Trad Gang
Main Boards => Trad History/Collecting => Topic started by: TimberlineX on January 03, 2010, 12:58:00 AM
-
Any experienced traditional bowhunter will rightly tell you that arrow speed isn’t everything. When appraising any traditional hunting bow, things like a good grip, a smooth draw, a forgiving nature, minimized handshock, a quiet shot and accuracy all must be added into the discussion. Yet arrow speed is something to consider. Within reason, arrow speed is a good thing. It is also one of the easiest performance criterion to empirically measure.
So I suppose it’s no wonder that a hunting buddy and I recently got into a spat over which of our favorite, classic 1960s Bear Kodiaks shot the fastest. He was convinced it was his smooth-drawing 1964 Kodiak. I was sure it was my striking 1967½ Super Kodiak. If there had been more bowhunter/collectors around, I’m sure other classic Kodiaks would have been championed.
So which 1960s Bear Kodiaks are the fastest?
To tell the truth, I’d never actually pulled out my chronograph and tested similar, classic Bear Kodiaks. We decided to rectify that, mostly for our own edification.
Pouring through my Kodiak collection, we pulled out four 60-inch Bear Kodiaks that were all marked with the same draw weight:
1. 1961 Bear Kodiak – 60 inches and 45 pounds
2. 1964 Bear Kodiak – 60 inches and 45 pounds
3. 1967-1/2 Super Kodiak – 60 inches and 45 pounds
4. 1969 Bear Super Kodiak – 60 inches and 45 pounds
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/TimberlineX/ChronographingKodiaks003.jpg)
An accurate digital scale confirmed each of the draw weights at 28 inches. I then set up a Competition Electronics Pro Chronograph and selected two specific arrows for our tests, a fairly heavy arrow and a reasonably light arrow. All test shots were made with those two arrows.
The heavier arrow was a 29.5-inch Easton aluminum 2216. Its total weight was 533 grains. Its shaft weighed 12.1 grains per inch. The second arrow was a much lighter Beman ICS 400 carbon arrow with a total weight of 390 grains. Its shaft weighed just 10.4 grains per inch.
We then proceeded to string up each of the bows, tuning each for a similar brace height (not identical but similar), one at which each bow shot quietly.
With as much care and consistency as possible, I next shot two ten-shot strings with each bow and with each arrow, and we recorded the results. What follows are the averages of that shooting, with the bows ranked from fastest to slowest.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/TimberlineX/ChronographingKodiaks005.jpg)
1961 Bear Kodiak - (7-7/8 inch brace height) – 169.7 fps with the aluminum arrow and 188.3. fps with the lighter carbon arrow.
1967-1/2 Super Kodiak - (8 inch brace height) - 168.6 fps with the aluminum arrow and 187.5 fps with the lighter carbon arrow.
1969 Bear Super Kodiak - (8 inch brace height) – 166.8 fps with the aluminum arrow and 185.2 fps with the lighter carbon arrow.
1964 Bear Kodiak - (7-7/8 inch brace height) – 162.4 fps with the aluminum arrow and 184.3 fps with the lighter carbon arrow.
What is clear is that all four of these classic Bear Kodiaks shot well, and with remarkably similar arrow speeds. What is less clear is what all of this means.
Objectively comparing bows by arrow speed is not easy. The first thing that I should point out is that this comparison involved just four bows, one of each model. Statistically that is a very small sample. It is entirely possible that I have a particularly fast 45# 1961 Kodiak and that all 1961 Kodiaks are not this fast. It is also possible that other bows in this test were either particularly fast or particularly slow. The only way to work that out would be to blend the testing of a lot more 45# bows of these specific models into these results. Who knows what it might turn up. If all of you would just send me your classic 45# Bear Kodiaks...
Still, the results I achieved are interesting.
What I can also add to the speed results are the other impressions I formed while shooting these four bows head to head.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/TimberlineX/ChronographingKodiaks002.jpg)
My particular 45-pound 1961 Kodiak is noticeably quick. Its lighter mass weight, however, makes it a bit flighty upon release in direct comparison to the other bows tested. It has the most handshock upon release.
My 45-pound 1964 Kodiak is easily the smoothest-drawing bow of this lot of 45-pound Kodiaks. My draw length is nearly 29 inches and this bow draws back with a silky smoothness that borders on astounding. Like all of the other bows tested, this bow is 60 inches in length. But were I blindfolded, I would almost swear that it was a 64-inch bow because of the silky-smooth way it draws. I suspect that ultra-smooth draw is a big part of the reason why so many call this their favorite shooting Kodiak.
The two SUPER Kodiaks I tested (1967-1/2 and 1969) were clearly the quietest bows in this distinguished Kodiak lot. They also exhibited the least amount of handshock upon release. The extra mass weight of all of that black Hi-Compression material in the risers obviously aids in their pleasant shootability. Both shoot with a dull thud, and with little or no bow movement or vibration. They feel great.
So, in this limited test, the 1961 Kodiak proved the fastest. The 1964 Kodiak drew the smoothest. The 1967-1/2 and 1969 Super Kodiaks were clearly the quietest with the least amount of handshock.
That’s what we found. Has anyone else done any head-to-head Kodiak speed comparisons?
In general, what have been your impressions of the shooting characteristics of your classic Bear Kodiaks? Which do you like best?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/TimberlineX/ChronographingKodiaks001.jpg)
-
That was a rather comprehensive and interesting series of "tests" and I enjoyed your comments regarding the bows' attributes.
After reading a thread a few months ago about the quickness of the '64, I decided to conduct an informal test with my chronograph. I put my 45# 1964 up against a '63 Kodiak "dogleg" marked with the same weight of 45#.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/lwscott/64kodiak-3.jpg)
'64 Kodiak
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/lwscott/dogleg2.jpg)
'63 Kodiak
I had no way of testing the two bows actual draw weight at 28" (and was kind of surprised your digital scale showed your four bows accurately as marked.)
Using two different arrow weights (9 and 11 gpi), my dogleg came out the winner.
BTW, you have some nice lookers too.
-
Thanks for sharing......I always was most impressed with the shooting abilities of my 1962 Kodiaks. BTW I am pretty sure your '62 is a '61-can we see better pics of riser and glass please.
Lon that is a beauty 1964 :thumbsup:
-
I did a test but my classic Bears are not the same weights so not much was proven. Basically I shot point on and held on the bottom of a pie plate from 35 yards with the same arrows and my 50# '62 shot in the center at that range. The 45# '64 shot the same. The 48# '68 Super K shot similar. The 45# '66 Kodiak was 6"-8" low hitting at the bottom of the plate. Very inconclusive or scientific test.
I shot a Tice and Watts 50# Spartan Hunter MkI and it shot with the '62 Kodiak.
An old 50# '59 Shakespeare HC-300 shot low with the '66 Kodiak.
-
Bill- That was a really interesting and informational experiment you performed on those classic old Bears.I have shot several 1960's Kodiaks but have not gone to the extent of comparing apples with apples so to speak as you have.Also I am no expert when it comes to this stuff,I'm still learning alot myself but your findings are interesting.I would like to see how a similar 1960 Kodiak would perform.Got one to test?I would like to see the results.Happy New Year by the way.
-
Thanks for sharing your in-depth results. Very interesting to say the least.
That is a mighty fine line up of test subjects!
-
Bjorn, I was thinking it was a '61 as well since the limbs looked "green" and riser did not appear to be rosewood. (Anyway, both are great bows.)
-
Bjorn and Blackhawk, you two are absolutely right! In my zeal to present the results of our testing, I typed in “1962” when I should have identified the fastest bow in our test lot as a 1961 Bear Kodiak. My mistake. I apologize for the confusion.
Here are examples of 1961 and 1962 Bear Kodiaks. The 1961 Kodiak (front) features “Grayling Green” Bearglass, while the 1962 Kodiak (back) sports “Bark Gray” Bearglass.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/TimberlineX/BearKodiaks1961and1962001.jpg)
I have EDITED my original post to rectify my mistake. Thanks to your assistance, that post now reads correctly.
-
Cool stuff here Bill. Thanks for the info and pics. It would be nice to see how that '62 fars with that group.
-
great stuff. well since you a 62, how does it Do?
-
Sorry, but I don't have a 1962 Kodiak that's 45#. Such are the difficulties of trying to compare bow performance apples to apples.
-
That is very interesting,I need to check what I have to compare,I must have some 45# myself with a 47#Kodiak '64 and a 45#Super K 1968.
-
Great post! I am shocked to see almost 170 fps with a 45lb bow and 533gr arrow. Makes me wonder what my 60lb Kodiak would show on the chrono with a 560gr arrow?
Chuck
-
Glad you got around to posting this Bill. Lon, I'm not surprised that your '63 came out fastest in your test either- I've always liked those bows in spite of their somewhat "plain-Jane" looks. I'm not really the best as determining speed alone when shooting a bow unless it is very very slow or extremely fast; when they are as close as the bows Bill tested I tend to factor in all sorts of qualities like smoothness, quietness, and stability and as a consequence, I don't always hit the money in speed department. Chronographs have surprised me more than once. Good post. Grant
-
What totally confounds me is how did Bear go from producing the gorgeous rosewood masterpieces of 1960 to the plain jane 61, especially when the 61 KS sported some incredible zebrawood.
Of all the bows that I own, when the chips are down, I would be shooting my 61 KS every time.
DDave
-
Dave -
I understand your thought process. However, a "plain jane 61" characterization of the 61, may not be totally fair to all 1961 Kodiaks...
Some 1961 Kodiaks are real "lookers".
And when you think about a comparison between the 1960 and 1961, it is unfair to compare anything other than perfectly refinished bows becasue you need to remember this 50 or 51 years of cracked yellowed finsih and abuse wasn't on the bows when they were made, they were new back then...
And trust me the new bows just don't look the same as those with 50 years of cracked yellowed finish and abuse.
Maybe we can get Doc to show you some 61 Kodiaks that you would be proud to take home to Mom...
-
Nothing wrong with the 61's
(http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/zepnut/DSCF1015.jpg)
-
Every time I play around these days I end up shootin myself in the foot. Sure I love the rich dark woods like rosewood, but I also appreciate the rich gold coloured wood. Now I gotta become a 59, 60 and 61 collector at some point, preferably this year when it is 50.
Any chance of sharing with us what is written in that sight window?
DDave
-
Writen in the window is...
To my friend Norm
Good Shooting
Al Reader 2008
-
Norm,
That middle '61 would look great on my bowrack beside my 48# '62.....
Any trades?
-
Picked it up at Denton last year. Has different riser wood in it. No limb stress. Not really looking to trade at this time. Thanks
-
Originally posted by zepnut:
Writen in the window is...
To my friend Norm
Good Shooting
Al Reader 2008
What a wonderful piece of archery history you have there. So glad you chose to share it with us.
DDave
-
There seems to be a bit of a theme among collectors and that is we have some other interests that may also involve collecting or accumulating.
I own the first two left handed bench rest rifle actions ever made by Wally Hart way back in 1981.
I own Mathews Solo Cam #751.
I have enough fishing rods and reels that I no longer could even come close to a complete inventory, including one very nice old Scott G series 10 wt fly rod.
I will soon inherit three nice old damascus barrelled double guns, a Westley Richards, a Parker and an Ithaca.
I have two sets of golf clubs, a modern day set by Adams, and then a retro set built around a set of Hogan blades. I have enough other clubs to be hard to count.
I collect native art work in a variety of forms.
Guess what I am trying to say is that we all have diverse interests.
DDave
-
Norm,
I figured it couldn't hurt to ask! I have a '66 Kodiak I was gonna use as trade bait! HAHA.
-
Never hurts to ask. Thats part of collecting. (have a 66 Kodiak that has incredible grain in the riser)
-
Thanks for posting all the great info ... bottom line for me, they are all very similiar in fps ... but ... that 68' has my vote, I love the looks of that recurve ... it still has custom bow written all over it even for today's standards.
-
My vote is a 62' Kodiak.....just saying.
-
Oh crap, up until you said that I was gonna be content with any Bear from 1962. Now I gotta find a 62 Kodiak. :banghead:
DDave
-
Did I say 1962 Kodiak?
I thought about it awhile and I still say 1962 Kodiak.
-
I agree, the '60 and 62 are beautiful, and seem to belong together. The '61 is just kinda plain in comparison. I'm thinking Bear went through a rocky patch financially, and cut some corners in '61, and it cost them.
-
Originally posted by zepnut:
Nothing wrong with the 61's
(http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/zepnut/DSCF1015.jpg)
Mighty fine bows you have there Norm!