# Hoyt's new barebow riser...



## GRAY Archery (Dec 1, 2016)

You made me look.....


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Made me look too, lol

It is interesting, isn't it. Maybe it is because Hoyt knows they can't convince barebow archers to drop last year's model to spend another $1500 on a new riser and set of limbs just because Brady shot a 598 last weekend with the lastest and greatest set of hardware that was given to him at no cost. Maybe its because barebow archers know that all of the marketing hype about some esoteric feature won't result in a single extra point in their scores, so they won't buy the hype? Maybe it is because we barebow archers are independent thinkers and are willing to get into some serious arguments about the merits of certain things within the Barebow community, even among themselves, where our goal is to improve the real, quantifiable, measureable, metrics as opposed to being sheep and willingly take the hook, line, and sinker and do what my wife's former coach always said "better performance through excessive spending"

Why would Hoyt spend the time and money to develop a top quality barebow riser to sell it to a barebow shooter that will shoot it for 10 years, as opposed to making a compound or recurve model that they can sell a new one every year to the same person just because they made a meaningless change and a flashy youtube video.

Yeah, we barebow people are just too independent, willing to openly argue, willing to take the heat for having an opinion and willing to openly express them.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

In trad fora it appears like a lot of Hoyt Dorados and Buffaloes get discussed and bought by relative newcomers. However, that's 3d shooters, hunters, and generally not the more savvy ones because it's a short bow overpriced as a whole relative to what you could get shopping ILF components. I recommend against it whenever someone asks about it in my presence, but judging by the online stuff it does happen some. You might also have some target newbies who just happen to get a lower end Hoyt riser or limbs to start. 

But anyone halfway sophisticated and paying attention and looking for a target barebow, say, by asking on here, would be directed in particular places, and probably not Hoyt. Obvious choices SF/Cartel if they weren't spending money and Gillo if they are willing. Hoyt is overpriced relative to the intermediate stuff for similar featuring, and if you're going to lay down serious scratch for a riser, they don't really have something barebow specific like a Spig or Gillo. Maybe someone smart could make a Hoyt work but it would be like you walk past the obvious "willing to spend" choices purpose built for barebow to do something else, and you might be too cute for your own good.

Your argument is independence, but from theirs it's probably the amount of work and R&D that would go into trying to carve out market share in a niche area where Gillo and Spig have beat them to the market. I see a bunch of Gillos at the range. That might even just be the smart choice being made over and over. But I'm sure they'd be like, Hoyt is not generally known for barebows, and you'd have to come up with something relevant to the niche, and then market it to people who see other brands as already more befitting the demand side's idea of "barebow." Do they want to spend that much money on R&D and advertising themselves as having a barebow product, just to try and crack in on a sub-market that while growing a lot locally, is still a bit niche?


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Barebow specific risers are for a very limited crowd right now I'd wager. The G1 is a nice recurve riser as well as Barebow, so it can sell to two markets. They'd have to come up with a way to weight it that could rival the G1 and still be a decent Olympic recurve riser.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

what do you mean by barebow capable?


limbwalker said:


> Ha. Made you look.
> 
> But seriously, has it surprised anyone that Hoyt has yet to release a riser that is at least barebow capable? Yes, I know people use Hoyt risers to shoot barebow, just like some even use W&W risers, but when you consider all the other manufacturers who are designing in barebow capability to their ILF target risers, isn't it a little surprising that Hoyt has never done this (that I can tell). I mean, not even once?
> 
> I've always said Hoyt's risers are second to none. Some of, if not the best fit and finish and anodizing and usually design too. So what's keeping them from making one that meets the needs of target barebow archers?


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

*Two words...HPX. Keep the change......*


----------



## Astroguy (Oct 11, 2013)

Good one! I cant justify buying equipment until its holding me back. And with sightless classes, comfort in what you know scores best. Is more important than having to start over every year learning a new setup.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

2413gary said:


> what do you mean by barebow capable?


Where's my popcorn.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

I guess you mean off the shelf possibilities to weight for upright shot reaction given the 12cm WA ring constraint?

I shoot a Hoyt sometimes, and the xspot weight on the front sure doesn't give as nice a reaction as a Gillo or WF.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

equilibrium said:


> *Two words...HPX. Keep the change......*


only with special designed riser hole weights, and you only get to keep the change if Pete doesn't charge for the weights


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

equilibrium said:


> *Two words...HPX. Keep the change......*


I'm trying to figure out which two words you're talking about.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rsarns said:


> Where's my popcorn.


LOL.

Of course, I'm talking about achieving a neutral balance with a weighted riser that can adhere to ALL the barebow rules.  

Heck, even just one that accepts weights below the grip would be nice to see.

I know a guy who once filled the lower void of a Radian riser with lead.  Sure made a nice shooting BB riser.

I suppose someone could drill a single hole through the I-beam of a GM riser, and slap some weights on below the grip there.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> LOL.
> 
> Of course, I'm talking about achieving a neutral balance with a weighted riser that can adhere to ALL the barebow rules.
> 
> ...


Bobby Graham from Tulsa had an old Hoyt riser with lead in it and shot lights out with it, that was before the stab rule. Me being a Hoyt guy I would love if they made something for BB, until then my Gillo and WFX's do pretty well.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> LOL.
> 
> Of course, I'm talking about achieving a neutral balance with a weighted riser that can adhere to ALL the barebow rules.  *HPX*
> 
> ...


*HPX can be a great grass roots start. Like cleavage...stop and look into it....*


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I bought that Radian off of Michael Quayle, taped up the sides, filled it with lead, bonodo'd the holes smooth, then painted it. Looked like it was made that way, until you picked it up. LOL. Probably should have held onto that one. 

It's just surprising to me that the company that touts itself as the greatest innovator hasn't even once made a provision for BB weights. 

Maybe if WA ever adds barebow to the world champs, they might change that.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I bought that Radian off of Michael Quayle, taped up the sides, filled it with lead, bonodo'd the holes smooth, then painted it. Looked like it was made that way, until you picked it up. LOL. Probably should have held onto that one.
> 
> It's just surprising to me that the company that touts itself as the greatest innovator hasn't even once made a provision for BB weights.
> 
> Maybe if WA ever adds barebow to the world champs, they might change that.


*You can tell a Texan but you can't tell em much...*


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

equilibrium said:


> *You can tell a Texan but you can't tell em much...*


Same's true for a liberal.  ha, ha.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic though.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

*HPX has the ablility to do what you asked, "achieving a neutral balance with a weighted riser that can adhere to ALL the barebow rules". I answered HPX.
You replied...about a Radian. Like it was a new topic. 
Look, you have way more friends on here then I, so you win at any word war. I was answering in a light and fun way...*


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

That's what I thought you meant just wasn't sure. Like Patrick said HPX does this. Did the same thing with the Prodigy.
Thank you
Thank


limbwalker said:


> LOL.
> 
> Of course, I'm talking about achieving a neutral balance with a weighted riser that can adhere to ALL the barebow rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## GRAY Archery (Dec 1, 2016)

Well the GRAY AIX will sort out this bare bow issue. Will be launching photos soon and be taking orders too. There are a total of 7 mounting holes below the grip for weights and there are still and additional 3 above the grip. All of which can take standard stabilizer weights. But onto the topic of why Hoyt does not make a bare bow riser, it could juts be that they don't see the need too....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

equilibrium said:


> *HPX has the ablility to do what you asked, "achieving a neutral balance with a weighted riser that can adhere to ALL the barebow rules". I answered HPX.
> You replied...about a Radian. Like it was a new topic.
> Look, you have way more friends on here then I, so you win at any word war. I was answering in a light and fun way...*


Relax dude. I wasn't arguing with you. You answered HPX. Okay. Did they design the HPX with barebow in mind? Did they ever advertise the fact that it has a neutral balance for barebow? I think not. So, my question still stands.

BTW, why the comment about Texans anyway? Was that really necessary? Are you guys in the NW depressed because winter is coming or what?  (just teasing, I like it up there).



> Did the same thing with the Prodigy.


Interesting. Do those risers have any provisions for weights besides the usual stab. bushings?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But onto the topic of why Hoyt does not make a bare bow riser, it could juts be that they don't see the need too....


I suspect that's the case. They wouldn't be the first American company to take that approach. PSE, Mathews and SKY didn't either.


----------



## Corene1 (Apr 27, 2014)

The older Hoyt Avalon plus has the standard stab threading plus additional threading at each limb pocket, plus a threaded point on the inside just above the bottom limb pocket. All can be used for adjusting weight and balance. It is also a bit heavier bare, than the newer risers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Most Hoyt risers have had all those stab. bushings. One of the reasons I used Hoyt risers for years is because they always have backweight bushings (we can all thank Butch Johnson for that) and I didn't use side rods.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> I suspect that's the case. They wouldn't be the first American company to take that approach. PSE, Mathews and SKY didn't either.


about 16 or so years ago, SKY CONQUEST was the riser of choice for most of the top BB shooters in the USA. Mark Applegate shot one, Ty Palfrey IIRC did too and Skp Trafford had one that he had modified with some machining of the grip area.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Very interesting thread. Always curious about equipment. Especially as the comments are often made about looking to barebow if you want to see what people at the top of their game who buy their own equipment use.

Men's barebow bronze match from Dublin... no big surprises









But now the interesting, non barebow specific gold medal match. W&W vs Fivics


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

I noticed that aswell with the gold medal match. I thought it extremely odd that Jonsson and Fernandez were shooting what they were.. I guess if you like it and can get the weight you want through the ring you go with whatever you like the most.

A lot of the field shooters shot the Greenhorn aswell at worlds. Not sure what benefit it has but people seem to swear by it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, that was interesting to me too.

Of course, any riser can be shot barebow. I do like that some companies take barebow into consideration when they design their risers, or at least feature a BB capable riser in their lineup. Tells me they are thinking of the BB archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> about 16 or so years ago, SKY CONQUEST was the riser of choice for most of the top BB shooters in the USA. Mark Applegate shot one, Ty Palfrey IIRC did too and Skp Trafford had one that he had modified with some machining of the grip area.


Stonebraker shot a Conquest for years, and shot it very well. That riser balanced well, but I don't think Earl had BB archers in mind when he designed it.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

bobnikon said:


> Very interesting thread. Always curious about equipment. Especially as the comments are often made about looking to barebow if you want to see what people at the top of their game who buy their own equipment use.
> 
> Men's barebow bronze match from Dublin... no big surprises
> 
> ...


Not everyone buys thier equipment they are using. That being said, they are using it because they have confidence in it. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

equilibrium said:


> *Two words...HPX. Keep the change......*


Meh

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Stonebraker shot a Conquest for years, and shot it very well. That riser balanced well, but I don't think Earl had BB archers in mind when he designed it.


ITs been a while since I saw RS shoot and I believe he was shooting olympic at the time with a SKY but its been about 10 years


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

If a 12" stabiliser is worth extra points as stated elsewhere on the forum then surely it follows that any additional weight placed on a barebow should be as far forward as allowed within the rules.

This can easily be achieved using either front bushing on any ilf riser currently on the market.

Why do we even need barebow specific risers at all?


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

The ability to off set the weight is a nice feature to have if needed. Gillos, spigarellis and CD Archery bows all have this ability which is nice. A lot of other bb risers do too. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Italian risers (almost all of them) are specifically designed to be as vertical balanced as possible without any additional weight. That means, they are more BB friendly than risers that tilt backword without additional weights, by simply needing less added weight to get to the same level of balance. 
Of course, they are also easier to balance for recurve olympic shooting, but this is another story. 
So said, any riser can be shot BB by adding weigths to it, of course, but at the end the archer makes the difference at top level, as usual.


----------



## Soundarc (Mar 21, 2006)

Erik Jonsson is actually sponsored by Win & Win. It is interesting to see a major manufacturer like Win & Win deciding to sponsor two Barebow archers. They also sponsor Lina Björklund. What would be Win & Wins motivation. Do they see a market? Or do they just want to pick up some field world championship medals? 



bobnikon said:


> Very interesting thread. Always curious about equipment. Especially as the comments are often made about looking to barebow if you want to see what people at the top of their game who buy their own equipment use.
> 
> Men's barebow bronze match from Dublin... no big surprises
> 
> ...


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Soundarc said:


> Erik Jonsson is actually sponsored by Win & Win. It is interesting to see a major manufacturer like Win & Win deciding to sponsor two Barebow archers. They also sponsor Lina Björklund. What would be Win & Wins motivation. Do they see a market? Or do they just want to pick up some field world championship medals?


I actually thought that might be the case. I would even believe that the Fernandez is sponsored by Fivics if somebody said so. It actually strengthens the point of suitability while killing my point about self funded. Oly we have enough dangly bits, as my compound friends call them, to compensate for almost anything. BB there is only so much you can do, so those risers, to be at the top of the podium with just a couple external weights added, must be pretty decent. If they werent, I can't see even some sponsorship dollars being enough to make the switch. I don't follow closely enough, but unless those two are the best of the best and could shoot a Samick Sage and still medal, the gear (in the right hands) got them there. I can't see the sponsorship dollars being that lucrative, but maybe somebody knows?

I know it is the archer, not the gear that wins. That being said, no matter how good the archer, they won't get there if the gear is unsuitable.

None of this is to argue against barebow specific risers, I would just be interested to see how the current bb offerings stack up against the "non" barebow specific offerings. In my tiny sample size above it is non-bb up by 2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good question.

Like I said already, of course any ILF riser can be used. However, given the choice, I want one that is more easily customized and begins with more of a neutral balance, like Vittorio suggests. Because when you're done weighting it, you will only have a more steady and stable riser.

toj you are correct about where we want the weight, however many current ILF recurve risers do not balance well even when weighted to the max. allowable dimensions.


----------



## bowtech2006 (Apr 1, 2006)

Lost me when you said great finish on the bows. Loved all my hoyts since 2000 bit the finish on them all sucked and wore off after a year at grip area.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bowtech2006 said:


> Lost me when you said great finish on the bows. Loved all my hoyts since 2000 bit the finish on them all sucked and wore off after a year at grip area.


Huh, that's odd. I feel they have the best anodize shop in the business. My Axis finish has held up brilliantly over tens of thousands of shots, but that is a 15+ year old riser. I haven't noticed wear on the newer ones though, but I haven't looked for it either.

Well, I would love to see Hoyt offer something to barebow archers. For a number of reasons.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

maybe you shoot to many arrows !


bowtech2006 said:


> Lost me when you said great finish on the bows. Loved all my hoyts since 2000 bit the finish on them all sucked and wore off after a year at grip area.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> maybe you shoot to many arrows !


Is that really possible?


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Aside from the limb tip possibly hitting you in the head, what's the advantage of the neutral balance versus the upper limb tilting backward when shooting?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm sure Vittorio could answer this better, but I don't want a riser that's kicking back on the shot. I lose my grip contact and it doesn't feel as stable to me. Every good barebow riser I've shot comes straight out of the hand and maintains its vertical orientation on the shot. Maybe it's not entirely necessary for accuracy, but it does make for a more pleasant shooting bow, and that gives me more confidence.


----------



## Innosint (Sep 4, 2016)

Just curious, been looking into barebow set up lately. 

Whats a good place to look for barebow weights.
Lancaster carries some of them, but it seems like the heaviest one they have is X-Spot 12oz.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, that X-spot will have to do unless you find a custom shop.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Local machine shop is always a nice option

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Innosint (Sep 4, 2016)

Ah, bummer. well, thanks anyway


----------



## paper shooter 2 (Jun 30, 2016)

Regarding Hoyt anodizing, they once said they could not ship me a bow because the shop they outsourced anodizing to was delaying things. Maybe they have added an anodizing line to their facility since then or they were just lying. They lied to me about a number of things.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Bstinger uses to sell some disk weight rather cheaply too. 4-17oz for ten bucks

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Maybe it's not entirely necessary for accuracy, but it does make for a more pleasant shooting bow, and that gives me more confidence.


I can buy that. Likewise, I don't know about an accuracy difference, but it sure feels better, giving me the feeling that I'm more in control.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

paper shooter 2 said:


> Regarding Hoyt anodizing, they once said they could not ship me a bow because the shop they outsourced anodizing to was delaying things. Maybe they have added an anodizing line to their facility since then or they were just lying. They lied to me about a number of things.


Sorry to hear that. Hoyt's anodizing and unique patterns has always been one of their trademarks. It would be a shame if they lost that.


----------



## TwentySix (Feb 25, 2011)

bowtech2006 said:


> Lost me when you said great finish on the bows. Loved all my hoyts since 2000 bit the finish on them all sucked and wore off after a year at grip area.


Look at his signature--compound guy


----------



## j.conner2 (Jun 29, 2016)

A few bushings for weights in the right places and/or a proprietary weight system like Gillo or Spig would do the trick. No, I suspect the market is not big enough to get Hoyt's attention given all the target shooters and bowhunters, recurve and compound. It would be cool, though, if they came out with really good GB option - it would be best to see and I would likely buy one.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Sorry to hear that. Hoyt's anodizing and unique patterns has always been one of their trademarks. It would be a shame if they lost that.


I don't know the answer but I know when we ran a shop that carried Hoyt, we were told the reason why our "Matrix" risers were delayed was due to the anodizing contractor backups. That was 12 or so years ago


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As far as I can tell, no other company has put as much effort into their anodizing finishes as Hoyt. Some were amazing, some (like the "inferno" stuff) were downright ugly. But at least they weren't plain like just about every other anodized riser on the market. I still kick myself for letting go of the Axis flag riser I once owned.

Well, if there is any chance you're listening Doug, I hope that Hoyt throws the barebow archers a bone someday. It would be great to see an American company that recognizes barebow, esp. with all the JOAD and AA barebow archers coming up.


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> It would be great to see an American company that recognizes barebow, esp. with all the JOAD and AA barebow archers coming up.


CD Archery has stepped up and filled this gap nicely. Their WF series is a nice American Made option.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

With all due respect, that's not a riser design that is going to appeal to the masses, or one that can do both barebow and olympic equally well.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

They have a new lite, that will be more appealing to more than the previous models. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

It's definitely different looking than a lot of other stuff out there. I think this one is either 3# or just barely over 3#. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Demmer said:


> It's definitely different looking than a lot of other stuff out there. I think this one is either 3# or just barely over 3#.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Perhaps more of a "w-*T*-f-X". And the use of Comic Sans in the engraving font is amusingly ironic.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I was hoping gt would weigh in, but for a reason other than his usual condescending sarcasm. 

Well, maybe Doug is following. He's pretty nice.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> With all due respect, that's not a riser design that is going to appeal to the masses, *or one that can do both barebow and olympic equally well.*


This started with criticism toward Hoyt for something they *don't* do, ie not producing a BB-specific offering, but this suggests you want Hoyt to produce something in direct competition with the Gillo. Do you think Hoyt should dominate every aspect of archery regardless of ROI?


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

>--gt--> said:


> Perhaps more of a "w-*T*-f-X". And the use of Comic Sans in the engraving font is amusingly ironic.


Well that was simply not very nice or called for. Two top barebow shooters came together and started their own small business to offer a quality US made barebow that has been performing really well on the competition circuits.

I've got some serious respect for you George, myself coming from an engineering and archery enthusiast background, but I can say it's starting to wane..


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Demmer said:


> It's definitely different looking than a lot of other stuff out there. I think this one is either 3# or just barely over 3#.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Demmer, have you had a chance to shoot it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> This started with criticism toward Hoyt for something they *don't* do, ie not producing a BB-specific offering,


Quite the contrary in fact. I've always said their risers are among the best if not the best in the industry. I've never said otherwise about their risers. If you can find it, quote it for me. 

Because I think so highly of their (Hoyt's) risers, I would love to see them produce one that is "barebow friendly." Anyone with any experience in barebow target archery knows what I'm talking about, and has probably wondered the same thing - why hasn't Hoyt ever produced one... It's a natural question when you see so many great designs from Europe that keep the barebow target archers in mind while still creating a world class recurve riser.

As for their ROI, if that's a concern then why produce recurve bows at all?


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

I have one in my possession for a little while. Comparing it to th Gen1 WF25, it performs extremely well.

Really liking it so far.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Is the only weighting in that riser the small round hole at the bottom?.. I shot the TR7 for a while Barebow and that little hole at the bottom didn't cut it for me. 

Does the overall weight of the riser make up for it? 

After shooting the G1 I don't see a reason/appeal to shoot a Barebow riser that doesn't have an adequate built in weighting system. It's nice to just attach the big brass weight on my G1 and call it good instead of having to try and play with how many weights I can fit through the ring


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I'm unaware of any ilf riser that cannot be balanced with a reasonable amount of weight in a regular stabiliser bushing.

For my own amusement i even managed to get a hoyt eclipse to sit upright.
For this reason i cannot fathom what hoyt would have to gain by leaning any of their products towards barebow.

Recent bare bow offering are pretty ugly (not that an ugly riser would stand out in hoyts current line up)

Even borders new offering looks like a drill happy five year old was testing baby's first tap and die set on it.

You only really need one decent weight so empty holes are just that.

One of the big draws of barebow for me is the lack of tarting around for the sake of it that you get with compound and recurve.
I love that you can watch the field world champs and see some very old and very cheap kit being shot at the top of the sport.

It'll be a very sad day when most top barebow shooters are walking billboards.
Lets leave compound/recurve to the ad men, and keep barebow for the archers.


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

Rylando said:


> Is the only weighting in that riser the small round hole at the bottom?.. I shot the TR7 for a while Barebow and that little hole at the bottom didn't cut it for me.
> 
> Does the overall weight of the riser make up for it?
> 
> After shooting the G1 I don't see a reason/appeal to shoot a Barebow riser that doesn't have an adequate built in weighting system. It's nice to just attach the big brass weight on my G1 and call it good instead of having to try and play with how many weights I can fit through the ring


The weight system is pretty robust for many options. The weight forward also makes it a nice balancing riser to begin with.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That is a pretty clever weighting system. But this thread is not about the WF riser... 



> I'm unaware of any ilf riser that cannot be balanced with a reasonable amount of weight in a regular stabiliser bushing.


Balanced? Maybe. Weighted to the point you want? Probably not. Give me two forward stab. bushings and I can add maybe 24 oz. to the riser, tops. Again, we all know any recurve riser can be used to shoot BB. But why be satisfied with a riser that limits you to just two forward mounting holes?


----------



## beleg2 (Dec 31, 2005)

I would like to see this BB Hoyt riser, but I cannot find it, any link?
Thanks
Martin


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's the point Martin - unfortunately, there isn't one.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So, for the sake of argument, let's take Hoyt's new formula riser... We'll even use the 27" riser.

2.78 lbs. or basically 2 lbs. `2 oz. Assuming you put two 12-oz X-spot weights on the two available stab. bushings (and they clear the 12.2cm ring), that only gets you to 4 lbs. 4 oz.

My current barebow rig weighs 6 lbs.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Is the issue here overall weight or ballance?

I have several weights, some of up to 17oz and they all fit through the ring on any of the risers I've tried.

I'm still not convinced that a dedicated barebow riser actually offers anything over a standard ilf offering.
Just because you can add weight anywhere doesn't mean you need to, or even that you should.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

overall weight and balance are both factors in a good Barebow riser to me. I don't like a light riser when shooting Barebow. Maybe the two Johns (Magera and Demmer) have a more techie explanation


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's both. 

1) If you have to weight a riser to achieve the neutral balance, then it's still behind a riser that had a neutral balance to begin with.

2) If you start with a riser that is designed to be lightweight for O.R., that's fine, but it needs an additional weighting option to increase the overall mass desired by many BB archers.

My Olympic rigs weigh in at 7 lbs. When I shoot barebow, I want a bow that's at least 5.5 lbs. mass weight and 6 lbs. is better. Just gives me a much steadier sight picture. Light bows are harder for me to aim.

If risers that were designed with barebow archers in mind had no purpose, then why do you see nearly EVERY top barebow archer shooting one?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Had the same bow for a month I'm sure I got the first white one also have two WFX 25" they all shoot extremely well and tune easier than any other bow I've had. Must be the weight froward. Still love all my Hoyts but they will be the backup for now.


cpnhgnlngct said:


> I have one in my possession for a little while. Comparing it to th Gen1 WF25, it performs extremely well.
> 
> Really liking it so far.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

*Want to sell any of those Hoyt back up bows? Or many a set of Quattros?*


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Quite the contrary in fact. I've always said their risers are among the best if not the best in the industry. * I've never said otherwise about their risers. If you can find it, quote it for me. *
> 
> Because I think so highly of their (Hoyt's) risers, I would love to see them produce one that is "barebow friendly." Anyone with any experience in barebow target archery knows what I'm talking about, and has probably wondered the same thing - why hasn't Hoyt ever produced one... It's a natural question when you see so many great designs from Europe that keep the barebow target archers in mind while still creating a world class recurve riser.
> 
> As for their ROI, if that's a concern then why produce recurve bows at all?


Be careful what you ask for lol. I'm bicycling the coast between rain showers, will look up the exact reference later if you like. You said: "It saddens me that Hoyt only makes one world-class riser"...and then to cya you said you tried the GMX but didn't like it. Your Hoyt bashing threads are cleverly disguised, but they are what they are. In this thread it was shown that there are other US mfr who produce a BB, so you move the goalpost to include Oly style as well. This put you in direct conflict with the Italian mfrs. Vittorio has said he sees no reason to feed the Gillo to the $1K market, so is the suggestion that Hoyt produce a $1,000 BB combo? 

ROI? Hoyt no doubt does ok financially on their Olympic recurves.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh give it a rest already. Nobody cares SP.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

As demonstrated earlier in this very thread, standard target risers contested the gold medal at the most recent world champs that include barebow.
Given that this is the very top of the sport it makes your last comment somewhat biased to support your own view.

Most barebow shooters will be curious enough to try a dedicated riser and once they have one why wouldn't they shoot it.

Others see them around and so the circle of curiosity continues.
That doesn't make them better or essential for good shooting.


----------



## minnie3 (Jul 28, 2009)

The title of this thread got me interested in having a look.
Interesting and informative read though.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

So if a Barebow riser has a neutral balance and weighs in at 3 lbs and you want more weight where do you hang the weight?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Curious, There are many posts that I have seen over the years that talk about how great Hoyt's GM riser was.

So why was it such a great riser? And why did Hoyt go away from it? 

I shoot a WF25 and love it. Is it the best thing out there? I have no idea. But I am not about to spend $800 on another riser unless someone can convince me that the WF25 is a really bad riser and that some other riser is far better and I will automatically gain points just by shooting something new. I like my WF25 so much, I am saving up to buy a second one so I can have an indoor/FITA rig and have a NFAA Trad rig. I am perfectly happy with shooting these for the next 10+ years.

Now with that said, is Hoyt interested in customers that love their product so much that they won't buy another one for 10+ years, or do they like customers that constantly wanting something that they think is a little bit better, an get them a few more points, so they can make $8000 off of that customer that buys a new riser every year for the next 10 years? In order to get someone to constantly buy new every year, they can not offer the perfect product. It has to be flawed so that they can make incremental changes to entice the new purchase.

Thus, back to the beginning, is that the reason Hoyt got rid of the GM? Can have a product that customers are so happy with that they don't buy new.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Never make these kind of statements I repeat Never!! Wait until you shoot the WFX25 lite !!!!


Mr. Roboto said:


> Curious, There are many posts that I have seen over the years that talk about how great Hoyt's GM riser was.
> 
> So why was it such a great riser? And why did Hoyt go away from it?
> 
> ...


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Haven't met a riser that wouldn't shoot with enough weight screwed into the front.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

toj said:


> Is the issue here overall weight or ballance?
> 
> I have several weights, some of up to 17oz and they all fit through the ring on any of the risers I've tried.
> 
> ...



Shoot them back to back and you will know.

I used a Hoyt Horizon with a 12oz xspot in front, and it balances OK, shot back to back with a Gillo 27 inch with the brass weight. 
To me, trying to hold on target, more mass is much easier to hold stable.
Lighter bows jump out of your hand more, so some people like that kind of feedback, vs my Gillo, I could probably get away without a finger sling, the arrows just launch and the bow sits in my hand.
Less vibration after the shot as well.

Just because the gold medal field match didn't have heavy barebow risers doesn't mean these characteristics aren't true, it just means the archers prefer a different shot feel and reaction, and may or may not be endorsed as well.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

The gold medal match comments were a direct response to a different point.

I'm not sure comparing a 25" and a 27" back to back is a fair comparison, there's always going to be differences between two risers of different makes but surely some of the data must remain the same.


----------



## sho-me (Apr 21, 2016)

For quite a few years my criteria for a good bare bow riser was that it stayed vertical when the arrow was released . I tried just about every riser out there from the cheaper cast risers to the upper end carbon risers and everything inbetween ,and the dedicated barebow risers were definitely better at that. but when I started paying attention to score and not just bow reaction I found I shot better scores with a bow with more deflex. I think it is because it is easier to hold steady at full draw with my hand a little in front of the limbs. The top limb tip does come back a little even with weight added but the arrow goes into the bulls eye. I would imagine its more of a personal thing from person to person and how they shoot maybe.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

While I would love to see one of the major manufacturers come out with a specific barebow riser. I am sure they looked at the numbers and either there is not enough demand or the price point for them would be too high to show a reasonable profit.

I hope they prove me wrong.

You made me look too.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Let's be totally blunt here:
NOTHING on the market is truly barebow specific. They are all just Olympic geometry with some weight options. A very few have a slight tweak to the vertical position of the grip throat or a touch more deflex but it's not much.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Let's be totally blunt here:
> NOTHING on the market is truly barebow specific. They are all just Olympic geometry with some weight options. A very few have a slight tweak to the vertical position of the grip throat or a touch more deflex but it's not much.


And I've yet to see one without threaded holes for a sight block.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

toj said:


> And I've yet to see one without threaded holes for a sight block.


Because that would be absolutely stupid on their part do not do that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Granted for what it takes it would seem silly not to.

But if you're selling a barebow riser why would you, they don't put a glove box in an f1 car.

Or could it be that an olympic recurve riser and a barebow riser are in fact pretty much the same thing.
Leading us back to the original question, which can now be answered with,

Actually they do, they just don't advertise it as such.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

And isnt the new modular weight system at least a step in the direction of a Hoyt barebow bow? Granted, not dedicated and still very much an Olympic bow but a start. Maybe some after market made heavier weights get it closer.


----------



## J-Shooter (Jul 12, 2007)

grantmac said:


> Let's be totally blunt here:
> NOTHING on the market is truly barebow specific. They are all just Olympic geometry with some weight options. A very few have a slight tweak to the vertical position of the grip throat or a touch more deflex but it's not much.


I have thought about this before, after all the 650 Club, BB, Zenit BB, etc all have firm roots in Olympic risers, just fattened up and/or with additional weighting options. I feel like a standard Zenit with weights screwed into the stabilizer bushings might even balance better than the BB version, and no doubt my Sky Conquest would shoot much like my 650 Club if I screwed a brick onto the front.

But with the newer wave of weight forward barebow options like the WFX, Stolid Bull and Border Tempest, I feel like they were intended for barebow shooting from the drawing board. They may share geometry with olympic risers, but to some degree that's necessary in order to maintain a reasonable compatability with standard ILF limbs. 

No doubt I have spent some time daydreaming about potential features that could be fit on a barebow riser, but I think the current crop is pretty close to maximizing the allowances of the class without breaking the spirit of the rules or exploiting loop-holes. Hopefully this doesn't sound argumentative, but I am curious, what sort of departure from olympic geometry do you think would help a barebow riser?


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

*So, it sounds like all we need to do is run what ya brung.....*


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Maybe I should go outside and practice just talking about my bow got me out of the chair 


equilibrium said:


> *So, it sounds like all we need to do is run what ya brung.....*


----------



## LuisLeon (Feb 23, 2015)

*Gaining weight*

View attachment 5151665


Inspired by this thread and the above image. I set up my SF Forge+ with 2 X-spot 12 oz. weights just like in the photo. I've only shot 30 arrows so far and really like that the bow stays vertical after the loose. Was shooting with an 8 oz., 3 inch stab. So far I'm liking the extra weight, (24 oz. vs. 8 oz.) just have to build strength to hold it up.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

toj said:


> And I've yet to see one without threaded holes for a sight block.


Actually, I owned one for a little while. Back in early 2004, I picked up two prototype Spig risers that Earl Hoyt had made for them. Jack Hoffarth of Town Hall Archery had them in his collection and one was a prototype of the venerable Spigarelli "CLUB" barebow riser with the lower offset weight. It had no sight holes or even a stabilizer hole. Like a fool, I had that riser drilled and tapped for both, thinking I would use it for Olympic Recurve. It turned out to be way too heavy for that application, and a good friend and mentor of mine ended up with it. He still has it afaik.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Let's be totally blunt here:
> NOTHING on the market is truly barebow specific. They are all just Olympic geometry with some weight options. A very few have a slight tweak to the vertical position of the grip throat or a touch more deflex but it's not much.


What would you do to make a riser barebow specific and get away from OR geometry?


----------



## tandemcpl (Sep 12, 2013)

toj said:


> And I've yet to see one without threaded holes for a sight block.


My CD Archery WF25 doesn't have threaded holes for a site block.

Toby


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

tandemcpl said:


> My CD Archery WF25 doesn't have threaded holes for a site block.
> 
> Toby


All of mine has. Hmmmmm


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> What would you do to make a riser barebow specific and get away from OR geometry?


Significantly higher (or adjustable) grip position, much smaller sight window, adjustable rest height, move as much structure forward as possible, deflex in the 2" range. 

I don't really care about balance without weights since nobody uses them that way. Likewise internal weights aren't that important unless used to adjust side to side balance (WFX and Bernardini).


----------



## bowman_79_19 (Mar 15, 2009)

Spigs weights have been about to go side to side for a while now. Just another one out there.... Yet somehow people dont think they are "barebow" risers. You know, you can gauge field targets with the riser perfectly. Also, there is a great aspect to the gap below the handle, but I don't want to divulge all my secrets. Hahaha. One of the best barebow risers ever built. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Significantly higher (or adjustable) grip position, much smaller sight window, adjustable rest height, move as much structure forward as possible, deflex in the 2" range.
> 
> I don't really care about balance without weights since nobody uses them that way. Likewise internal weights aren't that important unless used to adjust side to side balance (WFX and Bernardini).


Significantly higher grip position?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

bowman_79_19 said:


> Spigs weights have been about to go side to side for a while now. Just another one out there.... Yet somehow people dont think they are "barebow" risers. You know, you can gauge field targets with the riser perfectly. Also, there is a great aspect to the gap below the handle, but I don't want to divulge all my secrets. Hahaha. One of the best barebow risers ever built.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I always forget about Spigs because for some reason I just don't shoot them well.



Borderbows said:


> Significantly higher grip position?


Of all the things I mentioned why pick that one?


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> I always forget about Spigs because for some reason I just don't shoot them well.
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the things I mentioned why pick that one?


Just wondering how much higher?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Well if standard is right on center, some risers are 1/2, I'd like to see the potential to go up to 1" and perhaps a little higher. Would be an easy feature to make adjustable. A higher wrist position would benefit least from a higher grip position, but many BB shooters use a low wrist.


----------



## Borderbows (Apr 4, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Well if standard is right on center, some risers are 1/2, I'd like to see the potential to go up to 1" and perhaps a little higher. Would be an easy feature to make adjustable. A higher wrist position would benefit least from a higher grip position, but many BB shooters use a low wrist.


There are some serious side effects to going that high.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

You guys are totally cracking me up. All bows are Barebow when you take the sight off


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

2413gary said:


> You guys are totally cracking me up. All bows are Barebow when you take the sight off


But what if it has a "Laser"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> You guys are totally cracking me up. All bows are Barebow when you take the sight off


Of course this is true, but when you shoot WA barebow rules, these things actually make a difference to some folks.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I do shoot WA Barebow


limbwalker said:


> Of course this is true, but when you shoot WA barebow rules, these things actually make a difference to some folks.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Borderbows said:


> There are some serious side effects to going that high.


With a high wrist grip sure, but with a very low it's the same pressure point. Likewise less of an issue with limbs that aren't tiller sensitive.

Hence why having some adjustment would be excellent.

Although grip position was one of the least important aspects I mentioned. The rest however I see few manufacturers offering and those that do only offer one at a time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> I do shoot WA Barebow


Which is why I said "some." If you're happy with a standard riser for WA barebow, then good for you. Not everyone is though.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I own a Hoyt Barebow riser - 21" ILF Weighted Riser, Stabilizer/Sight/Quiver/Plunger holes. It even has a bump on the shelf to shoot off the shelf if so desired. Very nice, solid shooting riser.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

centershot said:


> I own a Hoyt Barebow riser - 21" ILF Weighted Riser, Stabilizer/Sight/Quiver/Plunger holes. It even has a bump on the shelf to shoot off the shelf if so desired. Very nice, solid shooting riser.


Warfs don't count. LOL


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Warfs don't count. LOL


Come on man.... - circa 1985 Rambos make for fine barebow rigs.......those risers always wanted to be recurves, just took a fella from SE Idaho to set them free. That and there is some satisfaction shooting well with an ugly bow....


----------



## Donbaker (Jul 7, 2016)

I see that Spigarelli has recently redesigned the 650 Club, anyone tried one yet?

They are on Lancaster's site, so you can see the difference between the old one and the new one.


----------



## J-Shooter (Jul 12, 2007)

I saw some pics of the new 650 a few months back on Facebook.







Much like when the GMX was discontinued, I feel more inclined than ever to buy one of the old generation risers. I'm sure the new model has a nearly identical feel to my older 650, but I'm a big fan of the visual similarities between the 650 and some of the older 90's risers like the 1300 and Conquest. 

I wish that Spig would have gone with a more conventional grip design on the redesigned 650, DMS and SLY. Oh well, Jager makes great replacements.


----------



## LuisLeon (Feb 23, 2015)

I know it purely aesthetics on my part, but many of the bare bow specific risers look chunky to my eyes. For me how a rig looks is a big part of me wanting to hold and shoot it. That said, the more the merrier.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think part of the design for the club was to address the "no weights" interpretation by some officials or orgs years ago and provide a riser that had good balance and shot reaction as-is. That way a person could just shoot it without ever worrying about someone trying to call a weight a "stabilizer" or whatever. I know for a long time at Louisville there was always some question about when weights became stabilizers, etc. it wasn't easy to get consistent rulings either. I know a few shooters who chose that riser for just that reason.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

Those interpretations are still going on. A young lady getting her spigarelli revolution inspected at the TSAA indoor shoot last weekend had a judge reject the spigarelli barebow weight as an external damper because of the way it attached to the riser. Her coach had to intervene.

The same judge passed my x-spot weights without comment.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Rael84 said:


> Those interpretations are still going on. A young lady getting her spigarelli revolution inspected at the TSAA indoor shoot last weekend had a judge reject the spigarelli barebow weight as an external damper because of the way it attached to the riser. Her coach had to intervene.
> 
> The same judge passed my x-spot weights without comment.


Being that judge who rejected his weight (It was a young man, unless we had two) initially and the second time around the _ruling_ was spot on. There is no interpretation, it is clearly outlined in the rules. It was along the lines of a "dampening lever" ( I don't remember the exact wording at this moment) even if it seemed rock solid it went down too far without a second attachment point. 

It was not a spigarelli Barebow weight, as in the kind that fit inside the riser, it was a clear cut violation of a dampening lever weight, it went out and then down almost to the second attachment point on the riser.

This originally was brought up because of a weight my father and I made out of a leaf spring that pointed down, which was found to be against the rules quite some time ago (Which was sent around national judges to confirm). This has come up occasionally with Barebow archers in Texas, an example I have is with another young man who shoots a spig revolution(?) who had the same issue with a dampening lever weight. He was told about it and made a second attachment point, weight is now totally legal.

His coach was informed and there was no intervention? It was simply against the rules.

Your X-spot weights (given that they were the same as everyone elses I saw ) are legal because they are simply cylinders ( or along those lines) that go outward. Not out and then downward. Aslong as they pass through the ring and are on the front lower-half of the Riser they are completely legal and not at all questionable. That is the typical Barebow weight.

If you have any question about Barebow weights feel free to ask them here or in a private message to me  I have a large amount of experience on the subject.

I should also add in closing ALL of the judges at the TSAA Indoor state shoot have immense knowledge about Barebow and Barebow weighting rules.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

Thanks for the insight! I didn't see the outcome after her coach was called and I didn't mean to imply the the judge was wrong. The judge was an older gentleman.

Out of curiosity, I took a look at the weight rule. There did not appear to be a mention of "dampening lever." Is that term found in a supplement to the rules or was it used in a ruling addressing a similar issue? As it is written, the rule appears to expressly accommodate any shape of weight, so long as it is directly mounted to the riser.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Rael84 said:


> Thanks for the insight! I didn't see the outcome after her coach was called and I didn't mean to imply the the judge was wrong. The judge was an older gentleman.
> 
> Out of curiosity, I took a look at the weight rule. There did not appear to be a mention of "dampening lever." Is that term found in a supplement to the rules or was it used in a ruling addressing a similar issue? As it is written, the rule appears to expressly accommodate any shape of weight, so long as it is directly mounted to the riser.


22.3.6.2. Weight(s) may be added to the lower part of the riser. All weights, regardless of shape, shall mount directly to the riser without *rods, extensions, angular mounting connections or shock-absorbing devices.
*

I want to say the "shock absorbing devices" rule is what I meant by "dampening lever" because when shot that angular weight will vibrate and dampen the shock on the bow. I'll get a confirmation on that tomorrow.
I also want to say it had something to do with 22.3.6.1. Torque flight compensators fitted as part of the bow are permitted provided that they do not have stabilisers. But I may be confusing that with the dampeners on a Sky TR-7. I'll get a clear confirmation.

There is a slight bit of interpretation because it doesn't say " It shall be no more than 3", not 4", but it may be 2", but 6" is right out!"  But if it goes out and angles down for a distance, the official take of the ruling right now is that it's illegal.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

I'm guessing by the handle that I'm talking with Ryland. This is Ross, it was a pleasure to shoot on the same bale last weekend.


----------



## Rylando (Jul 30, 2016)

Rael84 said:


> I'm guessing by the handle that I'm talking with Ryland. This is Ross, it was a pleasure to shoot on the same bale last weekend.


Hey! Was great to shoot with you aswell


----------

