Originally posted by TSP:
I think the assessment of "handshock" really depends more on the shooter's ability (or inability) to learn from and adjust to the bow's design, much more than it does on the bow's ability to conform to the shooter's own preconceived ideas of what's comfy. Not everyone was made to shoot a 'real' longbow. It's a subjective question that only you can decide the right answer to.
The question is, is there something else to a Hill style bow that makes it worth putting up with the thump. Obviously, for lots of folks there are. Hills are quiet, stable, durable and carry a great heritage. If that rates higher for you than a smooth shot, I reccomend you pick up a Hill.
For me, the decision has absolutely nothing to do with experience. I've been shooting traditional bows for 21 years now, longbows for 19. I started with a Hill-style bow (A Ben Pearson Ol' Ben. Talk about handshock!). I built selfbows for years. I think most of them kicked worse than the Pearson! After some elbow problems a few years back, I had to do one of three things, build bows, shoot bows or give up archery. My joints just wouldn't take the abuse anymore. I was able to switch to a hybrid-style longbow in almost the same weight I had always shot and continue without pain.
I can shoot a Hill-style bow. I just can't do more than a round or so a week with one, and there will be lots of pain and ice packs in-between.
Hill style bows kick. I'm still glad they are around. Hills are still about the prettiest thing going when bent to full draw.