Marked Weights on Bears

[Whip]

Do you find that the marked draw weights on Bears tend to be on the low side?  Some of the ones that have had come through don't seem very close on my scale.  Just this week I weighed a 72 grizzly marked at 40# - my scale shows 45#.  And today a Kodiak Magnum marked at 55# shows 64# on my scale!!
On the other hand, almost every newer bow that I have had come through ends up less on my scale than what is marked on the limbs.  
I have both a wall mounted scale and a hand held one.  They read about a pound different than each other, but they are consistent with what they show.  Some bows are marked heavier than what I get, but the Bears seem to be marked less.

[AALLFAB]

I find about all 1960s bear bows run 3 pounds heavier. jim

[bear1336]

I have two sets of Grayling limbs that weight just about 3 to 4 pounds heavier than marked.

[d. ward]

Morning Joe yes about 90% of Bear bows are a shade over generaly.Many different thoughts on why.One old boy told me one time they did it on propose.Kind of makes you think that 40# but really 45# Bear Grizzly is pretty fast and hard hitting bow for 40 pounds...not.
The hightest draw weight I've ever seen mark wrong is a mid 1970's Kodiak Magnum marked 40X# on the bow and marked 44 under the strike plate but actually scales 55# bd

[Bjorn]

Wow! Maybe I'm pulling a 70# bow after all!
I feel 10 years younger now. Ya' made my day; wonder where my wife is at?  

[Grant Young]

Joe, what I've most often found is that the weight actually scales a little light but that is only with the T/D limbs and Super Ks that I personally own. I have seen a tendency toward erring on the heavy side with my son's mid-weight bows. It may be nothing more than a coincidence in my case. I do know + or - 3lbs or so wasn't considered a very big deal by most manufacturers in that period.  Grant

[Archer Fanatic]

I just traded a 1971 Super Kodiak that was marked 55# but it actually scaled 60#.

[Whip]

Seems to confirm what I have seen in my limited experience.  The Bears I have seen have tended to scale higher than what they are marked (but not all of them)  The majority of the custom bows I have scaled tend to show less than what they are marked.  Intereesting to see the differences in scales, and to know that you really can't compare one bow to another based on what is marked on the limbs.

[Keefer]

Whip,
  I recently sent a K-mag to Steve Chandalin in Canada that was marked 43#X on the side and under the side plate was 55# and I scaled it and sure enougth it was 55#...It was also an early K-mag from the 70's with the brass coin...I just wonder if someone had a hard time seeing the weight as it was marked under the side plate and wrote something lower on the riser by mistake?

[reddogge]

The most underscaled bows I have seen have been older Damon Howatts.

[frank bullitt]

Yes Whip, you and Bowdoc are right, in my opinion.
When I started to shoot, in the early '80s, I  shot everything I could get my hands on at shoots! Really made me wonder about it!

This is why I say, tell, and probably, preach to folks, "Don't go by the arrow spine charts"!

What are you really Shootin?