Author Topic: Dog leg design? (Read 2089 times)

Doublegun · « **on:** May 28, 2007, 01:48:00 AM »

I have been looking at several old KMs and Hunters - and I have noticed what has been described as a dog-leg design. Is there any functional advantage to this type of design? I am looking for a hunting bow - not necessarily a collector.

Thanks

Horney Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2007, 12:36:00 PM »

Actually the dog leg design is not an advantage since many of the doglegs delaminated and were prone to failure. I'd advise against a 1963 for hunting. A fool proof hunting bow is a kodiak hunter, 60" amo. Made from 1967 to 1978.

Doublegun · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2007, 02:41:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horney Toad:
I'd advise against a 1963 for hunting.

Why is that?

mullet · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2007, 07:41:00 PM »

I have a '63 dogleg, "I" beam in mint condition.It was my understanding that was the one that didn't come apart.

PAPALAPIN · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2007, 04:17:00 PM »

I have three Kodiak DOGLEGs (60") and shoot the heck out of them. Th 60" model is not a problem. I have never heard of one cracking up. I am sure some may have, but not more than any other recurve.

The 52" Kodiak Magnum type I had drastic angles and minimal contact between the glass and the riser. This is why the cracked up. the Type II had less drastic angles and more contact between the glass and the riser, but still not enough. These also had crack up problems. The Type III almost does not look like a dogleg, and had lots more contact area between theglass in the riser. As far as I know, this solved the problem and thee were not any problems, not more than other bows. As far as I know, the 60" dogleg and the 52" Type III doglegs ar both safe shooters.

tonto · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2007, 07:36:00 AM »

I collect 63s. I have all the 63 models ( grizzly types 1 and 2, kodiak ,cub ,polar,kodiak special ,tamerlane ,kodiak magnums types 1,2 and 3). ( I understand some of the types also came Ibeam or not also?) Ill try and posts pics in the next day or so if anyone is interested.
Dean

PAPALAPIN · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2007, 10:47:00 AM »

I am not great at posting pictures. Low TECH. That is why I like traditional equipment.

I have 3 60" doglegs and one Type I Kodiak Magnum. I am about to go out ofstate for a week. When I get back, I can e-mail someone a picture to post, if tonto or Rich haven't done it by then.

Great idea though. That would be the best way to show the differences and which ones are shooters and which are not.

With all the hype about the doglegs cracking up, interesting that I have never heard anything abou problems with the Grizzley or the Cub. It is because, like the 60" Kodiak, they are longer bows, with longer risers and enough glass to riser contact. The 52" Types I & II are the culprits that give a bad name to all the '63 Doglegs. Undeserved.

tonto · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2007, 12:14:00 PM »

I have the photo from wade phillips also. He helped me locate my type 1 kmag. I wonder if they did have problems with the grizzly as they made two types also?
Dean

PAPALAPIN · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:45:00 PM »

Which one was it? Number 2 (first sold) or number 1 (second sold (Victor in AZ)

tonto · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2007, 04:10:00 PM »

1963 kodiak magnums types 1 2 and 3

tonto · « **Reply #10 on:** June 14, 2007, 04:11:00 PM »

1963 kodiak and kodiak special

tonto · « **Reply #11 on:** June 14, 2007, 04:13:00 PM »

1963 tamerlane, polar and cub

tonto · « **Reply #12 on:** June 14, 2007, 04:14:00 PM »

1963 grizzly types 1 and 2

tonto · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2007, 04:16:00 PM »

sorry my pictures arent the best I have dial up. These are all the bows listed in my 1963 bear catalog the type 1 grizzly should have a leather handle I am touching it up. And of course the catalog only lists type 1 bows.
Dean

KPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2007, 09:50:00 PM »

thanks for the pics,great to look at these wonderful old bows!
KPaul

Horney Toad · « **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2007, 11:21:00 PM »

Tonto, Is the type 3 mag on top in your picture?

tonto · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2007, 07:34:00 AM »

Yes sir they are type 1,2 and 3 bottom to top. You can see why the type 1s broke!
Dean

Horney Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** June 20, 2007, 12:00:00 AM »

Thanks. I have a type 3 55 pounder, lefty., I never even shot that bow. Really nice figured bubinga. Looks like the type 1 and 2 are really crazy designs. I never figured out what the heck Bear archery was thinking when they designed the 1963 bows!

PAPALAPIN · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2007, 08:16:00 AM »

TONTA

Great pictures. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a good case in point because this is the best way to show the difference between a type I, II, & III.

If you notice the amount of contact on the Type I as compared to the 60" Kodiak, you can see why it had crack up problems and the 60" didn't, although this must no have been a concern when it was first designed.

It is a shame because the Type I is a great looking bow.

Papa Bear must have had some kind of confidence in the '63 60" dogleg. He took it to a standoff with a mature Bengal Tiger in 1963 and walked away with a trophy. "No guts no glory!!"

tonto · « **Reply #19 on:** June 27, 2007, 07:56:00 AM »

Did he use a 63 kodiak or a 63 kodiak magnum for his tiger? I thought is was a kodiak magnum? I thought the museum got caught trying to sell it on **** years ago. I think the 63s were great looking bows.
Dean

News:

Author Topic: Dog leg design? (Read 2089 times)

Users currently browsing this topic: