# 25" or 27" riser for a tall archer?



## Lightscape (11 mo ago)

I'm just starting out with archery and recently decided on going with Olympic recurve as what I focus on, so I've started looking at parts I would need for my first bow. Talking to the guys at my local range, the general consensus there is that I should be getting a 27" riser (since I'm about 6'3" tall and have a draw length around 31") so I can get a 70 or 72" long bow for target shooting. 

I'm wondering if I would really get a worthwhile advantage with the 27" riser over a 25" riser? The 25" is much easier to find (and, thus, less expensive), so I'm really curious if the length difference is important enough to justify the extra hassle/price tag?


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Options and string angle.

A 72” bow will have a flatter string angle, so you will likely have more consistent anchor references (although this depends a lot on facial geometry). You’ll also see less finger pinch, but that shouldn’t be a huge issue with a 70” bow anyway.

People will talk about smoothness, but there are a half-dozen other ways to get a smoother draw. I wouldn’t stress that. Longer risers do tend to be more stable, but that's what your stabilizers are for. 

You’ll never need a 66” bow. So a 27” riser lets you get a 68, 70, or 72” bow. This gives you room to experiment if you want to/need to. It’s often easier to borrow or get a used set of limbs.

The good news is that there aren’t any bad 27” risers. The quality control necessary is too high. The bad news is that there aren’t any cheap 27” risers for the same reason.

The most affordable is the Kinetic Sovren. Mybo’s Wave XL is next, followed by the Gillo G1. AFAIK, Vittorio of Gillo designed the first commercially available 27” riser, and the G1 shared that geometry. I know it’s a favorite of many long draw archers.

If really necessary, you could get away with a 70” bow (25+longs). But a full CNC 25” riser is only about $50 less than the cheapest 27.


----------



## BuzzMA (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes 27"!!! I'm 6"2 with a 31 3/4" DL.I very much prefer my 27" Hoyt RX over my 25" Hoyt RX.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Lightscape said:


> I'm just starting out with archery and recently decided on going with Olympic recurve as what I focus on, so I've started looking at parts I would need for my first bow. Talking to the guys at my local range, the general consensus there is that I should be getting a 27" riser (since I'm about 6'3" tall and have a draw length around 31") so I can get a 70 or 72" long bow for target shooting.
> 
> I'm wondering if I would really get a worthwhile advantage with the 27" riser over a 25" riser? The 25" is much easier to find (and, thus, less expensive), so I'm really curious if the length difference is important enough to justify the extra hassle/price tag?


Either will work. I'm 6'4" and have a 32.5" draw length. I used a 25" riser and long limbs for a 70" bow, for many years. Only once 27" risers became available (I had the first one in the U.S.) did I start using longer risers. But even then, I went on to shoot many of my best outdoor scores with the 70" bow. 

Just pick one you like and get after it. Easy to over think in this sport.


----------



## ijb (12 mo ago)

As a beginner myself, I was told by numerous sources to start out with fairly inexpensive and light draw-weight limbs and to step up to more expensive and higher draw-weight limbs after 6 to 12 months depending on increases in skill and strength. If you plan to follow this same advice, you may want to consider a Gillo GT riser (which is available in 25", 27", 29" and even 31" sizes). This riser allows adjusting draw-weight +/- 15 percent. With this range of adjustment, if you choose your initial limbs carefully, you can likely get more use from them before needing to upgrade and if you choose your second set of limbs carefully, you may not need to upgrade again. This could save some money in the long run.

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## yifuqiao (May 31, 2021)

My draw length is 31 inches.
I have both 25 inch riser and 27 inch risers.
I also own long ILF limbs, long formula limbs, extra long limbs from Hoyt.
These equipment enables me to make 70, 72, 73 and 75 inch bows.

I have been having success with 72 inch bow (27 inch riser + long limbs) and 73 inch bow(25 inch riser +Hoyt extra long limbs)

My personally experiment is that the shorter the bow is, the more energy it seems to consume to shoot. Trust me. I tried to make 70 inch bows to work, but it just feels a little exhausting when shooting 70 inch bow for me; shooting 70 inch bow also seems to require very careful hooking to avoid pinching the arrows.
String angle is another thing to consider based on your facial structure, but in my personal experience, I don’t have any issue with string angle with any configuration.

to answer your question, I think either 25 or 27 would work.There are plenty limbs choices to work with your choice of riser.

I do recommend longer than 70 inches bow to you though, they are just easier to shoot.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

L - 

Short answer, got a new shooter, go with a 25" riser, and used is better than new, unless you like wasting money . After you have more time into it, then a 27" riser has some advantages. Reasoning is that a new shooter won't be able to realize or exploit those advantages and will certainly have a better idea on what YOU want/need. And you WILL be changing equipment over the next few years. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

It depends. Some of that is what manufacturer you are thinking about. It also depends on whether you are thinking Formula or ILF.

If you are thinking Formula you may need a secondhand 27” (Or Gillo). The 25” Formula shoots short because of the long limb butt, it also means you have a short sight window. The 25” X/Xi is a little different as they have deliberately moved mass to the ends But still has a short sight window.

When looking at limbs… you may also find that some manufacturers really don’t test for true long draw. I think (for example) Fivics say 72” bow for 31” draw and there is nothing above that. Some manufacturers also make XL limb length - Hoyt (73” ILF) , Uukha (72”) and some of the boutique limb makers too.

At 32” draw and 6ft 5” i prefer a 25” riser with an XL limb for a 72” bow. I have 70” bows that feel fine and shoot fine. I also have 70” and 72” on 27” risers - they’re fine too - although the 70”/27” riser feels less stable at 32” (but not noticeably under 31.5”). Mix of Formula and ILF. The shorter riser is typically a bit lighter which I find easier to get set up as I want it.

So… all in, unless you are considering Formula, I’d go 25”/long limb for 70” bow. The caveat is to make sure you buy a set of limbs that draw suitably for your draw length. There are long limbs out there that have a wall at 31” - you definitely want to avoid that now (although ultimately you might prefer that). Those limbs will probably not be great on a 27” riser either.

After you learn that, you’ll be able to answer the question yourself. For me, most 27” ILF riser feel clunky unless you are shooting in the region of 45# plus. Then some of them liven up and some stay clunky. Obviously that is a personal opinion, others will disagree.

In my experience, some manufacturers have also struggled to get 27” risers out of the factory with a good tolerance for straightness but I might just have been unlucky. (I don’t put Italian stallions in this bucket).

Stretch


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

How on earth did so many people ever manage to shoot 66 and 68" bows back in the day. Must have been superhuman or something. LOL


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

One common avenue is to slowly upgrade your equipment. That is cost effective if you don't know that archery is for you or you have no experience. The other is to buy really good equipment and then shoot it.

Personally, I like to do the research and invest in good equipment and tools. I find in the long run it is cheaper as I am not replacing them and they last a very long time. But I also do a lot of research before and I am certain about my goals.

As far as the argument of not being able to exploit a high-end riser, that is really not an argument. First, the hypothesis is not proven (no, you are not magically going to hive high scores, but that is the straw man argument). The nice thing about have well made equipment is you can trust it--if you are not shooting well, it is not the riser. The equipment will simply work as you progress in your skills. Given the simplicity of the recurve riser, future models are really not going to offer any new developments that will make today's high-end riser any less capable. 

There is no right or wrong answer in this topic. There are a lot of valid opinions. Much of this is going to come down to you, both in terms of your personality and your budget. The good news is you really can't make a "mistake." All solutions will work.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> How on earth did so many people ever manage to shoot 66 and 68" bows back in the day. Must have been superhuman or something. LOL


Obviously we all worry about this stuff too much but what were the World Records back before 70” bows were around? (I don’t know, my first bow was in 1986 and was 70” … and made in Korea when made in Korea wasn’t much of a positive) but they were probably in the realms of what a decent club archer can shoot now. (Although as it would have been a York or FITA maybe not as nobody chucks 90m anymore).

Secondly, when you’re hefting 56# to get a 2115 to 90m all bows feel like they are “stacking”.

Lastly, perhaps more seriously, the heavier arrows made some of the stability issues way less important (non-existent?) The super-doopier the bit of kit almost invariably means harder to set up and get shooting well. Super-fast limbs and ultra light arrows fit in that space for me.

Stretch


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> How on earth did so many people ever manage to shoot 66 and 68" bows back in the day. Must have been superhuman or something. LOL


OP isn't shopping "back in the day." It turns out that there has been some progress in archery, even in recurve. I mean, you're not shooting the bow you shot back in the day either.

Do I think bow length is a victim of trendy preference? Sure. I don't think a 31" riser is actually functionally necessary. But I have a modest draw length (29") and am shooting my best indoor competition scores with a 72" bow (in practice, I seem to do a bit better with a 70" bow, but my average is the same which means less consistency). Now, that's string walking with a pretty significant crawl, so I'm not saying that I'm in the same boat as OP. I'm just saying that while I didn't need a 27" riser, it turns out that it was beneficial. I started with a 68" bow, based on conventional wisdom.

I think the psychological "would I be doing better if I hadn't compromised" shouldn't be discounted. That doesn't mean that you need top of the line kit, of course. But a measurable feature difference can be tough to get out of your head.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

Hikari said:


> As far as the argument of not being able to exploit a high-end riser, that is really not an argument. First, the hypothesis is not proven (no, you are not magically going to hive high scores, but that is the straw man argument).


Newbies to recurve cannot exploit a high end riser. Put a top of the line Italian barebow riser and a 40 year old Hoyt Gold Medalist, in the hands of a newbie, and see which riser generates better results in the hands of the newbie. HINT. The expensive italian riser did not perform better.

So, new barebow student. All of 12 years old. Came to me with an inexpensive SF Olympic riser...some maple limbs.
She had been shooting for all of six months. So, I had her try a Bernardini dedicated barebow riser. She and her parents wanted to know what "read more expensive riser" they should purchase. Then, I handed her a Hoyt Gold Medalist riser from the 1980s, with a $2 Hoyt Super Rest.

She shot best with the old Gold Medalist riser, and I saved her parents hundreds of dollars.
She shot that riser for the next 3 years. So, in the hands of a newbie barebow archer, no....getting the BEST, (read most expensive) Italian barebow riser will make ZERO difference in the hands of a newbie. She started competition just this year, at all of 15 years old and after winning 2 out of 3 competitions, her parents DID purchase an Italian barebow riser.

Spend the money on a "quality" riser, after you put in the time, to learn the basics and beyond the basics of shooting a recurve bow.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

nuts&bolts said:


> Newbies to recurve cannot exploit a high end riser. Put a top of the line Italian barebow riser and a 40 year old Hoyt Gold Medalist, in the hands of a newbie, and see which riser generates better results in the hands of the newbie. HINT. The expensive italian riser did not perform better.
> 
> So, new barebow student. All of 12 years old. Came to me with an inexpensive SF Olympic riser...some maple limbs.
> She had been shooting for all of six months. So, I had her try a Bernardini dedicated barebow riser. She and her parents wanted to know what "read more expensive riser" they should purchase. Then, I handed her a Hoyt Gold Medalist riser from the 1980s, with a $2 Hoyt Super Rest.
> ...


I agree, it is the quality of the riser, which for the most part tracks with price. (I think you are actually making my case. Wasn't the Hoyt Gold Medalist a high-end riser in the 1980s?) And I agree not all risers are suited for everyone. I don't find CD risers good for me--but excellent risers in competition.

As I said, there is a lot of variability in how to approach this problem. If you are a teenager that might not continue in archery, a more conservative approach is reasonable. Especially since those archers are growing. An adult archer that understands their commitment might find a different approach better. Now, if you are unsure that archery is your bag, then start more modestly. 

I am not sure anecdotal evidence is proof of anything. I believe Claire Xie started with good equipment in her barebow career, as other successful archers have done as well. There are different ways of arriving at the same point.

Now, beginners are beginners. They need to learn a lot before their form reaches the level that the difference in equipment will show on the target. That does not mean the equipment is only solving for scores. There is stress on the archer's body through vibration with good designs, for example. There may be simple aesthetic reasons--the riser just makes you happy or confident. Archery is a mental game. And you can certainly grow into better equipment (buying a cheap riser (or a couple of cheap risers) and then an expensive one is more expensive than just buying the expensive one).

Sure I might not be "worthy" of my equipment given my scores, for example, but how is that a downside? I certainly save a lot of time reading riser reviews on the internet which I can use at the range. I am very sure that archery will be a thing for me for a long time. (I also hate shopping and reading gear reviews.) I have had enough experience in other areas in my life to know spending on good tools and equipment tends to be more cost effective in the long run. I also know there are people that are nothing like me, and so a different approach might be better (hopefully this dichotomy is coming through in my argument). Now, I might never get to a podium. That does not lessen my commitment to the sport or to the effort I put into it--I am really trying to be the best archer I can be.

I think fundamentally we are not disagreeing. Investing in good equipment is good. People need to understand where they are in their archery and let that guide them--I would not recommend a beginner by Velos limbs, for example. But a well made riser can last you a long time: a Hoyt Gold Medalist, for example. I think the is one thing to consider. I also think if you are unsure, then start with a different approach.


----------



## godgrace01 (11 mo ago)

Yes _27_


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Definitely, today's availability of risers up to 31" allows users to adjust perfectly the final length and reaction of their bow to their specific shooting technique and body sizes.
Last weekend during European Indoor Championships in Lasko, Slovenia, Podiums have been conquered in BB with risers ranging from 23" to 27", not only the first time in the story that we have had Indoor Championships in BB, but also the first time that medals have not been limited to 25" risers.
Yes, definitely there are more options, more possibilities, more combinations possible, and the final length of the bow is not the only parameter to consider, as you should combine the effects of different geometries in limbs and risers as well, to get your perfect personal one.
A new era for archers, and their coaches as well, that is just at the beginning.


----------



## Lightscape (11 mo ago)

Hikari said:


> I have had enough experience in other areas in my life to know spending on good tools and equipment tends to be more cost effective in the long run.


This is pretty much my mentality. I would rather get a quality riser that I know I will be able to shoot reliably for the next few years and not need to upgrade it. I already expect to upgrade my limbs a number of times, but at least I will have a good bit by getting a good riser the first time around. I'm mostly trying to gather with this thread enough info that I won't end up with buyer's remorse/worry that one of the lengths will be better than the other. So I don't put a couple hundred into a riser, only to put a couple hundred into a different one in two months just to feel the difference. 

It's kinda sounding like 25" would do me fine, and be quicker to find and get shooting with (because a decent bow in the hand is infinitely better than a perfect bow in the mind), but 27" if I can get one would probably be preferable


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Lightscape said:


> This is pretty much my mentality. I would rather get a quality riser that I know I will be able to shoot reliably for the next few years and not need to upgrade it. I already expect to upgrade my limbs a number of times, but at least I will have a good bit by getting a good riser the first time around. I'm mostly trying to gather with this thread enough info that I won't end up with buyer's remorse/worry that one of the lengths will be better than the other. So I don't put a couple hundred into a riser, only to put a couple hundred into a different one in two months just to feel the difference.
> 
> It's kinda sounding like 25" would do me fine, and be quicker to find and get shooting with (because a decent bow in the hand is infinitely better than a perfect bow in the mind), but 27" if I can get one would probably be preferable


Do you know what combination(s) you've been using already at your local range? If it's not labelled, you can check with a tape measure: actual bow length is measured unstrung, and is roughly the distance between the string grooves when strung +3". Riser length is just been the ends of the riser and generally rounded a bit.
For comparison, the tallest archer (with height data online) at Tokyo was Ilfat Abdullin who's your height and was using a riser that only comes in 25" and limbs that give a 68" or 70" bow, same thing for at least 4 of the other 6 archers above 6'1". That doesn't mean nobody else there chose a 27" riser, or that all the taller athletes had an opportunity to choose between them though.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

Bit confused here… a lot of the comments are about 27” risers for Barebow but the OP is asking about Olympic.

There are _very few top level Olympic archers who use more than 25” risers. At 31” draw you do not need to worry about this.

Buy whatever 25” ILF riser takes your fancy and make sure you get a set of limbs that draw cleanly to 32” (just in case you extend your draw).

Stretch_


----------



## Lightscape (11 mo ago)

cerelestecerele said:


> Do you know what combination(s) you've been using already at your local range?


I don't know riser height, but total bow length has been either 62" or 64" (they have both, and haven't been consistent on which they give me. They ask for draw weight and then pull whichever out).

I put an ISO out to a couple of Facebook buy/sell groups and my local group. If those and eBay don't turn up with any 27s I like by the end of the week I'll be doing exactly what Stretch said and just making sure to get long limbs


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My first "real" Olympic bow was a 25" Gold Medalist riser with a pair of 46# MEDIUM GM C+ limbs. I drew that 68" bow to 56# at 32+" It's a wonder that GM riser didn't break. That rig would shoot an A/C/C over the chrono at 220 fps. 

People really over think this overall bow length question, and it's only gotten worse since more options are now available. Paralysis by analysis, I think they call it.

All my hunting bows are 64" or less in length. I draw them to 31" with my 3-under high anchor. 

I could put a pair of limbs on a 27" riser that would feel stacky and another set of limbs on a 25" riser that would feel smooth. There is more to this than just riser length.


----------



## nuts&bolts (Mar 25, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> My first "real" Olympic bow was a 25" Gold Medalist riser with a pair of 46# MEDIUM GM C+ limbs. I drew that 68" bow to 56# at 32+" It's a wonder that GM riser didn't break. That rig would shoot an A/C/C over the chrono at 220 fps.
> 
> People really over think this overall bow length question, and it's only gotten worse since more options are now available. Paralysis by analysis, I think they call it.
> 
> ...


100%. I have that same riser. Oldie but goodie.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

nuts&bolts said:


> 100%. I have that same riser. Oldie but goodie.


Probably every single OR style archer through the 90's either owned one or shot one. I hated the blocky I-beam feel and the grip was enormous - and I have bigger hands than anyone in the sport that I know. I was happy to move on to my Axis risers when I did. They were far superior to the GM in so many ways. But the GM was a "rite of passage" for probably 90% of the world's OR shooters for a decade or more. At least, that's the impression I get coming into this in the early 2000's.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

limbwalker said:


> How on earth did so many people ever manage to shoot 66 and 68" bows back in the day. Must have been superhuman or something. LOL


People are taller now. Just in the past half century the average male height has gone up by around 4-5 inches.

I'm 6'6". 34" DL. I have the arm length of a pro basketball player. Shooting a 70" bow for me is like a grown man riding a plastic big wheel


----------



## MrPillow (Apr 9, 2021)

4-5 inches in the last 50 years? I’m gonna need to see a source for that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

MooseisLoose said:


> People are taller now. Just in the past half century the average male height has gone up by around 4-5 inches.
> 
> I'm 6'6". 34" DL. I have the arm length of a pro basketball player. Shooting a 70" bow for me is like a grown man riding a plastic big wheel


LOL okay.

I'm 6'4" (probably closer to 6'5" but I like 6'4" better) and have a 32.25" draw. All my PB outdoor scores were shot with a 70" bow. I competed in Athens with a 70" bow, as did Butch and the kid from Sweden that had the same length arrows as mine. 

But whatever.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

MrPillow said:


> 4-5 inches in the last 50 years? I’m gonna need to see a source for that.





https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-height-of-men-for-selected-countries?time=1910..latest&country=USA



Adding other European countries shows a change of 6-10cm. So more like 2-4in. I used 1910 and 1980 as the comparable dates (so a 40 year old man in 1950 vs now). Ideally this would have had data from 2000 to compare adult males then and now, but it works alright for a quick internet fact check.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

MooseisLoose said:


> I'm 6'6". 34" DL. I have the arm length of a pro basketball player. Shooting a 70" bow for me is like a grown man riding a plastic big wheel


Amusing as it might be the analogy doesn’t hold up to inspection. I knew a guy who shot uncut ACE 380 with the longest point he could get And the longest nock he could get which must be about 34” as he was inside the riser with the clicker. Shot just fine with a 70” bow.

HOWEVER - you should consider yourself lucky, you easily have the option to buy a longer bow. But the OP is talking about 31” - that is not even ballpark for 72” unless you choose FIVICS or Uukha.

6ft 5” (and a bit) 32.25” draw +/- depending on how much I have been shooting and how broken my body is on any particular day… 70” is always fine. 72” is a bit more comfortable on the fingers.

Always, always, always the limbs are the limiting factor, if they draw smoothly to 31” you’re fine, if they stack you may not be. I had a set of Samick Extreme limbs that were +5# between 31” and 32”. Not a good choice (for me anyway). I have a set of Border limbs that are only 1.4# between 31 and 32. My 70” Velos are 2# between 31 and 32. Different folks like different feels. Some budget limbs will just not work at long draw, some will.

Stretch


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

UK_Stretch said:


> 6ft 5” (and a bit) 32.25” draw +/- depending on how much I have been shooting and how broken my body is on any particular day… 70” is always fine. 72” is a bit more comfortable on the fingers


That's wonderful for you, but it isn't the case for me. When I shoot a 70" bow I don't feel good and my scores suck. And I can't even remotely make nose contact with the string, which robs me of a point of reference.

I feel like this "good enough for me, good enough for you" mindset is harmful in the archery community. My draw is nearly two inches longer than yours. With all due respect, I don't think you know what it feels like for me to draw a bow.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

limbwalker said:


> LOL okay.
> 
> I'm 6'4" (probably closer to 6'5" but I like 6'4" better) and have a 32.25" draw. All my PB outdoor scores were shot with a 70" bow. I competed in Athens with a 70" bow, as did Butch and the kid from Sweden that had the same length arrows as mine.
> 
> But whatever.


Did you try shooting a 76" or 74" bow and compare those scores, or was 70" the longest they had available? I'm pretty sure it's the latter


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> LOL okay.
> 
> I'm 6'4" (probably closer to 6'5" but I like 6'4" better) and have a 32.25" draw. All my PB outdoor scores were shot with a 70" bow. I competed in Athens with a 70" bow, as did Butch and the kid from Sweden that had the same length arrows as mine.
> 
> But whatever.


Is it necessary to be condescending and dismissive in this discussion? MooseisLoose is taller than you, has longer arms, and a longer draw length than you so his experience of shooting a bow will feel different from yours. You're not the tallest guy in the world, by far. And that's okay, no need to get mad at everybody taller than you.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

MooseisLoose said:


> That's wonderful for you, but it isn't the case for me. When I shoot a 70" bow I don't feel good and my scores suck. And I can't even remotely make nose contact with the string, which robs me of a point of reference.
> 
> I feel like this "good enough for me, good enough for you" mindset is harmful in the archery community. My draw is nearly two inches longer than yours. With all due respect, I don't think you know what it feels like for me to draw a bow.


When did this thread become about you? Did I say “for you”? Nor is it about someone with a 34” draw. Or even about someone with a 32” draw. We’re not talking about you.

*OP has a 31” draw*

When someone asks for advice I may be unique in trying to answer their question, trying to keep it relevant to them, based on my experiences. Apologies I did not realise that this thread had become about you… my mistake.

Fragile much?

Stretch


----------



## BuzzMA (Jan 11, 2010)

Lightscape, If you're anywhere close to metro Boston or happen to be traveling in the area you can send me a PM and we can arrange for you to shoot my 70" or 72" and you can decide for yourself which you prefer. Regards Buzz


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> Is it necessary to be condescending and dismissive in this discussion? MooseisLoose is taller than you, has longer arms, and a longer draw length than you so his experience of shooting a bow will feel different from yours. You're not the tallest guy in the world, by far. And that's okay, no need to get mad at everybody taller than you.


Did you read that as condescending? Interesting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UK_Stretch said:


> When did this thread become about you? Did I say “for you”? Nor is it about someone with a 34” draw. Or even about someone with a 32” draw. We’re not talking about you.
> 
> *OP has a 31” draw*
> 
> ...


watch out - TER might accuse you of being condescending.


----------



## MooseisLoose (11 mo ago)

UK_Stretch said:


> When did this thread become about you? Did I say “for you”? Nor is it about someone with a 34” draw. Or even about someone with a 32” draw. We’re not talking about you.
> 
> *OP has a 31” draw*
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why you're lashing out, but you responded directly to me in your quote reply and said that my experience "didn't hold up to inspection". The way forums typically work is someone starts a conversation and others join in.

To be honest, your reply makes you sound like the fragile one. Best of luck, though.


----------



## Lightscape (11 mo ago)

BuzzMA said:


> Lightscape, If you're anywhere close to metro Boston or happen to be traveling in the area you can send me a PM and we can arrange for you to shoot my 70" or 72" and you can decide for yourself which you prefer. Regards Buzz


Thanks for the offer, unfortunately I'm on the other coast. 

By luck, a FIVICS rep stopped by my local shop while I was there last week. I chatted him up and got a killer deal on one of their 27" risers. Now it's just down to hoping the cheap WNS limbs I picked don't stack like hell to my DL (they get here Friday, but I won't have a chance to try everything out until Monday due to busy weekend for me coming up)


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> watch out - TER might accuse you of being condescending.


Just imaging what I could have achieved if I’d kept the 72” bow I had in 1988 instead of moving to a 70”. Now I realise the error of my ways. Jeez maybe you could have won a gold in Athens if you’d had a longer bow! Dummy!

My post wasn’t condescending, it was an alcohol tainted response to someone who doesn’t think anyone else is worth listening too (with an added touch of underlying irritability). Overly grumpy and direct would be my description. But now I have been truly schooled, I know my place. Bad Stretch.

Happy to be considered condescending (or f*#kwitt for that matter). Remember I was an admin on Sagi BB  I’ve been called worse.

Stretch


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

UK_Stretch,
Just to be clear, I never accused you of being condescending. I didn't say anything to you at all. That was just LW doing his propaganda thing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> UK_Stretch,
> Just to be clear, I never accused you of being condescending. I didn't say anything to you at all. That was just LW doing his propaganda thing.


The fact that you felt you had to explain yourself is just adorable. LOL


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> The fact that you felt you had to explain yourself is just adorable. LOL


How about you just stop harassing me and we don't reply to each other at all?


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

🍿🍿🍿


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

ArcheryTalk has an amazing potential for people entering archery. I am really impressed by some of the archers here, including some really well known ones that have actually responded to some of my posts without actually needing to--Martin Ottosson and Grayson Partlowe among others. 

I just don't understand the tone here sometimes. Here is a post from another thread on 25" vs. 27" risers:



> I also have a 32.5" draw with an Olympic bow. I shot 70" bows for years. Shot nearly all of my best outdoor scores with a 70" bow. However, my best indoor scores came from a 72" bow and I've since switched to 72" bows for everything (outdoor and indoor recurve, and barebow) and I have no plans to go back to a 70" bow.
> 
> A 27" riser will allow you to use just about any limbs you want. 25" risers with long draws require very smooth limbs to prevent severe stacking beyond 31"
> 
> The other thing you'll want to consider after you have been shooting a while is the string angle. It sounds crazy at first, but the difference in the string angle between a 70" and 72" bow can be enough to change your head tilt and string contact on your nose. Some folks prefer one or the other for this specific reason. I am not that sensitive to this and have had equal success with both length bows. But I prefer the 27" riser now so I can get to 32.5" without stacking from just about any limb I use.


Here is the link (post #7): Riser Comparison 25"/27"

Perhaps something has changed since this post from 2018. I don't know. But if there has, then why not say why you don't use 27" risers and 72" bows anymore.

For me this is a pity. I am really in awe of people that have competed at really high levels. I have certainly learned form them. People keep saying how wonderful the archery community is. Sometimes I just don't feel it.


----------

