# what would you get and why?



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Being how it is your first trad bow, neither...............but if your dead set on one of those then the Kodiak would probably be a bit easier to shoot well. If your wondering why I said neither, there are a couple of reasons. First, 45# is too much to learn with, Second, both of those bows will run you $400+, Third, get a copy of "Shooting the Stickbow" and do what the author suggests. In a few months you will know much better what bow you really want, will have a good solid foundation built, know how much bow you can really handle, and will likely be money ahead instead buying too fancy and too heavy first, selling and buying another bow you can handle (very common and expensive mistake). By all means pick up a bow (old used target bows are great, plenty of Bear's also) and get shooting, just make it closer to 30#, take your time at close range and enjoy the journey. Welcome to Trad archery.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Recurve vs. Longbow

You'll have great fun with either ... and still end up with the other one later on, anyway. 

Go with your gut.


----------



## DEAc23 (Jun 7, 2013)

I chose the Kodiak, because that's what I would choose if I wanted to make a decision between those two. However like centershot mentioned I would go with a lower weight to start with, I started with 35# and it's been perfect for me. I also wouldn't spend that much on my first bow, I would try to find a good shape vintage Bear bow at a decent price. I got my vintage 35# Bear Black Bear for $30, and a vintage 48# Kodiak Hunter for $95 (sold it though) - both were off of CraigsList locally...


----------



## Bandman72 (Aug 25, 2009)

While I don't disagree with centershot, you pose a difficult question...I really like shootin a longbow...and I really like shootin a recurve. There are so many choices of bows to shoot...I'd say go to some tournaments and mingle with the shooters...most will let you shoot their bow...then you can determine what you like/need/want. 

Pro's of a longbow...limbs are less prone to twist. I use the push pull method to string my longbows (no stringer) and have never had any problems. At 64", the Ausable will be smooth. I think the Ausable is cut a bit past center so tuning will be less difficult than on some.

Pro's of a recurve...might be a tad bit faster given a similar weight do to design and it having slightly shorter limbs. If you think you might hunt...the shorter overall length of the recurve might help with clearance.

No con's!

I'd enjoy owning either of the bows you listed.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

Well, everyone will give you a different answer for this one. The reason for that is...it really comes down to opinion.

40% of the people will say get the recurve 40% will say get the long bow 20% will say get neither 45 pounds is too much. (lmao) The long bow vs recurve debate really comes down to which one you think looks cooler to be honest. They each have small advantages and disadvantages over each other, and speed isn't really one for the recurve, todays reflex/deflex long bows pretty much have done away with the speed argument. I'll say I like the reduced handshock of the heavier riser on a recurve though.

I went with recurve because I think they look sexy, thats pretty much my whole reasoning.

Aside from the style debate...

I'll say this. 

I went from compounds to a traditional bow in 45 pounds, despite the repeated efforts by many people on here (not that they were in the wrong!) to sway me away from 45 pounds and to go with something lighter.

In my experience, 45 pounds *is in fact too much, however,* it totally depends on your situation. 

Take me for example, I went with a 45 pound bow right out the gate because I knew I wasn't going to have the money to buy another bow anytime soon, I tend to throw my self all the way into new hobbies and I figured it'd only be a matter of months before I wanted a heavier bow.

So I went with 45 to start, did I struggle a little? Absolutely, I was shaking like a leaf holding 45 pounds for the first few weeks. But I kept at it and like I said threw my self all the way into it, shooting arrows every day until it felt like my arms were going to fall off.

Within a few weeks my fingers quit hurting and I started getting steadier holding at draw. I literally didn't worry about form or accuracy at all, I just tried to be smooth and deliberate. Once I was steady enough to hold my bow comfortably for at least 6 seconds I began working on form etc etc and the rest is history.

Starting with too much weight isn't necessarily bad, as long as you don't cement your self into bad form and bad technique early on because of it. And yes, obviously if you were talking about starting with something like 60 pounds I'd say absolutely not. But 45 pounds while I agree technically is a little much to begin with, I would argue that there is nothing wrong with starting at it, as long as you keep the above mentioned in mind.

As long as your always constantly trying to learn better form and correct your current form, you'll be set.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Really depends on you and what you prefer. Me personally, I'd go with the longbow...because I like longbows. Quieter, more versitile, more durable. My "go-to, do-everything" bow is a longbow...although I also own recurves and selfbows.

It's pretty much impossible to give an informed opinion without knowing more about you. If you have a 25" draw length, you might prefer the 62" Ausable and maybe a little more draw weight. If you have a 30" draw, you might want to look at a different bow alltogether, and in a lower draw weight. Do you have any experience with longbows or recurves?

If at all possible, get your hands on both and see what feels best to you. All you will get from a message board are opinions and guesses from people who have no skin in the game.


----------



## drifted.Arrow (Dec 27, 2012)

sorry guys I should have added, its not my first time shooting a trad bow. just the first one I would be buying for my self.
I been shooting my friends bows, one of them has the 
50# ausable the other a 
50# super mag my other friend has the 
50# grizzly

I shot those for a while. and I shoot a 70# compound. and I shoot a lot. so I know that if I can do 50 and much more comfortable with 45#
anything less then that is a little weak for me. 

so I have done my research of the pounds and what bows I have eliminated. and the price is not a factor.
yes just like "Thin Man" said. I most likely will end up with both. 

I really like the smooth feel of the ausable long bow. but am really wanting to try the Kodiak.
im lucky to get the chance to shoot both before I buy. my local shop ordered them both and will be stocking them this year. 
so I will get the chance to try both.


----------



## drifted.Arrow (Dec 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> Really depends on you and what you prefer. Me personally, I'd go with the longbow...because I like longbows. Quieter, more versitile, more durable. My "go-to, do-everything" bow is a longbow...although I also own recurves and selfbows.
> 
> It's pretty much impossible to give an informed opinion without knowing more about you. If you have a 25" draw length, you might prefer the 62" Ausable and maybe a little more draw weight. If you have a 30" draw, you might want to look at a different bow alltogether, and in a lower draw weight. Do you have any experience with longbows or recurves?
> 
> If at all possible, get your hands on both and see what feels best to you. All you will get from a message board are opinions and guesses from people who have no skin in the game.


im 6.0 and about 190-200lbs im more on the built side.
my draw is 29" 
I have had experience with both long bow and recurve.
I have shot the Ausable and im waiting to shoot the Kodiak.
I don't really aim much, I find my instinctive shooting has been doing well for me. the reason why I like it so much.
so I don't really care for forum and proper shooting. not going fita. I have shot from 10y out to 40y so far. and over all im ok. I hit the paper lol or near it.
this would be my fun bow. just play around and maybe shoot small game. maybe one day hunt with it. but not anytime soon.
I love the feeling of stick and string. 

to best describe my shooting I would have to say I would be more like Lars Andersen just not looking to set records or do multi arrow shots like he does. just become a good shot from instinct alone. learn it so well like throwing a ball or shooting a hoop. not focus on forum and stance. 

and last you mentioned that I can only get everyone's personal opinion only, that's what im looking for. just to see what would each of you individually pick. this may or may not effect my final choice. more curious then anything


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Which Kodiak?

If you mean the '59 reissue (this one...http://www.beararcheryproducts.com/bows/traditional), I'd be all over that. I have not seen one in person but have read that they are built to a very high standard. There aren't that many iconic traditional bows but that would have to qualify. Probably the defining example of the genre referred to as '50s style recurves.

If you mean a 60" Super Kodiak I have no experience with it, but that would still be my choice since I'm a recurve guy.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

If you must have a Bear then I'd recommend the 64" Super Kodiak, preferably under 40#. For the same money or less there are much better bows.

Eventually you will want to become more accurate. The mistakes you make picking your first bow will stick around much longer then it does.

-Grant


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

grantmac said:


> If you must have a Bear then I'd recommend the 64" Super Kodiak, preferably under 40#. For the same money or less there are much better bows.
> 
> Eventually you will want to become more accurate. The mistakes you make picking your first bow will stick around much longer then it does.
> 
> -Grant


Grant has a good point, if you are open to a longer bow you might like the 64" length. From what you wrote, I'm about the same size as you and strongly prefer my 64" recurves over my 60"ers.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I would have to get the Ausable. I would have trouble shooting both with my long draw, but 60 inches is way to short for me. Also, I prefer longbows when I go traditional. I shoot recurves enough with my FITA barebows.


----------



## northern boy (Aug 25, 2010)

I would get a one piece samick redstag recurve 60" 169.00 an a samick trail blazer longbow 68" in 35# or 40# 219.00 an two custom strings 40.00 for about 430.00 you will have both to try out for less money.


----------



## Jeb-D. (Sep 21, 2011)

64" Grayling Green Super Kodiak.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

northern boy said:


> I would get a one piece samick redstag recurve 60" 169.00 an a samick trail blazer longbow 68" in 35# or 40# 219.00 an two custom strings 40.00 for about 430.00 you will have both to try out for less money.


Good call, I bought two Samick SLB longbows at $199 each. I was seriously considering the Trailblazer but decided to go the extra inch and get the 69 inch SLB's. Pictures of the Trailblazer show it looking very similar to the SLB, except using clear rather than brown fiberglass. Maybe they put a better looking laminate of wood on the outside so they do not need to cover it up with brown. It is amazing what $199 can buy.


----------



## XnavyHMCS (Apr 25, 2013)

I must weigh-in here. 
I would get the #45 trad bow. Don't listen to these guys with all this talk about going lighter... etc... I fully understand the concept and the idea, but I disagree, to a point. I am new to the sport, and bought a #45 Hoyt GM II. I feel that I am handling that bow quite well, and that a beginner can and will grow into a bow with a heavy draw weight. I am seriously looking to buy another bow (for stumping/roving/fun/and to shoot when a friend comes over) Bear #55, and I have only been shooting for just over 100 days. I feel, with all my inexperience, that #45 is a great place to start. Provided the man is physically fit, and maybe he has the intention to take down some game animals, then inmy view, anything less than #45 is too little a bow to be effective...

Just my two cents here gentlemen. I am by far, no expert. But, I am having a great time with #45, and I will rock-out #55 when I get that second bow!!!! I can't wait!!! Now, the sun is yet to come up, here in Poland. After all this talk, I am going out to the yard to shoot my "dreaded blue bag" homemade 3D target!!!!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

XnavyHMCS said:


> I must weigh-in here.
> I would get the #45 trad bow. Don't listen to these guys with all this talk about going lighter... etc... I fully understand the concept and the idea, but I disagree, to a point. I am new to the sport, and bought a #45 Hoyt GM II. I feel that I am handling that bow quite well, and that a beginner can and will grow into a bow with a heavy draw weight. I am seriously looking to buy another bow (for stumping/roving/fun/and to shoot when a friend comes over) Bear #55, and I have only been shooting for just over 100 days. I feel, with all my inexperience, that #45 is a great place to start. Provided the man is physically fit, and maybe he has the intention to take down some game animals, then inmy view, anything less than #45 is too little a bow to be effective...
> 
> Just my two cents here gentlemen. I am by far, no expert. But, I am having a great time with #45, and I will rock-out #55 when I get that second bow!!!! I can't wait!!! Now, the sun is yet to come up, here in Poland. After all this talk, I am going out to the yard to shoot my "dreaded blue bag" homemade 3D target!!!!


Care to post a picture with your average 20 yard group?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

XnavyHMCS said:


> I must weigh-in here.
> I would get the #45 trad bow. Don't listen to these guys with all this talk about going lighter... etc... I fully understand the concept and the idea, but I disagree, to a point. I am new to the sport, and bought a #45 Hoyt GM II. I feel that I am handling that bow quite well, and that a beginner can and will grow into a bow with a heavy draw weight. I am seriously looking to buy another bow (for stumping/roving/fun/and to shoot when a friend comes over) Bear #55, and I have only been shooting for just over 100 days. I feel, with all my inexperience, that #45 is a great place to start. Provided the man is physically fit, and maybe he has the intention to take down some game animals, then inmy view, anything less than #45 is too little a bow to be effective...
> 
> Just my two cents here gentlemen. I am by far, no expert. But, I am having a great time with #45, and I will rock-out #55 when I get that second bow!!!! I can't wait!!! Now, the sun is yet to come up, here in Poland. After all this talk, I am going out to the yard to shoot my "dreaded blue bag" homemade 3D target!!!!


I guess I have to go with the guy who is new to the sport. 100 days is a life time in archery.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Sounds great, run out and get the 45#'er, in a couple months I can pick it up for 1/2 price on the classifieds...........would not be the first time. As for the Samick Longbows that is a great idea, if only Lancaster could get them in stock. I've been waiting for a 35# Samick Verna to be in stock since June. They are supposed to be in late November, will have to wait and see because they were supposed to be in back in July, back in August, and back in September also.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with the Kodiak. I'm a longbow guy but I just really don't like the Bear longbows. For the money, you can start getting into some nice custom longbows that will shoot the pants off of them.

As for the weight arguement: you are the only person you have to make happy. That said, there is no such thing as a bow that's "too weak" for a person. If you don't think 40# is enough to cleanly kill an animal, either you're shooting a bow that isn't delivering any sort of decent performance, or your shooting form is so poor that you aren't getting the most out of your bow. At your draw, you'll be getting about 42-44# depending on if the bow stacks or not. If you've been shooting 53# on other folk's bows, then maybe 48# will be fine. But if you're a hunter, and you're just getting started, for the price of either of those bows you can get a bow that will really deliver some energy at a lighter draw weight- possibly more than those at the 50# your friends are shooting.

It's just like compouds- some bows deliver more energy than others. With traditional, where you're holding every ounce on your fingers at full draw, it's not hard to appreciate a bow that gives you more bang for a buck (or doe or pig or turkey). 

If those bows are an indication of your price range, I'd get a Pinnacle II ILF recurve (Lancaster sells the whole bow set up with a set of BlackMax limbs for $400). Much, much better bow for the money in my opinion.


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

I would have to agree here, the new 59 Kodiak is sweet, if you like Bears, its night and day from a grizz try and shoot this one first


Easykeeper said:


> Which Kodiak?
> 
> If you mean the '59 reissue (this one...http://www.beararcheryproducts.com/bows/traditional), I'd be all over that. I have not seen one in person but have read that they are built to a very high standard. There aren't that many iconic traditional bows but that would have to qualify. Probably the defining example of the genre referred to as '50s style recurves.
> 
> If you mean a 60" Super Kodiak I have no experience with it, but that would still be my choice since I'm a recurve guy.


----------



## drifted.Arrow (Dec 27, 2012)

tpcowfish said:


> I would have to agree here, the new 59 Kodiak is sweet, if you like Bears, its night and day from a grizz try and shoot this one first


im talking about the new Kodiak they brought back for 2014. ill look at the super Kodiak because its longer but still want to try them both.

and im looking for a fun bow I can stomp and play bow poker. I mean everything, I like 45# to keep my option open to maybe one day be able to hunt big game with like deer. black tail and mule. 
im good on the 45#s  
just wanted your opinions on what you would get if you had a choice of these 2. 
don't forget to vote on the poll. it gets me a good percentage. 
your vote may or may not effect my choice and I wont come back on here saying I hate you all for choosing one over the other. lol no one is liable for my choice I make  so just post up what you would get in your day in day out FUN bow. used for everything. 

so far we are doing good. keep this up boys and girls. I like the feed back im getting so far. 
brought a few points of view for me and had to ask myself a few more questions just from reading your feed back and thoughts.


----------



## drifted.Arrow (Dec 27, 2012)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Good call, I bought two Samick SLB longbows at $199 each. I was seriously considering the Trailblazer but decided to go the extra inch and get the 69 inch SLB's. Pictures of the Trailblazer show it looking very similar to the SLB, except using clear rather than brown fiberglass. Maybe they put a better looking laminate of wood on the outside so they do not need to cover it up with brown. It is amazing what $199 can buy.


thanks but I really like the bear bows. not looking to save money, and don't care to get the best bow in the world. just looking to make a choice between these 2. I have shot a few other brands from cheaper bows out to Wes Wallace custom bows.
I just really like the BEAR bows.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

drifted.Arrow said:


> im talking about the new Kodiak they brought back for 2014. ill look at the super Kodiak because its longer but still want to try them both.
> 
> and im looking for a fun bow I can stomp and play bow poker. I mean everything, I like 45# to keep my option open to maybe one day be able to hunt big game with like deer. black tail and mule.
> im good on the 45#s
> ...


I have a copy of the '59 Kodiak made my John McCullough, surprisingly enough named the 59'er. Sweet shooting bow. I posted a link earlier to the Bear re-issue of the original...very nice from everything I've read.


----------



## Dad (Apr 11, 2004)

Their are a couple of 45# Super Kodiaks in the classifieds right now and they are very reasonable.


----------



## longbowguy (Nov 14, 2004)

The Kodiak. Short longbows make no sense to me and Ausable is a dumb name. They spelled it wrong. Kodiak is a great name. - Longbowguy


----------



## Dad (Apr 11, 2004)

AuSable is a river that goes through Grayling and Fred Bear spent a lot of time on that river.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Care to post a picture with your average 20 yard group?


 I like seeing groups too.


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

well i for one would go with the kodiak but i love pretty much any bear recurve. as far as getting a lighter one i would just do what you want. 45# sounds great for just shooting. i got on this forum just recently but i have pretty much been lurking for a while and it seems everyone that can't manage a reasonable weight bow is out to convert everyone to something around 35#. its crazy to me because if you are hunting these bows aren't even legal in many states. if your going to kill paper plates and hay bales and whitetails by all means get a 35# bow. i know you (the OP) are set on 45# and someone talked about moving to 55# rather quickly..you know what, go for it I found 45# very easy to handle and shoot a descent group with. i wont be entering any competitions but thats not what i'm trying for. peoples physical skill differs greatly as does their shooting, yes easing into it easy and working up is advised but even ol' fred himself was wielding 70# + bows when he was 3,000 years old so you could probably manage...to much negativity and pretty bold assumptions about people you don't know going on around here. as a side note its maybe not as nice but what about the "super Kodiak":wink:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

The people suggesting the lighter bow _to start_ are doing so because 90% of the guys who start over 40# can't actually shoot decent groups consistently, regardless of what they think. You don't start heavy and "work into it" and actually get good. You start light and work up. 

In the end you're the only one you have to make happy, but there are faster, and easier, ways to do it.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> The people suggesting the lighter bow _to start_ are doing so because 90% of the guys who start over 40# can't actually shoot decent groups consistently, regardless of what they think. You don't start heavy and "work into it" and actually get good. You start light and work up.
> 
> In the end you're the only one you have to make happy, but there are faster, and easier, ways to do it.




Yeah sure there is, like a 50lb Omega?:teeth:
Btw, are you sure that 90% can't shoot over 40lbs? Or have you been hangin out with Grant too much?:dancing:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Yeah sure there is, like a 50lb Omega?:teeth:
> Btw, are you sure that 90% can't shoot over 40lbs? Or have you been hangin out with Grant too much?:dancing:


From what I've seen watching hundreds of new archers at 3D, the number is closer to 95%.

You seem to have a misconception that I can't shoot heavy, which is incorrect. I choose to not discuss it on here because it can lead to new archers choosing a weight that is unsuitable to learn. I was shooting a 45# when I was 12 (probably drawing 25"/~35# judging by an old arrow), by my mid-20s I had made and shot several selfbows over 60#.
I'd never recommend a new archer do that though, it's set me back years. I would be a far better archer today if I'd stayed at a weight I could dominate. Unfortunately I'd started so heavy that I never knew what the meant until I saw archers who actually could (again, none at local 3D).

-Grant


----------



## J-in-AK (Oct 1, 2013)

grantmac said:


> From what I've seen watching hundreds of new archers at 3D, the number is closer to 95%.
> 
> You seem to have a misconception that I can't shoot heavy, which is incorrect. I choose to not discuss it on here because it can lead to new archers choosing a weight that is unsuitable to learn. I was shooting a 45# when I was 12 (probably drawing 25"/~35# judging by an old arrow), by my mid-20s I had made and shot several selfbows over 60#.
> I'd never recommend a new archer do that though, it's set me back years. I would be a far better archer today if I'd stayed at a weight I could dominate. Unfortunately I'd started so heavy that I never knew what the meant until I saw archers who actually could (again, none at local 3D).
> ...


thats funny my first bow when i was probably in 4th grade or so was a 45# grizzly my dad had laying around and some mismatched arrows of various construction. im sure my draw was about half the advertised weight at the time but its is still funny how we have progressed to all the kids bows we have today. when i started it was whatever i could get my hands on. i agree with what you guys are preaching starting light and learning proper form before jumping in the deep. some of us started with whatever we could get our hands on thats what people today are still doing so when i see comments like "you'll never learn anything with that bow its too heavy" i think about me at probably 10-12 years old with a grown mans bow and I turned out ok...to each their own.. its just advice not to be confused with factual information. seems like the kodiak is winning and what a nice bow that would be.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

J-in-AK said:


> thats funny my first bow when i was probably in 4th grade or so was a 45# grizzly my dad had laying around and some mismatched arrows of various construction. im sure my draw was about half the advertised weight at the time but its is still funny how we have progressed to all the kids bows we have today. when i started it was whatever i could get my hands on. i agree with what you guys are preaching starting light and learning proper form before jumping in the deep. some of us started with whatever we could get our hands on thats what people today are still doing so when i see comments like "you'll never learn anything with that bow its too heavy" i think about me at probably 10-12 years old with a grown mans bow and I turned out ok...to each their own.. its just advice not to be confused with factual information. seems like the kodiak is winning and what a nice bow that would be.


It depends on what your definition of turning out okay is. I didn't become good until I dropped down to 30# for a year. If someone had given me the advice that I now give I would be a better archer (and I'm pretty good).

-Grant


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Yeah sure there is, like a 50lb Omega?:teeth:
> Btw, are you sure that 90% can't shoot over 40lbs? Or have you been hangin out with Grant too much?:dancing:


Just wait until I finish my Delta Imperial:wink:

Anyway, my numbers were based on the people I've met in real life. Of all of the folks I've met who have tried/got into traditional archery, Tony is the only person I know who got any good with a bow over 40#, and even he had a nice spike after spending some time with a 40# bow for a while. I was being a bit generous, figuring there had to be more than that. Even folks shooting heavy compounds seem to have a tough time getting good with a bow like that. 

It's all up to the individual. If they're happy, that's great. If they're not, a light bow helps speed accuracy up.


----------



## drifted.Arrow (Dec 27, 2012)

ok you guys, disregard the #s im more looking to hear feed back of the bow/s. I know what I need to shoot and be happy with. not looking on a pounds lesson here at this time. I will try to shoot my friends bow and maybe get a group in. not sure when the next chance ill get to do that though. we work different hours and I don't see him much. ill shoot at 50 pounds and get a group going.

BTW its my fun bow, im not looking to compete or be died on accurate. if that was the case I would be getting a compound bow set up for target shooting Vegas style. im in to the sport. and I know that if I want to shoot for fun and maybe if I like it hunt with I need #45 pounds. im pretty sure that was the requirement in my state for big game any way. plus I shot 50# and was satisfied with my groups.

so lets consecrate on the bows  and not the #s


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

drifted.Arrow said:


> ok you guys, disregard the #s im more looking to hear feed back of the bow/s. I know what I need to shoot and be happy with. not looking on a pounds lesson here at this time. I will try to shoot my friends bow and maybe get a group in. not sure when the next chance ill get to do that though. we work different hours and I don't see him much. ill shoot at 50 pounds and get a group going.
> 
> BTW its my fun bow, im not looking to compete or be died on accurate. if that was the case I would be getting a compound bow set up for target shooting Vegas style. im in to the sport. and I know that if I want to shoot for fun and maybe if I like it hunt with I need #45 pounds. im pretty sure that was the requirement in my state for big game any way. plus I shot 50# and was satisfied with my groups.
> 
> so lets consecrate on the bows  and not the #s


If you must get a hunting weight Bear then get the 64" Super Kodiak, it's just a better bow for your DL.

-Grant


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Drifted arrow,

We were just trying to help you get the most out of the experience. There are lots of folks like you who shoot compound seriously, but don't take traditional seriously because you never get to experience how accurate you can really be with them. I've shot with several great guys and gals who were just like that- and they all had the same issues: too much bow, in designs that cost too much for how poorly they performed. They might shoot the occasional traditional-only 3D, but they never bother trying to hunt with them and they don't practice enough with them to actually get good enough to do so, because they've made it pretty hard to get there.

If you're not interested in getting better and just killing time, it doesn't matter which bow we suggest, you should just go with the one that you like more, because both are decent bows and you wouldn't be any worse off with one over the other, so just go with the one you keep looking at most.


----------



## papadeerhtr (Sep 6, 2013)

I think 64 in bow length is perfect they are smoother and quieter in general. the Asable is cut to center and will tune easily this will probably be my next bow also, I am 6ft 3 in and shoot 31 in arrow and buy all my bows at 45lb think it is just perfect weight and will kill anything in north America quite efficiently.


----------

