Opinions wanted

[Papa Matt]

Brothers, please weigh in on this one:


Hypothetically speaking-- I am shooting a 66" osage D bow, and another guy is shooting a 66" osage recurve bow, made from the exact same log, and everything else being equal except the form of the bow (D vs. Recurve):

Should I feel like he has the superior weapon? In other words, should a person prefer a recurve over a D?


~~Papa Matt

[Ryano]

Since you asked here is my opinion. 66" is to long for your average draw length (up to 28") for any Osage bow. Its so heavy and dense a wood you will feel hand shock at 66" long no matter D bow or recurve. 64" ntn is my favorite for my 27" draw length. A recurve is only a superior weapon when it comes to short bows. Like 60"ntn and shorter because of the favored string angles which creates a smoother draw and allows the shorter bow to drawn farther before the string can pop off the tips. A D bow would actually be the favored design for a longer bow. Sort of like a Elb.

 Now what about a short recurved D bow? They are quite possibly the best design for a short bow needed to be draw to regular draw lengths.....   confused yet?

[adb]

All else being equal, a recurved limb will store more energy, therefore providing better cast. When it comes to organic bows, however, there are so many variables, including the archer.

[Pat B]

PM, your bow would be less stressed and therefore more durable and more reliable as a hunting weapon. Your "D" bow I assume would bend through the handle and that would allow the stresses to be shared of by the entire length of the bow. On the other hand his recurve would only have a small portion of each limb taking the stress and by adding recurves he has also added even more stress to that small portion of working limb.
  A bow is inherently accurate no matter what form it takes. It is the arrow and even more so the archer that makes the combo accurate. For thousands of years, primitive man used straight limbed self bows to make meat and to defend himself, his family and clan. The need for speed in a modern concept that is not necessary to eat or defend. One of the most effective weapons of war was the English war bow which was a bendy handled "D" bow.            Pat

[Scowler]

In general a recurve bow should be faster than a longbow.  That being said a recurve is not necessarily a superior weapon.  I like a slower, more forgiving bow.  This makes for more accurate shooting, at least for me it does.  

[sailordad]

well in my opinion

the recurve is only superior in looks,i like curves.

as far as performance i dont think that there is that much more performance in a recurve,a little more cast,but that can cause a loss of accuracy
in most peoples hands. i like "d" bows,but i also like recurves,i lso like stiff handle bows, they all have there place.

but i would say "hypothetically" between a recurve and a D bow,the one with the best tiiler is going to be superior 


                                                                                 peace,
                                                                                       tim

[YewArcher]

If you are thinkin in those tems why shoot selfbows at all? If you are worried about the guy next to you having a superior weapon then shoot the fastest highest quality carbon limbed bow you can find. Selfbows are not really about the fastest, bestest, most superior weapon.......they are about crafting beautiful functional weapons from wood. All in all most bows are created equal when made from the same materails. Same weight, well designed, well crafted bows will shoot within a margin a feet per second that is really inconsequential at 25 yards and below. One may be a bit quicker but if all things (craftmanship and design being top) are equal they will be so close it dos'nt matter.

SJM

[Kegan]

Nope. His might be faster, but yours should be easier to shoot game with.

[Justin Snyder]

You guys are thinking of storing energy and forgetting it has to be delivered to the arrow to do any good. I think Ryan is right.  A 66" bow is long for a re curve unless you draw 35".  At 66" with Osage I would reflex the limbs to add the extra string tension at brace.  The re curve might store extra energy but moving the extra weight of the re curves on a long limb might take even more back. A whip tiller would be fast, but would be less durable, just like a bow bending at the fades only would be a dud because it has to move to much dead weight. A bow has to have a compromise based on length, draw weight, draw length and style. What is good for one length is not good for another.  At 66" I would lots rather have a flat bow with a heat treated belly and a little reflex.  Justin

[Dano]

I have read where a recurve of similar design would be about 25% faster than a longbow, speed is great if you want a nice flat arra flight but that ain't all there is too it. When hunting you don't always have such a well controlled shooting environment. You can build a bow that is much more shootable without the curves. I would rather have a well mannered, well balanced shooter any day.

[Coo-wah-chobee]

Longbows have long levers. Short bows have short levers. Which do ya think is faster (ifn that matters ) ? Ifn ya have room to try safely and the desire ta do so, try the time proven cast experiment. Shoot both with the same arras from each. Ya might be surprised at the results. Chronos are a modern machine, and they have their place but not in this.

[Roger]

Bob said it best...try it. i'm sure you'll be enlightened.

Best bow I ever made was 60' long for a 29" draw. "listen the wood' Jawge told me one time.

R

[Rich Saffold]

At 66" the longbow, at 50"ntn the recurve...somewhere in the middle it will be close to a tie...

Rich-I'll explain later if Badger doesn't...