An argument by Howard Hill

[Daddy Bear]

"In your opinion what is the very best "hunting" bow design / profile?"
- My answer is the below.
 

"Do you think in the modern era Howard would change his tune?"
- My answer is No, but he'd probably continue with his influence by further promoting his style, if still living today.

"And why a straight limbed long bow to begin with? Why would these men of great achievement all agree on this type of bow over some of our modern day favorites?"
- It's a great feeling to have a light and lively hunting bow that draws and looses smoothly.

Speaking as a hunter who prefers longbows;  I like hunting with a light and lively straight handle longbow using a low heel grip with the arrow shot directly over my hand.  To me, such a bow feels more like an extension of my bow arm, which greatly enhances my freedom of movement to swing into the shot while hunting.  So to my preference, a good hunting longbow shines, with a great deal of forgiveness to the shot, during dynamic hunting conditions, while maintaining exceptional hunting accuracy within normal hunting distances.  On the other hand, I find the bulkier static bows, that shine and have a greater deal of stability and precision accuracy to the shot in static hunting and/or target conditions, to lose their luster in dynamic hunting conditions. To me, the difference is like using a M-40 to follow up on brown bear at close quarters in the bush.  The luster of stability and precision with the M-40 becomes lost when compared to the forgiveness of a lighter and faster pointing less precise bear rifle. I’m of the opinion that this is the angle that Hill was coming from as a hunter when he spoke of the longbow in comparison to a recurve. This is the very reason I prefer the hunting longbow over other styles of hunting or target bows.  One is not right, and the other is not wrong. They are just different styles for different needs.

Best  

[Linwood Hines]

..that being said many of us (see the HH bug thread) still can't help but shoot a couple lams of bamboo glued to a handle with a string and just smile all day long... [/QB][/QUOTE]

I've recently found this out and I'm all       all day long!

[Overspined]

A longbow of any non-high wrist design is my preference without a doubt for hunting.  I've made shots I still dream about and can't believe myself.  Missed a few of the same...more the nightmare type I guess!  That's archery.

I am unsure Howard would have changed to any new design.  What is really gained?  A few fps? It would be hard to top his accomplishments and success.  He was so good with the longbow that I wonder what he could have done better. ALL   bows can outshoot the archer.

[Ron LaClair]

The Hill style longbow was instrumental in the resurgence of traditional archery. It started back in the late 1970's with a magazine called "The Longbow Shooters Digest" by Harvey Overshiner from Arizona.

When the Compound bow came out in the late 60's/early 70's it lured most of the archers away from their recurves with the promise of greater accuracy. By the end of the 70's many of those that had switched to the compound bow realized that the loss of simple basic archery wasn't worth the trade off. The challenge of shooting the bow and working long and hard to improve your shooting skills was greatly diminished. Also the sense of accomplishment when you took a deer with a compound wasn't the same as when you did it "the hard way".

For many archers the historical lines of the simple longbow will always stir something in their soul.

As Maurice Thompson said many years ago,

 "So long as the new moon returns in heaven, a bent beautiful bow, so long will the fascination of archery keep hold of the hearts of men."

   

[ddauler]

Love that quote thanks for posting Ron.

[Art B]

Maybe a few of you guys should build a recurve, without cutting in a window, and see have well you can shoot 'em. Different times folks..........Art

[Terry Green]

Originally posted by ChuckC:
I think he would have said the above whether or not he actually agreed.  


ChuckC

WOW...saying HH would have LIED about the longbow???


I don't think he would have said it if he didn't believe it...I think he would have shot what ever made him shoot better ...and for him, or any ancestors, to be 'speculated' about negatively just never sits right to me especially when they are not around to comment...

BTW...that was a COMMENT by HH....not necessarily an argument....maybe some want to argue, but it was a comment about HIM and HIMSELF and what HE could shoot better.

Many of us would not be shooting Trad if it weren't for the likes of HH...Bear, Pope, Young, and the Thomson boys.

Lets let them rest in peace shall we?

[gringol]

The implication of these discussions is that one type of bow is "better" than another.  Is a green car better than a blue car?  Shoot what works for you and leave it alone.

[shirikahn]

I say shoot what is best for you...I played with many trad set ups when I was a teen and early 20's.  I had many recurves, mostly bears but also sky's and martins were used.  I had a Howatt Mountaineer (ML-14) longbow that pulled like a leaf spring too lol.  I could actually stack cedars with the longbow just like I could aluminums with my K-mag...but the bear won when I reached for a bow off the rack..just my preference.  That's all it is.  Preference.

[NYArrow]

This post was simply generated for good ole' discussion. It's fun to put ourselves in the greats shoes and attempt to ponder the way they once did. I realize it all comes down to personal preference. Apples to apples it hard to compare or label anything as the best---- broadheads, arrows, strings, quivers....etc. I happen to agree with HH and enjoy a straight limbed longbow. It's intriguing to me to see so many of the famous archers from years ago that stood by this design.

While much has been said about how more stable a Hill longbow limb is compared to a recurve, in some cases it is true, the big one for most folks is how a bow feels.. Any feel that is way different is also very distracting. Hill had a standard that required him to split hairs.  I like shooting at coins and small stuff tossed across my target, not the nice little vertical toss. This is because my tossers have a way of wanting to be a ways away from the target, even though there is a good shield to hide behind. When I was shooting my Super Kodiak mostly I was better at hitting coins with that than with my Schulz, on the flip side I never quite equaled the percentage of hits with the Super K than with the Schulz when I was shooting just the longbow. Shooting a bow that does not have distractions for the shooter is a big deal, no matter what kind of a bow it is. I still have nightmares about how good I was with a Stotler, it simply felt right, and I do not own a Stotler. I was about to order one, then today I read that the unaffordable care act has been funded and once again I am going hold back and try to be happy with what I have.

[reddogge]

Hill died in 1975 at the age of 76 so ten years earlier he would have been in his mid 60s, plenty virile enough to still do some fine shooting. Recurve bows of the mid 60s were being designed and manufactured at that time by Bear, Pearson, Wing, Howatt and others which were as good as the ones we shoot today so the arguement he didn't have a modern bow to compare his longbow doesn't hold water. I imagined he tried them but for some reason he held to shooting his longbow. Maybe he felt more comfortable shooting it or maybe he, as he wrote, was more accurate with it.

Now Pope and Young had no other choice than the longbow since they died in 1927 and 1935 respectively. There wasn't anything better for them to shoot. And if you've done any reading on them, especially "The Adventurous Bowmen" they didn't always hit what they were aiming at the first time.

[JDunlap]

Great thread!

[MikeNova]

A person i know. that knew howard states that howard couldn't make a recurve and hence couldn't sell them he started out bad mouthing them a bit .When he got Jim Darling to start making them he changed his tune a bit. I understand Howard could shoot a recurve just fine.

[ChuckC]

Howard made long bows, not recurves. At least from the beginning.  If you are asked about your product, what are you gonna say ?  The other guy's is better ?  

His statement above was " I'm not good enough * * * "  He didn't lie and I made no words to that effect.  He made a statement, no different than all of our Representatives, Senators and businessmen etc make.  He spun the answer.  That is not a bad thing,and it isn't a lie, it just is.  

By the way, I was looking for some information and I found that there is a series of three videos by Fred Bear on the internet.  Everybody would have a great time seeing them.  search "History of the Bow by Fred Bear",  (by ClassicBowHunts).  

In them Fred talks about his bows, about improvements made by Bear archery. (and some stories). According to him, fiberglass wasn't even used in bows till the early 40's and it took numerous years to get it right and usable.  According to him he produced his first three piece take down in 64 and it wasn't right, he got it right in 65.  He tells you that compounds are wonderful things (a salesman) but that he can't shoot them (sound familiar?).

The logical answer, Use whatever suits your feel, your style, your wants and your needs.  Best is best only to the eyes of the beholder.
ChuckC

I have in my letters from Frank Eicholtz, a part about once when Howard came to pick up some arrows. Hill took one of Frank's static recurves and piled arrows into his target so tight that half of them had nock and fletch damage. He said it was most natural accuracy that he had ever witnessed. Then Hill said with a wink, "I can never hit the broad side of a barn with these things."  Frank's phrase that stuck with me "He just let the bow shoot itself."