# Straight vs. back set vs. string follow



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I am going to come clean and admit that I have no idea what you're talking about.

Somebody clue me in?


----------



## flyguysc (Apr 1, 2009)

Back set which comes in different increments of 1/4to1.5"(maybe more), allows for a heavier hunting shafts and increases feet per second by 5 or more.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Are we talking about something that beefs up the bow at the handle, decreasing brace height, and increasing power stroke, kind of like reflex in a riser?


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

I can do nothing beyond parroting what I have read. I have no knowledge or experience to validate these things I have read.

Using the “Straight Limbs” as the baseline Gold Standard:

The “Back Set Limbs” should be slightly faster, slightly noisier, slightly less forgiving, and should be slightly less pleasant to shoot compared to the “Straight Limbs”.

The “String Follow Limbs” should be slightly slower, slightly quieter, slightly more forgiving, and should be slightly more pleasant to shoot compared to the “Straight Limbs”.

The differences are real, but probably not important under most circumstances.

Obviously the “Straight Limbs” bow will be a much more handsome aesthetically pleasing bow than bows with the limb tips jutting a bit forward from the back of the limb (back set) or looking somewhat worn out with the limb tips trailing toward the string on the belly of the limb (string follow).


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Anybody got pictures?


----------



## JimPic (Apr 8, 2003)

I have ASL's with all three limb profiles and really can't see any big difference on performance between them. There's probably a few fps difference between them but I never clocked them. I do think the string follow bows are the smoothest shooters though.


----------



## JimPic (Apr 8, 2003)

Top to bottom...string follow, straight, backset


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

What we are looking at are minor tweaks on a flawed basic design. Backset Hill bows are slow but fairly smooth (for a Hill). Forward set Hills are less slow but also have a huge amount of handshock.

Put the backset in the riser, the forward set in the limbs and suddenly you have a modern hybrid. Which is really the better option.

Grant


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Sep 1, 2013)

What is a Martin ML14?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Lanny -

If you're going with Jim's pictures, what you're really talking about is reflex or deflex on the limbs.

If we look at the middle bow in Jim's picture, we have a relatively straight limb with mild reflex (the limb is slightly angling away from the shooter). 
Compare that with the bottom bow, which has more reflex, while the top bow has some degree of deflex (limbs angling towards the shooter). 

Simply, the more reflexed the limbs, the more stress there is at brace (height) and theoretically the more there will be throughout the draw. The more stress, the more weight, but there will also be a disproportionate increase in performance. Meaning you might add, let's say 2# of draw weight, but the bow will act 4 or 5# faster. What's not to like? 

Well, adding the extra reflex can bring on the stack point sooner (usually not an issue with "long" long bows), but can make the draw a little less smooth and "might" increase hand shock. That extra stress or energy has to go some where. Some people claim adding reflex can make a bow feel a little "twitchy". That's kinda subjective, so lets assume the bowyer knows how far he can go before things start to get ugly. 

That brings us to the top bow with the deflex. Yes, it will most likely be the smoothest on the draw, but at the cost of some performance. 

So it's basically pick your poison. 

BTW - the term sting follow has nothing to do with the amount of deflex and laminated Hill style bows do NOT have string follow. The original (and IMHO correct) definition of string follow is when a bow has been strung for whatever period of time, the limbs to not return to their original position or shape. This happens with a number of self bow, either long or flat bows and is a natural property of most woods. Adding fiberglass, carbon or whatever laminations pretty much stops that dead in it's tracks. And unless you're a self bow fancier, string follow is not some thing you would ever want. I'll let you figure out why.

Viper1 out.


----------



## longbowguy (Nov 14, 2004)

Considerable back set was common in longbows made 60 years ago. Some of those are still around and work fine in my hands. Strong back set has largely gone away, with just a touch of it in some brands, including my favorites from Howard Hill Archery. String follow designs have gained a recent following, which I suspect is more a fad than a real benefit. A number of archers whose opinion I respect say they can detect little difference. Neither can I. - lbg


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JimPic said:


> Top to bottom...string follow, straight, backset
> 
> View attachment 3584449


Thanks.


----------



## Lanny (May 4, 2005)

Viper thanks for that detailed summation. Everyone else who chimed in I also appreciate the info. Pushbutton 2, your's and my Martin ML-14 longbows appear to be of the "straight" version. How do you like yours? I'm enjoying mine but it took a brace height of at least 6.5" to lessen the handshock. Barneyslayer, everyone here can be veritable fountains of knowledge, would you agree?

With due deference to Viper's terminology, I'm thinking of going with the straight/reflex design but do admit to having interest in the stringfollow/deflex version as well.


----------



## rustycase (Oct 27, 2015)

grantmac said:


> Put the backset in the riser, the forward set in the limbs and suddenly you have a modern hybrid. Which is really the better option.
> 
> Grant


Tnx!
I learn a little bit, here and there...
rc


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Sep 1, 2013)

Lanny said:


> Viper thanks for that detailed summation. Everyone else who chimed in I also appreciate the info. Pushbutton 2, your's and my Martin ML-14 longbows appear to be of the "straight" version. How do you like yours? I'm enjoying mine but it took a brace height of at least 6.5" to lessen the handshock. Barneyslayer, everyone here can be veritable fountains of knowledge, would you agree?
> 
> With due deference to Viper's terminology, I'm thinking of going with the straight/reflex design but do admit to having interest in the stringfollow/deflex version as well.


I'm still a noob to traditional archery.
I'd bought a recurve last spring, shot it some. Than got the longbow just before season, not thinking I was hunting this year. My buddy called said he'd gotten a lease was I interested in hunting. I was!
I put my traditional gear down and picked my compound stuff back up. 
I've only shot it a handful of times. It's been for sale in the classifieds,want to finish paying off my long range gun. I sold my recurve to help pay it off.
I'll probably pick it back up now that seasons over. 
It's a 70# bow, I draw it 32". That makes it 82# at 32".


----------



## oldmand (Aug 18, 2015)

Probably totally inconsequential as far as this thread is concerned, but that middle bow doesn't look straight to me. Regardless, I now have a complete understanding of backset and string follow. Thanks. My "learn something new" for the day.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

I've owned all three types and in all honesty, there isn't one better than another. I say that because how the bowyer built and tillered the bow has a huge impact on hand shock and performance. Years ago I shot a forward handle straight limb bow and loved how it shot. It wasn't mine and I looked for a while for one like it. I finally found one and when I got it the bow was a huge letdown. It had terrible shock and slow. Nothing like the bow I had tried out but they were not the same brand. 

Since than I've owned and shot them all. I've found exemplary models of each type and others that were just awful. Point is, if you can, try before you buy. A particular shape won't always shoot like you think.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Just to elaborate on Viper's apt descriptions of each, the difference in performance comes from limb mass. When gluing up a bow the more reflexed the limbs the stiffer they are. If you take two 1/4" pieces of wood and glue them together into a bow, they might draw, say, 30#. If you glue those same two pieces together into 2" of reflex, they might draw as much as 40#- but the mass hasn't changed. It's the same two pieces of wood. Conversely, gluing them into 2" of deflex might yield only 25#... with the same mass. 

The small amounts of reflex or deflex glued into these limbs is pretty much neglible, as we're talking a much smaller difference. When you put deflex in the riser though, you can increase the limb reflex considerably more without losing stability. So instead of just 1/2" of reflex, you're gluing in perhaps 5" of total reflex. The final reflex on the bow may be about the same but the limb mass has now dropped significantly. The same happens with recurves, although you're now dealing with dramatically different widths as well.

It's just one big balancing act


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

I personally do not think of earlier bow designs as flawed designs.

A muzzle loading black powder rifle is an earlier design more outdated than a breech-loading rifle using cartridges filled with modern powder. A modern breech-loader inherently has more range and accuracy. 

Modern breech loading rifles are great! Yet some enjoy loading their rifle from the muzzle. Some prefer the less sharp push of the black powder recoil along with the rise of the muzzle. Some enjoy the air filled with smoke. Some prefer the deep loud boom of a black powder rifle report over the sharp earsplitting crack of a projectile breaking the sound barrier. Some get more enjoyment from shooting the earlier outdated design.

It has been estimated by some that the earlier outdated bow designs served mankind very well for as much as 40,000 years.

The most dead in the hand, powerful, fastest, and most accurate bows are compound bows. All traditional bows are lesser designs should these things be the only considerations. I have owned a number of compound bows over a 25 year period. They were great in regard to performance. However, I now value some other aspects of the archery experience more than the things offered by the most modern design.

I own or have owned a number of take down or one piece recurves, r/d longbows, straight-limbed longbows, and even briefly an expensive popular ILF. I have shot other trad bows that I did not own.

It seems that all trad bows are flawed designs compared to what can be achieved with the compound bow when certain criteria are elevated to the highest priority.

Among all the types of flawed designed traditional bows, while most are great, I personally have the best overall experience for my purposes with Hill-style bows.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

kegan said:


> It's just one big balancing act



An engineer once told me that he was taught that during design one must first make a list of the five most crucial design goals and then choose two or three because it is always a compromise.


----------



## Bowferd (Dec 15, 2007)

Viper, I somewhat agree with your definition although string follow may be built into a bow and still have no set. Bows that are designed to be straight or slightly reflexed and take some set may end up appearing string follow even though not intentional. The key word is set.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Bowford - 

Without going nuts with the "key word", which these days can be whatever the guy talking wants it to be, the difference between set and string follow is that the former becomes stable or permanent and that latter may continue until the bow becomes unusable , either due to failure or significant reduction in cast. 

Viper1 out.


----------

