Trad Gang

Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: Keb on August 02, 2014, 08:01:00 PM

Title: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: Keb on August 02, 2014, 08:01:00 PM
So a recurve is measured with the curve right? So if I'm liking the length of a 62" recurve.

What length longbow reflex/deflex would be similar in length 60" or 62"??

When they are both strung?
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: cyred4d on August 02, 2014, 08:14:00 PM
It really depends on the bow. I prefer 62 inch or longer recurves but my Holm made osprey is 60 inches.  And I have shot 60 inch recurves, I just prefer 62 inch bows.
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: on August 02, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
My old Super K, 60", had the same string angle as my 66" Schulz at my draw.  With an a r/d bow that loads to a d, a 64" is about the same. When comparing hybrids there can be less variation because of the amounts of reflex and deflexing in the riser.
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: nineworlds9 on August 02, 2014, 09:55:00 PM
Pavan is pretty spot on, generally if you like the feel of a good 62" recurve I think you'll be happy with a 64" r/d longbow or 66" and up Hill bow.  If a hybrid longbow you would probably be pleased with 62"...BUT as someone touched on its apples to oranges to apples as bow designs vary so much that string angle at full draw is really the major factor to consider.  Also draw weight.  Bows under 50# can be easier to manage and they may not feel like they stack up so bad at a shorter bow length because of the lower peak draw weight.  You pretty much want to avoid anything that is getting close to 90 degrees string angle at full draw.  For example, not accounting for OPTIMIZED short designs that are made for long draws, with my 29"ish draw I generally avoid any bow under 58" unless it has been designed to handle it.  On most conventional 58" designs I get close to 90 degrees string angle and thats when things start stacking up.  I have several 56" bows that dont do this because they are designed for long draws but they are not considered the norm.
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: Keb on August 02, 2014, 10:48:00 PM
I had a 58" whip, to short I draw 28". I loved it but, to short. So I'm leaning towards 60" to 62" maddog prairie preadtor.

I was bowless and went back to wheels, but could not stand it, picked up a samick sage 62" to get back in the grove and like that length compare to all the other 58" bows I had.

I just want a longbow that when strung is about the lenght of the 62" recurve?
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: BRITTMAN on August 03, 2014, 11:58:00 AM
You would need a 58 or 60in. longbow to be the same strung up length as a 62in. Recurve .
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: DarkTimber on August 03, 2014, 03:22:00 PM
Adam...I just laid my 62" tall tines recurve next to my 60" thunderstick Moab longbow (both strung) and the Moab is in fact exactly 2" shorter.
Title: Re: Longbow length vs recurve length
Post by: David Mitchell on August 03, 2014, 05:59:00 PM
Well, there can be a difference between bows of the same length on the length of the working limb.  My 59 Kodiak (new reintro) is 60" and so is my new Super Kodiak, but the 59er draws a good bit more smoothly at the same weight as it has a longer working limb section with shorter riser than the SK.  So length alone doesn't tell the whole story.