# Who makes a 200 +/-fps bow?



## Swiftspeed10 (Nov 9, 2007)

http://www.blackswanarchery.com/longbow.html

enjoy :darkbeer:


----------



## Vamp (Nov 12, 2009)

dabersold, I have made a few R/D Longbows that pushed 200fps and a tad over.
My 3pc was Chronoed at 202 @ 28.5" draw and and 57#. I wasnt the one who tested it either. The guy Mike that bought it tested it and that was his results. He and I were quite excited. My Limbs are Actionboo and Carbon one of the best combos out there. If you are interested let me know and Ill send you some pics and pricing. Each bow is made to fit YOU, Looks, Feel and performance all based on what you are looking for. 

Search Vamps posts and youll find a post of some of the bows Ive made. This will be my 6th year building. 

This is my newest creation


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

daber - 

1. Your numbers are about average.

2. Almost any modern bow will break the 200 fps mark, providing you use an arrow and string that are light enough.

Heck there were even a few that did that 40 years ago ... OK, those where exceptions than ... 

While there have been changes in limb design/material over the years that increased arrow speeds, the biggest factor for speed gains are the weight of the projectile and the string. The trick is to build a bow that will handle the lighter weights and not blow - that's where the advancements were.

REflex / DEflex "longbows" are little more than recurves with the recurve stretched out over the limb (different thread) and they follow the same laws of Physics.

Viper1 out.


----------



## petew (Nov 14, 2004)

There are some reviews on my trad review pages that may answer your question. The reviews are on my trad review pages at www.peteward.com

200 FPS at 9 gr/# shot with fingers , normal nock fit , set up to hunt and a static release is going to be hard to find.
The Border Black Douglas Ultra, with HEX V W limbs did not give me that.
Both the 1 and 3 piece ACS CX's did not give me that.
The T T Titan with Samick BF Extreem limbs did not give me that.
Very often bows are advertised with huge numbers that Joe average can not duplicate with a bow set up to hunt.

I would love to review a bow set up to hunt that will shoot 200FPS with 10 grains and 28" draw.

Pete


----------



## rraming (Aug 5, 2006)

Here is what I know makes it faster

Wheels
Cam
and a few cables

other than that, a lighter arrow - Although your KE stays about the same regardless of weight variations.

You speed demon


----------



## waiting4fall (Sep 20, 2007)

http://www.dakotabows.com


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

rraming said:


> Here is what I know makes it faster
> 
> Wheels
> Cam
> ...


Hahahahhaa..... Sorry.... *snicker*

Aloha...


----------



## dabersold (Sep 13, 2009)

Thanks ya'll - It sounds like Viper is right about my bow being about average. I checked out Pete's review page and found that although most of the bows were faster than mine, it wasn't by much. I guess my bow doesn't shoot too bad an arrow after all. But...don't tell my wife....I still want another bow.:cheers:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I've got around low 190's from my 21st Century Edge, 49lb draw using light 420g tourney arrow. I have a new double Carbon Blackbrook Zeta that I haven't put through a Chrono yet but it 4lb lighter than the Edge and 470g arrow yet I've gained 10 yards on my 'point on' distance, I'll be interested to know how fast that Bow is going (dont have access to a Chrono).


----------



## Jamesw (Sep 14, 2007)

Well unless you have a long draw length and a good release you won't find anyone that makes a bow you can shoot 200fps with 9-10gns.Sure you can read about them but they are only in existance in the land of unicorns.:shade:

Now if you don't get hung up on arrow weight and shoot lighter arrows most glass bows will shoot 200fps or better.They just won't do it without cams with heavier arrows unless you have long arms.


----------



## Hawksnest88 (Dec 12, 2005)

Then you have a guy with a 26" draw like me, and the only way I can get 194fps from my 37# target bow is to shoot 6.9 gp# arrows. :angry:Bill


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

With archery season over, I'm working on building a 200 fps selfbow (more so figuring out how to do that). It's a big task, even with a light string, light arrow, and heavy draw weight and length.

Assuming 75# at 30", 12 strand FF Plus string, 500 gr. carbon arrow, I'd be shooting 8 gpp. The long draw and weight would help with the energy storage necessary to push the arrow. But how to convert that energy into arrow speed and not handshock and viration? Learn from flight bows! Light tips, medium length for both lower inertia and energy storage, long stiff outter limbs for low vibration and increased efficiency. 

Of course, a modern recurve already has characterisitics that let it convert it's stored energy into fps with lighter arrows


----------



## I'm Not Ted (Feb 12, 2009)

If it's fast enough for deer and bear, why do you want a faster bow? Nothing wrong with it, just curious.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Whoops, fuzzy math- I meant it would be 6.7 gpp. I could never build a 200 fps selfbow at 8 gpp.


----------



## dabersold (Sep 13, 2009)

Well, I'm not Ted - I want to buy a bow that is about five lbs or so higher than the one I have and figure if I'm going to spend the money, why not get a bow that is not only beautiful, but fast as well. 
I'm not THAT into speed, but it is a bit concerning watching a otherwise good shot fall short because of the additional arch of a slower arrow. Really, just personal preference I guess.


----------



## I'm Not Ted (Feb 12, 2009)

I see your point. I shoot a 45 pound bow and when I ordered my Check Mate I got a 52 pound. Kind of like you, I just wanted to upgrade to something better. My main reasoning though was to increase my range. My bow is decent to about 30 yards but then I have to start aiming pretty high. I would like to take that to 40 or even 50.


----------



## timduvall (Mar 18, 2008)

i've done extensive testing on bows including the bows I build and i have yet to test a bow that will shoot 200 fps with a 9gpp arrow drawn 28" with fingers. There might be some out there but they are in the top 3-5% of bows. what most people don't realize is you can't compare bows without a standard. Just messing with strings can add 10 fps alone. Draw the bow an extra inch and you will gain at least 5 fps. Just too many variables. I test all my bows to the same standard that Blacky Swartz uses...9gpp and drawn exactly 28" with a 16 strand ff string and fingers not a machine. My t/d recurves have registered 192-193 with this setup. If you go back and dig up all Blackys test, you'll see that of all the bows he tests, none come close to the 200 fps mark shot with fingers. Another thing to remember is on average, the faster you go, the less stable the bow becomes and the harder it is to quiet the bow down.


----------



## dabersold (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm not Ted - Brilliant minds think alike!:cheers:

Tim - Thanks for the info. I'm starting to think that at my 26 1/2" draw that I will not be finding that 200fps bow. That's OK, I'm starting to see that my current bow is not bad considering my short draw.


----------



## Jamesw (Sep 14, 2007)

Well there are things you can do with your current bow to increase performance.If it is a modern bow a smaller string of FF materials can often give you as much performance boost as drawing 5 more lbs of bow weight depending on the string you are using now.Droping arrow weight just a little will add a little more speed as well.Nothing you will do or buy will ever make you shoot 200fps with any traditional bow with 9 or 10gns arrow weight.Your draw length stops that from happening.Still by carefull tuneing,working on getting a smooth release useing back tension ect and doing all the little things that add up can get you into the mid/upper 180s with a hunting weight arrow that will take some of the arch out of your archery.I haver found there is a bigger benefit to just getting above the 180 mark for hunting shots than there is in the last few fps to reach the 200fps mark. jmo


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Couple more notes...

A standard, slightly reflexed flight bow shooting a little under 6 gpp at 25" draw and 53# shot 225 fps. This wasn't a toes-over-the-edge wooden bow either, but a reasonably well built weapon. Like Viper said, it's all a matter of finding a bow that will shoot light enough arrows. 

_HOWEVER_! Not all speed bows are noise making and inaccurate. Hardly. Some bows are so into pumping in the energy and not working design that that happens (that noise and vibration comes from inefficiency). Comparing a speed bow that uses design to a speed bow that uses energy storage is literally apples and oranges- and that latter category is where the dogma of "fast is evil" comes from. Vibration and string noise increase arrow speed... and _reduce_ noise and handshock.


----------



## timduvall (Mar 18, 2008)

Remember also that can't go against the laws of physics. The faster a bow becomes, the noisier and less stable that bow starts to get. now some people will get up in arms on this. I'm not saying that all fast bows have noodle limbs or you can't shoot them, but bows do get less stable to faster they become. Easy to verify...get straight limb hill type bow, string it and try to twist the limb by hand...now do this to a high performing recurve..you can literally almost twist the string right off the limb...Speed isn't everything thats why people say get a bow that you can shoot well and forget about what other people think. I have found that some people care more about what people think of their bow than they care about how well they shoot it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

No... if anything we're FOLLOWING the laws of physics. Noise and vibration (handshock) are the evil arch-enemy of speed... and accurate shooting. I'm not even talking about recurves here, but longows. Twist a recurve all you want, a narrow, thick tipped Andaman-Holmegaard isn't going to behave anything like that- but is a superior design. 

I don't know why you suddenly think a bow is loud and unstable if it's fast. Your recruve probably shoots better than a simple branch with a stirng on it... and it's faster! 

Noise and handshock are the result of a bow that is inefficient. Meaning it is the left over energy NOT going into the arrow. Been there, lost cartilage to that. By simply redesigning a bow, you can increase it's efficieny with the lighter projectile and take advantage of that speed. Otherwise you're dumping buckets of energy at the arrow, but only a little is actually making it's way there. Ah-hah! So that's why even slow bows can be noisy and handshocky? Yes! Could that be why so many people gave up the straight limbed fiberglass longbow for the recurve? You bet it's up there!

The reason a Hill bow shakes your teeth loose, especially with lighter arrows, is because the outter limbs of that long weapon BEND. They shouldn't. Extra bend on the outter limbs means you aren't using them for what they should be- stiff levers. Much like an atlatl or catapult, you can employ the outter limbs of a longbow to work as levers to "compound velocity" as Dan Perry put it in _Traditional Bowyer's Bible vol. 4_. When that Hill bow starts to bend on the outter limbs, there's no hope of employing them as they could be, because now they bend- which mean they will vibrate on their way back. This viration takes energy away from the arrow. Same with outter limbs being heavier than necessary- especially for light arrows. The bow's stored energy goes into moving the darn limbs themselves! This is also why you can see low-stretch mateirals like FF Plus and other Dyneema strings increasing performance over Dacron or linen for that matter; the limbs are suddenly "halted" and resist vibration. With all that energy left in the bow, it comes out as noise and vibration, at the distinct sacrific of bow speed. Huh. Sounds lke a pretty crummy deal to me. Of course, that's unless you use weight-appropriate arrows. Heavy arrows are an inefficient bow's best friend. They take up extra energy. They literally are like your lazy buddy- they help you do better by REQUIRING more work from you. So, the heavy arrow saps up a little of that lost energy making the bow more quiet and less handshock-y... but creating the allusion of a better designed bow than you really have.

If speed was really so evil, then this wouldn't have happened: I built a new bow, very light and shorter draw. The tips were lighter and stiffer than I normally build- good for efficiency though. At 45# @ 28" with a 520 gr arrow, this bow's point on was 60 yards (and that's with a big ol' 11.5 gpp arrow now). Now, another bow of mine, one with a much more circular tiller at 80# @ 29", shooting an 820 gr arrow only had a point on of about 50 yards, and barely made 60 point on with a 600 gr arrow (and yes, the bow kicks with the lighter arrow).

Most noise, as well, is more an issue with _arrow tuning_ than limb design. In the previous example, the 80# bow isn't very loud because the 600 gr. arrow is properly matched... still wants to tear your arm off though. That is a result of poor design.

Truth be told, the whole twisting recurves thing bugs me too. If that was sooo important, why would Olympic archers use them at all? They need a great deal of forgiveness to shoot out to 100 yards accurately. And last I was told, their bows are pushing 190+ fps. No slow-pokes there.

Speed isn't the enemy. Shortcuts to speed and residual dogma are the enemies.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Correction: the bow is almost 90# @ 30" when shooting the 600 gr arrow and with a point on of barely 60 yards. Moves in the hand and hurts to draw for no "speed boost".


----------



## I'm Not Ted (Feb 12, 2009)

dabersold said:


> I'm not Ted - Brilliant minds think alike!:cheers:
> 
> Tim - Thanks for the info. I'm starting to think that at my 26 1/2" draw that I will not be finding that 200fps bow. That's OK, I'm starting to see that my current bow is not bad considering my short draw.


I don't know if you'd say I was brilliant...


----------



## DanDaMan (Aug 24, 2004)

I will start by saying that your bow can be faster just by having a crisper release, shooting with a tab rather than glove, taking the string silencers off, or just shooting more weight. But I will ask why??? Thats the whole reason to shoot trad, not worrying about the speed. If you are worried about speed then put wheels on it. I have found 170fps to be the lowest speed I shoot well out to 35yds and 185 or so about the ideal for the way I shoot. I have always tried to shoot the heaviest arrow I can in the 180s. But if you insist on speed it is tough to beat any of the Hornes or Dryads. They are fast and shoot great for me.

Oh and ya could just pull a bow back farther. My 29.25 inch draw really does help. I am grateful for my monkey arms.


----------



## I'm Not Ted (Feb 12, 2009)

dabersold said:


> Well, I'm not Ted - I want to buy a bow that is about five lbs or so higher than the one I have and figure if I'm going to spend the money, why not get a bow that is not only beautiful, but fast as well.
> I'm not THAT into speed, but it is a bit concerning watching a otherwise good shot fall short because of the additional arch of a slower arrow. Really, just personal preference I guess.


I think he said "why" right here...


----------



## timduvall (Mar 18, 2008)

"At 45# @ 28" with a 520 gr arrow, this bow's point on was 60 yards (and that's with a big ol' 11.5 gpp arrow now). Now, another bow of mine, one with a much more circular tiller at 80# @ 29", shooting an 820 gr arrow only had a point on of about 50 yards, and barely made 60 point on with a 600 gr arrow (and yes, the bow kicks with the lighter arrow)."

i don't doubt this at all. I saw something during my testing...bow designs reach a point where you see diminshing returns to bow weight. For example, build 2 bows from the same form...make one 50# make the other 70#. Now shoot a 10gpp arrow out of them..so for the 50# bow you shoot a 50 grain arrow, with the 70# bow a 700 grain arrow. One would think that the speed would be the same...but they aren't. the #70 bow will be slower. I'm not hte only bowyer to discover this. So just because you shoot a heavier draw weight does not mean the bow is going to perform better. I"m not surprised at all that the #80 bow had a shorter point on than the #45 bow.


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

If you want to find a bow that shoots over 200 fps, you gotta know where to look. You have to find the right arrow. I have a 57# Bob Lee recurve that shoots a little Easton Redline 520 at 213 fps, and yessir, I killed three bull elk with that set up. I have a 54# Thunderhorn that loves little 3-28 ACC's that weigh 386 grains and it shoot through a 400 pound hog last Febuary. 
You have to be able to handle the speed. Great form, super release to get clean, constant arrow flight. Speed magnifies mistakes, mistakes that a heavy arrow traveling at 170 fps hides. 
If you can find one, the three piece takedowns that John Frazio used to build will shoot a medium weight arrow at over 200 fps easy. All these at 28" draw lengths.
The key is experimenting. My DAS shoots the little Speed Pro arrows that HCA sells at over 230 fps at 56#, but these arrows weigh only 6 grains per pound. Would I hunt with them? No, can't control them, to fast for even me, but they sure are fun to shoot.
Good luck, and personally, if a bow won't shoot a med weight arrow close to 200 fps, I won't own it. I hate dogs.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

timduvall said:


> i don't doubt this at all. I saw something during my testing...bow designs reach a point where you see diminshing returns to bow weight. For example, build 2 bows from the same form...make one 50# make the other 70#. Now shoot a 10gpp arrow out of them..so for the 50# bow you shoot a 50 grain arrow, with the 70# bow a 700 grain arrow. One would think that the speed would be the same...but they aren't. the #70 bow will be slower. I'm not hte only bowyer to discover this. So just because you shoot a heavier draw weight does not mean the bow is going to perform better. I"m not surprised at all that the #80 bow had a shorter point on than the #45 bow.


Actually, the only reason that works that way is because you didn't account for materials. Given two hickory bows, similiar designs but one is 70# and the other is 50#... no, they won't shoot the same even with a 10 gpp arrow. Because the desgins need MODIFIED. If you can, look at some of the designs of the bows in the "Mass Principal" chapter of TBB vol 4. The 95# hickory flatbow made by Ken Vallars looks nothing like the 50# flatbows depicted earlier in the chapter... but they both push roughly 9-10 gpp arrows at the same 170-175 fps mark. Same with the bows shown in the designs chapter. If all else is equal except weight, then the performance will suffer.

As a personal example, I made four bows. Two red oak, two white oak. The first red oak flatbow was about 50#, shot like a dream. The second was about 65#, and was no faster with a 600-650 gr arrow- yes, it shot much more slowly. I found out why after giving a freidn the 50# one. His stood practically straight, where as the 65# one began showing more string follow than initially. I had used the wrong design or wood for that weight. 

The second set of white oak bows were the inverse. Both were thick D bows (bad design for oak by the way). The first was 70# for me and would push a 650-700 gr birch arrow like a bullet (until it broke down of course due to poor design). The second one was only 55# for a freind from a sister stave. Almsot same dimensions, jsut slightly thinner for weight. His bow would throw a 500 gr arrow is a lazy, pathetic arc. The set was similiar, but the extra wide tips and length seemed to be too much mass for the low draw weight, despite the lower stress.

It's all in the design, more than materials or weight or whatever. Given a goal and a set of materials to reach taht end, design alone will either get you there or get you as close as possible. I've made so many poorly designed bows over the years that proved energy storage (which is, as I said, the lazy man's route to high speed... tried and didn't work by me of course) isn't enough, and that a well designed bow can do alot of what we want it to do.


----------



## timduvall (Mar 18, 2008)

we are talking two different things.I'm talking laminated bows, you are talking self bows. Apples and oranges. No two self bows will shoot the same. Too much variation in wood even from the same tree. Its all good stuff though.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

timduvall said:


> we are talking two different things.I'm talking laminated bows, you are talking self bows. Apples and oranges. No two self bows will shoot the same. Too much variation in wood even from the same tree. Its all good stuff though.


There are differences, you're right. But design is still design. Most bowyers who make fiberglass lamianted bows simply rely on better and better materials. In the end, no matter what the material used, if the design is flawed then the final bow will be flawed. Like I said. That's why a Hill bow might be slower and have more kick than even a wooden bow. Design!

Of course, I'm still trying to get to a 200 fps selfbow (not 10 gpp):lol:.


----------



## Vamp (Nov 12, 2009)

kegan said:


> There are differences, you're right. But design is still design. Most bowyers who make fiberglass lamianted bows simply rely on better and better materials. In the end, no matter what the material used, if the design is flawed then the final bow will be flawed. Like I said. That's why a Hill bow might be slower and have more kick than even a wooden bow. Design!
> 
> Of course, I'm still trying to get to a 200 fps selfbow (not 10 gpp):lol:.


You are 100% correct, 
Id say that Design is 50% of the performance, Materials used 30% and arrow selection and release/form is the remaining 20%. I might be WAY off but thats
what I feel. (My Opinion)


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

I have to believe that design is 100% of the performance, if not then we'd all be using the same wood in our bows. If Bacote performed better than Cocobolo, why buy bacote bows. I'll agree that not all woods have the same density and such but the design makes the bow. The craft of the bowyer is all about ratio and proportion.


----------



## dabersold (Sep 13, 2009)

Soooo.... Before we get too far off track, I'm getting the feeling that at my draw, I will not be shooting 200fps with a 9-10 gr/lb arrow, with any bow. And, my bow at 48lbs, 26 1/2' draw, 470gr arrow, and 170fps is actually a pretty decent set up. So it should be perfectly adequate for deer and black bear out to 30 yds. Right? Simply from a "power of the bow" standpoint. (Assuming all the normal stuff;ie well tuned, sharp broadhead, good arrow flight, well placed arrow. ect.)


----------



## Vamp (Nov 12, 2009)

Yes you will be fine, a whole hell of alot has to do with arrow placement. KE is a big factor too but you will be fine with that set up for alot of the North American big game animals. I wouldnt shoot over 25yrds anyway. But if you are spot on out to 30 or more yrds then TAKE IT DOWN...

As for the whole design thing,
It totally come to Perfect balance, between the bowyer, Bow Design, Material
and the Archer.

If I were to build 2 of the same bows (same Design) and put them on a hooter shooter, one with Action-Boo Limbs and one with Red Elm limbs, The Action-Boo will out perform the Red Elm


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

I'm w the guys who say 200 fps is unlikely w a "realistic" setup. 

That means 9g per lb, feathers, off the shelf w fingers, 28" draw, 15 strand FF string, etc.

Haven't been able to do it on our range w our chrono, even w some very good bows (ACS, Trad Tech Titan, Sovereign Ballistik, etc). 195 fps is as close as we've got. 

Did see a guy get 207 fps from his 60#@28 ACS longbow, but he draws over 30 inches and the arrows were less than 9g per lb... his father got 180 fps from his ACS longbow w a more realistic setup. 

I've got an old 40#@28" 1963 Bear Kodiak that does 140 fps w old 29" #7 Micro-Flite glass arrows that weigh 500g w a 12 strand Dacron string at my 26" draw. Yes, I know the arrows are a bit long for me, but I like 'em that way. 

"La Tortuga" has been bringing home the "bacon" for yrs. Speed isn't the only thing that kills.


----------



## petew (Nov 14, 2004)

dabersold said:


> Soooo.... Before we get too far off track, I'm getting the feeling that at my draw, I will not be shooting 200fps with a 9-10 gr/lb arrow, with any bow. And, my bow at 48lbs, 26 1/2' draw, 470gr arrow, and 170fps is actually a pretty decent set up. So it should be perfectly adequate for deer and black bear out to 30 yds. Right? Simply from a "power of the bow" standpoint. (Assuming all the normal stuff;ie well tuned, sharp broadhead, good arrow flight, well placed arrow. ect.)


Now you got it!!
Go and shoot and stop worrying.

Pete


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Vamp- I very much agree with that. 

But PeteW's right. Worrying about speed is for guys trying to make or sell bows. You'd probably be safe shooting out to 60 yards actually. Not that you should, I just mean the bow's probably got more oomph than you need:thumbs_up


----------



## petew (Nov 14, 2004)

Don't get me wrong, Speed is great, but lets call it performance instead of speed. I have the luxury to shoot some very fast bows, but for hunting I shoot heavy arrows, and slow the bow down. It makes them feel and sound better to me, and it has to be good for the life of the bow.

We can use performance in to our advantage.

We can drop draw weight and shoot the same arrow weight just as fast as we were shooting at a heavier draw when we get old and feeble. LOL

We can shoot a heavier shaft at the same speed as the lighter shaft we used on a less efficent bow.

Or if we want we can have added speed and trajectory at the same draw weight, which for me is good for 3D .

For hunting I like a heavy arrow and an easy to draw bow. What is easy to draw standing on level ground is not always easy with adrenelin flowing,in a tight spot kneeling etc.
I have not found a bow yet that is not more pleasant to shoot when we get the arrow weight to 10+ grains per pound.

Pete


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

I'll take a well designed, superbly crafted bow anytime over one built to impress me with speed numbers. I recently added two Dale Dye bows to my collection. I doubt I can find anything better made and the performance I rank it, is the ease of accuracy I get out of it. Speed is just a nice bonus, but I'd rather have deadly silent accuracy any day.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

LongStick64 said:


> I'll take a well designed, superbly crafted bow anytime over one built to impress me with speed numbers. I recently added two Dale Dye bows to my collection. I doubt I can find anything better made and the performance I rank it, is the ease of accuracy I get out of it. Speed is just a nice bonus, but I'd rather have deadly silent accuracy any day.


That's just my point. Accuracy and speed don't have to be seperate, and I don't know why they still are. It's all "performance". Maybe it's just a backlash to the compound scene, but that's not how has to be.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

Wonder how poor old Fred Bear managed all those yrs shooting such slowpoke bows. 

I've got a few old Bear bows from the 60s. They still do about 175 - 180 fps at 9g/lb, Dacron, feathers, fingers, etc. About the same as my 2002 Bear Take Down. Or a new Martin. Or a new Black Widow. Or a new Great Plains ... 

In 40 yrs we've managed to squeeze about another 5 - 10 fps out of glass/wood limbs, and half of that is the new low stretch strings. At least that's all I'm getting when I shoot the newer production and "custom" stuff myself. 

I realize that is considered a "significant" difference, but it still makes little difference to me. It's nice, but not necessary. I'm not good enough to take advantage of it. If you are, have at it and enjoy chasing those few fps and breaking the 200 fps barrier.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the advances in trad tech, and there are more better choices in trad gear today, especially custom. But the good new/old production stuff was, and still is, pretty good, and more than good enough. For hunting and recreation anyway; target shooting is a different game, and it's not my game. The new trad tech has made way more difference there than in the woods. 

I like my 20 year old compounds too, but that's another forum...


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

The new trad tech has mad way more difference in flight shooting too (missed my 20 min edit limit).

Darn, I sound like a old curmudgeon... I actually met Fred Bear, Ben Pearson, Jim Pickering, and Phil Grable back in the 60s...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Considering the round belly, stacked design ALB built from lemonwood used before Fred Bears fiberglass recurves were pushing only 150 fps with a 9-10 gpp arrow, then yes- his bows pushing 175-180 WERE fast. Make no mistake: just because a bow doesn't shoot 200 fps doesn't mean it's not fast. 

That's like saying, "well, I'm shooting a slow rifle at only 3000 fps muzzle velocity, but can still bring home the bacon!" It's rediculous, because that's still pretty fast. It's more of an insult than an actual point of consideration. Especially since there are people who are shooting MUCH slower bows than that.

Consider the wooden bow over the past 60 or so years. Sure, fast ones were made, but the understanding wasn't there- and even then fast ones weren't as stable as a modern recurve. So for a long time a wooden bow shooting 155-160 fps was considered fast. The understanding of how to build a bow that would shoot fast and hold up without requiring a thick sinew backing, reflexing and recurves, short length, light arrows- how to make a bow that is both fast _and_ accurate- has only recently come to the light. Stiff, light tips. Sounds simple, but the application hasn't been applied well enough. When _Traditional Bowyer's Bible vol. 1_ first came out, a 50# wooden bow shooting a 500 gr arrow 155 fps was considered pretty good. Now, a 50# wooden bow shooting a 500 gr arrow at 175 fps is considered pretty good. 

Like I said before, alot of modern bwos don't shoot much better because they aren't changing the design, just trying to milk fps using more modern materials.


----------



## introverted (Jan 2, 2009)

i know in arrow trade one of the article authors mentioned that he was getting 210 fps with a 500 grain arrow with a hoyt gamemaster, unsure of the lbs though


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Adcock Cross Section bows (or are these a forbidden topic like the Primitive Archer forums?):

http://www.bowmaker.net/index2.htm

58.5 lbs. @ 28" == 234 fps if I read the report right.

Currently available from:

http://www.acsbows.com/

William


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Hmmm.... I got an AMO of 210 according to Mulaney at 28" and 53# draw. Where did you find find 58 and 234?

Aloha... Tom :beer:


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

kegan said:


> Considering the round belly, stacked design ALB built from lemonwood used before Fred Bears fiberglass recurves were pushing only 150 fps with a 9-10 gpp arrow, then yes- his bows pushing 175-180 WERE fast. Make no mistake: just because a bow doesn't shoot 200 fps doesn't mean it's not fast.
> 
> That's like saying, "well, I'm shooting a slow rifle at only 3000 fps muzzle velocity, but can still bring home the bacon!" It's rediculous, because that's still pretty fast. It's more of an insult than an actual point of consideration. Especially since there are people who are shooting MUCH slower bows than that.
> 
> ...


Bingo even the recurve bow now days are fast for a recurves not any thing like the old ones. The newer ones have space age materials and glues. When I worked in a pro shop and Trad. people would always come in and talk about the deer they have lost and we didn't have that many, maybe 25 to 30 of them. I can remember over hearing some of the big shot trad. guys at a table once telling some new guys they said that they shoot and wound 4 bucks a year before they get there buck. These guys take deer, elk, bear and antelope every year and are good shots. It really made me mad and I told them they didn't need to be saying things like that were every one can hear them talking. They said it was true and didn't care who heard them.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Bowdon said:


> I can remember over hearing some of the big shot trad. guys at a table once telling some new guys they said that they shoot and wound 4 bucks a year before they get there buck. They said it was true and didn't care who heard them.


That's disgusting! :thumbs_do

Ray


----------



## Two Blade (Jul 13, 2008)

WillAdams said:


> I'm surprised no one mentioned the Adcock Cross Section bows (or are these a forbidden topic like the Primitive Archer forums?):
> 
> http://www.bowmaker.net/index2.htm
> 
> ...


No, they aren't forbidden to talk about at all. If you want some real world results with hunting arrows shot from 4 different ACS-CX bows, go to www.peteward.com. Go to his 'Traditional Reviews' sections. While you are there, look at Pete's test on the Border Griffon GL. It's faster than the ACS bows that he and his wife tested.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

kegan said:


> Like I said before, a lot of modern bows don't shoot much better because they aren't changing the design, just trying to milk fps using more modern materials.


I agree. I thought that's what I said; it's what I meant. 

Older designs are fast enough, w modern materials they are faster, and modern designs w modern materials are fastest. Sumthin' like that.

When I shoot them the way I would use them, there is a 10 fps spread (175 - 185) between a 1963 Bear Kodiak, a 2002 Bear T/D w glass/wood limbs, and a 2009 Titan T/D w carbon/foam limbs (all using Dacron strings). With FF strings I get a 5 fps difference between the Bear T/D and the Titan T/D (183 - 188), and 13 fps between the old Bear w Dacron and the Titan w FF (175 - 188). 

An old Groves from the 70s w a Dacron string was just as fast as the new Titan w a FF string... I don't get 200+ FPS from ACS/Adcock longbows either. I'm pretty sure my lousy form, is the culprit too. 

The newest stuff is "better", but more because it's more tuneable, not faster, if you know what I mean.

Bottom line: the original poster's gear is fine as is for it's intended purpose. He can have a lot of fun chasing 200+ fps; it's nice, but not necessary for success.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Ahhhh, then I must have misunderstood.

My point was that the "old design of the modern recurve" is still a wicked design capable of speed and accuracy/forgiveness. But you're right. Modern gear is much more "tune-friendly". 

I just meant also that the biggest reason you don't see super-fast trad bows now is because they are only touching on design while focusing almost entirely on newer and better materials, which will only get you a tiny boost. Big boosts come from design.

I'd like to see a modern longbow built with what "primitive" archers know now about design. What a wicked demon that bow would be!


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

When I started they call the new recurve bows a new designed and faster conventional limbs. They were looking for ways to made them faster even back then, but they didn't have the new space age materials and glues we have now. Maybe in another 20 years they have even better things to make them with to make them faster. If are sports still around


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Bowdon said:


> When I started they call the new recurve bows a new designed and faster conventional limbs. They were looking for ways to made them faster even back then, but they didn't have the new space age materials and glues we have now. Maybe in another 20 years they have even better things to make them with to make them faster. If are sports still around


That's the point I'm trying to make- materials only get you so far. Fiberglass is more elastic than wood and can remained braced indefinately. Wood can't. Beyond that, it's only laziness or stupidity that has people relying on newer materials and not using thought to come up with better designs when they want better performance.


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

Read it wrong. @ 30"

Thanks for catching that Rattus


----------



## mcw1984 (Sep 30, 2009)

think about this, if indians worried about arrow speed they all would have starved.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

mcw1984 said:


> think about this, if indians worried about arrow speed they all would have starved.


_Worry_ and _reasonable consideration _are 2 different things.

I'm sure they didn't worry about speed like allot of us don't but I'm sure they liked to produce the best bows and arrows for the job within reason.

I'm also sure they didn't stop with the first bow design they made and called it good enough. Speed was a concern...but not a worry.

I'm not saying you feel this way...but just because some bowhunters like to shoot fast bows doesn't mean we are worried or so wrapped into speed that we ignore everything else that makes a good shooting bow.

Ray


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

mcw1984 said:


> think about this, if indians worried about arrow speed they all would have starved.


If they had high powered rifle then I'm sure the would of traded there bows in for them in a heart beat. People keep bring the Indians into it they used what they had because that all they had at the time not because it was better.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Bowdon said:


> If they had high powered rifle then I'm sure the would of traded there bows in for them in a heart beat. People keep bring the Indians into it they used what they had because that all they had at the time not because it was better.


No, it's frequently reminded of many that the East Coast Natives traded their bows for flintlocks as soon as possible. If we look to the Plains, however, we see that it isn't until the repeating arms that they finally abandonned the bow entirely. They had a system- their short bows and fast horses.


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

They were quick to ride horse to as soon as the Spin both them over to America and they thought them how to scalp people. They ran herds of bison off cliffs to kill the too. We have some cliffs in Iowa witch they found lot of bison and elk bones with native tools at the bottom and they said the Indian would herd them up and ran to the cliff to kill them.


----------



## mcw1984 (Sep 30, 2009)

it seems as if i struck a nerve with my post about indians, didnt mean to get everybody riled up.i was just trying to say speed isnt everything, i gave up on trying to get speed long ago, to hard to obtain with a 27in draw.i just try to get my bows quiet and i have no problems with penetration so i feel like driving myself crazy over speed is useless,cause i promise the deer and pigs i shoot dont say oh that arrow was only going 170fps and laugh. but i do understand that more speed means flatter trajectory and could increase maximum effective range that dont concern me because,bowhunting is about how close you can get not how far you can shoot.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

mcw1984 said:


> ... bowhunting is about how close you can get not how far you can shoot.


Bowhunting.... exactly right.... :teeth:


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

The combo of your skill, gear, conditions, and conscious determines how for you can/should reach out.

I limit myself to 30 yds w trad gear. I could push that, but I don't. I have friends who have been making clean kills at 60 yds since the 60s... a wise man knows himself and his limitations.


----------



## petew (Nov 14, 2004)

BrokenArrows said:


> The combo of your skill, gear, conditions, and conscious determines how for you can/should reach out.
> 
> I limit myself to 30 yds w trad gear. I could push that, but I don't. I have friends who have been making clean kills at 60 yds since the 60s... a wise man knows himself and his limitations.


60 yards on game with a stick bow is just wrong.


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

Back when I started I shot 4 at are over 60 yards instinctive recurve and It was common to hear were some one shot one at 50 or 60 yard, but all we had for rounds to shot was field archery so we were practicing longer shots all the time. We didn't get to shot from the cub steaks at shoots like they do now. When I started shooting a compound I think the longest I have shot any thing was 45 yards a bull elk. Most shot are with in 30 yards. We didn't have this thing we call bowhunter ethics around back in the 60's and early 70's.


----------



## petew (Nov 14, 2004)

Quote "We didn't have this thing we call bowhunter ethics around back in the 60's and early 70's." 

Thats right, it was considered no problem to wound and loose animals then. Today we know better.
For those that think 60 yards is fine for a stick bow what distance do you consider fine for todays best compounds ? They are faster, and deadly acurate.

Pete


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

petew said:


> Quote "We didn't have this thing we call bowhunter ethics around back in the 60's and early 70's."
> 
> Thats right, it was considered no problem to wound and loose animals then. Today we know better.
> 
> For those that think 60 yards is fine for a stick bow what distance do you consider fine for todays best compounds ? They are faster, and deadly acurate. Pete


In 1967 Bill Wadsworth and others got together to start the New York Bowhunting Education Course, which was sponsored by the NFAA. From my remembrances of this, we emphasized 20 yards in cover, no more than 40 yards in the open.

As Compound Bows gained popularity, you heard more and more of the likes of Chuck Adams and a few of the other old timers of compounds extolling the virtue of longer shots and soon Chuck Adams was boasting trophy animals taken at 50 plus yards. Today you hear folks like Keith Warren making some absurd statements about long distance shots and then qualifying it with inane caveats about practice etc, and it's easy to see how as longer shots are promoted, how that transfers to other forms of archery.

I have witnessed shots of almost 100 yards at game and over other hunters between shooter and game. I don't know what you call this civilly, but peer pressure, training, understanding, and commitment are what it is going to take to keep hunting. I just received a copy of the American Hunter, and though I didn't read the article, the message was clear, BC has pretty much banned hunting grizzly bears through the efforts of GreenPeace and the Sierra Club in concert with the Humane Society.

So.... moral? 

Have a Happy Thanksgiving with your families, extended families and fellow bowhunters.

Aloha...  :beer:


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

NFAA Bowhunting Education Course I helped give in the early 70's at Iowa state bowhunter jamboree. Longer shots were taken with recurves. In the mid 70's the anti hunting groups really started coming after us and this is when the bowhunter ethic thing really got started and we would perched to all bowhunters really hard to not take long shots and to make good shot and really started to educate bowhunters at big animal "paper animal" shoots all over the state. We started calling a bow sporting equipment and to not call it as a weapon. Chuck Adams and others were really criticized for there longer shots. Fred Bear Ben Person, Howard Hill and others made long shots all the time. I seen a film once were Ben Person made a 120 yard shot on a pig with a long bow. You would see films where, Fred Bear and others would take long shots all the time with recurves. On there films a 30 yard shot was a easy chip shot to them. The longer shot slow down a lot, but I see some on here taking about taking them and thats way I get on here and make comments about it to them. We work so hard to slow down wounding from long shots through the bowhunter education programs and then you have some come on here a say it ok to take long shots and then you see them back on here asking for help to find one they lost.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bowdon said:


> Fred Bear Ben Person, Howard Hill and others made long shots all the time. I seen a film once were Ben Person made a 120 yard shot on a pig with a long bow.


I saw that Ben Pearson video... didn't help much overall did it...  :thumbs_do

Whether rifle or bow, you have to know where the animal was when you shoot it. Too far and if it runs, you're dead.... along with yer animal... 

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## handirifle (Jun 9, 2005)

The most effecient way to gain spped on any bow, is to increase draw length, or ie. the power stroke. since it's unlikely you'll be able to stretch your arms, then it falls to the bow. 

There are designs that push the limbs farther away from your hand than the riser, this effectively increases your power stroke, and will shoot faster speeds, given limb design and draw weight are similar. I belive this is called deflex.

This design will exagerrate your shooting errors though, so beware.

A guy I built a selfbow for a long time ago, had a 32" draw length. This guy is 6'10" tall. The draw weight was 90lb, and he shot a 780gr arrow at 210fps with that bow. Not because the bow was some wonder design, but because he drew it back to the county behind him.

Anyway, in my mind, 170fps is pretty good for your 48lb bow, and unless you really want to give up a lot for a little extra speed, I'd stay with the existing setup.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

handirifle said:


> The most effecient way to gain spped on any bow, is to increase draw length, or ie. the power stroke. since it's unlikely you'll be able to stretch your arms, then it falls to the bow.
> 
> There are designs that push the limbs farther away from your hand than the riser, this effectively increases your power stroke, and will shoot faster speeds, given limb design and draw weight are similar. I belive this is called deflex.
> 
> ...


Just for clarification deflex is when a bow bends towards the archer (unstrung), relfex is when it bends away from the archer (unstrung). Reflex doesn't add to the power stroke, it adds work to the bow- increasing sotred energy. Stored energy, as I mentioned earlier, means little if the bow isn't built to deliver that energy efficiently to the arrow.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

With the same bow and arrows, I've noticed about a 15 fps difference between a 26" draw and a 28" draw (w 40 - 50 lb [email protected]" and 360 - 450g arrows).

25g of arrow weight is about 5 fps, a Dacron to FF string is about 5-10 fps, and an inch of draw length 5-10 fps... so I might get 200+ fps w my 1963 Kodiak if I lightened the points, drew to my ear, and reinforced the tips for FF strings. Or not.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> Reflex doesn't add to the power stroke, it adds work to the bow- increasing sotred energy. Stored energy, as I mentioned earlier, means little if the bow isn't built to deliver that energy efficiently to the arrow.


Yes, the power stroke would be governed as between the braced height and peak draw. The total energy delivered to the arrow would be a function of the mechanical efficiency of the limbs working within this parameter. Some designs deliver better. 

IOW, whether reflexed or deflexed, the brace is a governing factor. All energy stored in the limbs at brace height never leaves the bow. We can shorten the string, which increases the brace, giving up energy at that end of the stroke, while giving more energy at peak draw. There is a trade-off. The increased brace gave up energy at one end of the power stroke (now permanently stored in bow) but supplied more at the other end of the power stroke (peak draw), but there's no free lunch. Energy is lost in the working of the limbs. On some designs, more is lost than with others.


----------



## fountain (Jan 10, 2009)

predator? i thought they were bout the fastest tested at one time


----------

