How are these bows? I am not ready for one yet, but the price seems very, very reasonable. Does he not have as many laminations and such? Does performance suffer? It just seems like a nice looking bow for under $300.
I think the Hunter has 3 laminations. The Royal has four or five. That may be why they are cheaper - I honestly don't know. The glass and seems are great, lams are strong, and they really sling an arrow.
I do know that Nate chooses all of the wood. shapes the risers, crowns and centers the shelf, and tillers the bow by hand. I assumed they were machined because of the price and I actually talked to him to confirm they were not.
There is no way I can answer this without being biased as I love my bow and my Dad's is every bit its equal.
Obviously if you compare it to a high end bow like a Widow it is going to fall short in a few areas - laminations being one of them. They are also not reflex-deflex and they have a very slim/light design. If you like big risers, this isn't your bow. On the other hand they are super quiet and extremely light.
Personally, I would put mine up against any bow because it works for ME. Realistically, I would match it up with any bow in the $300-$500 price range. I would definitely take them over a mass-manufactured bow.
It is what it is, a solid, durable, no-frills working mans bow. A hunter's bow. I had pass-through on a moving doe at 25 yards with mine and I hold my own in league. That is good enough for me.
Again, my opinions, my experiences. I may have a better comparison after going to the Kzoo bow show.
Topic: What is a good longbow to start out with? (Read 2000 times)
