Would Howard Hill have used carbon arrows?

[Kentucky Jeff]

If he were alive today.  Would Saint Howard have used carbon arrows?  

I open the floor for debate....

[Benny Nganabbarru]

He used aluminium (aluminum in AmerEnglish) for his elephant hunt to get the weight up. Interestingly, Bill Negley, who hunted elephant after Hill did, used wooden arrows specially impregnated with resin to get the weight up, at least he did for his early elephant hunts. But I won't speculate on what he would use today.

[3arrows]

I think he would because he liked the toughest arrow he could find.

[Benny Nganabbarru]

Fighting words, 3arrows! Nah, just kidding! But I like Douglas fir because it is tougher than the carbons I've tried.

[Raging Water]

If the arrow would be a "more efficient" killer of big game, I think he would have.

Matt

[longbowray]

In hunting the hard way , wood over all other shaft . I think he would have stay with wood because of if has life in it .

[Cyclic-Rivers]

Tried them?  YES

Use them?  

[JINKSTER]

My crystal ball is broken but...if i hadta take a guess?

absolutely...at least i would like to think he would..after all...the man (and many others like him) dedicated their lives to the promotion of the sport they lived and loved...if it were a product that got more John Q's out there to waddle off their respective couch's..grab their new bow and make it easier for the average Joe to get involved and enjoy?..you betcha..and there would probably be a special top grade line with his name emblazened on the factory wraps!..for a slightly elevated cost. LOL!

[Red Tailed Hawk]

It's just like figuring how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll lollipop?

THE WORLD WILL NEVER KNOW!!!

[Burnsie]

Back in his day traditional tackle is all there was, so there wan't the whole mystique about trying to stay traditional.  It just was what it was,  there wasn't a lot of people standing around fretting about whether a certain arrow was going to make their bow more or less traditional. Seems as though it has only been in the most recent history that people have felt it is sacrilege to shoot anything but wood out of Hill bows.  I would like to think Howard would have used just about anything available to him if he was confident that it would improve his accuracy and consistency.

[JINKSTER]

Originally posted by Burnsie:
Back in his day traditional tackle is all there was, so there wan't the whole mystique about trying to stay traditional.  It just was what it was,  there wasn't a lot of people standing around fretting about whether a certain arrow was going to make their bow more or less traditional. Seems as though it has only been in the most recent history that people have felt it is sacrilege to shoot anything but wood out of Hill bows.  I would like to think Howard would have used just about anything available to him if he was confident that it would improve his accuracy and consistency.

I agree whole heartedly with that post..remember...these great men were icons of their time..competing against each other which happened to be the best in the world..if there was a better buggy whip available that would give them an edge?..not even a question.

[McDave]

He certainly jumped on fiberglass backing for his bows as soon as it was available, which indicates that he wasn't stuck in the past.  He makes it clear in his books that he shot the straight longbow because he thought it was the most dependable bow available.  He tried recurves, but the ones he tried shot erratically for him, so he stuck with longbows.  But I believe if he could have shot recurves better than he shot longbows, he would have been a recurve shooter.

Based on his history of trying new things and using those that he believed were an improvement, I have no doubt that he would have tried carbon arrows and would have used them if he believed they shot better than wood arrows.

[Jeff Strubberg]

Interesting question.  Howard didn't mind trying something new, but he was pretty convinced that what he had worked.

I'm gonna guess no.  Like the rest of us, I imagine Howard became less interested in change as he got older.  

Having said that, I've never seen anything about Howard demonizing change the way some do.

[Smithhammer]

Originally posted by McDave:
He certainly jumped on fiberglass backing for his bows as soon as it was available, which indicates that he wasn't stuck in the past.  He makes it clear in his books that he shot the straight longbow because he thought it was the most dependable bow available.  He tried recurves, but the ones he tried shot erratically for him, so he stuck with longbows.  But I believe if he could have shot recurves better than he shot longbows, he would have been a recurve shooter.

Based on his history of trying new things and using those that he believed were an improvement, I have no doubt that he would have tried carbon arrows and would have used them if he believed they shot better than wood arrows.

Agreed. I never got the sense that HH made his decisions based on nostalgia, but on what worked best for him. So, if he tried carbon and was pleased with the results, I bet he would have used them.

But yeah, ultimately, who knows.

[mmilinovich]

Howard Hill WAS Howard Hill because of his incredible accuracy in the field and at exhibitions.  Can anyone doubt that he would have used the most accurate arrows available?

The only remaining question:  Are carbon arrows more accurate than what Mr. Hill had available at the time?

Mark

[McDave]

Originally posted by mmilinovich:

The only remaining question:  Are carbon arrows more accurate than what Mr. Hill had available at the time?
Mark

Howard used to like to grab a handfull of mis-matched arrows from various people in the audience and shoot them all into the bulls-eye.  I don't think that feat would have been so impressive if he had grabbed a handful of carbon arrows.

Carbon arrows are not inherently more accurate than anything else.  They're just straight out of the box, and don't bend like aluminum arrows do.  If someone were to take the trouble to get a perfectly matched set of wood arrows, I'm sure they would shoot as accurately as any carbon or aluminum arrows.  Whether Howard would have thought it was worth the trouble to do that, I don't know.  Most of us don't; we either just shoot carbon arrows if we want straight, or shoot wood arrows if we want wood, without looking for a perfectly matched set.

[GRS]

I don't think so. He had over 40 yrs. to swith to aluminum, which most would agree are more aurate than wood. If he didn't switch then, what makes you think he would switch to carbon?

Gerald

[GRS]

accurate not"aurate". Sorry. Also switch not "swith". Can't type today.

Gerald

[McDave]

Originally posted by arrowslinger22:
 What a  freaking waste of time, geez.

Funny, I've had people say the same thing about all the time I waste trying to learn to shoot a trad bow, when I could be shooting a compound much more accurately....

[Molson]

"...many archers say these shafts of metal are superior to those made of wood, and -to be very frank- I think perhaps they are right, but so far I have stayed with wooden shafts.  Somehow, I feel that arrows of wood are more in keeping with the real spirit of old-time archery and require more of the archer himself than a more modern arrow; maybe that is a silly reason for shooting wooden arrows, but most of us archers are silly, one way or another.  Call it sentiment if you like."  -Howard Hill