I never owned one of the old semi-curves of yester-year but I remember them and they were strikingly similar to the modern r/d LB. Is there a significant difference?
I dont know anything about the old semi-recurves but my guestion to answer your question would be did the string still come in contact with the limb of the old simi-recurve?
I bought an old Bear Cub at at sale. When I got home and found a string that fit I couldn't believe what I saw. A "modern reflex/deflex" longbow. Guess they knew what they where doing.
Probably about the same time "Archery" became "Trad"
Here's a page from the 1956 Bear catalog. Notice the photo in the center showing the limb tips. I can't read the item discription but I think that's the tip of one of their semi-curves.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/myshootinstinks/Bear-1956-pic2.jpg)
1958 Bear Alaskan semi-recurve:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/fliksr/Random/Alaskan.jpg)
1955 Bear Polar semi-recurve:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/fliksr/5455Polar.jpg)
1955 Bear Cub:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/fliksr/Random/cub3.jpg)
The string on all of these only contacts the bow at the string groove - no limb contact. Bear marketed these as a 'semi-recurve'... those of you who have read the TBB should remember them calling them 'non-contact recurves'
Why/when did we start calling then r/d longbows? Beats me, but I'm guessing it was for marketing... everyone likes something "new" ;)
Oh, I meant to say starting in '58 the Alaskan is what we'd consider a r/d. Before that they were just straight reflex (see the bottom pic of the cub). The '58 Alaskan is a favorite of mine. The '59 is nice too - much nicer lines but it starts to stack at my long draw (30") where the '58 doesn't.
Here is a comparison of my two Bear Cub bows, strung and unstrung. The design looks a little ahead of its time. More reflex and not as much (or no) deflex, but as a wise man once said "there is nothing new under the sun." Near as I can tell, these are 1955, some have said early '56.
Ron
(http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL413/683873/18461216/299878842.jpg)
Guys, If I may be so bold...you are missing an important distinction between a Deflex/reflex design and some of the old semirecurves--the unstrung profile. Ron's Cub is a reflexed bow with slightly recurved tips-It has no deflex.
The R/D or better worded Deflex/reflex is not a new invention but it is not the same as all Semirecuves...though some semi-recurves were/are deflex/reflex designs/
Tree man, uh, isn't that what I said? :D :campfire:
The '58-60 Alaskans were all r/d bows. With the '61 Alaskan (if I remember correctly) the sting does make contact slightly with the limb. Same with the '59-60 Polars - the string barely makes contact with the limb = recurve.
My daughter was shooting a 1960 Alaskan for a few years and we were surprised by how well that bow performed.
When you lay it on top of a new Morrison or Fedora, or ACS for that matter, which are among the best R/D's; there is not a pronounced difference-at least not to to my untrained eye. Although I am sure someone will come along and tell us what we are not seeing.
Hey-how's the Damascus coming along, Jeremy?
They became R/D longbows when the cheats found out they could be shot in longbow classes by twisting the truth to suit themselves,,,and to hell with real longbow shooters.
These bows have double actioned limbs,,they are recurves.
Hi Bjorn! :wavey: The damascus needs to be heat treated. I had (still have) a little hiccup with my grinder. I bought a new one, then tore the old one apart to clean everything out. About that time the new one stopped working! Finding shop time has been the real problem this last month though (last day off I had was Jan 1)! :mad:
Easy now John! :)
Not much in archery (now called traditional archery) that hasn't been invented before. The newer hybrid designs tend to have more deflex coming off the riser, and perhaps a little more sweep and reflex throughout the entire limb, but they're real close cousins to the bows that have come before them.