyone out
there has a Magnum or Hunter and it shoots good for you, more power to
you. Every bowyer and manufacturer makes some good ones and some
not-so-good ones).
However, the point is, the top performing bows from the 50's and 60's were
essentially equal to the top performing bows today(your point on design, I
guess.)
Have met a number of custom bowyers, shot their bows, and consider them
friends. Most think they took an old idea and made wonderful improvements
to it. Am not so certain their improvements are all that
wonderful....when compared to their real counterparts of 40 years ago(the
Wilson Brothers, Bob Lee, Earl Hoyt, Jack Howard, etc.) On the whole,
however, a custom bow today is a better product, of better materials, and
with better workmanship than the average "custom" recurve made 40 years
ago. And that's good because they surely cost a ton of money! You almost
can't make a decent living making custom bows, but I still can't
understand how guys who have made a couple hundred bows or less can get
$400-500 for theirs...guess its ok if the market will bear it!
Regards,
1
,>> > I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the bow he used only about
20-30#?
>> > I thought I remembered him saying one time that's why he shyed away
from
>> > recurves, the poundage was so high he couldn't hold accuracy.
>> >
>> > my $0.02
>> >
>> > Tom
>
I missed the beggining of this thread so I'm not sure just what all is being
discussed here but I can tell you because I knew the man that Howard Hills'
favorit bow weight was ninty pounds.(90#) I saw him shoot exibitions with
bows that weight when he was in his sixtys.
Btw if you think shooting bows that weight is a bitch try stringing one.
that's why the heaviest longbow I've ever owned is #77 :-)
Martin Kruse Knifemaker/Bowyer MARTI...@DELPHI.COM
P.O.B. 487, Reseda, CA 91335 (818) 713 - 0172
Thomas Dalzell
In article <53l6i3$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> bow...@aol.com (Bowbuff) writes:
>From: bow...@aol.com (Bowbuff)
>Subject: Re: howard hill longbow / shock
>Date: 11 Oct 1996 06:12:19 -0400
>Thomas,
>Good analysis. True that the average recurve or longbow shooter today
>knows to string his bow with a stringer, but I don't know if you can say
>that bows are treated better today than many years ago.
If this was directed my way, then thanks for the interesting answer. The sort
of thing I was thinking of was... well take Bear for example. I have seen a
lot of his videos. There is one of his factory in which they have a dry
firing machine, far from breaking the bow, the bow could be drawn and dry
fired thousands of times. On the other hand when I first saw this video, and
another about bear hunting, I had been shooting recureves for some time,
mainly Bear and Wing models left over from the old days. I had just shot my
first narrow limbed recurve with deep working recurves, A Rocky Mountain my
buddy had a Black Widow. These bows shot with a limb action and arrow speed
unlike anything I had ever seen... Until I saw the video in which fred is
after bear in the mountains, somewherein canada, and he is practicing shooting
into a tree. Same limb action, same cast. But completely different from what
they where taking to the market.
I am a collector
>and have found that when the old timers made or bought something really
>special they took care of it. So do most people today. I think the bows
>that are in poor condition are often allowed to get that way by others:
>relatives who inherit the stuff, neighbors or others who get it when the
>original owner loses interest, etc. And the bows that are trashed or
>twisted by improper stringing are most often the cheaper, mass produced
>bows...or bows that have been through several owners.
I don't know for sure, but it is as if the mass bows were 95% of the market in
the old days, with the high performance custom jobs 5%, and as if the numbers
are now reversed.
>When I find an old Black Widow, Wing, Hoyt, Howatt, or top-of-the-line
>Bear that is still in the hands of the original owner, it is very unusual
>to find that it has been twisted, abused, etc. On the other hand,
>Brownings, Shakespeares, lower-cost Bears, Pearsons, etc are most often
>the ones that are trashed. The Bear Magnum for example was made in larger
>numbers than any other Bear model, and in its later years sold by KMart.
>It is almost a sure bet that these bows will not have received the same
>treatment as the Black Widow that cost 3-4 times as much new. Those guys
>took care of their bows better: didn't leave them sitting on their lower
>limb, etc.
Exactly, we now have a mass market for bows which require care, and shouldn't
be used as wadding staffs, as Bear so often did in his films.
>Similarly, those
early bows were not necessarily the poor performers that>they are sometimes
called. You didn't condemn them in your post, but I>must jump at the chance
to defend the performance of the top recurves and>longbows(largely only Hill
of course)from the 50's and 60's. Popular>opinion today is largely based on
the poor performance of the detuned>a-bow-for-all-draw-lengths manufacturing
culture of the late 60s and early>70's. Its a shame that the rise of the
compound bow was met by this>design decision on the part of many manufacturers
to make shorter recurves>and make them work for every draw length.
Yes! Yes! you have shot my first bow, do you still have it?
>KMart sued
Over what?
Bear and Bear really>developed two lines for a few years. The 70's Kodiak
Hunters and Magnums>were shadows of their former performances and the Super
Kodiaks were still>available to those who knew the difference. The other mass
producers>simply detuned them all. (Not to criticize a particular bow-if
anyone out>there has a Magnum or Hunter and it shoots good for you, more power
to>you. Every bowyer and manufacturer makes some good ones and some
>not-so-good ones).
>However, the point is, the top performing bows from the 50's and 60's were
>essentially equal to the top performing bows today(your point on design, I
>guess.)
>Have met a number of custom bowyers, shot their bows, and consider them
>friends. Most think they took an old idea and made wonderful improvements
>to it. Am not so certain their improvements are all that
>wonderful....when compared to their real counterparts of 40 years ago(the
I wouldn't be in a position to comment, but Jennings and ??? wrote a book on
building bows, in the 70s, I think, The bow just didn't look that good.
Either they held back, or they wheren't after the same thing. With treestands
and compounds the new bows seem to be shorter and faster, 60" 210, at 550
grains, can the old timers do that, and would they have cared in pre compound
days? Seems to me as though the old bows where more stability oriented.
>Wilson Brothers, Bob Lee, Earl Hoyt, Jack Howard, etc.) On the whole,
>however, a custom bow today is a better product, of better materials, and
>with better workmanship than the average "custom" recurve made 40 years
>ago. And that's good because they surely cost a ton of money! You almost
>can't make a decent living making custom bows, but I still can't
>understand how guys who have made a couple hundred bows or less can get
>$400-500 for theirs...guess its ok if the market will bear it!
>Regards,
>
Thomas
jeff potter
Bowbuff wrote:
>
> difference in performance in the Bear bows, based on limb length. The 60"
> Kodiaks and Kodiak Hunters were great bows, and the same for the 64", IF
> you drew it longer. Many of the other bows were longer limbed or, in
> later years, detuned for wider "application" to archery public.
Hi Tom... So longer limbs don't mean better performance per se? The Howard is a
long bow, thus smooth and fast, I'd think. How long was Super Kodiak? (Or
whatever the best K was...think it was called that.) The supershort K probably
wasn't very hi perf, I wouldn't think. Intense string pinch, etc. Altho, it's very
interesting that our local bowyer, Ron LaClair, has gone strongly to ultrashort
bows---he calls his Shrews. For brushy Michigan conditions. I'd worry about finger
pinch. Anyway, what did you mean by your last statement above? Longer limbs
give worse perf? Maybe the SK has a longer riser than the lowgrade Grizzlies or
whatever they were called...I recall a few with quite short risers. More info please!
--
JP
***********
Jeff Potter
"Out Your Backdoor"
Magazine of Affordable Adventure and Informal Culture
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb
Great Lakes Press---Engineering Plaza & Exam Reviews
http://www.glpbooks.com