# Longbow lengths



## ncheels (Jun 3, 2009)

Are there advantages to having a shorter or longer length longbow? Some are 58" on up to 72". Is one length better than the other as far as speed, accuracy, vibration, etc? Or is it more for personal fit?

Thanks.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Pretty personal, but longer bows will have a smoother draw than a shorter model of the same bow, less finger pinch (from a less acute string angle) and more stability. Shorter bows can be easier to maneuver in the brush. 58" is pretty radically short. Howard Hill hunted all over the world with fairly long long bows (I don't know the length, 66-70?) in spite of there length.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

A lot of it depends on bow design, and personal fit. For instance, in a straight limbed longbow you'll need a longer length than with a radical deflex/reflex. Some drawing 32" will need a longer bow than someone drawing 26". Longer is generally smoother and more stable (to a point). I hunt and compete with longbows ranging from 66" to 72". My draw length is 30.5", approx.

Chad


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

As Warbow and LBR said, a striaght limbed, or even semi-straight, will benefiet the shooter a great deal with a longer length. Howard Hill loved and stuck fast to a 72" longbow thorught most of his career. I personally prefer 68-70" with a 27" draw. 

The limbs act as stabilizers for twisting, so ithis helps archers shoot from various cants without twisting. This also adds stability to a bow that, unlike a recurve and compound, weigh very little physically. The long length also gives you a nice obtuse angle where your fingers are. This helps you prevent pinching the arrow (on a longer bow you can actually shoot split finger and your top finger need never come in contact with the arrow- giving a cleaner arrow flight).

Most shorter "longbows" are little more than recruves without the heavy, stable riser. They work, but all the manuverability in the world doesn't mean they still have the same qualities as they're longer coutnerparts. Though, in all fairness, ALOT of people like them.


----------



## ncheels (Jun 3, 2009)

This is great feedback. After looking at a couple, my favorite was a 72" longbow and this feedback makes me feel much better about it.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

ncheels said:


> This is great feedback. After looking at a couple, my favorite was a 72" longbow and this feedback makes me feel much better about it.
> 
> Thanks a lot.


Don't worry about shoting a longer longbow. If nothing else they're dramatic!


----------



## Jamesw (Sep 14, 2007)

I agree with the others.I only draw 26" bit still prefer longer bows.Most times they are a little faster than short bows because they store more energy.Although they might have more mass in the limbs they have to move less than short limbs.I don't like recurves under 62" and like a 70" longbow best.


----------



## trentcur (Feb 26, 2009)

longer bows are MUCH for forgiving of any shooter "glitches" as well. Smooth also........ and reallllly quiet


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I'd also like to throw this one up there: some longbows are inferior to recurves as far as speed is concerened. A good recruve should be able to hit 175 fps and over, but some longbows are as slow as 150 (which you wouldn't notice until you actually started shooting at 50+ yards). Anyway, despite that speed, if the bow is smooth and doesn't have any handschok, the archer should still be able to get the arrows to the target in a relatively neat fashion Because your subconscious can map the arrow's flight better.

I was told htis by a longtime longbow and recurve shooter. At first I thought he was pulling my leg until his wife took a short video of him hitting a milk jug with his longbow and wooden arrow at 110 yards.


----------

