Trad Talk Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
One Shot One Kill
Joined
·
717 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay I switched from a 60" DAS to a 62" and man I am loving it!! Now I have a 21 elite on order and have decided to go for a 66" bow, but I am really questioning how much better a bow could possible get??

I have recently shot some of the best 3-d scores of my life and have been steadily improving and am wondering from those of you that know what kinda shooting qualities that a 66" bow will offer over a 62"??


Jordan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,452 Posts
An archer lives by his release. the release is everything, with out it there is nothing else. I will leave my 62" Dalaa at bit over 50#@28". I feel absolute confidence on anything I hunt. 54# on the Dalaa string comes off the fingers so quick and smooth (even for me). My 66" (well 65" really) Warfs are at 42#@28" and 44#@28". I have shot my highest 300 rounds with the 44#.

To me the Dalaa is my goto hunting bow. I am not strong enough to shoot the 54# limbs for 60 good arrows. At my age and the conditions of my orthopedic joints I am not likely to get in shape to shoot the 54# in a 300 round. Now I can shoot 10 good shoots thru the 54# limbs, lay off an hour or so and shoot 10 more good shoot. Ya well be surprise how much differnece 10# makes on your shoulders and elbows when ya get to be an old geezer :).

So with the 4" longer string and 10# less draw weight the 66" is an old geezers best friend. :) opens up a whole new world ya never get to with my hunting bows. Now listen if ya's a young whipper snapper it takes yrs to get your othropedic tissues to a point that your muscles can get to in a matter of months. So that means ya can get strong enough to shoot a heck of a bow in very short time but your at not doing yourslef any good in the long term.

So if ya want to be good to yourself get ya a 66" light draw bow that will let your orthopedic connection catch up to your muscle tissue and get a sure nuff 62" hunting bow that you shoot just enough to keep very accurate with. it will pay for itself in the long run.

so a 62" and 66" bow is not really just which one can I shoot better, it is how can I keep shooting well in to geezerdom. it is about your release and shooting a long long time :)

rusty -geerzerdom poster child- Craine
 

·
One Shot One Kill
Joined
·
717 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I had that in mind as well Rusty, I am not on the road to geezerdom yet, but like I have heard before it's not the years it's the miles!!!

I shoot 54# all the time and for everything right now am gonna drop to 48 for my target stuff to keep up the performance yet lower the impast on myself.

I was just interested in the shooting qualities of a longer bow versus a shorter one more than anything.

I have been shooting 260-270 scores with a 60" 54# bow this winter, but would like to up the score and lower the poundage a little.

Jordan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
Maximum and minimum lengths depend on your draw length, but in general more length gives you a smoother draw. Take the same limbs and set them for the same poundage (at your draw length) on a 20" and a 25" riser. You can then measure for weight increase over the last few inches of your draw. Normally, they will gain less per inch on the long riser. This gives you that smoother feeling during the critical final stages of the draw. Even though you reach the same weight both ways, the longer set-up will seem easier.

With good limbs, the measurable difference will be rather small - so it won't seriously affect your performance until first signs of fatigue set in. That is why you can use a shorter bow for hunting than for 3D shoots, and a shorter bow for 3D shoots (less arrows) than for field or FITA. Since a shorter bow has advantages in certain scenarios, that can influence your choice.

Shooting a 70" bow and a 65" bow set for roughly the same draw weight (and using the same limbs) over the past few weeks, I've found the longer bow only slightly easier to draw over the first 40 (sometimes even 50) arrows in sequence. But after that, the difference begins to affect scores.

Limb quality is pivotal to all this. To illustrate the phenomenon in terms of real weight, my 60" PSE Kingfisher gains 10# between 28" and 31". My KAP carbons gained almost 8# on a 23" riser. My Winex limbs gain 6.5# on a 20" riser, but under 6# on a 25" handle. Final draw weight in all cases was/is in the high 40's to mid-50's.

The Kingfisher stacks so noticeably that anyone with a draw like mine (31") will remark on it the first time he pulls the bow. None of the other set-ups actually feel/felt as if they stacked. Most tellingly in the context of this thread: the difference between the long and short Winex combinations seems very minimal on paper and has no effect on shooting for a good many arrows. This goes some way towards explaining why many people do so well in competition with a bow as short as a DAS. But shoot enough arrows, and that slight difference will eventually make itself felt and seen.

Fatigue also explains why a seemingly slight drop in poundage that would be regarded as insignficant by most hunters (two or three pounds) can make a huge difference in a session involving 100 or more arrows. A longer, just 'marginally' lighter bow will combine two energy-saving effects to produce better scores during the later stages of shooting.

I think if you maintain the strength and form necessary to shoot a shorter, heavier bow well, you will normally find that you can achieve the same results over a far larger number of shots with a longer one that is only a little lighter.

The flipside of extra length is loss of manoeuvrability, and the flipside of less weight is loss of speed and/or arrow weight. So you have to weigh considerations against each other in context.

I'm in the process of dropping weight to 48# on my 70" field bow - waiting for some lighter arrows to arrive since I don't want to lose speed. I think I'll probably lose some wind-resistance on longer shots. I'll stick to 51# and somewhat heavier arrows on my 65" Warf, because I can very comfortably handle the weight for the duration and shot frequency of a 3D shoot. So why should I change it?

Best,

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle to myself when I see people talking about bows in the mid #40s being target bows. In the golden age of archery (60s-70s) a target bow was something in the mid to high #30s, and they were shooting only aluminum arrows back then. With the speeds achievable today with modern carbon arrows you'd think something in the low #30s would be considered an appropriate target bow. Instead we all seem to be going in the opposite direction. Why is that? Jordan, sorry to hijack your thread -- just had to get that off my chest. Too much coffee this morning!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,427 Posts
More power baby! ;)

I can't answer for anyone but myself but I can shoot a longer bow (of any kind) better than a shorter one.I finally realised that with the Quinn road bow.I had been shooting the shorter DAS for months and the first time I shot the longer 66" bow my 300 score was 10pts higher and the second time was 15pts higher than I had ever shot.I went from the shorter longbows to the 68 and 70" ones I shoot now and the same thing happened.If tiny groups are the goal the longer bows will help most people I would think.jmo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
Floxter said:
I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle to myself when I see people talking about bows in the mid #40s being target bows. In the golden age of archery (60s-70s) a target bow was something in the mid to high #30s, and they were shooting only aluminum arrows back then.
Floxter,

A lot of successful male archers seem to be using bows from 45# to the low 50's, and the Korean reportedly women pull around 42#. Why not get the additional speed if you can handle the bow with accuracy?

Best,

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Martin, those are not recreational archers who are shooting once or twice a week, but rather professionals, that in the case of the Koreans are probably shooting 400+ arrows on a daily basis six or seven times a week. But for the average middle aged gent who's lucky to get to the range more than once a week for an hour or two, he'd be much better served, as would his shoulders, if he stuck to a lighter target bow. And actually additional poundage isn't necessarily going to give you that much more speed; draw length will. But with heavier bows come heavier arrows, hence not that much to be gained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
Floxter,

While I agree with you to an extent, I see many people here who practice daily or almost so. I'm sure they can train themselves to handle more draw weight safely and usefully than archers shooting infrequently. My formerly fragile shoulder (an old, non-archery related injury) has actually benefitted greatly from additional muscle acquired via daily shooting. It no longer troubles me at all.

As for speed vs. arrow weight, does it not make sense to shoot a heavier arrow at the same speed if you can do so accurately? All within limits of course - I'm certainly not advocating 60# target bows at all, nor 50# bows without proper preparation.

Best,

Martin
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,452 Posts
I have got such a poor release it takes 40# to get the string cleanly off my fingers :)

I gotta a pair of 30# limbs that just stick to my tab like glue. I have to shake my hand like I was slinging off goop to get the string loose. I don't shoot 'em 40# limbs cause I'm a good shot, I shoot 'em 40# limbs cause I'm a bad shot

rusty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
rusty craine said:
I have got such a poor release it takes 40# to get the string cleanly off my fingers :)
When a bow is too heavy for me, I can't transfer tension to the back in a stable way - resulting in sloppy release. But when a bow is very light, I somehow can't take the tension seriously - can't keep focussed on it. The result is roughly the same.

I shoot best at 45# upwards. But 55# is already too much. I use a 55# bow for exercises (without an arrow) and can get a few clean shots out of it. But it would be a lousy choice for competition. I use a 39# bow when I have form details to figure out at the bale. But once I've found solutions and practiced them a little, I need to switch to one of my 'normal' bows to ingrain them properly.

That said, I wonder how many people shoot heavier bows because their release substracts fps in a big way. I know that mine was doing this until recently. The speeds I was getting in chrono tests were not the speeds I achieved on the range - especially at long distances when longer holding influenced form. Impact points just didn't add up past 25 yards: though results were passably consistent, there was an obvious loss of energy.

With my improved form, I could get away with a rather lighter bow without changing my former aiming references. But by sticking with my heavier set-ups, I can actually simplify my aiming system (reducing the role of facewalking). To achieve that with a much lighter bow, I would have to reduce arrow weight too far, I think. Perhaps I lack knowledge of the details, but I can't see how shooting an arrow much lighter than 290 grains can be a good idea at long distances outside.

Best,

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Jordan, it just keeps getting better in a recurve until I get to 66". It gets a little better after that but, at my draw length of 29+ the law of diminishing returns sets in. Going to the DAS 21" and leaving the limbs at the same length to get 66" ought to be a really good combo for adding smoothness and forgiveness without losing much performance. I am certain you'll like it.:) One day I think I will have to have an Elite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Floxter said:
I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle to myself when I see people talking about bows in the mid #40s being target bows. In the golden age of archery (60s-70s) a target bow was something in the mid to high #30s, and they were shooting only aluminum arrows back then.
Something I just thought of...back in the 60's, the average guy probably weighed ~150lbs. Now, "average" is probably close to 200lbs. As a percentage of body weight, todays draw weights are about the same as before... 35/150 = 0.233, 45/200 = 0.225

What do you think?

Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
Being an average joe, I can see how a longer bow would be more stable and forgiving. But on the other hand one would get more efficiency out of a shorter bow that would match up to ones particular draw length.

Having only a 28 inch draw length a 60 to 62 inch bow feels just right. Any longer and they do not feel like the limbs load up enuff for me and feel like I am not getting the full potential out of the limbs unless pulled and extra inch or so..

On the higher poundage bows for targets, I feel that this sport is more hunter driven and bows closer to ones hunting weight bows are the norm.
I know that there is still the older archers segment but just like most of the archery boards the main or primary focus is mostly about hunting. With this focus comes the heavier weight bows and an easier transition from target to hunting can be achived between seasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
Wingman,

Most guys are shooting under 60#'s for 3D and hunting and Fred Bear, G Fred and others in that generation were shooting over 60#'s for the norm.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top