Trad Gang

Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: Tradmike on January 24, 2017, 10:15:00 AM

Title: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Tradmike on January 24, 2017, 10:15:00 AM
I have shot 58" and 60" bows for 50 years. I have a 28" draw. Just bought a used das daala 21" riser and installed medium limbs. This made a 64" bow. I was amazed how much more accurate I could shoot this longer bow. How long a recurve do you shoot?
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Red Beastmaster on January 24, 2017, 10:28:00 AM
58", 60" & 62"
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: MnFn on January 24, 2017, 10:34:00 AM
60".  I have had 62", 64". Just prefer 60" , maybe what I am mostly used to. They were all previously owned.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Trenton G. on January 24, 2017, 10:41:00 AM
58", 60", 66". The 66" bow is mostly for form work, but is very easy to shoot accurately. If it was a heavier draw weight, that would probably be the bow that I hunt with.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: dbd870 on January 24, 2017, 11:01:00 AM
I have shot from 48 to 60" and I have found if I do my part (which I don't always do!) any of them work for me, draw 28". I would like to try a 64 or 66" just to see if it would make a difference.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: McDave on January 24, 2017, 11:15:00 AM
60-64", toward the shorter length for hunting, and toward the longer length for target.  It doesn't seem like any of the modern trad bowyers are making recurves longer than 64", although  I occasionally see some longer ones that were made 50 or more years ago.  70" is a common recurve length for Olympic recurve bows.  As far as accuracy is concerned, I think the longer the better.  I guess you could paraphrase the answer the old Texas ranger gave when asked why he carried a .45: "Because they don't make a .46!"
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Prairie Drifter on January 24, 2017, 11:58:00 AM
I'm of short stature. I don't like a bow taller than me LOL! Longest bow I shoot is a 54" Maddog Prairie Predator. All my recurves are 52" and shorter. Never had a problem in over 30 years.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: damascusdave on January 24, 2017, 12:44:00 PM
52 to 69 inches with about a 30 inch draw

DDave
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: dirtguy on January 24, 2017, 12:47:00 PM
62-64 inches but I would consider 66 as well
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Danny Rowan on January 24, 2017, 12:48:00 PM
56" to 62" with a 29" draw.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: wingnut on January 24, 2017, 01:01:00 PM
64, 30 1/2" draw
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: riverrat 2 on January 24, 2017, 01:17:00 PM
62" is as short as I like any bow. My favorite is 64-66". I only draw 28" but just enjoy the way a longer bow feels on the draw and release of arrow. rat'
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Holm-Made on January 24, 2017, 01:33:00 PM
I was at the IBO Worlds a couple years back.  Don't remember seeing any short recurves.  Even the short fellas had long recurves.   Must be something to it......

That being said, many hunting archers know that a short recurve may be the best hunting bow for them and their hunting situation.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: 30coupe on January 24, 2017, 03:31:00 PM
I believe it depends on your intentions. From what I have seen, most of the target shooters use very long, very heavy bows with all sorts of do-dads hanging off of them. Those folks are darn good shots too and probably would be with a shorter bow as well. They also shoot very lightweight arrows from light draw weight bows. Their intention is to put arrows in the center of a target, and by golly, they do just that.   :archer:  

As they say, your mileage may vary! If we all liked the same thing, there would be a lot of very fine bowyers looking for a career change.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Pointer on January 24, 2017, 07:20:00 PM
Mostly 62" with a 30" draw but I also have a couple of 60" I like to use if I am in a pop-up blind.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Jwilliam on January 24, 2017, 08:08:00 PM
I prefer 60" or 62" recurves.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Chris Pharr on January 24, 2017, 08:19:00 PM
56"-60" for me @ 29.5" draw. I like both equally for the most part,  but I've been shooting the 56" way more lately. Trying to prep myself for thunder chicken season in a pop-up.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: ISP 5353 on January 24, 2017, 08:26:00 PM
64" recurves for me.  Two Palmers and a Quinn.  I draw 30".
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: KAZ on January 24, 2017, 09:18:00 PM
54" & 60" Recurves... The 54" is my go to for hunting due to how nimble it is.....
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: DesertDude on January 24, 2017, 10:11:00 PM
A Wes Wallace 64"-66" for me at 29" draw
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Ryan Rothhaar on January 25, 2017, 05:42:00 AM
For recurves I shot 64 inch for years, the last decade or so I'm hunting with 66 inch bows.  For a hybrid type longbow I like 68.  I'm 5'6" and draw 29.5.  I've never had an issue in a tree stand (that's why they invented pruning saws), or spot and stalk type hunting, a couple times I have had problems with home made ground blinds at friend's places.... so I'm careful when hunting from someone else's ground blind to check clearance.

I think the whole "short bow for hunting" thing is something that guys hear so much they just start repeating it.  In over 30 years of serious hunting with recurves and long bows I've never worried about, or had real issues with, longer bows, and have enjoyed the benefits. Dad is approaching 60yrs behind recurve bows and I cannot remember ever seeing him shoot one under 64 inches, also never heard a story from him about losing out on an animal due to a longer bow.

R
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: 59Alaskan on January 25, 2017, 05:53:00 AM
I shoot 56-64".  I prefer 62-64".  64" recurves can just be super sweet and smooth.  At one time I had a 66" recurve and I really liked that also.  I took it hunting a few times, tree stand and ground.  Never had an opportunity at game though
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Tom on January 25, 2017, 06:02:00 AM
62-64" recurves with a 29.5" draw. Short guy with monkey arms.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Stykbowslim on January 25, 2017, 06:24:00 AM
I've been shooting recurves for 47 years. Mostly 62" to 66" bows. Since the mid-eighties, I've stuck with the 62" recurves. I'm 5'8" and I draw 29.5, and I've never had a problem with bow length in my hunting setups, whether out of a tree stand, ground blind, or spot and stalk hunting.

A few years ago, I did have some bow clearance issues when my son invited me to hunt his treestand setups. At 5'6" and shooting a compound, my son didn't think about the bow clearance issues that "dear old dad" would have. However, some handy work with a pruner and a pruning saw solved those issues.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Crooked Stic on January 25, 2017, 07:39:00 AM
Of course your draw length will determine how short you could go and be comfortable. I feel the longer bows will be more forgiving. Although A well designned short bow can work also.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: stagetek on January 25, 2017, 09:21:00 PM
60-64" for me. Prefer the 64"ers. I shoot better with a longer bow.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: katman on January 25, 2017, 09:31:00 PM
62 for a blind or 64 for me is sweet on my DAS risers, 29.5" draw.

That 21" DAS metal riser, heck of a riser, is not only adding length but mass so I feel that helps accuracy. Good choice on medium limbs for your draw.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: D. Key on January 27, 2017, 10:13:00 AM
For me with a 27" draw length, I used to shoot 58" almost exclusively with an occasional 60". A couple of years ago I ordered a 56" Chinook from Dan Toelke and it is by far the best shooting recurve I have ever had.  Great for pop-up blinds and tree stand hunting.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: indianalongbowshooter on January 27, 2017, 10:21:00 AM
It all depends on the bow Ive had a 52 in. Fedora 3 pc. Gaboon Ebony riser w/all bamboo limbs recurve that felt/shot like a 62 in. bow, same for a few other short bows it all depends on bow design.. some short bows feel like they are going to break at full draw and are a lot harder to be accurate with..
I prefer a 56 in. bow to hunt with and for general shooting such as 3-D a 62 in. recurve or longbow..
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Buckeye1977 on January 27, 2017, 11:23:00 AM
I like the shorter bows myself cause the spots I usually hunt are very thick and tight or are in ground blinds but I only draw about 26.5".
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: BlacktailBowhunter on January 28, 2017, 12:13:00 AM
I shot Norm Johnson's 62" Sitka and asked him if the 58" or 56" would shoot as smooth and he said I wouldn't notice any difference, so I'm excited to get it. I draw about 26.5" and contemplated the 56" but I can't get past thinking that I'll be more accurate with the 58". Bowwild or Roy has a 56" and 58" Sitka and says he doesn't notice a difference.

I guess a lot has to do with bow design and whether you're hunting or target shooting.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: YORNOC on January 28, 2017, 07:21:00 AM
I had to beg and plead for years to get Dave Windauer to build me a 66" Silvertip recurve.
He finally caved, love it.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: cacciatore on January 28, 2017, 08:08:00 AM
I don't have problems using short bows that at my hunting distances I find better weapons.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: tomsm44 on January 28, 2017, 08:18:00 AM
The few I typically hunt with range from 56-60".  One thing that I think is overlooked is mass weight.  A longer bow will also typically weigh a little more, which also goes a long way to aid accuracy.  

Part way into this season, I swapped from a 56" 42# Hoots Custom recurve to a 60" 55# 1966 Kodiak.  The reason was that I was more accurate with the Kodiak than the Hoots, despite a 13# increase in draw weight.  

But I honestly think the mass weight was more of a factor than the length.  The Hoots is extremely light and seems to move all over the place when drawn.  I have 58" bows with more mass weight that I shoot just as well as the Kodiak. I bet attaching a quiver to the Hoots would help out a lot.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: cacciatore on January 28, 2017, 08:44:00 AM
Don't forget the riser lenght factor. A 64" 19" riser bow has the same string angle as a 60" 15" riser bow.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: mangonboat on January 28, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
52"-66". Mass distribution makes a big difference. The easiest bow I've come across to shoot accurately was a 64" Frankenbow made from a 70's Bear compound riser and Sage limbs, where the mass was concentrated at the top and bottom of the riser, at the limb bases, rather than mid-riser, a design that gained popularity in the mid-60's recurves and still popular today.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Friend on January 30, 2017, 01:33:00 PM
Fond of 62"s at my 28" draw.

Since my hunting is from the ground only, a 56"r fits all of my setups. Am not capable of shooting competently with many shorter bows.

When you hold out 100+ hunts and finally gifted that special opportunity, one may be more focused on elevated confidence in placing the arrow on the mark.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: YosemiteSam on January 30, 2017, 02:02:00 PM
62".  Tried a 58" but it took more concentration to hit my mark effectively.  May have just been a weight issue since my 62" bows are heavy take-down.

I've been itching to try something super short with a thumb ring, however.  Seems like it may be a little better for maneuvering in the bush.  Only one way to find out, I suppose...
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: stevem on January 30, 2017, 02:06:00 PM
62" and a 27" draw
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Terry Green on February 01, 2017, 04:57:00 PM
It could be the bow....not the length ...some bows just fit guys styles better...and 2 inches either way really shouldn't matter.

I like 60 inch recurves and longbows...shoot them good as anything else I've owned that's longer...60 just fits me.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: crazynate on February 01, 2017, 05:02:00 PM
60" for my go to predator. Although I do have vintage bear bows that are 64-66" and they are very smooth. I also hunt a lot with my okay and surprisingly I do not notice a different in accuracy between that and any of my longer ones. If anything I shoot that bow more accurately.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: myshootinstinks on February 01, 2017, 05:04:00 PM
I shoot 56", 60", & 64" Bear TDs. 60" & 62" one piece bows. The "B" riser & #3 limbs @ 45#s I shoot the very best.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: maxwell on February 01, 2017, 05:37:00 PM
I shoot a 25" aluminum Sky ILF riser called the advantage it is made for short draw people like me.  No deflex in riser so limbs seem to bend more.  Anyhow
I find it is extremely easy to shoot in archery league and I am seriously thinking of using the bow for hunting.  26" draw 66-68" bow  45#.
Title: Re: Short vs long recurves
Post by: Stumpkiller on February 01, 2017, 10:48:00 PM
I bounce around between 56" (Browning Wasp) and 66" (Red Wing Presentation II).  My all time favorite is 62" Browning Explorer, but I frequently hunt with 58" recurves.  I find that a good compromise length.

I draw a full 29-1/2"