I would like to know some of the advantages and disadvantages between longbows and recurves?
Just started thinking and wondering what your opinions might be on this subject.
Thanks for sharing
Craig
Longbow...stability (forgiveness to shooter error), quietness, durable, not vulnerable to limb twist. If of good design equal in speed to a recurve. Disadvantage, some designs have considerable hand shock, stack, and less speed...but that all depends on the design of longbow, as now there are many reflex/deflex longbows that are equal in smoothness and speed and that don't have anymore shock than even the best of recurves. Also lighter in the hand (carry weight).
Recurve...generally easier for some to shoot as they are often gentle in the hand and smooth on the draw. Some will say they are faster but this is only true when comparing to the "D" shaped longbows...and still it depends on the design. They are also generally heavier, noisier, and more sensitive to shooter error (torque) since the limbs are more prone to twist (not track true when the bow hand "rolls" the riser out of alignment). Also generally less durable; however, some designs are very durable.
Actually, which is more forgiving is a matter of opinion. Some very well respected arhcers (Byron Ferguson, for example) claim that longbows are better in that category. And yet, conventional wisdom has been that recurves are more forgiving.
I suppose when I see Olympic archers using longbow limbs, I'll conceed that longbows have the edge in stability. Personally, I've shot a lot of both recurves and longbows; and for me, recurves are more forgiving.
More than anything for me it comes down to aesthetics. I prefer the graceful lines of recurve limb tips and the opportunity for larger amounts of beautiful woods in the more massive recurve risers.
I own and have shot only one longbow. I can feel the shot more in my bowarm elbow with this bow than with any of my recurves. However, maybe with bamboo limb cores my particular longbow is more prone to this?
Of course to each his own. Longbow fans definitely love them. The more folks who shoot longbows the shorter will be my wait for my next custom recurve!
I don't think they're so much advantages and disadvantages as they are preferences. A person who likes longbows might shoot a longbow better than a recurve and vice versa.
Anciently, the difference between recurves and longbows was predominantly who was a horse nomad archer and who was an archer on foot. Both groups were deadly and very accurate.
When I got into trad. archery 2 years ago, a friend lent me 2 longbows and 2 recurves. I shot the recurves and then the longbows. I couldn't quit shooting the longbows and gave him back the recurves. I now have two. But that being said, I would like to have a recurve too. For me it's just my preference. Do what I did and try them both. I prefer the reflex/deflex over the D shaped though. Less hand shock.
It is a matter of personal preference for me,I started out shooting longbows and prefer to shoot longbows.I have played around with recurves but just would rather shoot a longbow.
I shoot both so I get the best of both.
I also have both. For me, getting draw-weight and handle design right is more of a factor it seems. I have a custom made longbow from a reputable maker that is 60#, and a 60# custom recurve. No question about it, I can handle the recurve better. And then if I drop down to my 51# Shrew Classic Hunter, I shoot that bow marginally better than the recurve.
Due to limb core, a longbow is less prone to twist, torque, or a high or low wrist. Also it is less prone to split and 3 under alterations...as the bow has enough "beam strength" to correct the archer's errors. This is why I say the longbow is more stable. This is why it also generally takes a longbow about 3 times more core to increase a longbow's poundage by 1# of pull than does a recurve.
That said, I believe the reason some people shoot better with recurves is because the recurve's smoothness of draw and lack of handshock generally allow for a smoother shot...generally helping the archer have good form.
If I had to guess...I would say if you have great form on the draw and release but poor form on the follow through with the bowhand then shoot a recurve...but if you have poor form on the draw and release and great form on the follow with the bowhand through then shoot a longbow.
I say this because I believe the longbow may be more sensitive after the shot, but a recurve is more sensitive before the shot.
Olympic archers generally have awesome form.
I think any more it just comes down to what you like. I have both and love to shoot them all.
Me too. I love therm both. I shoot about as bad with one as I do with the other. Longbows are a bit more user friendly in that they are light weigh physically, do not twist,. Easy to string, have an elegence that is not really explainable. Recurves have heavier risers. differnet grips,. shoot more accurately because of these factors for some folks. I personally believe that D and R longbows are the best of both worlds and are my pick for the all around hunting bow. However I am building a static recurve that is giving me second thought with one exception. They require a stringer and do expose the string on the tips of the bows making them a bit less friendly . They are super quiet , short, and make a great hunter other than that though. Like everyone stated , its just a matter of what you personally prefer.
QuoteOriginally posted by Lee Dogman:
Olympic archers generally have awesome form.
True, but they didn't start off that way, and entry level target limbs are still recurves. That notwithstanding, right before compounds came out -- when traditional archery was just archery -- probably better than 99% of all bows commercially made were recurves. I can't imagine it was because they were
harder to shoot. ;)
If you're comparing recurve risered "longbows" then there isn't really that much difference but they're not really longbows in my opinion. I have both but I need the broom handled, "D" shape, 64" or better LONGbow to "capture the tradition"/feeling of the longbow for me. Recurves and hybrids have much to recommend them as far as shooters go but there is just nothing that compares to walking through the woods with a lightweight longbow. I welcomed the challenge of learning to grip and shoot it right and since then I'm not confident that I'll shoot my recurves anymore although they are truly great bows!
I don't think you read my post objectively, but no biggie. Each has their benefit. If you are more interested in arguing the recurve is the best bow for everyone...well, you will have a hard time accomplishing that task. I imagine most of the bows sold fit into one of 4 catagories...
1. Many "short" recurves were true recurves produced to obtain short hunting bows (Bear and Pearson) while still hunting,
2. Then there are the "semi-recurves" which were VERY POPULAR designs...and many of the "old" bear recurves and Pearson recurves were actually "semi-recurve" types very similar to what we today call a modern reflex deflex longbow.
3. Then there were the long recurves which modelled the olympic archers (Hoyt) with good form.
4. And, let's not forget that Howard Hill Archery was created around 1950 and apparently has done very well.
Of those above, I would suspect that the most popular catagory was the "semi-recurve" group, but this is speculatory on my part based upon my observations. Others may have different observations...however, that said, I imagine this catagory did so well since the "hybrid" design has some of the benefits of each type of bow, while minimizing the negatives.
I have both and luv both also but have been shooting the longbows more lately(depends on my mood at the time).
I have both, and I like and shoot the recurve better.
Lee,
I haven't argued with anyone here in the last seven years, so I doubt that I'm interested in starting now (and certainly not over anything as trivial as this). Anyone familiar with my 7+ years of posting here knows that I never promote any type of equipment and such as being best for everyone. I was simply pointing out historical facts about archery equipment, and clearing up some misinformation in the process.
That's the nice thing about this site: people are free to discuss things respectfully as adults. I see that you just registered here last month. In time, you'll see that this site is not like the one with which you are more familiar -- which is why a lot of people here stopped posting there years ago.
Back on topic...
Yes, certain people will shoot better with different types of bows. But when we look at what type of design factors are generally more forgiving, we need only look at the history of archery precompound to see what was popular and what fell by the wayside as changes evolved. That being the case, with respect to the semirecurve, none of Bear's best selling bows had that design, and at many times, they never made them at all.
My 2Cents worth.. but worth less than that!
Pickin a bow is a lot like pickin your nose... No wrong way to do it.... Mostly it is an emotional issue... Whatever romantic ideas you have will bias to one over the other... There are trade offs, but these can easily be overcome... If your Uncle Bobby (jim, billy or whatever....) hunted with a selfbow or old bear recurve and you have subconcious romantic notions of hunting like Uncle ____. I'd suggest considering all things, it is your journey!!! Follow your dreams and you'll end up at where you want to be, just a lot happier, more quickly...
If we are honest with ourselves, we didn't become attracted to traditional archery because it was easier, more efficient, but more of a challenge, thus more fulfilling way to enjoy hunting! All that being said, I think it is more complex than longbow, recurve... :archer2:
Jason,
There is an old saying that states, "Certainly the majority of people can't be wrong."
Then there is another saying that states, "Never underestimate the power of a lot of stupid people."
My point is...neither of the above are always right or always wrong. Instead of looking for popularity, I try to look at the science of it. However, if the semi-recurve wasn't a big selling I must say they certainly have SURVIVED the times well, as I see more of these old bows still around than any of the others. So, if sales of them were low, well I would say their durability (which is related to stability) was certainly superior. However, I also think they sold a great many of those bows even if they weren't their premium products.
As to my registration, I was a member of this forum when it first got started...using the name "Lee @ Keep It Simple" (member #319 back when I had Keep It Simple Archery); however, I simply lost interest in posting on any of the websites as time was too limitted. It is a great site, but I was getting marrried, having kids, teaching, working on orders in my archery shop, and training dogs and just didn't take time to post. When one is spread too thin...something has to go. So being websites weren't a priority...that is why I didn't post here for several years now. I like both this site and the other site though; however, this one is certainly more user friendly with the topic sections, search window, and private message features.
In the end, being involved in archery for years, I have come to a few conclustions. Perhaps your conclusions are different, but here are mine.
1. There are certain fundamentals to every sport, including archery.
2. Accuracy is limited to consistency of performance.
3. When perfectly executed, the bows themselves tend to be consistent, so therefore variation in consistency is typically an aspect influenced by either the archer or the arrow.
4. Bows however may vary in consistency when an archer doesn't have perfect form and shows variation from one shot to another. In other words, when an archer plucks a string the bow may behave differently than when the same archer torques the bow or heals the bow on a follow up shot. The variation in a bow's response to such can be a measurement of stability.
5. A bow that is more stable will tend to be stiffer or less "noodly" when held by the tip, but a "noodly" bow may in some cases be smoother.
6. For an archer that has good "pre-shot form" but bad follow though, a smooth "noodly" type bow may benefit them best as the smooth noodly draw will help them perform their pre-shot as best as they can, but once the arrow is released the "noodly limbs" transmit the torque of the bowhand to the arrow since the limbs will be somewhat held in place by the arrows resistence to torque (as we are talking milli-seconds for the arrow to clear the shelf). These bows are often so smooth that one can heal the bow or hold a high wrist without noticing a "funny feel" to the bow as both limbs load at say 2.5# per inch for several inches minor pull variations (more prone to changes of dynamic tiller...and rubber-bandy like limbs). This type of bow requires good pre-draw form to prevent such. Also, such archery's often shoot with a more open bowhand probably to help minimize or further hide such issues of post shot variation.
7. For an archer with excellent POST shot form (follow through and bow arm/hand), I recommend longbows as they are often stiff enough for an archery to notice when they don't draw the bow perfectly right (due to "beam strength of the thicker core). Due to "stack" the limbs correct themselves. If one limb is pulled on harder than the other, it will want to stack more than the other limb...and the bow will instantly "center" the resistence (due to its tiller to distribute the pull "every action has an equal reaction) without the archer's thought to do so. In such bows, the archer will notice a different feel of pull when they heal the bow or when they hold it with a high wrist. IMO, these type of archers are best served with longbows. Such archer's though must have good follow throughs after the shot though as the limbs are so stiff that should they torque the bow the bow's beam strength will transmit such torque to the arrow. I believe this is why archer's like Howard Hill said the bowhand is so important and must be mastered. These bows can often be held by the tip and will remain stiff (more resisent to dynamic tiller changes).
8. Finally, and this one is the most important...all archer's are different and even though there are some "fundamentals" each archer should do what works best for them...meanwhile considering the goal of "CONSISTENCY" in the process.
In the days BC (Before Compound) when it was just archery we called reflex/deflex Long Bows. Semi recurve.. Just a modified recurve to me not a long bow.
I prefer the way the 1 piece or 2 piece longbow looks versus the recurves. It's a personal choice. I have 2, a Hill bow, and also a Pathfinder. I love them both.
That being said, I have made my own recurve that I only use for bowfishing.
Im a big fan of a longbow thats got a straight grip on it versus a recurve or longbow thats got the pistol style grip cut into it! I feel that whatever i aim at i hit with it, i shoot instinctive though and my arrow is just an extension of my front hand i guess!
Longbows are generally easier to slip through thick brush with.
Recurves are easier to pick up a snake with.
Thanks for the input. I have read a lot of threads about longbows vs recurves and wanted to know some of the reasons for the advantages/disadvantages.
Thanks ;)