Trad Gang
Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: beendare on October 17, 2013, 08:09:00 PM
-
I'm reading Howards book "Hunting the Hard Way" and though well dated [1953] found his comment about "I'm not a good enough archer to shoot recurves" interesting.
Is this a dated comment with the quality recurves we have now? Or is there still a bit of truth to it?
[FWIW, Lefty here, I've only shot recurves, no longbows]
-
Howard was selling longbows, although later on he did sell some recurves. I imagine he was a good enough archer to shoot anything, but he was a salesman/showman, and was promoting his product. At least that is my take on it.
-
If you have a recurve take it in to the woods and try to get some squirrels, then take a hill bow and try the same.... (http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv247/pukingguts/DSC_4870_zps4a9f4594.jpg) (http://s688.photobucket.com/user/pukingguts/media/DSC_4870_zps4a9f4594.jpg.html)
-
Just like anything else, shoot the same thing for a while and you will master it. For quick shots at moving, or about to move, game, I think the longbow is more accurate in that regard. When you have time to line up your shot, they both will do the trick...
That tango was taken at 22yards, and yes the bow was fast enough to deliver a "shock" kill to it with that blunt, even only drawn to 26" from a 50# @28 68" bow with Dacron!!!
-
I think it was an easy statement for Howard to make given his talent. I would venture to guess he could have shot a recurve just as well. He didn't have to disprove it or feel otherwise though. There are some pics of him in that book holding a 'very long' recurve. There is definite bravado in his statement and I think more than anything a longbow was the only weapon he wanted to use.
If you've ever heard John Schulz speak or have read his writings, he is a direct progeny of Howard’s and professes the same sentiment. It’s a simple statement they make and speaks to their conviction for the longbow. Sometimes I like hearing this absolutism, other times I find it arrogant and boring. I am a ‘longbow guy’ but shoot everything traditional. My highest scores have been obtained with a recurve. A recurve typically wins our WI State Traditional shoot and always outscore the longbows in qualifying. Anecdotal examples, but…
Recuves are used in the Olympics, which I believe is an open class venue, meaning any none compound bow may be used (I could be wrong, please clarify if someone knows).
I am a HH fan but take a lot of what is in that book with a grain of salt anymore. The diehards will flame me. I wished I could have met him.
Kris
-
I am a longbow guy and big HH fan. I do not, nor ever have owned a recurve. That said I do realize the longbow was Howard's bow of choice. He perfected it, he trained with it, he sold it. He is biased in that regard. We will never know if HH would have been as good with a recurve in his hands from his earliest days with a bow. I suspect he would. The big question is would he have been better?
Don't take too much stock in his statement. Learn to shoot what you enjoy and have fun.
-
Actually, Byron Ferguson makes similar comments. I think that people who specialize in longbows really feel that way.
-
Actually Howard was referring to the sensitively difference between a recurve and longbow. A longbow having inherently 'more stable' limbs do to their design.
My previous statement may be out of context.
Kris
-
He shot longbows for soooooo long, switching made him have a different feel and grip I'm sure. I'm also sure if he worked at it he would have been good with a recurve too, but, why would he need to?
If it ain't broke......
-
I know very little about Hill but I saw the video of him shooting a recurve and he was phenomenal. As some have indicated I think that must have been a tongue-in-cheek statement from someone who loved and preferred longbows.
-
Kris,
That was my understanding as well. It seems to me that I read something by Howard stating that he felt that the stability of the longbow limbs due to their thicker cross section are more forgiving of a poor release and therefore better suited to hunting situations where quick shots are required.
When I bought my longbows my accuracy improved immediately and I attributed it to the more stable limbs being less affected by my bad release.
Of course it could've been all psychological, subconsciously planted there by Howard and his statement...
What a good salesman!
Brad
-
I love this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Some people just seem to handle the longbow more naturally. Perhaps Hill was one of those guys. I feel it draws smoother and handles better. However, I have not shot nearly as many arrows from a recurve as I have the longbow, so it could be something as simple as familiarity.
-
When Howard wrote those words he was talking about a recurve bow that was no more than a longbow with static recurved ends. I can see where he was coming from.
Certainly not the recurves we think of today.
He also made it pretty clear that he was talking about bows for hunting and not target shooting.
-
For me a recurve is more difficult to shoot accurately compared to a long bow with straight limbs. I've not shot a Hill style bow but the length, center mass and "easier" push of a longbow seems to make that style bow more forgiving therefore more accurate.
-
For me a recurve means less vertical dispersion. I don't have as bad a time with distance. I shoot 600 gr arrows with 125 or 130 gr broadheads. Since a deer's lungs/vitals are wider than they are tall it works out as well if my arrows have flatter trajectory even with a wider spread. ;-)
I also like high recurve grips a LOT better that the Hill style longbow grips. Haven't tried a modern American flatbow (today's longbows).
I agree with what Centaur said: I'm sure if Howard was selling recurves they would have been just fine.
-
If you read Hunting the Hard way, he talks about shooting a recurved shorter bow that he can drill with in practice. He then talks about some the the worst shooting he had done in the field at game, grouse. Hill talks about getting his longbow and was far more accurate.
Maybe it just fit him, maybe it was confidence, but the longbow is very stable to shoot when under the pressure of hunting conditons (adrenaline!).
-
There is another, very similar thread that was "discussed" not so long ago. Do a search.
ChuckC
-
I certainly feel better shooting a longbow.
Just feel more like a traditional archer.. Accuracy in the field seems to accompany that traditional feeling. So, for me, perhaps it is more mental..
I read Howards HTHW and his comments about recurves. I expect there are people in every state today that could beat Howard and beat him with a recurve --- in their environment! Maybe not so in the field..
Gotta love Hill's showmanship !
Rambling on -------------
-
The statement in his book was of course a straight bow with curved ends. Hill sometimes, when looking at his films, had a shorter release. Sometimes he had a rather violent release. With a recurve, these variations could show up in the arrow flight. Longbows do not have as much variation in arrow speed with variations in draw length. My own test showed a high quality recurve that jumped 8 fps with an additional inch of draw and 8 fps loss with and inch less of draw. Compared to a longbow that had only 4 fps variation. The recurve was faster at all draws than that same weight longbow. I had to use a light grip and a straighter arm to get that recurve to shoot tight groups and it took a more time consuming effort to get it on target. It would have been a good bow for shooting at a standing deer from a tree stand. But with that stupid slow longbow I shot lots of bunnies, a few pheasants and a few deer, all while sneaking around seeing what was over the next hill or down there around the bend in the river. If you shoot a pistol grip recurve with Howard Hill technique, you will not like it. If you shoot a Hill longbow with Olympic target shooter technique, you will not like it. However, when you find a Hill style longbow that shoots an arrow as fast as that recurve, you adjust to it and never look back at the recurve again. The best of both worlds is a good place to be.
-
Standing up and getting everything "just right" then executing a good clean release is great for groups. A bow that does not have to be held a certain way, released perfectly, need all kinds of dead rat fir and 850g arrows to make it quiet down, and still shoots a straight arrow out of itself, thats a hunting bow.
-
I think it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It is 2013 after all. Materials and bow design have come a long way. Me personally- yup Hill bows are fun but even with practice I can't pull off with a straight grip Hill what I can with my 68" Stewart Slammer. I find a takedown r/d longbow with a heavy riser and great flat cast to draw weight ratio far more forgiving than any Hill I've tried. I will continue to enjoy Hill bows for the nostalgia and simplicity. Each bow style has advantages and none is the magic pill. The shooter is 9/10.
-
I have a copy of the book and have read the article. Of interest, there was a rebuttal of Hill's claims by Doug Kittredge in an old issue of Archers Digest.
Frankly, I don't believe too much the book has to say. There are accounts of 200 yard elk shots, etc..
I have 4 custom recurves and a custom longbow-and I much prefer recurves.
-
Good insights thx
-
I can shoot both equally bad just as I'm sure HH could shoot them equally good ....
-
Don't give up on it, shooting only one bow and arrow combo from here on out... If your current bow ain't fast enough, aim higher!
-
I shoot a recurve way better than I shoot a longbow. I've only been to a couple 3d trad shoots but the recurve high scores were all higher than the LB winners scores. Neither Howard Hill nor Pat B. we're competing though. I personally believe great shooters can shoot whatever they choose well. I'm not a great shooter, I need all the help I can get, I'll choose the recurve. BTW I have shot with Pat B. a time or two. He has smoked me with both styles.
Bonner
-
lol...I think too much has been read into Howard's quotes. Shooting any bow accurately is (in my humble opinion, at least) is all about form, fit (as in draw weight, bow length, grip, and brace preference), and personal preference. Could it have been that Mr Hill had such a following that his mere stating he "couldn't" use a recurve as well make it easier to sell more longbows? Definite Possibility, but I am not saying he was swaying the masses with falsehood either! I'm saying that Howards "fit" was probably better to that of the long sticks instead of the double bent ones lol. Just my thoughts.
Loren
-
The Badger Recurve built at Howard Hill Archery is "Sweet" not advertized, but A very nice and super quiet bow.
-
What worked for him never worked for me. There was on exception. I had a 67# Shadow Eclipse that was 58". I could shoot that thing like crazy. Then I got old, the weight was not for me anymore and I never found a longbow that rivaled that one. Having said that there are so many new hybrid bows that seem to shoot as well as my recurves. A friend of mine (Birdbow) has one of Big Jim's Buffalo bows. It's 60# and the first time I shot it it was about 40 yards with an Easton Axis 340 with a 200 grain field point. It was at a deer target and it was dead center in the kill zone. Nowadays it's really hard to define what a longbow is and you need to specify what you are talking about. I shot a Hill longbow once and I can still feel the shock in my bow hand just thinking about it. If you can shoot one...good for you. They are not for me. Guess I am not a good enough archer to shoot one.
-
Shooting traditional bows accurately is more about consistency than the inherent design of the bow.
Olympians use recurves, I'm sure at their level of training that's what's easiest for their style of shooting to be consistent with.
I personally shoot R/D longbows with low grips the most consistently. That's probably just because my first traditional bow was this design though so naturally it would make sense that this design is what I'm most used to and comfortable with, rather than that design being inherently better.
Also, you have to remember that Hill sold Hill style longbows. Any businessman would try to promote their products. Although I do believe that he personally shot his style best, he also had people buying his products because of what he could do with them. It would make sense that he state that his were the best on the market and were a part of his success as an archer by design.
-
I am hunting with what many would call a longbow and if I took off those limbs and put on the recurve limbs I would be hunting with what everyone calls a recurve...if you think you can only shoot one or the other well get yourself an RER LXR...we have all sorts of choices that Mr. hill did not
DDave
-
-
If I remember the story Howard was shooting at -grouse in trees from odd angles and non-standard shooting positions. He didn't shoot the sensitive limb recurve as well as he did with his trusty longbow. I have noticed the same with my shooting, I have a reflex/deflex longbow ACS limb design, it shoots excellent when I can take a normal shooting stance, but when I have to stretch or bend at the waist I can't shoot it as well as my Hill style straight limbed longbows.
-
I've shot game with modern recurves, both short and long in length, and with both modern, 'hybred" longbows and 'Hill-Type' longbows. I'm with Howard. When the chips are down, and the shot is difficult, I'll take the traditional, Hill-Type longbow every time. For both "fast shots' and shots from abnormal, off-balance positions it's far easier for me to hit with a Hill-Type Longbow.
Ed
-
With a Hill style longbow when one varies the cant, the rotational distance of the arrow above the knuckle is much samller then it would be with a modern recurve, especially if that recurve has an elevated rest. If one always shoots the same recurve, this would probably get adjusted automatically. However, if one normally shoots a longbow, when that same person rolls a recurve over the arrow will tend to point much further to the bow side of the shot. In Hill's case his bow was pretty much only curved at the ends, which would lead me to think that it was simply touchy to his particular shooting variations. One test that I did was to shoot a Bear SK with just the ring finger. The arrow flip-flopped like crazy. I tried the same ring finger release with my favorite Hill style bow, a Hill Halfbreed from a Hill blank, the arrow flew to the same place with the same good flight as when released properly. Comparing the recurve ended bow that Hill referred to against a modern recurve is not apples to apples, but then there are a different set of variables that would need to be considered, which once again would fall in favor to the Hill style bow for varied hunting shots. I would like to believe that Hill was very objective with his archery choices. He, most certainly, always seemed to know what he was doing.