# Check this out...



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

You believe this? 20.5 in. axle to axle, over 300 fps!


----------



## countryboy173 (Jul 18, 2008)

Ive seen bows similar to this. never understood the design behind 'em, and never been interested haha


----------



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

I just think it looks sweet  .


----------



## countryboy173 (Jul 18, 2008)

seems like there would be a lot of hand shockk to


----------



## sup3rfox (Mar 2, 2009)

im pretty sure its designed for bow fishing


----------



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

In the article I read about it in, Bowhunt America or something, it said that it has been proven on some of the worlds biggest game.


----------



## N7709K (Dec 17, 2008)

I have held one. I didn't like the grip orientation to the rest of the bow.


----------



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

Guys, it's not like I'm getting one. I just thought it looked cool...:dontknow:


----------



## Robinhooder3 (Jun 18, 2008)

check out tnt archery. I've meet the creator and he is a really nice guy. The tnt bow has simmilar specs but it's built a little better. I haven't heard too many good reviews on this bow around 75% of them have been bad but the tnt is actually pretty fun to shoot.


----------



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

I'm Not Ted said:


> Guys, it's not like I'm getting one. I just thought it looked cool...:dontknow:


----------



## Robinhooder3 (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm Not Ted said:


>


come on cross over to the dark side you know you want to.


----------



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

:hand:


----------



## PA3-DArcher4 (Nov 5, 2008)

I don't loke it, but it is interesting looking. called a Liberty I, I think.


----------



## cody roiter (Jan 31, 2005)

I'm Not Ted said:


> You believe this? 20.5 in. axle to axle, over 300 fps!


Thats looks like something u would use for a ATV or something.. How can that even be called a bow ???LOL..LOL.... I have seen a few around like that I have never shot one but there to short for me anyways...........


Cody


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Pass. I normally think some of the newer compounds have some cool features- like the new Diaomond Iceman looks neat. But that... nawwww.

I saw another one, 22.5" between the axles, that just looked like a normal, baby compound:lol:


----------



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

Yep. Those TNT ones are short. I thought the design was intersting. Cody, Kegan, I know ya want one...:devil:


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

kegan said:


> Pass. I normally think some of the newer compounds have some cool features- like the new Diaomond Iceman looks neat. But that... nawwww.
> 
> I saw another one, 22.5" between the axles, that just looked like a normal, baby compound:lol:


Is that the Nuke Ice? I love that little bow, man. That thing is so cool...

As for the original discussion, I'm not liking it. Sorry. I think it looks pretty ridiculous, and it looks hard to shoot accurately (lack of forgiveness). But, that is just me.


----------



## Jared Les (Jun 22, 2008)

You'd never see any accomplished hunter walking around with one of those without getting paid to do it. 

Too short to hold steady, can't use a normal peep, and very few accesories work on it.


----------



## Bowhunter500 (Mar 23, 2007)

Looks kinda like a longcomp bow (longbow and compounds combined)

or just a longbow with wheels


----------



## Mathewsju (Jan 19, 2008)

Robinhooder3 said:


> check out tnt archery. I've meet the creator and he is a really nice guy. The tnt bow has simmilar specs but it's built a little better. I haven't heard too many good reviews on this bow around 75% of them have been bad but the tnt is actually pretty fun to shoot.


My uncle actually went on an elk hunt with the guy for a tv show. He said the guy was cool, the bow... not so much. They were playing with this thing for 2 days and couldn't get it to tune with a .... He ended up using the bow he had.


----------



## Mathewsju (Jan 19, 2008)

The only thing (and I mean ONLY) I like about that liberty is that it has a shoot through cam system like the Martins. Imagine trying to shoot that thing if it had a cable guard.... can you say torque.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Bowhunter500 said:


> Looks kinda like a longcomp bow (longbow and compounds combined)
> 
> or just a longbow with wheels


Nawwwww. Longbows are pretty and compounds are cool. That thing... that thing is a mistake

Not Ted- you couldn't pay me to even TRY one of those things.


----------



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

Bowhunter500 said:


> Looks kinda like a longcomp bow (longbow and compounds combined)
> 
> or just a longbow with wheels


:twitch::suspiciou


----------



## Bowhunter500 (Mar 23, 2007)

kegan said:


> Nawwwww. Longbows are pretty and compounds are cool. That thing... that thing is a mistake
> 
> Not Ted- you couldn't pay me to even TRY one of those things.


You are correct.. it is a mistake. 

It looks like a crossbow frame made into a compound bow...


----------



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

I agree. :nod:


----------



## Mach12 (Apr 3, 2007)

its the same as the difference from rifles, shotguns, and pistols

there is a target bow, hunting bow, and a pocket rocket


----------



## Mach12 (Apr 3, 2007)

its the same as the difference from rifles, shotguns, and pistols

there is a target bow, hunting bow, and a pocket rocket

to much hand shock probably seems like it would be hard to pull to


----------



## mustang kid (Jul 14, 2009)

ever since this bow came out eyebrows have been raised. i bet that there is so much hand shock in this bow that is not funny. the peep sight is sittin on the cam pretty much. and there is no cable guard, or roller guard. i have never seen a compound bow without these.


----------



## DrawAim"Click" (Feb 5, 2009)

Somebody got a link on the science behind this bow? Thanks


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

DrawAim"Click" said:


> Somebody got a link on the science behind this bow? Thanks


What SCIENCE? Someone just stuck two compound limbs together and added a pistol handle, taking out the riser.


----------



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

:set1_thinking: Never thought about it that way....


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm Not Ted said:


> :set1_thinking: Never thought about it that way....


That's all it is. They're going for super-short. 

And I don't know about you- but even as a noncompounder I still think that some of the risers on compounds are the neatest part. Like the new Ice Man from Diamond. That looks like a nice looking compound. That thing above? It looks like an abject failureukey:


----------



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

Kegan, you need to unnerstan, for some freakish reason, I just like short bows. It started when I saw a Fred Bear Supermag 48 at cabelas. I picked it up, caressed it, learned to love it. But, I didn't shoot it so I really don't know jack shiz.  That's why my new bow is 52 AMO. But then again, anything over 60 is eye pleasing as well. Just an opinion. Not saying it shoots good, just saying it looks neat. Also, the best part of a recurve or a longbow is the riser. If I could, I'd have a 36 in. riser and 10 in. limbs.


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

This is a little off topic, but I have always wanted to see a recurve with some compound technology thrown into it. Such as a center-pivot-esk limb pocket (not full out, but something like that), and have almost parallel limbs to take out shock. I am not sure that it would work, but it would be fun to see.

For the parallel limbs, though, the limbs would have to be very curved up so the string doesn't fall off...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Sighting In said:


> This is a little off topic, but I have always wanted to see a recurve with some compound technology thrown into it. Such as a center-pivot-esk limb pocket (not full out, but something like that), and have almost parallel limbs to take out shock. I am not sure that it would work, but it would be fun to see.
> 
> For the parallel limbs, though, the limbs would have to be very curved up so the string doesn't fall off...


Parallel limbs don't take out shock on a recurve- they would make the bow unshootable. Actually, in order for the bow to bend TO parallel in a trad bow, the bow would have to be "gull wing". This is the worst handshocking design ever:lol:. For a compound, it need only roll the cams and tighten the strings to make it shoot. For a recurve, the limbs must recover forward. 

It's jsut the nature of the equipment. I think the closest you would get would be an olympic recurve. Anything else and it wouldn't work.

IMT- ahhh. I'm a fan of longbows. They give a cleaner shot and a smoother draw (and when you make them yourself, are one of the msot forgiving designs to build). I'm itnerested right now in building a few 6' longbows with sinew backigns on the inner limbs to help with set.


----------



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

I'm hoping to get something that is quiet and smoother. My 'curve ain't loud but it's just not...silent.


----------



## Robinhooder3 (Jun 18, 2008)

kegan said:


> Parallel limbs don't take out shock on a recurve- they would make the bow unshootable. Actually, in order for the bow to bend TO parallel in a trad bow, the bow would have to be "gull wing". This is the worst handshocking design ever:lol:. For a compound, it need only roll the cams and tighten the strings to make it shoot. For a recurve, the limbs must recover forward.
> 
> It's jsut the nature of the equipment. I think the closest you would get would be an olympic recurve. Anything else and it wouldn't work.
> 
> IMT- ahhh. I'm a fan of longbows. They give a cleaner shot and a smoother draw (and when you make them yourself, are one of the msot forgiving designs to build). I'm itnerested right now in building a few 6' longbows with sinew backigns on the inner limbs to help with set.


in a compound the cams store almost no energy, the limbs still do all the work it's just because they store so much more they don't have to bend quite as far as a recurve. All the cams do is provide let off and WHEN they let off in the cycle determines how hard the draw cycle is and HOW MUCH let off it has. go onto youtube and look at some high speed camera footage of a compound, it's very interesting.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I never said that the cams stored any energy- you misunderstood me. But no, they DON'T store so much energy (plot the force-draw curve for a recurve and compound and you'll see what I mean). What they do is they use physics to simply make them VASTLY more mechanically efficient (that's why even though a compound stores less energy, it can shoot an arrow faster). They do only bend a few inches, so that means that they are heavier (draw weight) than on a recurve, which has to bend many times as far. It's the same sa with any bow- take a longbow that's 50# @ 20" and one that's 50# @ 28". Pull the first to 28" and it will be about 74# then.

The limbs on a compound must push the wheels/cams in order to pull the string back into place. Meaning that short, few inch bend they have is all that's necessary to accomplish something mechanically superior to the bend of a recurve's limbs. That was the point I was trying to convey (that I apprently did a poor job at).

INT- Smooth is a relative thing. But it's easier to get a longbow to draw smoothly and shoot more quietly because 1) in physics, the longer string means you apply less force at first (until the angle pass), then as long as you built it well enough to store a good amoutn of energy, the bow should only be gaining a few pounds per inch, giving a smooth, easy draw 2) because longbows don't store as much as recurves, less energy is left to string twang and vibration.


----------



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

:boom: Information overload.


----------

