HH bug got me ... Part One!

[Rik]

MT Longbow,

If I am lucky enough to see a bear that large before the season ends, I can assure you:

I WILL BE RUNNING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

Glad your daughter put an arrow in him too, he's not a one-arrow bear!

P.S. That grass looks sweet and tasty. Be there elk in that thar country?

[MT Longbow]

IIGGGHH Matey, thars Elk in them thar hills!

Patrick

[Rik]

Right ye are, right ye are, I had a feeling.

9 and 1/2 weeks and counting Matey, 9 and a half weeks and counting. . .

P.S. For those of you who wonder what in tarnation is wrong with MT and I, well. . . we be elk hunters. . . therefore we be crazy. I smelled fresh elk pee elk this weekend, I saw fresh elk tracks, I saw a huge rub from last September, and I saw elk on the hoof. Aye------'tis true, I be worthless as a rusty cutlass from now 'til the end of elk season. .

[MT Longbow]

EEYYYYYY, Truer words were never spoken Matey, now rest up a bit, close those weary eyes and dream.....

[dragonheart]

Here is an "ol school" photo with Hill'ish features!

   

[Rob DiStefano]

Originally posted by Rik:
Hill bow are not flat bows.

The difference between flat bows and "narrow," deep-cored bows is deep-----and ancient.

That's what makes deep-cored bows interesting.

Look into it. The research is almost as interesting as the bows. . .

....

um, not so rik ol' buddy.  there is no reference to core depth in an american flat longbow.  it's flat because unlike the ELB, the belly is as flat as the back.

for the most part, there is an unspoken rule of thumb that sez american flat longbows are narrow of width (1" to maybe as much as 1-3/8", but most are around 1-1/8") and deeper of core (limb thickness, depth) than a "flatbow", which is very wide of core and shorter of limb length than an AFL.  

at the extreme, a flatbow would be a nor'west modoc indian "pyramid" bow, perhaps 60" in length and limb width of about 3" at the fades ...

   

[Overspined]

Chris M,

Heavier arrows have been proven to be very efficient from Hill style bows.  I have seen a controlled study where as arrow mass went up, the velocity dropped, but very little when compared to a curve shooting the same set of arrows from a bow the same draw weight.  The deep core apparently continues to deliver a good cast with the heavier mass arrows. I don't recall where I have that, but it was in some trad magazine I believe.

[ChrisM]

Well I think that I am going to like to heavier arrows because my unscientific study shows that they penetrate way deeper on my hay bales infact with the heavy arrows I have to shoot the bale on the side instead of the end or I have to dig for the arrow.  Also I will have to get a new block target as they were burying past the fletching and some skipping on the dirt on the other side.  

[Rob DiStefano]

cornfucius say ...

"heavy arrows will make your bowstring sing.

light arrows will make your bow arm sting."

 :D    

 

[Overspined]

I have found a point where the mass seems to impede distance shooting, but I think it varies between bows and bow weights, and shooter of course. I like a 600 grain arrow, from 45#-53# Hill and Hill style bows.  I can shoot to 35yds well. More than that seems to really change my trajectory, yet penetration is still great.  I get mostly pass-thru's on deer, or full chest penetration, even on big deer.  Usually a bone hit on the opposite shoulder is what will stop my arrow if it stops. 550-600gr seems good for me, 600gr for elk.

[Rob DiStefano]

of course there surely is such a thing as 'too much arrow weight', when arrows lob in the direction of the mark instead of flying in with a reasonable trajectory.  each bow (and archer) will determine what's 'too much' of anything.  

[petertschantz]

My next set of arrows for the Big-5 will be between 500 and 600 grains I think, I'll adjust fire from there.

[Shakes.602]

   

[Rik]

I know I am out on a limb here, but to me, a flat bow is what I think of when I see about 90 percent of all longbows on the market. They have wide, thin limbs that are basically flat.

They are not as wide and thin as a recurve, but they are still wide and thin.

When I look at one of my Hill bows, I do not see a flat bow. The limbs on my bows are nearly as deep as they are wide.

In my simple, pea-sized Idaho brain, there are flat bows, and there are deep-cored bows. Nothing wrong with either, but they are different.

I recommend taking my thoughts on this with a grain of salt though, as I also think Hill bows look good with bow quivers. My thinking on such matters is what some would call "Abby-Normal."

[Rob DiStefano]

Originally posted by Rik:
I know I am out on a limb here, but to me, a flat bow is what I think of when I see about 90 percent of all longbows on the market. They have wide, thin limbs that are basically flat....

yep, no question, they're ALL flatbows.  however, it's the American Flat Longbow (AFL) that has the narrowest of flatbow limbs, and thusly the deepest of cores (thickness).

[Rik]

If Hill bows are American Flat Longbows, what do we call the wide, thin-limbed longbows?

I would vote for calling them Non-American Flat Longbows (NAFLs), but that would make it w-a-y too easy to tease my friends.

Seriously though, what are they called?

If I could run the world for a day, the Yew Longbows of old  and Howard Hill style bows would be called  Longbows (naturally), and the flatter-limbed longbows would be called flatbows. Due to the young archers who may be tuned into this broadcast, I will not mention what I would call recurves, but as my hunting partners who shoot them can attest, the phrase does include the word "Sissy." To be fair though, they cannot mention my Hill bows without grinning widely and mentioning two-by-fours.

[ChrisM]

What ever you callem I am lovenem      

[Nate Steen .]

[IMG]http://images

Rik and fellas...

had this bear come in the other night, this photo taken about two minutes before I got the shot.  I was wearing my slip on loafers, jeans and plaid Asbell vest and carrying my white glass bow.  The bear never saw me and walked within 10 yards....needless to say,  I shouldn't have put up a treestand,  I was only 7' up, just to get into some cover, but I dislike shooting from an elevated sitting position and.....

[Looper]

Okay, Mr. Steen, you've got to get that picture posting sorted out and stop teasing us.

[Rik]

To help pass the time while Nate continues to keep us on the edge of our seats, here is a photo from this weekend, looking toward where Nate is hunting. I am hoping Nate will scare a few bears toward this side of the mountains with that fancy white bow of his.

P.S. Note that my Haversack is of a manly size and proper proportion. I think Nate's may be a bit small for serous archery endeavors.