Trad Gang

Not sure but maybe "More Mass equals more Stability" ?

I have to disagree Doug, the two are not conclusively relevant, I speculate so I am..

When I was shooting competitive target and field archery all through the 1960's, I and every other serious archer shot 68" heavy riser light poundage (35-40#) recurves. In the early to mid 60's we added 3' long stabilizer rods that extended out from the riser. We used bow slings on our wrist so we didn't have to grip the bow.  This was done to try and eliminate the possibility of torquing the bow.

A target archer had to shoot 6 arrows at each target, a field archer shot 4 arrows at each target. We needed all the help we could get to have the 4th or the 6th arrow shoot as smoothly and consistently as the 1st arrow.

A bow hunter is a different breed of cat than a target archer. Nine times out of ten he shoots one shot and that one shot has all of the concentration and strength he possesses to put that one arrow where it's supposed to go. Chances of him shooting another 3 or 5 followup shots as good as the first shot are pretty slim...unless he has some kind of help as described above.

The production bows of the 60's, Bear Wing, Pearson, Black Widow each had two different types of bows in their line. Long light weight target bows and shorter hunting bows. You didn't see Fred Bear hunting with a 68" Kodiak Special.

I worked in an archery shop for a period of time in the 60's. Our best selling hunting bows were the Bear Kodiak and Kodiak Hunter, 60 and 58" lengths. The 58" Red Wing Hunter was also a very popular bow.

Bow making materials and bow design didn't change much until the last 10 years or so. As for my preference for a hunting bow?...check my web site.   :)

QuoteNot sure but maybe "More Mass equals more Stability" ?
 

What IS stability?

As a whole, whether they are or aren't really isn't even a debatable point. If they weren't, target bows wouldn't be long. As to why, there have been some great explanations thus far. Now, whether or not a person needs or can make use of the added forgiveness and stability of a longer bow is an individual decision.

1. the state or quality of being stable.
2. firmness in position.
3. continuance without change; permanence.
4. Chemistry . resistance or the degree of resistance to chemical change or disintegration.
5. resistance to change, esp. sudden change or deterioration: The stability of the economy encourages investment.
6. steadfastness; constancy, as of character or purpose: The job calls for a great deal of emotional stability.
7. Aeronautics . the ability of an aircraft to return to its original flying position when abruptly displaced.
8. Roman Catholic Church . a vow taken by a Benedictine monk, binding him to residence for life in the same monastery in which he made the vow.

NFL Lineman  vs Dennis Rodman  :)

Hope you figure it out.

Doug

QuoteOriginally posted by Jason R. Wesbrock:
As a whole, whether they are or aren't really isn't even a debatable point. If they weren't, target bows wouldn't be long. As to why, there have been some great explanations thus far. Now, whether or not a person needs or can make use of the added forgiveness and stability of a longer bow is an individual decision.

This has already been alluded to in previous posts, but, for whatever its worth, the laws of physics state that, "For rotational motion, the moment of inertia is analogous to mass. More force is needed to accelerate a more massive object from rest. Analogously, more torque (a rotational force) is needed to start an object rotating when the object has a greater moment of inertia.
The moment of inertia depends on an object's mass and on the distance the mass is from the rotational axis. When a tightrope walker carries a long pole, he increases his moment of inertia both by increasing their total mass and by increasing the average distance of the mass from the rotational axis.
So, when a bow has more mass, and that mass is spread across a greater distance (bow length), it results in a more stable shooting platform.  A longer bow minimizes the affect of small torques and imbalances upon arrow flight.
A longer bow with greater mass requires a greater amount of torque to move it.  A longer bow has more mass between the tips and the rotational axis (grip) thus making it more steady in the hand and more difficult to torque upon release.

To each their own in finding their preferred length bow taking mass weight, length, practicality, accuracy, compactness, etc., into consideration.  :campfire:

Instructions requested to post a sketch from power point utilizing imagelinky.

Friend email sent

Please view attached sketch per link.

Just believe that less limb twist due to longer limbs is one factor contributing to forgivenss.


   (http://images.imagelinky.com/1294486121.ppt) (http://images.imagelinky.com/1294486121.ppt)


Note: Thanks John for the advice on posting the sketch.

Just click on the 'X' then select 'open'.

There u have it.

I believe GreyRhino is right on in his post about rotational forces and such...

Also, string angle CERTAINLY plays a role in this topic as any variation in a release reduced on a longer bow due to the string angle not at the archer's fingers so much as it is on the bow's tips. I am not saying finger pinch isn't a factor, as that too certainly could come into play.

However, I am surprised the amount of limb core has not taken a bigger role in this topic.

If one has two bows of the same poundage, generally the longer bow will have more limb core (this may of course vary for riser length, design, and materials used).

Now, why does this matter? It promotes BOTH lateral stability (resistance to twist) and vertical stability (resistance to varying dynamic tiller due to high or low wrist changes or finger pluck in a poor release). This all helps the bow maintain alignment as the bow is drawn. It aligns to the tension...and "self-adjusts" to the natural tiller the bowyer put into the bow and resists the minor twisting an archer may have in their draw from bowhand to drawing hand. To illustrate this...lets take two extremes...a HH bow and an Olympic recurve. Try twisting both on purpose. The Olympic recurve will twist like a ribbon, while twisting the HH bow will be as difficult as trying to twist a piece of pipe...yet Olympic archers use the Olympic recurve (long ones though) as they have flawless form and have perfected the perfect draw/release and bowhand so everything stays in alignment.

With today's modern materials, such as superior glues, carbon limbs, and even good glass, I don't believe we need 68" bows to obtain extreme stability, but I think some have taken a good thing (the maneuverability of a short bow), and gone too far with it. The old "rob Peter to pay Paul" phrase should remind us to seek balance.

Now, what length is going to work best for you is going to depend upon the design. I would never want a 64" HH bow, as it would stack too much at my draw if it had much limb core...and would be slow. Reduce the core to improve the performance and draw and you loose the stability. In a HH design, 67-68" is ideal for me. With my r/d design, I like 64." I get all the stability I need with a bow 4" shorter than a straight limbed bow and with much improved performance. That said, 64" would be long in a bow with a forward handle that had a short and significantly deflexed riser. The forward grip, short riser, and deflex angle at the riser all add stability, but the cost significant performance in terms of performance as all these traits reduce stored energy. Again..."rob Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.

So, in the end, we need to select what it is we want to accomplish with the bow, and then select the bow that meets those demands best.

I would NOT choose the same bow for an Olympic archer that shoots in an open field that I would chose for a turkey hunter that hunts inside a ground blind tent.

without getting into the technical aspects, longer limbed bows typically have better release "stability" and smoother draws, and with less "finger pinch" for longer draw lengths.  

this is a broad brush statement and there are other static factors to consider such as overall bow design, limb design, limb & riser interaction, materials and construction.

for the most part, hill style longbows work best in longer lengths, r/d longbows allow shorter lengths.  as an example, for my 29" draw length i need a 68" hill bow minimum and a 62" minimum for r/d longbows,

I gotta say this topic includes more food for thought than any I've read. boils down to each archer needing to shoot many lengths and styles of bow to determine what works best for him. Hmmm didn't we already know this. Maybe thats why the classified section of this forum is so popular.
  Larry

Then to confuse it further, bows like Lost Creeks and Shrews feel much longer than they actually are, because of the deflexed handle and the way the limbs load up.  It is a good thing when there is more than one way to get the job done.  How did that go? Just the same but way different.

Protege Longbows

Thank you for the post.
I've never touched an Olympic bow.
Why do you think the Olympic archers use limbs "that twist like ribbons"?
I read and understand those archers have great form and release.
It seems to me that they would want the most forgiving bow made. Especially since they can use sights to help with the trajectory curve coming from the slower arrow being shot from the heavier limbed bow ( more forgiving HH type )

Thank you

Well...grab an Olympic recurve by the tip and you will see the bow is pretty flimsy...especially when compared to a bow like a HH longbow. However, as I mentioned, those archers have perfect form. It would be very difficult to maintain that perfect form shot after shot with a bow that has thump (handshock) in it. Basically, even though the recurve is often more sensitive to errors, I believe an archer that uses a gentle bow is less likely to develop such errors. Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction that occurs at the same time (Issac Newton). What this means is when an archer feels a thump, they adjust to it. Such adjustments lead to "reactions" and conditioned behaviors...yet these feelings change as one becomes fatigued in a competition. The Olympic recurve, despite its flexible limbs, simply doesn't fatigue the archer to the same level as does a deeper cored HH type of bow.

I would say with today's materials we are able to "hybridize" today's bows to produce a combination that is someone the best of both. This of course just my opinion based upon my experiences.

If one reads "Hunting the Hardway," by Howard Hill, you will read a section where he designed a recurve type bow that he did exceptionally well with at a target butt, yet when he went in the field to hunt with his buddies he came home empty handed and went back to his longbow. His belief was while the recurve was great for a static archer, it was not as conducive to good shooting in adverse conditions found in hunting as is the longbow. I would say HH is correct in his assessment.

I think Hud hit it on the head for a good explanation of why longer bows are more forgiving.I have a recurve that is a 58" 60# @28" draw that stacks maybe 10lbs because I draw 29 1/2 . Then I have a bow that is a 62" 55# @28 and when I draw it I notice no stack it seems to stay close to what the draw weight is and is so smooth to shoot.

it's not just about "stack", it's about the ease of everything from draw, to hold, to release, to follow through that makes longer bows more pleasurable for most folks to shoot over most (but not all!) far shorter bows.  that overall feeling is what i call "stability" - it's a comfortable and forgiving quality that becomes a feeling, and you know when it's there and you know when it's not.

I evaluate a bow's stability by looking for perfect arrow flight in adverse conditions.

Thanks for the posts everyone.   :thumbsup:

ProtegeLB...I got to thinking about the question I asked you in my last post during dinner.
I appreciate your answer and understand what you're saying. I was thinking your answer might be simply " because the rules dictate the style of bow" or something along those lines.
Your answer was much more informative. thank you

I look at it as a Tite Rope walker, long on each end so they dont fall off, but really, it's just about length, I can shoot anything well, but love the feel of the long ones ... 66'' and up ...

" I use the straight-end londbow for the simple reason that it requires a less exacting hold and loose to get the necessary accuracy while hunting , where quick shots must be made from unconventional positions - standing, kneeling or sitting - not the traditional target archer's pose . Also the longbow throws an heavy arrow much better than any recurve bow design , which is necessary for sufficient big game penetration . The longbow is fast , smooth, sturdyand dependable , built to give many years of trouble free service."
"the straight -end longbow gives you speed, stability and cast. It is feather light in the hand and has excellent maneuverability . For all hunting archers , the lonbow with straight -ends is the only one to consider."

                            - Howard Hill -

"The long length means less erroe in the trajectory of the arrow . This is simple geometery . The more acute the angle , the more deviation at any given distance . No release is ever perfect , and in bow hunting the release must often be hasty or unorthodox . Consequently , with a longbow , my arrow , though not released perfectly , may still strike the chest of an animal , whereas that same release from a shorter bow could mean a miss - there could be as much as a foot difference at 30 yards."
   
                             - Bob Swinehart -

Protege, you got it right, and you explained it clearly as well.   :thumbsup:

Some of the analogies favoring longer bows are obviously from people that have never shot a properly designed short bow.

To each his own but to make a fair analysis you really need to experience both sides of the issue. "A short bow is a short bow"... is not necessarily  true. Neither is a long bow a long bow, they all have their idiosyncrasies. (I had to look up the spelling on that one)...   :readit: ...   :D

A lot of different things come into play for me on this subject.I tend to shoot 66" longbows better than shorter ones at my 27" draw.If the shorter bow has a forward riser you can shorten it some and I`ll hit about the same. Add some mass weight to the riser and you can shorten it even more and I hit about the same.
 What if you take the longer Hill bow and add a little bit of mass weight in the riser on it.Bet it would shoot good.
Personally in hunting situtations I`m prone to shooting mistakes and lack of form due to being "pumped". I prefer the longer longbow because for ME I shoot it better under pressure.
 There are no perfect bows for everyone just a "best" bow for an individual. Mine is probably not yours.RC

Every design involves compromises in order to try to find the best for a particular application. Take airplanes for example, which actually relate well to bows in some respects. Heavier airplanes with longer wings and fuselages, and with more dihedral in their lifting surfaces tend to be more aerodynamically stable than lighter planes with shorter wings and fuselages, and with less dihedral. I won't go into all the reasons for these effects, but one of them is moment of inertia associated with the rotating mass of the aircraft, which has also been described here by others as it relates to bows and tight rope walking poles. The aerodynamically stable planes resist departure from the current flight regime and will tend to return to that flight regime in the event there is a sudden force that causes a deviation. That stable design is great for planes that are in cruise for long periods of time, but it is a terrible design for planes that need to be maneuverable and quick. Similar design factors exist for guns and bows. A benchrest rifle with a long, very heavy barrel is great for shooting off a fixed rest at a stationary target, but it would be terrible for most deer hunting situations. For most hunting situations, a gun that is lighter, more maneuverable, quicker, and shorter is a much better weapon to use.

Who wants to be shooting the most accurate, most stable bow possible while hunting? I sure don't!! That would be a very long, very heavy mass, very light poundage bow with all sorts of stabilizers and wrist straps, and definitely adjustable sights. I would have to stand with the bow completely vertical (a bubble level would help with that) and have exactly the same body position as I had practiced from thousands of times before. Obviously, none of us want to, or even can, hunt like that. So now we are talking compromise. The compromises will be shorter bows, less mass, and higher poundages.

To make short bows (58 inches and less) more stable and create a geometry that will produce a lower string/tip angle at longer draw lengths, a more forward, deflexed riser is helpful. So is the reflex/deflex or recurve tip limb design. With more recent design and material advances, we can have short bows with smooth draw and good shooting characteristics, while also getting the handiness, quickness and maneuverability that short bows with less rotational stability provide. That is why Ron can talk about how good his Shrew bows shoot, even in the shorter lengths (down to 52"). Shrew makes the Model T for those who want the longer target bows that can still be used for hunting, but the shorter Shrew bows tend to be better for more hunting situations. If you don't believe me (or Ron), then try one out and see for yourself. I did, and it is hard to go back to my dozens of wonderful, longer bows when I head to the hunting camp. Of course, there are other good short bows besides the Shrews. The Shrews just happen to be some of the best and the most well known. If you can locate one of Big Jim's Thunderchild bows, or a Treadway Black Swamp, or one of the short Black Swans or another top quality short bow of modern design, try one of those to see what one feels like. Remember though that all short bows are not created equal.

Allan

Well said Allan.  :thumbsup:

I think Rob has pretty much given a practical explanation and my experience....I have found that for my 29 inch draw, I can more consistently /comfortably shoot with a longer bow if it is Hill-style.  I do however dislike the string follow with the longer bows.  

With the R/D bows I "feel" that a 64-66"er is best all around length for me.  The last bow I made was a 52@64 and the one I build for my son, coming from the same form was 50@68". They both shot very well, each having its own unique characteristic but I could more consistently shoot the 64 (maybe because it was mine and I shot it tons more)  :saywhat:  

I need to say that my opinion/preference does not depend on a scientific study.  Other than trying out some of the "shorties" of recent years at the Trad Expo in Kzoo (such as the ones that Ron makes)I have not given them much of a chance in my comparison over the years.  I am biased and just "assume" they will have too much finger pinch, or that they will uncomfortably stack at my draw and naturally stay away from the short bows. Yes, I know that is ignorance...   ;)  

Hmmm...guess I have not helped too much   :dunno:

Good luck y'all!

Long years ago talking with Ron on the phone, I said that longbows were going to get more and more radical and shorter and shorter until it will be something we have never seen before.  Ron said "Not necessarily".  Well look at one Ron is selling today, really accurate bows that we have never seen before.  Although we do not have any of his bows, I can attest to the fact that a properly made hybrid that is 54" long can shoot fast and feel much longer and feel very much more stable than its 54" length.  A short for ones draw Hill style quite often is not as forgiving as these "properly designed" short bows. something I was rather surprised to learn first hand.  On the other side, I picked up a 68" Pete George, which is long for my 26&1/4" draw. Without a doubt I am more accurate with it than I am with my 64" Hill style bows, there may be some other influences, but I am also more consistent with my other 68" longbow. One is left handed and the other right so it seems that form glitches are not the issue.  I have shorter Robertsons that are also extremely accurate, slight R/D.  Forgiveness has a lot to do with design, no matter how we look at it.

So what happens when you take all of the good characteristics of a properly designed "short" longbow and combine them with all of the characteristics of a "long" d-style longbow.

Say a 68" mild r/d longbow with a forward handle and slim deep cored limbs.  Make the riser heavy for the overall weight of the bow.  Maybe phenolic riser with a bow-bolt.  Bamboo or foam cores with black glass or carbon back.  Man I'm getting carried away but I'd buy one.   :saywhat:

QuoteSo what happens when you take all of the good characteristics of a properly designed "short" longbow and combine them with all of the characteristics of a "long" d-style longbow.

Say a 68" mild r/d longbow with a forward handle and slim deep cored limbs. Make the riser heavy for the overall weight of the bow. Maybe phenolic riser with a bow-bolt. Bamboo or foam cores with black glass or carbon back. Man I'm getting carried away but I'd buy one.  

Sounds like the makings for a good "target" longbow..     :archer2:

  (http://shrewbows.com/Model-T/1_Model-T.JPG)  

   (http://shrewbows.com/Model-T/2_Model-T.JPG)

QuoteOriginally posted by HATCHCHASER:
So what happens when you take all of the good characteristics of a properly designed "short" longbow and combine them with all of the characteristics of a "long" d-style longbow.

Say a 68" mild r/d longbow with a forward handle and slim deep cored limbs.  Make the riser heavy for the overall weight of the bow.  Maybe phenolic riser with a bow-bolt.  Bamboo or foam cores with black glass or carbon back.  Man I'm getting carried away but I'd buy one.    :saywhat:  

I would forget about the solid phenolic riser and the foam core. I know of too many problems with the foam core to use it myself. It is very brittle and seem to have a limited lifespan. I do however use phenolic, but wouldn't want my entire riser to be made of it as I like my fadeouts to be natural materials...as I feel they "blend" in better with the natural materials of the bow limb's core.

That said, taken your design request, I believe the longer r/d bow will be more stable than the shorter bow. (Unless one goes to insane extremes).

Interesting discussion.  I too have always heard all else equal the longer bow will be more tolerant of form differences from shot to shot and produce a tighter group -- thus less variation in the shot due to the archer's execution.

I've always figured it was due to resistance to movement at release (overcoming inertia) of the longer limbs. Sort of like a vertical stabilizer.  

Grayrhino, I appreciate your explanation as it makes a lot of sense to me.  

Of course there are things that affect the bow's performance for a particular archer that are unrelated to this discussion. For instance, the design of the limb.  I was advised by a long-term bowyer that certain bow types (he named Howatt) I should stay away from because the limb is better suited for a longer draw in terms of getting the most out of it. Since I don't know whether to capitalize "bowyer" or not, I'm uninclined to argue with one.

With my 58" draw I shoot 56"-62" bows.  Since nearly all of them are different makes and models I can't make much of a comparison.  

I agree with the statement made by some above that a shooting machine (archery-with very nice form) can likely shoot long and short equally well. So, an archer with proper and consistent form will have difficulty telling the difference as revealed by group size.

Hatchchaser described the bow, (add a radiused riser and minus the phenolic, minus the foam core and add a bammboo core,and add a tiller scheme that has the back narrower than the belly) a custom Ballenger, that I gave to a friend last year.  Pretty quick, nice balance, no stack, no kick, quiet, and the most accurate longbow I have ever seen.  I did not give it to him because I did not like it, I gave it to him because I thought it was a great bow, it fit him perfect and I knew he would get good use out of it.

I would prefer an all wood riser with bamboo cores and black glass.  I have had foam cores and carbon backed bows and I prefer bamboo or actionwood/actionboo and black glass.  In my experience bows with black glass seem to shoot a little sweeter "that's another discussion". Phenolic would make the heaviest riser for a design and supposedly a heavy riser and light limbs makes a bow with the best manors.  I prefer a nice hardwood riser.

I was just saying if we made a bow with all of the most "forgiving" characteristics shouldn't it be the most forgiving bow.  No bow is the best for all situations that is why we need more than one.   :goldtooth:  

I think all things being equal, in the hands of a skilled archer "not me", that T-model shrew would be more accurate than the Super-Shrew or Shrew Classic.  Each bow definitely has it's place.  YMMV. I bet that T-model is sweet.

I guess the Ballenger custom would not have worked for you it had everything you wanted except it had clear glass.

Clear glass with purty veneers.  That would never work.   :saywhat:

No just tonkin cane, it does have more of a reverse handle than the current models have, but no black glass.  Mikey would not let go of it anyway.

I got my Model-T in the summer of 09. I planned to use it for 3-D and targets. It was 40# @28", 64" with carbon/foam core. It was a lot lighter weight than I usually shoot and the 64" length was also longer than I had shot for quite awhile.

The bow was a pleasure to shoot with light carbon arrows and it turned out to be very flat shooting. When hunting season rolled around I found myself without a shorter, heavier bow so I decided to hunt with the longer lighter weight bow. I found that it even shot arrows with 200-250gr up front very well at 20-25yd and I was confident it would do a good job on any whitetail.

In most cases the 64" bow worked out just fine. There was only one time when I lost a chance for a shot from my ladder stand because of the bows length. Had I had my 54 or 56" bow I'm sure things would have been different.

This past season I was back hunting with a 56" Classic Hunter with carbon/foam limb core. That bow is every bit as smooth and accurate as the longer bow in hunting situations while being more maneuverable and quicker to bring into action. I have found what works best for me and I won't be changing any time soon....     :archer:

I'd have to wear two pairs of socks to shoot a bow longer than 60"!

 (http://images.imagelinky.com/1294710962.ppt) (http://images.imagelinky.com/1294710962.ppt)

.ppt] (http://images.imagelinky.com/1294710962.ppt)[/URL]

Click the left top 'X' to view an attached sketch depicting a longer bow vs. shorter fwd riser design bow. It appears quite possible than in many cases with a superior design and enhanced anti-twist rotation that the shorter bow may equal or surpass the longer bow as far as shootibiltiy.