Main Discussion Area > Bows
Richard Longbow
Justin Snyder:
George is right. Lets stick to discussing things that can be measured. Some cannot be proved, but if you can substantiate the claim it is acceptable. Some disagree with Badger's mass formula, others disagree with Marc's heat treating. Both of these guys make incredible bows and can show how their theories work for them. They cannot prove them but can certainly show substantial evidence to support it. Lets leave the "spiritual" part and the personal attacks out and discuss the parts we can substantiate or disprove. Justin
psylvain:
--- Quote from: George Tsoukalas on May 22, 2007, 01:08:17 pm ---I read the article and its content seemed pretty good. The bow pictured at the end of article also seemed fairly attractive and the set wasn't all that much.I also don't agree that rawhide appreciably approves cast. I don't agree with the religious aspects and I'd be happy to discuss them but not here. I don't agree with everything that I've read in all of the 3 surviving trad mags and I'm sure people don't agree with everything that I have written. That's ok. That's what makes life interesting. :) Jawge
--- End quote ---
FWIW, the bow pictured in Longbow's article was mine, while it was being made late last fall. It is the same bow I submitted for Bow of the Month in January, and which stirred quite a lot of commentary. The finished bow had some diamond-shapped designs painted on the buffalo hide backing, which was done by Longbow after these pix were taken.
The bow being shot in the "camo" picture by David Green in the same article being discussed here, also is a buffalo-backed bow, of the same basic design and build, but maybe two inches shorter in length than mine. His is pretty stout -- about a 60- or 65-pound pull, I believe. Mine is a bit less, only because I'm not as strong as Dave, so Longbow tillered it down some.
I can only learn about primitive archery by reading and doing. Bow-making is a subject I'm not well-versed enough in, and therefore not really qualified, to discuss at any length. For me, the enjoyment of shooting the bow, especially out on a stump trail in Maine, or with David, is enough, and this bow does everything I want it to do.
In the most untechnical of terms, I can say the bow shwon being made in the article does shoot smooth, and has a lot more snap than you might think. It is quick, especially in the hands of someone like David, who is way more experienced and practiced than I am. The bow, itself, is light in weight, and perfectly balanced. Yes, it is a piece of art, but functional art, and I have no doubt that if I was a hunter, this bow would be deadly.
While I may not know much about bows, I do know something about guitars (40-plus years of playing them), and very often people focus too much on the minutia and numbers and technical stuff, rather than just enjoying the instrument. If it plays good, feels good, sounds good to the guitarist, that's all that should matter. I see it the same way with my buffalo-backed bow. There probably are a number of valid reasons for it goes against the grain of tried and true bow-making -- but, heck, it works for me, and that's all that matters, at least to me.
But a civil discussion is always welcome, as was th4e case about my bow in January, and as this discussion seems to be now. I do know that I see some pretty nice looking work being cranked out every month by many of the bowmakers who visit here. I would qualify many of these as functional art, as well.
Paul
Justin Snyder:
Paul, what would be really nice is if you can make it out to some of the primitive events/shoots. Maybe you can let a few guys shoot your bow (make sure they aren't drawing to far before you let them hold it). Then they could judge the performance for themselves. You could also shoot a bunch of other bows. This would give you something to compare the bow too.
As a site with MANY NEWBIES, we get a little excited when we see things that 999 times out of 1000 will decrease the performance to the point we consider the bow ruined. We don't want to attack the bowyer. But we do want to prevent newbies from being missled by information that we think is going to make their bowbuilding experience a bad experience. If you read through the posts you will find many guys asking if the bow they made has to much set to be a viable hunting weapon, it is not just yours we are concerned with. Final weight can be extremely high without performance being there. I guarantee Marc St Louis can make a bow that has 5" of set and draws 60# at 6". It will not cast an arrow very good, so you wont see him doing it. Justin
StanM:
For me proof is in the pudding, so to speak. It's why I have and use a chronograph. Helps me determine the performance of my bows. I reserve judgement on the bows Mr. Longbow crafts until someone can put numbers to them that allow me to make useful comparisons.
Paul, is it possible you could take the bow someplace and have the speed of a known weight arrow measured? Perhaps it could be shot for distance with an arrow of known weight, though there are more variables in that approach.
Thanks,
Stan
marvin:
Paul,
I would strongly recommend reading the Traditional Bowyers Bible I book. The chapter on bow design and performance will help you understand some the issues experienced bowyers have with Richards assertions. The sister site to PA, www.horsefeathersranch.com sells the book along with it's other volumes II and III.
If you can't get it let me know and I will gladly loan mine to read.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version