Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Man, those are two fast bows at 50#! Unless those speeds are with 400 grain arrows. If you’re hoping to get one batch of arrows to shoot accurately from both bows, I’m with Patrick and doubt you can unless using carbon shafts, which are amazingly tolerant re spine compared to wood. dp
in reply to: New Used Bow Question #61863Apparently there are two JimBo(w) makers — one in the East and one in Colorado. Does this bow have glass, or all wood? If the latter it’s the eastern version. I’ve owned two Jimbo recurves, years ago. Shot real well but had a tendency for breaking limbs. Not a fast bow either, but as I said, older models. To learn more about the Colorado JimBo(w), contact Milt Beens at Wildcat Canyon Archery (970) 247-2894. He sold them for years and knows the bowyer. dave
in reply to: Opinion on Wood Arrow Spine? #61854Steve — it can vary so much by bow. In general faster bows using FastFlight need higher spine. Black Widow, Thunderhorn and Shrew, for some examples I’m familiar with, all recommend spining 10-15 over draw weight, rather than the usual 5-10. But all things being equal your 55-60 is the place to start. With enlightenment by Ashby we now have more to work with in “adjusting” spine to a bow: in addition to shortening shafts to stiffen them, we now know we can shoot just as well or better with heavier heads, to correct for overspined shafts. You asked for opinions and that is mine. I’ve got a dozen footed shafts on order so will soon be playing the spine game again myself. I pull 28″ so ordered 30″ shafts which gives me an inch or so extra to work with if necessary. dave
in reply to: Spot and stalk quiver #61108To respectfully offer a gently contrary view to my friend StandingBear (just for the heck of it), I’m guessing that the lack of much response to this question indicates not only a general lack of knowledge of this type and specific quiver, but also a widespread lack of interest. Most trad hunters carry a bow quiver or a traditional back quiver, while a belt or hip-pocket quiver may be used on the range or at a shoot when packing only field points. I don’t even understand the back quiver for hunting, execpt for those wanting to go primitive. I just can’t figure how you can beat a bow quiver for either convenience under all hunting, shooting, and hiking circumstances (big game I’m talking about — if you’re bowhunting bunnies or squirrels, for example, a big back quiver with two dozen arrows might be handy if you shoot like me :oops:!) Certainly, you don’t see many photos or paintings of early American Indians using bow quivers. None in fact! But neither do they carry an equivalent to today’s daypacks or backpacks, which I find indespensible and prohibits carrying a back quiver. Either all of their hunts were very brief and close to home with no overnight or survival gear required, or they left all their gear back with the horses :wink:. What I’m trying to be funny in saying is that FOR ME, as much as I admire the inventiveness of leather crafters in coming up with all the recent variations on quivers, and as much as I crave to hunt as simply and traditionally/primitively as possible, for price and practicality, you (or at least I) just can beat a good bow-mounted quiver unless you need to carry a BIG batch of arrows. For what it’s worth, take or leave, just one efficiency-minded and admitedly opinionated (though not without extensive experience) shooter’s view. dave
in reply to: Heavy Bows – Are they now a part of our past #59886At risk of echoing other and better posts here — from a bowyer’s point of view, yes, they tell me they’re making far more lighter and mid-range bows today, and far fewer heavy bows (which we can ballpark at 60# and up) than 10 or 20 years ago. Clearly this is thanks to an aging hunter population (which shouldn’t worry us all that much, as this merely reflects the national aging of the Baby Boomer batch, including myself, which in turn is the predictable product of millions of terminally horny returning military after WWII). But too, top-end custom stickbows are far more efficient than even 10 years ago, so far as cast/speed. I experienced this myself several years ago when a shoulder injury due to over-practicing, forced me to drop from 64# to 55s which I’m still shooting today at 63 but won’t always be able to … yet I gained 10 fps while losing 10 pounds draw weight just due to the increased efficiency of the newer lighter bow that replaced the older heavier one. So traditional bow technology alone makes heavy bows less essential today for lethal penetration on really big game. Add to this the almost magical facts that Dr. Ashby’s research is delivering to us regarding the bow/arrow relationship, Specifically, heavier arrows combined with other research-proven essentials, esp. EFoC, deliver more penetration and lethality from lighter bows than “standard” arrows do with heavier bows.
So in sum, in my view, the trend to lighter bows today is a combo of three primary elements: aging and weakening of archers, greater speed of newer stickbows per-pound of draw weight, and greater knowledge of the dominance of arrows in the bow/arrow combo for killing efficiency … and there you go; here we are. I also agree with those who say they can’t shoot as accurately with heavier bows. Yet I have no problem with folks who can pull 80# or whatever and shoot it accurately. Maybe a bit of envy, however. dave
GTA — You may be beyond most of us here re cameras, from the sounds of it. For me and others I know, a hunting camera falls into the same limiting category as hunting binoculars: If it’s not small and light, I won’t carry it. Thus my “good” camera stays at home or in the truck, and the shirt-pocket goes with me, same as binocs. Only real loss I know of is greatly reduced telephoto abaility — 3x vs. 12x. The world of digital SLRs has grown even more complex than the old film cameras and you can easily spend thousands on body and lenses. One big gain, even for the full-sized SLR’s, is that they weigh only a fraction of the old film jobs … though the lenses are equivalent. Your habit of long research is admirable both from the standpoint of not buying a pig in a poke (anyone else know the origin of that saying?), but also for stringing out the anticipation of a purchase. This ties in with another thread running now about developing patience. Sounds like you already have more (patience and cameras) than I ever will. I want very little materially in life and view possessions as anchors to freedom. But when I do “get the hots” for a new toy, I can’t get it into my hands fast enough. It’s a fever. Tell us what you learn, please, and best luck in your search. dave
in reply to: Kalamazoo Traditional Bowhunters Expo #58622I went a couple of years ago and it was a hoot … almost nonstop seminars, endless booths and products to check out, great folks to meeting, indoor shooting range. But as with all such events the food is very limited, lines long and prices high; I’d bring my own if possible. Except for the banquet of course. dp
in reply to: Eclipse Broadheads #57274I toured the Eclipse “factory” a while back and wrote a report for TBM — maybe Robin recalls which issue? While the heads are a bit too wide for my goals — max penetration from mid-weight bows on elk, a la Ashby’s research — I was more than impressed with the quality of materials and personalized manufacture. Blake himself — who posts here occassionally and may have something to say — handles every head multiple times. Blake IS Eclipse. Like all machine-beveled heads the Eclipse needs some final sharpening but compared, say, to a Grizzly it’s easy. Steel hardness, as I recall, is 48-50. I have single- and double-bevel 145 two-blades and they fly great. dave
in reply to: dipping self nocks #56278Try this question over on the bowyer’s forum, BC. I’ve made several dozen self-nocked arrows and just use the edge of a piece of paper or somesuch to wipe out the worst of the dip, so that when dry it doesn’t completely fill the slot. Then I carefull open the nock back up to the width I want with a think file. I actually prefer this, since it provides a better fit to the string. Another possibility is to not dip the nock but use a spray finish. dave
in reply to: Cold Hands #55526I’m with BMejia — chemical hand warmers in pockets, and when sitting on stand I rotate one from hand to hand. Being skinny and old with low blood pressure, cold knocks me out in a hurry so I have to find “introduced” warmth. A thermos of hot tea works wonders but isn’t conducive to being invisible.
Patrick — you give great quotes! “Mankind’s greatest problem is a perfection of means and a confusion of ends.”
-Albert EinsteinEinstein’s scientific genius overshadows deserved attention to his philosophical brilliance. In this case “perfection of means” = “cleverness” of the variety to allows us to send folks to the moon and bring them home stil breathing. “Confusion of ends” = mankind’s general lack of wisdom. Wisdom = cleverness with self-restraint and altruism for future generations.
Good ole’ Al! Damn shame they put his brain in a jar. 😀
You might do better with this question over on the bowyer’s forum … and give them as much info as possible — location, extent, depth of “crack” — and photos if possible. If it’s beyond your ability to patch, there are folks out there who specialize in repairing glass bows. Maybe someone on the bowyer forum can recommend a name. Good luck. dave
in reply to: Hunting Binoculars #55509Patrick — You are right. I ‘disremembered’ in thinking my little Zeiss are 6×25. They’re 6x18B, but darn good in low light for such little glasses. On my recent deer trip to AZ I forgot and left them home. I felt naked without them and maybe that had to do with not seeing a single deer in several days of hunting! If it’s not asking to much, you seem to really know your optics, P. Can you recommend a model or two or three in shirt-pocket size that you feel are best buys for the money? When I replace my Zeiss next time, it won’t be with Zeiss as I’ll be retired, aka impoverished. Thanks, d
in reply to: Hunting Binoculars #55115Pilot — you’ll get a hundred different opinions. I have two pair, some big 8×40 Zeiss-Genna with extremely good low-light capability, but too big and heavy to carry bowhunting. My everyday go-to hunting binocs are Zeiss 6×25 shirtpocket size, $500 years ago but you can shop around and beat that price. I love them so much, when I lost the first pair I bought another; had ’em for maybe 15 years now and recently returned to Zeiss to replace the rubber eye pieces, and they reconditioned the whole works to like new and didn’t even charge postage. That’s service! In any event, for all of my hunting I prefer shirtpocket size in high quality with good low-light capability. Take your time and shop around and when you find what you like, go online for the best deals. dave
in reply to: Ashby on arrow weight — just posted #52861Talk about beefed-up arrow front-ends, check out the pics in previous posts of KingWouldBe’s setup — armor-piercing integrity there! dp
-
AuthorPosts
