how does a 62 kodiak cast?

[trubltrubl]

Was wondering how a 62 kodiak cast and handles...I have a 1967 Super Kodiak and a 1966 SuperKodiak....starting to collect old Bears...hows the 62 compared to these bows?

[oldbohntr]

In my opinion, the Super K model doesn't even come close to the pre-1964 Kodiaks.  Individual bow performance will vary of  course, but my preference is for 1960, '58, '59, '63,'64, '62,'61,'54, and '57, in that order.  60" is nearly always better than 64".  Not to pick a fight with anyone, because they're all at the top of the Bear heap, wrt beauty and performance.  The '62 and the '60 are far and away the prettiest, as I see it.  

You won't go far wrong with any of them.

[Migra Bill]

Sir-
I dont think it is possible for you to have a 66 Super Kodiak. 66 was the last year for the Kodiak, and the first Super Kodiak is known as a 67 1/2.

And the SUper Kodiaks cast is no where near as nice as the Kodiaks pre 65.

[trubltrubl]

thanks for your input...what is a fair price for a 62 in 9 out of 10 shape?

[trubltrubl]

Migrabill...yes ..sorry I ment I had a 66 Kodiak .......any opinion on the 62?

[trubltrubl]

I have also been looking for a lefty 1958 kodiak for two years...no luck....but have my eye on a 1962...it is beautiful...never plucked a 62 yet..

[cacciatore]

I love mine,good shooter.

[yellow bow]

The '62 is a great shooter and not too hard on the eyes either.  

[SlowBowke]

Interesting info on the cast of the bows.
The 67 1/2 is the earliest Ive shot and never gave it thought earlier could be much different.

Thanks all
God Bless

[oldbohntr]

Oooh yeah, there’s a huge difference.   The Super K, while beautiful, was not a great performer,  and  you only have to look at the limb profile to see why.   I used to have all the years hanging on one wall, and you can just watch the hooks open up as the ‘60s progressed.    Same with the Magnums, only they were never great and just got worse!    I never quite figured out why the 1960 and earlier bows were so good, because they changed the design a lot every year.   For my money, the 1958 is the most under-appreciated Kodiak.  In 60”,it shot with the best of them.   I think Fred made a poor decision to go with white glass, poor sales resulted, and the beautiful 1969 just took the market by storm.    They must not have made many ‘58s.    Many years ago I picked up Bud Gray’s 65# 1958 that Fred gave him for the  Little Delta hunt.   This bow is mint condition, and I’m kind of crushed by that, because Bud shot his ram that year with his ’57 Kodiak!    
Apologies to the Super K fans here.   These are just opinions.

[vintage-bears]

I also agree with most responses here.
Super kodiaks are a wonderful design and a great shooting bow,but
they cannot compare to the pre 65' models in OVERALL shootabilty.
My personal favorite are the 1961 and 62' Kodiaks. A timeless design and all business.
They can  and will rival bows being made today. Magnificent wood with a sleek long riser, sweet grip and shelf for a mass produced bow and a short snappy working limb that has amazing cast.
......Philip

[zepnut]

Have to agree with Phil. Just something about the 61 and 62 Kodiaks.

[d. ward]

was the ? about cast or performance as in arrow speed performance.Cast and speed are NOT the same.I have a 55# 1964 Kodiak runs about 186 FPS on a good day.However I have a 1970 64" Super Kodiak 55# runs around 165 FPS on a really good day.Ya'all still with me here ? OK now thru my shooting chrony the 1964 Kodiak has the fastest arrow ET everytime.
But for distance or flight shot shooting style....cast.The Super K wins everytime.The 64" Super K will shoot an arrow about 20-40 yards futher with the longer limb.Fact is grab your favorite bows and head out to an open field today and give it a shot.The results may suprize you.Yeah I know your gonna say Harry's bows were real short.I know.....they were over 100 pounds of pull to compensate for shorter limbs bd

[SlowBowke]

NOW it's REALLY interesting. lol

I never did a lot of shooting for cast but did notice a few, that when out shooting fun rounds accross hay fields,that some "shot further than I woulda thought". Not just a certain brand but this will be interesting to me. Highly!

I can see an impromptu home brew comparison in what bows I have and come up with, in records, coming up!!

Important to me really? Nah......for hunting they all do more than I CAN.....but danged interesting for an old mind to run through the gauntlet.

Dont make me buy one of each and try em all!!!
(I wish)

Should be a hoot to discuss the differences like posted above, and feasable reasons, IMHO

IVE always wondered, while the longer ones always (comparing similar design) were "smoother" and often wonder just how much the extra mass of limbs effected the total package......or not.

MOST, IMHO......equate "speed" and "cast". With CAST being more in line with trajectory to cast.......that will boggle a few minds if the faster one DONT have more cast.

As a physics student decades ago, I wouldnt surprise me an iota if they don't. As said, it will be more "bow specific" but there should be a pattern, one would think?
 
Again, speed and cast alone are only part of any bow and all do what I need.....it's still interesting.
God Bless

[Don Stokes]

real bowdoc, I'm confused. If the arrows are the same, and the bows are properly tuned with the arrows, how does the arrow know which bow it came out of? How can a slower arrow shoot farther?

Call me skeptical, because I am. Am I missing something here?

[Don Stokes]

Hmmm... If the amount cut from center was different, the arrow that had to bend the most to clear the riser would take longer to dampen the oscillations, which might affect cast. Maybe I answered my own question?

[d. ward]

I'am just asking to check it for yourself.Little food for thought would be.Lets just say your tossing the tennis ball for the dog.You can make a fairly good distance with just your arm right ? But now you think about those 64 inch limbs ??? go to wal-mart and buy yourself one of those 3 foot long plastic tennis ball tossers that makes your arm 64" long.Or maybe we're out shooting a few clay piegons with our bows and its your turn to toss the piegons.Your only getting them about 40-50 feet with your arm.Now we load up the 3 foot long piegon chucker and bammm the birds are flying 30 yards.Check it out when you have the room.And yes all of my personal bows and cut a little beyond center and fairly well matched in the department bd

[SlowBowke]

Not arguing, agree on the longer being capable of longer cast.....but not understanding on the comparison.

WOULD NOT??? they also be faster with the longer "arm" thrower?

Admit, I too am lost on why or how, gravity dont know what it came from, draw length equal, same arrow, same weight.........hmmm.

SOMETHING has to be different from the release onward. Less "energy" lost along the path? My mind is whirling!

Somewhere the "faster" one...flat lost something somehow, somewhere since measured to be faster from the start with gravity being always equal.

Maybe....... it has to to something with stability from the word go on a more so bow?

Being the first Ive seen actually chronographed THEN compared to cast....really loving this but cant explain it.

Being the "devil's advocate", Doc.....that's all.

Somehow a comparison has to start OUT with....slower and get more cast too as indicated.

YES...I think it's POSSIBLE, as I said, but a bit lost on HOW.

It's got to be a combination of all the factors, somehow coming together IMHO.

[SlowBowke]

It would be interesting, if possible, to compare the same two previously chronographed......OUT there like 30 yards???  Would be food for thought added Id think?

Possibly?? Smoother release with less gyrations imparted to the arrow? Somewhere....(and I can only come up with stability beind different) some momentum is lost on one over the other and momentum HAS TO have ***all things equal*** to use velocity and mass as sole components to be accurate.

Cast has to be somehow, linked in conjuction with momentum lost.

Sorry......Ill shut up now.

[vintage-bears]

Originally posted by the real bowdoc:
was the ? about cast or performance as in arrow speed performance.Cast and speed are NOT the same.I have a 55# 1964 Kodiak runs about 186 FPS on a good day.However I have a 1970 64" Super Kodiak 55# runs around 165 FPS on a really good day.Ya'all still with me here ? OK now thru my shooting chrony the 1964 Kodiak has the fastest arrow ET everytime.
But for distance or flight shot shooting style....cast.The Super K wins everytime.The 64" Super K will shoot an arrow about 20-40 yards futher with the longer limb.Fact is grab your favorite bows and head out to an open field today and give it a shot.The results may suprize you.Yeah I know your gonna say Harry's bows were real short.I know.....they were over 100 pounds of pull to compensate for shorter limbs bd

Well said Donnie