Trad Gang
Main Boards => Trad History/Collecting => Topic started by: trubltrubl on March 21, 2011, 05:26:00 PM
-
Was wondering how a 62 kodiak cast and handles...I have a 1967 Super Kodiak and a 1966 SuperKodiak....starting to collect old Bears...hows the 62 compared to these bows?
-
In my opinion, the Super K model doesn't even come close to the pre-1964 Kodiaks. Individual bow performance will vary of course, but my preference is for 1960, '58, '59, '63,'64, '62,'61,'54, and '57, in that order. 60" is nearly always better than 64". Not to pick a fight with anyone, because they're all at the top of the Bear heap, wrt beauty and performance. The '62 and the '60 are far and away the prettiest, as I see it.
You won't go far wrong with any of them.
-
Sir-
I dont think it is possible for you to have a 66 Super Kodiak. 66 was the last year for the Kodiak, and the first Super Kodiak is known as a 67 1/2.
And the SUper Kodiaks cast is no where near as nice as the Kodiaks pre 65.
-
thanks for your input...what is a fair price for a 62 in 9 out of 10 shape?
-
Migrabill...yes ..sorry I ment I had a 66 Kodiak .......any opinion on the 62?
-
I have also been looking for a lefty 1958 kodiak for two years...no luck....but have my eye on a 1962...it is beautiful...never plucked a 62 yet..
-
I love mine,good shooter.
-
The '62 is a great shooter and not too hard on the eyes either. :thumbsup:
-
Interesting info on the cast of the bows.
The 67 1/2 is the earliest Ive shot and never gave it thought earlier could be much different.
Thanks all
God Bless
-
Oooh yeah, there’s a huge difference. The Super K, while beautiful, was not a great performer, and you only have to look at the limb profile to see why. I used to have all the years hanging on one wall, and you can just watch the hooks open up as the ‘60s progressed. Same with the Magnums, only they were never great and just got worse! I never quite figured out why the 1960 and earlier bows were so good, because they changed the design a lot every year. For my money, the 1958 is the most under-appreciated Kodiak. In 60”,it shot with the best of them. I think Fred made a poor decision to go with white glass, poor sales resulted, and the beautiful 1969 just took the market by storm. They must not have made many ‘58s. Many years ago I picked up Bud Gray’s 65# 1958 that Fred gave him for the Little Delta hunt. This bow is mint condition, and I’m kind of crushed by that, because Bud shot his ram that year with his ’57 Kodiak!
Apologies to the Super K fans here. These are just opinions.
-
I also agree with most responses here.
Super kodiaks are a wonderful design and a great shooting bow,but
they cannot compare to the pre 65' models in OVERALL shootabilty.
My personal favorite are the 1961 and 62' Kodiaks. A timeless design and all business.
They can and will rival bows being made today. Magnificent wood with a sleek long riser, sweet grip and shelf for a mass produced bow and a short snappy working limb that has amazing cast.
......Philip
-
Have to agree with Phil. Just something about the 61 and 62 Kodiaks.
-
was the ? about cast or performance as in arrow speed performance.Cast and speed are NOT the same.I have a 55# 1964 Kodiak runs about 186 FPS on a good day.However I have a 1970 64" Super Kodiak 55# runs around 165 FPS on a really good day.Ya'all still with me here ? OK now thru my shooting chrony the 1964 Kodiak has the fastest arrow ET everytime.
But for distance or flight shot shooting style....cast.The Super K wins everytime.The 64" Super K will shoot an arrow about 20-40 yards futher with the longer limb.Fact is grab your favorite bows and head out to an open field today and give it a shot.The results may suprize you.Yeah I know your gonna say Harry's bows were real short.I know.....they were over 100 pounds of pull to compensate for shorter limbs bd
-
NOW it's REALLY interesting. lol
I never did a lot of shooting for cast but did notice a few, that when out shooting fun rounds accross hay fields,that some "shot further than I woulda thought". Not just a certain brand but this will be interesting to me. Highly!
I can see an impromptu home brew comparison in what bows I have and come up with, in records, coming up!!
Important to me really? Nah......for hunting they all do more than I CAN.....but danged interesting for an old mind to run through the gauntlet.
Dont make me buy one of each and try em all!!!
(I wish)
Should be a hoot to discuss the differences like posted above, and feasable reasons, IMHO
IVE always wondered, while the longer ones always (comparing similar design) were "smoother" and often wonder just how much the extra mass of limbs effected the total package......or not.
MOST, IMHO......equate "speed" and "cast". With CAST being more in line with trajectory to cast.......that will boggle a few minds if the faster one DONT have more cast.
As a physics student decades ago, I wouldnt surprise me an iota if they don't. As said, it will be more "bow specific" but there should be a pattern, one would think?
Again, speed and cast alone are only part of any bow and all do what I need.....it's still interesting.
God Bless
-
real bowdoc, I'm confused. If the arrows are the same, and the bows are properly tuned with the arrows, how does the arrow know which bow it came out of? How can a slower arrow shoot farther?
Call me skeptical, because I am. Am I missing something here?
-
Hmmm... If the amount cut from center was different, the arrow that had to bend the most to clear the riser would take longer to dampen the oscillations, which might affect cast. Maybe I answered my own question?
-
I'am just asking to check it for yourself.Little food for thought would be.Lets just say your tossing the tennis ball for the dog.You can make a fairly good distance with just your arm right ? But now you think about those 64 inch limbs ??? go to wal-mart and buy yourself one of those 3 foot long plastic tennis ball tossers that makes your arm 64" long.Or maybe we're out shooting a few clay piegons with our bows and its your turn to toss the piegons.Your only getting them about 40-50 feet with your arm.Now we load up the 3 foot long piegon chucker and bammm the birds are flying 30 yards.Check it out when you have the room.And yes all of my personal bows and cut a little beyond center and fairly well matched in the department bd
-
Not arguing, agree on the longer being capable of longer cast.....but not understanding on the comparison.
WOULD NOT??? they also be faster with the longer "arm" thrower?
Admit, I too am lost on why or how, gravity dont know what it came from, draw length equal, same arrow, same weight.........hmmm.
SOMETHING has to be different from the release onward. Less "energy" lost along the path? My mind is whirling!
Somewhere the "faster" one...flat lost something somehow, somewhere since measured to be faster from the start with gravity being always equal.
Maybe....... it has to to something with stability from the word go on a more so bow?
Being the first Ive seen actually chronographed THEN compared to cast....really loving this but cant explain it.
Being the "devil's advocate", Doc.....that's all.
Somehow a comparison has to start OUT with....slower and get more cast too as indicated.
YES...I think it's POSSIBLE, as I said, but a bit lost on HOW.
It's got to be a combination of all the factors, somehow coming together IMHO.
-
It would be interesting, if possible, to compare the same two previously chronographed......OUT there like 30 yards??? Would be food for thought added Id think?
Possibly?? Smoother release with less gyrations imparted to the arrow? Somewhere....(and I can only come up with stability beind different) some momentum is lost on one over the other and momentum HAS TO have ***all things equal*** to use velocity and mass as sole components to be accurate.
Cast has to be somehow, linked in conjuction with momentum lost.
Sorry......Ill shut up now.
-
Originally posted by the real bowdoc:
was the ? about cast or performance as in arrow speed performance.Cast and speed are NOT the same.I have a 55# 1964 Kodiak runs about 186 FPS on a good day.However I have a 1970 64" Super Kodiak 55# runs around 165 FPS on a really good day.Ya'all still with me here ? OK now thru my shooting chrony the 1964 Kodiak has the fastest arrow ET everytime.
But for distance or flight shot shooting style....cast.The Super K wins everytime.The 64" Super K will shoot an arrow about 20-40 yards futher with the longer limb.Fact is grab your favorite bows and head out to an open field today and give it a shot.The results may suprize you.Yeah I know your gonna say Harry's bows were real short.I know.....they were over 100 pounds of pull to compensate for shorter limbs bd
Well said Donnie
-
This will be my last post on this subject, because I don't want to get into an argument. If the bows are cut to center the same, if the arrows are the same in weight and properly matched to the bows, and if the archer shoots them both properly, then the laws of physics demand that the faster arrow will go farther. Nothing can alter those facts. If indeed the cast of the slower bow is better, then something else is different, too, and the above conditions have not been met. If the arrows leave the bow equally but at different speeds, it is impossible for the slower arrow to shoot farther.
-
Totally in agreement, Don.
Key term there is "equally" and, IMHO, if something in the longer limbs makes it possible via the release? something else? to make that difference.
As Doc said, something for us to try on our own. May be even different per different shooter??
NOT picking sides...Ive the highest regard for both partys.
Interesting stuff guys.
Thanks
God Bless
-
I am not an expert by any means, in fact just a novice. A question does come to mind. I remember in reading about the physics of archery; the transference of energy from the arm of the shooter combined with the energy stored in the limb of the bow releases to the arrow through the string. The conclusion made was “the longer the arrow was in contact with the string, the more energy could be transferred to the arrow”. Could the transference of energy be part of an explanation??
-
Wouldnt that indicate a longer draw??? or am I missing your point? (easily possible, lol)
That would definately be accurate for a longer draw (or most assume maybe) but with this scenario Im assuming the same draw length and weight is indicted.
Just curious thinking guys.....no one should get up in arms.
I know it's interesting enough to give it a shot should I come up with two lengths, same weight, design, centershot...etc.
That in itself would be a trick.
Hey Don! Lend me your bows!! Half dozen of em should be plenty. (better "cross section" for the "tests" ) I'll get em back to you RIGHT after deer season. PROMISE! :bigsmyl:
God Bless
-
Sorry, Steve, I only have a '70 Super K. If I had an earlier Kodiak for the test, I'd be glad to send them along. ;)
-
No 59 K to compare to something else......???
Drat.....*sigh*.
-
BTW Don......that was directed at Don the BD. lol
but...hey, IM EASY!!
BowDoc has bows Id KILL JUST TO SEE AND HOLD AND SHOOT! Actually a great many of you do as well.
-
I guess my original question should have been worded differently but it has brought up some interesting discussion. What I meant was the inherent deatails of an individual bow that gives it ...forgiveness, smooth draw...cast..,accuracy in hand...you know the kind a bow you take a few shots with and really like it....I believe from your posts the 1962 Kodiak is a fine shooter and good performer..I have only shot the 1967 Super K and 1966 Kodiak...they are both fine shooters too...Just started collecting some BEAR bows and looking for leftys in about 55 lbs at my 25 to 26 inch drawlength....(depending on the handle design) If any of you who know of any nice lefty's in heavier weight...let me know...
-
If I ever find a 1958 Kodiak lefty in 60 lb range I would be thrilled!!!!!
-
Forgive me, for getting off subject of your post.
My apologies.
-
Now to throw some flies in the ointment I turn to Viper's book "Shooting the Stickbow" and he states in the chapter on bow design.
"Given two bows of the same design and material , the shorter bow will require greater force to be drawn to a specific length , but will tend to shoot an arrow faster than a longer bow. The shorter bow may be less comfortable to shoot as it will reach its stack point sooner and will have increaased finger pinch."
So I take from this we shoot longer bows for target shooting due to less finger pinch, comfort and stability, not speed.
He also writes "Less limb mass equals faster acceleration." So I conclude the shorter limb has less mass hence recovers faster and is faster then a longer limb.
In the glossary "Cast-Distance and speed with which a bow can propel an arrow."
That leads me to conclude the faster limbs will propel an arrow faster and farther than slower limbs so a shorter bow is capable of better cast than a longer bow.
Just my conclusions from reading, that's all.
-
SlowBowke,
The thought I had was not longer draw, but that with a slower bow the arrow would be on the string longer than with a faster bow, therefor could a slower bow with longer limbs store and transfer more energy to the arrow than a shorter limb but faster bow of the same draw weight? It would be interesting to check arrow penetration at a short range and then again at a longer range. again being a novice I'm not sure, but I would guess the faster shorter limb bow would have better penetration at short range, but would it fair as well at a longer range? Another fanciful question; is there an optimal speed for a given arrow material length and weight? IE, too fast increases wind resistance, arrows poops out; too slow and arrow weight causes loss of performance; Just right and arrow sails like a bird,(kind of like ground effect).
-
FUN STUFF!
No more from me without specific permission from thread creator. OT and all but all good thought processes to me.
Dont think I ever want to know it all......fun would be all gone!
-
trubltrubl
My apologies for wondering astray as well.
-
I had the opportunity to test three identically designed limbs designs- a TD- same string specs and same arrow and same # limbs. Three arrows each, paid attention to form etc. The limbs were 62", 64" and 66"-I draw 28". Anyway there was no difference in speed (I call that cast BTW), and I found the 64" bow to be the best and most accurate for my hunting requirements.
Is this the right thread? LOL
-
I been working on a little video of both bows being shot thru my chrony(with a release)and then over the church and down the street to recover the arrow.But if you can beleave this.It is super sunny in Seattle right now and the darn camera will not pic up the lens of the chrony.I'll keep working at it bd
-
Maybe the camera is overwhelmed by the sunshine; can't wait to see the video Doc!
-
have at her boyz....no problem.....got my answer ...talk cast etc.....
-
trubl 1962 wow thats one of the best of the Bear line up.Great shooter and real good speed.My 55# 1962 was right about 182-184 fps with a 500 grain arrow.Real good bows and one of my favorites along with the 1964.
bj this ai'nt working because the light in the chrony is not bright enough ? any ideas bd
-
Forget the chrony doc we wanna' see you shoot arrows over the church!
-
There's always something to complicate things...I've had a couple bowyers indicate their longer limb design was better and stored more energy at a given draw weight, thus their longer limbs were a tad faster in spite of the greater limb mass. Splitting knat hairs but intersting stuff none the less.
So what's the consensus on the fastest Kodiak??? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
oh yeah BH its always good to read and learn new stuff about old stuff.The fastest Kodiak wow thats a tough one right there.One reason being all the bows back in the day were built by hand or mostly by hand and you could have some differences.Ok and what years can we choose from ? some of the early static tip bows will hold their own with the new kids ???? bd
-
thanks bowdoc ....for the info