I currently own 2 recurves and 2 Hill bows. Until recently I had no desire to own a r/d hybrid bow. I think one of the reasons is I don't know much about the history of the design. One of the draws to traditional archery for me is the history that goes along with it. Not looking for advice on which one to buy, I'll do that research later when I am closer to buying. So, what is the history of the r/d design? Is there a particular bowyer that is credited with coming up with the design? How long have they been around? Was the r/d design around when Hill was building bows? Just curious.
The design is very old. There are examples in NA in Creek bows, as well as Egyptian composite bows.
There's nothing new in archery!
Haven't seen the Creek bows, but I've seen the Egyptian. strung,it's strikingly similar to a Shrew or Elkheart/Falcon.
If you can find a copy of Traditional Bowyers Encyclopedia, by Dan Bertalan. Read the story on Robertson Stykbow and how he started. 1st ed. 1989, and 2nd ed. 2007.
I lost the link, but there are cave drawings...in Spain, I think...of a deflex/reflex longbow. It's much older than Howard Hill.
Sounds like the r/d design is as old as the bow itself. If the design is more efficient and improved over the straight end longbow why was the straight end longbow used by so many for so long? I may be wrong but it seems the r/d design has only gained popularity in the last 30 years or so.
Hud, I will look for that book. I did go to the Robertsen Stykbow website and looked at their Primal Styk. It said they were the first company to offer the r/d design but didn't say what year. Nice looking bows. I like the d shape when braced. Thanks.
When you need to arm an army numbering into the thousands of archers you build the easiest to build and do the job at hand, the straight longbow.
Its really that simple.
God bless, Steve
There may have been lots of earlier r/d designs, but one of the earliest to make this type commercially available was Earl Hoyt Jr. who did so in the late 50's.
Who remembers the Trophy and Rogue longbows?
and they were called semi recurve and duoflex bows.
Selfbows don't lend themselves as well to a D/R design as much as a composite does. Considering the sometimes short life expectancy of a selfbow, making it more stressed with additional may not be worth the invested time.
QuoteOriginally posted by Sixby:
When you need to arm an army numbering into the thousands of archers you build the easiest to build and do the job at hand, the straight longbow.
Its really that simple.
God bless, Steve
+2
Does a longbow with backset technically qualify as a "mild R/D"?
Fling',
it's all quite simple really. It's cultural. The Hill-style bow is an evolution of the English longbow. From the founding of this nation to the modern era our culture has been dominated by Anglo-saxon influences, this applied to archery as well. As the others have said, there's nothing new under the sun in regards to tradbow design, just innovations and better craftsmanship. Once America started coming out of its cultural isolation following WWII people in the archery world started getting interested in bow designs from other cultures, so the Hill-style stopped being the end-all-be-all of longbows. Hill had a lot of feelings on shorter more radical bows, but it was all in the context of his time. We've come along way, and it is silly to read his words and automatically think they are dogma relevant to this current age. We live in a golden age of archery right now, with the best shooting bows that have ever been made. It's amazing to think how things will continue to evolve little by little over the next 50+ years.
Have you studied Native American bows, the design has been in use as long as most designs. Just because most modern bowyers wrap the wood in fiberglass does not mean the design is new.
QuoteOriginally posted by SELFBOW19953:
Does a longbow with backset technically qualify as a "mild R/D"?
No. It has to have some deflex - limbs arch toward the belly of the bow at the fadeouts from the riser. Longbows that just have backset (like many "Hill Styles" or "American Semi Longbows") are not r/d.
There are no new designs in archery. R/D, static recurves, working recurves, overdraws, release aids, performance backings and many others. Many of todays well used phrases are from archery history too; like the "rule of thumb", "the parting shot", "straight as an arrow" and more. Somewhere in my archery library is a long list of these phrases.
Many of the Eastern Woodland cultures made R/D designs like the Seneca, Creek like Kegan suggested, Mohegan, some of the Penobscot, Cayuga, Oneida, Mohawk, Shawnee and the list goes on.
As an aside the Stotler R/D bow was designed by one of Howard's boyers, I think in the 40's. He didn't like it.
MAP
Bows with serious amounts of reflex and deflex together go back well over 4000 years to early Persia as well as early Egypt (and who borrowed from whom is still up for debate). This Akkadian recreation being done by Jack Farrell is based on archeological finds at least 3000 years old:
(//%5Burl=http://s21.photobucket.com/user/kenhulme/media/Akkadian_zpsd0e13781.jpg.html%5D%20%5Bimg%5Dhttp://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/kenhulme/Akkadian_zpsd0e13781.jpg)[/url] [/IMG]
Yes there is not much new in archery. In the modern era, reflex deflex bows were being built and advertised in the 1940's.
Today we have some great execution and better materials though.
"better materials" is a relative statement. What makes modern materials better? There were ancient bows that shot way farther than any modern bow can shoot today. I know selfbow makers tat can build bows that will outshoot many of today's high priced bows. I'd suggest that they are not better, just different.
Sixby, Nineworlds9 you make some good points that I hadn't thought of particularly the cultural and military aspects. Nineworlds9- I don't think it's silly to look to Hill as an authority. Noone has ever dominated any sport as he dominated archery in his day and if it is true as has been said many times in this thread that there is nothing new in archery design then what he said then would hold just as true today. Hill may have had his prejudices that not everyone shares but you can't argue his success with the bow. KenH- I always considered the horse bows to be another style of recurve and they were certainly a military weapon but I guess I should have been more specific in saying i was curious about the r/d design as applies to what is today considered to be a longbow. Maybe I am wrong and the horse bows are considered longbows. I think it is interesting how longbows are classified as longbows only if the string does not touch the limbs. I read of a 3d shoot in I believe Texas some years ago and as I remember they placed your bow unstrung belly down on a table and if any portion of the limb touched between the grip and the tip it was disqualified.
Thanks folks for the free education here. Unfortunately the deer hunting has been so slow for me this year I have had too much time to think about this stuff. I guess now I just need to pick one out to try.
Pat B, maybe you can dig up your list of archery related phrases and post them on another thread. They sound interesting! Never associated the "Rule of Thumb" with archery! Pretty cool
All the "Curves" are for that Demon most call FPS.
Flatter Trajectory is the other Bugaboo that Man has been chasing since the Advent of the Bow & Arrow. Just My $.02 of course. :goldtooth:
QuoteOriginally posted by Pat B:
"better materials" is a relative statement. What makes modern materials better?
I was mostly referring to today's available epoxy, finishes, and available resin impregnated riser woods. Not applicable if you are a selfbow guy. :archer:
Benoli, the rule of thumb is the archers fistmele. With a fist made, stick your thumb up. the distance from the heel of the hand to the tip of the thumb was the archers fistmele; his brace height. The Rule of Thumb.
I'll try to find that list. Its amazing how much of our language comes from archery or archery related activities.
This link has some of the terms and phrases but there are others.
http://jordansequillion.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/archery-and-the-english-language/
Holy Mackeral! That is a cool piece of archery history. My fistmele is a bit less than what I use on my bows. My fistmele is 7" on the dot. I am at 7 3/4 on my rigs. But that is cool to know. rat'
I dont think Robertson built his stik before Tim Miegs built his duo flex.. I could be wrong.
Lou
I had a real nice 1950's (probably early- to mid-1950s) Ben Pearson r/d longbow a couple of years ago. I think it was a model #969. 69" nock-to-nock, 45#@28", slim straight grip. Blonde maple riser and limbs, with woven-style green glass back and belly. Feather-light in the hand. Mild reflex-deflex limb profile looked just like a current mild r/d longbow.
Great thread!
In an old Patrick Moraz song, he refrains, "There's nothing new except what has been forgotten."
PatB's defense of materials is well taken, though I believe the credit belongs to design. A bow made of all natural materials will decay more quickly over time. They dry out and break. The glue gets eaten by whatever and dermestids gnaw the sinew. Of course, proper care delays this, dry your bow and reoil it after being in the damp, unstring it when idle, protect it from extreme temps, etc.
So comes the main difference between then and now. We can be more careless with our equipment, and expose it to more varied conditions. We can leave it strung and do far less maintenance. A bow protected by impregnated materials and modern finishes will perform nearly as well in a rainstorm as it will on a sunny day, and you don't need to stash your Dacron or FF string in a dry place. (Keep it under your hat!)
Killdeer :campfire:
actually,
the use of the term R/D has been a point of contention of mine for some time and a subject of debate with me on several archery sites and personal conversations,at shoots.
The term R/D has been improperly used for so long now,that it has become accepted,even by those,that should know better.
The bow that was a true R/D,was the bow used by many native people in the north American continent.It was reflexed at the riser and deflexed at the outer limbs.It was actually the opposite curvature to the more modern style of bow made with more modern materials.As was previously mentioned,the man credited with the revival of the ancient design,in modern made material,was Mr Earl Hoyt and he described the design as Deflex Reflex.Mr Tim Meigs and i have had a conversation about this subject and he is in agreement and one of the reasons he calls his bow,the Duoflex.Some may say,its a case of semantics,i say its a case of mistaken identity.
Traxx, Interesting stuff. I had heard that the term R/D was technically backwards as the description is from the riser out so it should be D/R but I say R/D because; well, that's what everyone else says. I have not seen the Native American bow you are talking about. Does it look similar to a horse bow? Which would be described as R/D/R if I am correct.
The Native bows im referring to are the bows most commonly known as the plains style or double curve bow,even though it is a common style through the midwest and down through the southwest as well.Often they were lightly sinew lined or were selfbows.these bows were used by many nations from horseback,so yes,they would be considered a horse bow,though they were used a foot for many applications as well.The R/D/R is what many call a 5 curve bow.While they are attributed to the plains horse culture,i believe this style was more seen in the horn composite bows,than in the wood or wood composite bows.Interestingly,the People most associated with the horn bow,in recent years are the Sheepeater,or Tukadika,who were not a horse culture people.
QuoteOriginally posted by Flingblade:
Sixby, Nineworlds9 you make some good points that I hadn't thought of particularly the cultural and military aspects. Nineworlds9- I don't think it's silly to look to Hill as an authority. Noone has ever dominated any sport as he dominated archery in his day and if it is true as has been said many times in this thread that there is nothing new in archery design then what he said then would hold just as true today. Hill may have had his prejudices that not everyone shares but you can't argue his success with the bow. KenH- I always considered the horse bows to be another style of recurve and they were certainly a military weapon but I guess I should have been more specific in saying i was curious about the r/d design as applies to what is today considered to be a longbow. Maybe I am wrong and the horse bows are considered longbows. I think it is interesting how longbows are classified as longbows only if the string does not touch the limbs. I read of a 3d shoot in I believe Texas some years ago and as I remember they placed your bow unstrung belly down on a table and if any portion of the limb touched between the grip and the tip it was disqualified.
Thanks folks for the free education here. Unfortunately the deer hunting has been so slow for me this year I have had too much time to think about this stuff. I guess now I just need to pick one out to try.
Fling,
I was not knocking Howard, I admire him greatly and have read HTHW several times...read my words again, I am just pointing out that it would better serve us to give credit and pay attention to the many decades of archery know-how which accrued since Howard's time. It would be much like saying that nothing after Juan Manuel Fangio matters in Formula 1, when in fact drivers like Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso could likely show him a thing or two and impress him with the modern cars that they drive. That still doesn't change the fact that Juan is the GOAT even if the cars he drove back then could be bested by the family sedans of today. I love a good Hill bow, they are the quintessence of elegance and simplicity, just give me one with a locator grip is all I ask, LOL!
I understand what you're saying nineworlds9 and I agree with it to a point. It doesn't make sense to follow Hill's advice on strings for instance as there are far better string materials available today. For me though what he said about bow design has held true. I love shooting my curves but my form has to be dead on or I miss my mark. I feel I can get away with more flaws in my shooting with an ASL and can hit moving targets easier. I'm sure I'll love shooting an R/D when I get my hands on one but I don't expect it to be as forgiving as a Hill bow. Maybe I will be proved wrong. Many shooters complain about hand shock and name that as an advantage to an R/D but I kind of like the hand shock. If I get hand shock it tells me I wasn't gripping the bow right. If I grip it right, no handshock. Kind of like my wife, if I hold her wrong she lets me know. ha ha
Traxx- I'll look those up. In the meantime do you have a picture available to post?
While I cannot speak for all Hill style bows, I can say that mine have very little more hand shock than my R/D bows. Unlike my recurve, which I have to use a tab to shoot hunting tight groups without getting the occasional flyers, like I do when I use a glove with it, I can shoot my mild R/D bows with about the same accuracy and form as I do my Hill style bows. I do notice that an off release reacts a bit more with the shorter R/D bows. R/D bows have been around for as long as I have been alive, commercially, they were usually the cheaper models. I have never found where Hill had the more modern concept of them available, Hill referred to bows that gained a bit, recurve tipped and he found that they did not work for him, but they were not what we have today. With the modern versions, we see a refinement that Hill or anyone before him never saw. The R/D bows we have today for all practical purposes began with guys like Robertson, Rocky Miller and James Berry. I often wonder if the forgiveness difference is mostly a length issue.