Main Discussion Area > Bows
Richard Longbow
mullet:
Tom,I just reread the article again. No Peeing this time.Just magic dust. Basically if you put an 1/8"of rawhide on your ,looks like at least a 2" wide flat bow,It will increase the performance(his words).Also if you sprinkle bone dust on the bow over the hideglue it will change to super glue qualities and dry in 24 hours.Sounds like fairy dust.Anybody that has read Jim Hamm's books know that mixing bone dust and rawhide scrapings in hide glue helps the quality.As Mr. Longbow says you can't pull it off without removing wood.Hasn't that always been the way good wood glue works?Even without the magical dust?
duffontap:
Squirrel,
I don't remember if you said you were a bowyer or not. If you are not a bowyer, or perhaps are very new to bowyery, I could see how some of the comments we have made may seem disrespectful or rude. But we are not trying to be so. I've seen some lousy bows posted here (and built more than a couple myself ;D ) by beginners who are learning and looking for advice and I've never heard a forum member attack or tear such a person down. We all remember the struggles of learning to build bows and we love to see new people added to our numbers. This is not an exclusive club by any means.
Now regarding Richard Longbow--it is obvious that he is a fine craftsman with great attention to beauty and detail. No one is arguing that. The problem is that he is a professional bowyer who publishes very unorthodox, unscientific, non-traditional, non-Native-American techniques and claims, without offering any proof or explanation, that his bows are improved by these methods. Intentionally forcing set into otherwise strong wood (like ash) is a practice without precedent among Native Americans (who often sinew-backed bows so they were reflexed, and took great care in the seasoning process).
I don't believe it is ethical for Richard Longbow to sell his bows based on magical performance contrary to the laws of physics. If he were to follow the examples of most responsible researchers in primitive archery, he would publish flight distances or chronograph speeds to prove the advantages of his techniques. Ask any flight shooter here and they'll tell you why he doesn't. His bows will shoot well below average due to their set. There is no way around it. When you string the bow, it's easy to do right? Take one of Ryan's reflexed/recurved bows of the same weight and it would be way harder to string. Tightly wound springs are just springier.
If you do believe that his bows are superior, shoot a 500 grain arrow through your local archery shop's chronograph and give us the results. I'll be the first to apologize if we are wrong.
J. D. Duff
mullet:
J.D.,Well said.The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is ;Why hasn't Mr. Longbow rebutted any of this.Obviously he has access to a computer when he submits his articles.And now I'll probally get in trouble,Why is Primitive Archer buying this crap again.
psylvain:
Richard Longbow does not have internet connections, so he can't rebut any comments here.
Regarding the power of his bows -- mine is not easy to string. It takes some effort -- there is a lot of power and speed in it, as well.
No, I'm not a bowyer, and yes, I'm new to shooting bows. My friend Dave (who is pictured in the article, in camo) is an experienced archer, and has several of Richard Longbow's bows, and they are amazing. At least one is buffalo backed, and he did take a deer with it last year. It will do the job, despite appearances.
And, I'm sure most of y'all are a great bunch of folks, but some of the comments and cracks at the outset of this thread had little to do with the article, and more to do with trashing a guy whose approach to the craft may be a little different. The "spirit" crack is a case in point. Why does PA print his stuff? Maybe because he does offer something different, and worthy of fair and open discussion. Imagine how boring PA would be if everyone agreed with everything said and written, and if every one did things (built bows) exactly the same way.
Finally -- and for the record -- his Lakota name is Itazipa Hanska, or "one who makes bows" -- and he has been making bows since he was a child. He certainly did not take the "Longbow" name from another writer, or anyone else.
Anyway, some good comments and discussion here despite the other stuff.
oak:
This whole discussion makes me think of a fellow on the Leatherwall that supposedly makes horsebows the way his Great Grandfather did on the steps of Bulgaria or the Ukraine (it's kinda hard to tell cause he never exactly says the same thing twice). As somebody that has done some research into asiatic composites I find he seems to be deceiving people to sale bows.
It just saddens me that there would be people out there that make claims, sometimes outlandish, just so they can make a buck. There are things that are known in the archery community by anybody who has done any research into it that should be very common knowledge. Yet sometimes somebody has to break away from convention just to make a name for themselves to make a buck, even though 99% of the proof of physics and the study of archery and bow making is against them.
Just a couple of my thought in general that were brought up reading this thread.
Blake
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version