'62 vs 63 Dogleg

[wasapt]

I have a '59 Kodiak and love it.  Reading the recent posts, the opinion is the '62 was the faster bow of the '59 - '62 group. My question; How would my Dogleg '63 Kodiak compare to the '62 for shooting speed? Thanks for your interesting comments.

[Bjorn]

I second that! Was it the 1959 Plymouth that had the huge fins? That's reminiscent of the doglegs for me.
Please don't take that as a criticism of an otherwise interesting and must have collectible.

[TRAP]

I love em all, but the 62 Kodiak is the crème de la crème of the Post 1960 Kodiaks    .

I just received my 1st 62 Kodiak a few days ago.  The grip is great and it truly is an interesting bow.  Fun to shoot, and fun to look at. Bjorn's reference to the "dogleg" and the auto industry at the time is "Spot On".

Trap

[wasapt]

I'm glad to know that, hopefully I will find a 62 to add to my collection. I like to shoot them, not just hang on the wall. I have planned to use my '59 on my Brown Bear hunt in 2011, perhaps luck will come my way and I will find a '62.

[TRAP]

Nice Analogy Professor    

Trap

[Migra Bill]

I'm gonna go the other way on this one. I find the 62 easier on the eyes, but I think the 63 is a better shooter. I love that big wide open site window. I am much more accurate with my 63 than I am with my 62. Personal prefernce I guess.

[Blackhawk]

I am also in Bill's camp.  I love the looks of the '62, but prefer shooting that ugly mother-in-law born in 1963.  

I don't have these two of equal weights to compare speed, but I find the '63's other attributes to be slightly superior.  Regardless, those 1959-1964 Kodiaks are all top notch.

[reddogge]

I used to hate the looks of the '63 and once turned one down in a trade but now I like them and want one.  

I find it extreemly difficult to find a vast difference in the way any vintage Bear Kodiak shoots.  To me they all shoot great.  Some are physically heavier than others and some have slimmer handles but that's pretty much it.

[wasapt]

I actually love the looks of the 60" '63 Kodiak and It shoots alot smoother than my 64" '59 Kodiak. That is odd to me given the longer length of the '59.

[Bjorn]

Love the mother in law analogy Lon!

[snufer]

I guess that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I remember when you couldn't give away a 58 Chevy Impala, now the price is out of sight for one. Hopefully the 63 Doglegs will go this route!  (I have five of the seven models made in 63)

[d. ward]

never mett a bow I did'nt like I love em all however I am going to stir the pot for a change and say I believe the 63 may be just a little faster then the 1962 however again....please keep in mind each and every of those year bows were tillerd and finish sanded by hand by 12-24 different folks working at bear at that time.Not every bow will shoot the same so its kind of like today the dog leg wins tomorrow against a different 1962 he's a losser.Tough call on a real winner bd

[ckruse]

I'm with Doc, the 63 I believe is slightly faster, but the 62 has a great knack for hitting right where I'm looking! I would say it's a touch quieter too. Either is a great bow. If you ever get to looking at the grip angle of the 63 Dogleg, and wonder where you've seen it before, take a look at your 1911 .45 ACP. CKruse

[Migra Bill]

A ha! That's why I shoot it so well! Thanx CK - you're right.

[Blackhawk]

I did compare the '63 dogleg with a '64 Kodiak with both the same weight.  The ole '63 won, so if someone will send me a 45# '62 Kodiak, I will test it.

I thought the grip was more like a German Luger or a Glock.

[cacciatore]

So I think you are saying better to have both eh?LOL

[Grant Young]

I'll chime in with the good Dr.- however, as much as I love the '62 aesthetically, I think the '63 is the best performer of the two in most cases. As Ph.D. Archer Bowman said, every bow is a little different even from others of its same type but I think the '63 is an often overlooked treasure. Heck Bryce, you already know that from me though.       Grant

[Grant Young]

BTW Lon, all my grips have been modified as close as is practical to the '63; long and narrow with a medium low grip.  GY

[macclare]

The 63 grizzlys are no slouches either

[lesaint45]

Now all this, is some interesting stuff for sure. As I have shot a 62 and a 63 of same wieght as the Great BD can atest to. I will say the 63 was a bit faster on the Doc's home target. But in addition to speed lets talk about cast? of a heavy shaft. Kind of like an A handle with #3 limbs 60" and a B handle with # 1's same wieght, same length. How would that compare?  I bring this up as the 62 and 63 risers are not the same in length or offset.
Larry