SteveMcDMemberAugust 19, 2009 at 12:57 amPost count: 870
HAHAHAHAA.. Hope I’m not throwing rocks at the bees nest! 😆
I never like recurves with their big gaudy risers, and that’s how I saw them 4o years ago. The reality is I have no reason not to like them. My first bow was a longbow. It is what I learned to use – a Howard Hill style longbow. So it is simply what I am most comfortable and famaliar with. I shot a recurve (once)… never liked it. The handle felt weird. For that matter though, I don’t like pistol style grips on longbows either. Longbows tend to be lighter and more durable. And will allow flexibility in shooting positions, the recurve most likely will not.
donwAugust 19, 2009 at 2:12 pmPost count: 38
my preference happens to lie in the recurve. but, i do like longbows and currently have two of them.
when i was a kid in oklahoma, i used to borrow a friends hickory longbow and i loved it…
my intentions are to build a ‘hybrid’ soon…a recurve handle with longbow style limbs, similar to the groves thunderbird.
i am one who finds it difficult to grip a longbow correctly (adjust to gripping the bow correctly) in order to shoot it accurately. i know i could work at it and learn how to do it correctly, but my recurves serve me well and lend themselves to my style of shooting at this time.
the simplicity and grace of the straight limbed long bow, when braced is, indeed , very eye-appealing.
HubertusAugust 19, 2009 at 9:41 pmPost count: 99
The different styles of bows almost seem to have personalities of their own, thus enabling them to be paired with individual archers.
I’d be interested to hear more detail on everyone’s preference. Vintage bows? Self-bows/primitive? Short vs. long? Materials? …whatever.
Currently, I’m a longbow man (wood-fiberglass laminated, reflex-deflex). I like the long, lean lines and the simplicity of the tougher limbs.
Among traditional bows, I think it’s the variety in both appearance and shooting characteristics that makes them so appealing.
Chris SheltonAugust 27, 2009 at 10:45 pmPost count: 679
that is so true, I know between my freinds and I we even have different preferences on tones of the bows color. For example I prefer a darker bow, and my buddy likes em lighter. I definatly agree with the personalities thing, each bow is so different. Some people swear by some bows that others would not even touch. Personally I like my take down, I think I would like it more if it was longer, it is 60 inches which I think is considered longer. I think I am in love with it also because it is my only bow in the 55# area? That seems to be a really comforatable range. My martin is a much more beautiful bow. That is why i think my next purchase will be the martin hatfeild or a black widow!
PagosaBowSeptember 3, 2009 at 10:50 amPost count: 61
I personally have both. Both are Hornes. I like the handle of the recurve because its not a huge handle. closer to a longbow handle. Mark makes a really good fast quiet bow. I have gotten to prefer the recurve, but still shoot the longbow for fun.
BradMemberSeptember 3, 2009 at 3:25 pmPost count: 35
I prefer Hill-style longbows. I’ve shot both, and have had a few high-end recurves which I really loved, but once I got the hang of shooting a Hill bow it’s what I kept going back to. In fact I just traded my last custom recurve for an old Frank SanMarco yew longbow.
I love the hill-style bows best for a lot of reasons, including their shooting qualities, lightness in the hand (barely over a pound), durability/toughness (I’ve used them for a walking stick occasionally), simplicity, and silence at the shot (there’s nothing quieter). But beyond that there’s reasons that aren’t so easy to put your finger on. [To me] they have such a great aesthetic quality. A simple longbow and wooden arrows, in my mind, stands in opposition to all the “advancements” that keep finding their way into our sport. They serve as a reminder to keep things simple, and concentrate on what’s important.
halftoothOctober 20, 2009 at 10:03 amPost count: 2
ive shot longbows for yrs, particularly selfbows. i was having shooting issues in the woods with longer bows and had dicided to give shorter recurves a try, im not sayin it was a mistake , but i could never master the recurve, i went back to shooting longbows. i do not regret my choice, longbows to me are quieter smoother and more forgiving in form errors while getting the job done. that bein said im still tryin to get rid of my recurve…. a 52″ kodiak magnum uggh
Steve Sr.October 20, 2009 at 11:27 amPost count: 344
“Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Bowholder”……….as well as which functions “better”…for him, at that time, for what he uses it for, etc. etc.
I don’t and never will chronograph my arrow speed and which is better is strictly my opinion of any of them with a focus on how well I shoot it. IMHO the “human factor” determines which is indeed better and that changes over time to some.
I’ve had a Black Widow MAII, A G.Fred era Bighorn TD with two sets of limbs, a Silver Arrow Archery Limited Edition Monarch LB, A Fred Anderson “Skookum” LB, plus several longbows by various mfg that I no longer remember, and recurves from Root, Shakespeare, Pearson, Browning, Wing, and Bear. And also a few home-made versions of both.
Lengths were from 52 to 70 inches, weights from 40 to 80 lbs.
I shoot better at longer distances with the heavier riser “old” Bear Super Kodiak recurves, and better on fast moving game or fast shots in general with a longbow.
I prefer recurves for stand hunting, and longbows for stalking, big game or small. Recurves no longer than 60 inches or shorter than 56. Longbows no longer than 66 inches or shorter than 62.
That said, since I “graduated” to the realization I didn’t need heavy weight bows for my hunting, I’ve yet to have the resources for a 62 inch LB in the upper 40’s weight class.
In recurves, I definately have a “thing” for the older ones and can see no reason under the sun that they will not always “do it all” 100 percent of the time for me.
The only thing I can positively say about any or all of them is I loved each one, wish I hadn’t sold or swapped any of them and that, at one time or another in my life, each one was “better” for me.
Each one previously owned (and maybe I’ll yet to get a couple more) are ALL “better” if not the “best” purely from the memories they leave me with, coupled with their history and the tradition of simplistic efficiency.
In function, comparison is fruitless IMHO. One compares the COMBINATION of bow, bow weight, length, hunter, form and style of shooting as well as the types of shots taken in anything from 3D ranges to African plains.
“Better” is a level of confidence the hunter has with that bow in their hands using it for an intended purpose.
So, once again, with too many words used when a few would have sufficed:
All are “Better”, yet none are superior to the other when ONLY comparing the bow itself.
PatrickMemberOctober 20, 2009 at 11:35 amPost count: 1148
One is not better than the other. With that said, I prefer the shape/lines of my Northern Mist Baraga longbow over any recurve. I also prefer the handle better.
Nostalgia wise, it’s a toss up between the two. Fred Bear shot a recurve (+1 for the recurve). The longbow has a longer history and everyone else that I (emphasis on I) know of shot a longbow (+1 for the longbow)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.